this week in unintentionally grim-sounding recruiting headlines
I second that...GOOD FIND!
The article says "great" and you downgraded it to "good."
Hokers gonna Hoke.
Sorry about that. I was in a hurry. He is officially great.
I would say that Coach Hoke seems to be a good hire the way recruiting is going. And if thr great recruiting turns into wins on the field, this will become a great hire.
Weis was a good recruiter, too.
Oh for God's sake.
Okay - how about this - Hoke turned two college football programs into winners, something Weis never did prior to turning up in South Bend.
The best way to argue is to find the one outlier and bring it up as if it trumps everything else.
True, but others could say Hoke never coached on a Superbowl winning team and didn't mentor the Best player in the NFL currently (according to other players and such). One could say Weis did it at the highest level, so why wouldn't he be able to do it at the college level. Just saying.
I think your critique of the poster is true, but to critical. He just wanted to point out recruiting is only part of the battle. That being said, I am extremely optimistic (based on interviews and what people say about Hoke also).
There's a very big difference between being a head coach and being an assistant. Weis never held a HC job in the NFL.
Absolutely true. But someone might (and probably are somewhat correct) in stating there is a big difference between being an offensive coordinator who is part of a superbowl winning team versus being the head coach of Ball State. I am sure someone could make the case for wanting one of the coordinators from a superbowl winning team over a head coach from a MAC program. My point was that the poster who was criticized for bringing up Charlie Weis seemed to be making a statement that recruiting top ranked classes isn't the only requirement for being a good football coach (winning on field, developing young men's character, and representing university are others). Thus, his jury still out response.
There are Super Bowl winning coordinaters and then there are Super Bowl winning coordinators. Weis may have been the only one with zero college football experience. Add to that no administrative experience, no experience putting together a staff and an imaginary schematic advantage. It's hard to make a case that hiring Weis was anything but a huge, reckless gamble. Maybe it could be justified if he was given a strong, experienced staff.
Hoke has a lot of relevant experience. In conjuction with his staff he was a much safer hire. Schools like UM and ND shouldn't really want or need to gamble on their hires.
There is also a very big difference between coaching Ball State/SDSU and coaching Michigan. There was also less of a difference between coaching West Virginia and coaching Michigan.
It's not like Brady ever coached at Michigan before. He might have some idea what it's like to be here.
The whole point of the post I was replying to was to point out the large difference between being a coordinator and a head coach. So unless hoke was the head coach at Michigan, your point does very little to refute the fact that being a head coach at a MAC school is completely different than being a head coach at UofM. I would even argue that there is a bigger difference between head coach MAC/head coach Michigan than there is between superbowl winning NFL coordinator/head coach Michigan.
They are different positions, but if you want to argue which will likely prepare a coach more for a major head-coaching job, it has to be the small-college HC job.
NFL coordinators are anonymous guys living in the shadow of the head coach. Most people can't name more than a handful around the league. They don't operate under much pressure, don't have much say as far as personnel decisions go and generally get to play the "good cop" role while the HC is the bad cop. To go from that to being a college HC, you have to learn to deal with being the face of a program, learn to recruit and manage a roster, learn to deal with much younger players, learn the NCAA rulebook and institute a million precautionary measures, learn to hire a staff effectively, and oversee all phases of the game, not just offense or defense. It's a major leap.
The small-college HC is doing all the same things the major-college HC is doing, just under less pressure.
As for West Virginia, I don't disagree, and I certainly did not expect RR's tenure to be as bad as it was. It goes to show that track record isn't everything. RR's experience at WVU did not give any indication that he'd field three of the worst defenses in school history here, for instance. But in general, I always want Michigan to hire a coach with experience in the HC role. This isn't a place for on-the-job training.
I agree to a point. Hiring a superbowl winning coordinator is very risky. But you also have to look at what type of head football coach you are hiring to determine whether it is risky also. I would argue that hiring a head coach of a small school with a losing record is just as risky.
So are Saban, Chizik, Carrol, Meyer, and all the NC-winning coaches... You can't just take one name and say it applies to everyone.
Yes, Hoke has to win games before we declare him an amazing coach. We get it
I could have sworn this article was recommended somewhere else...
It was on the blue board at 24/7
Ah that's right thanks...
I shamelessly stole that from a friend.
with the statement "Neither Carr nor Rodriguez coached a game at Michigan with inferior talent". We had inferior talent for nearly every big 10 game that we played in 2008. We were clearly outmatched quite often that year, IIRC
Edit: Still an interesting read though, thanks for posting OP
I actually think that statement is false for both Carr and Rod. I mean at least one of those USC teams had more talent than Michigan. Also, I think you could make a case that some of Cooper's teams had more talent. 2008 for RR also speaks for itself. Overall I think that was just a bad statement.
They didn't seem to defined "talent level" in the article, but I think their statement makes more sense if they defined talent level either a)based on recruiting class (we've had high recruiting classes consistantly, right?) and b) discreet talent levels. Discreet levels would mean 2 similar teams would be grouped, and that could be why they say we always had at least equal talent. All that said, it seems wrong that any number of teams in 2008 weren't at a higher talent level.
Just ask my two eyeballs, they don't miss *anything*
If your eyes are focused on the scoreboard, they're seeing the most important thing. You can outgain a team and lose. You can't outscore a team and lose.
I am a little surprised that the article claims that Carr never coached a game against superior talent. He always had some pretty good talent, but sometimes, it seemed like we went up against some more talented teams like USC.
Additionally, I would certainly argue that Rich Rod faced teams with more talent. Sheridan against Ohio State.....to mention one of many. No offense to Sheridan, I love the guy's heart and personality, but he isn't really that talented in the BigTen.
I agree; I'm not sure what number they're using to determine talent level, but if you took a look at the 22 starters (and even throw in Zoltan and the rest of special teams if you want) that 2008 team did not stack up overall.
Seems like it should be something like <8 is inferior, 9<->13 is equivalent and >13 is superior.
The year we went to the Rose Bowl with John Navarre starting against the USC defense, that Trojans team had more talent than we did. And I'd argue that some of the John Cooper Ohio State teams had more talent than Michigan did.
If Hoke can coach as good as he can recruit, we're going to shock a lot of people this year.
Depends on how you define recruit. If you define recruiting as bringing in top ranked recruiting classes, then it doesn't guarantee success (but makes it much more likely). Example: Weis (noted above). If you define recruiting as bringing in talented guys who fit your scheme and develop into meaningful contributors, then this definition of recruiting would significantly increase chances of having success on field.
Recruiting and developing are two completely different skills. Nobody can doubt that Weis can recruit- he targeted top prospects and brought them in. He just couldn't develop players. OTOH take a look at Fitzgerald- I'd say he's only a decent recruiter (obviously with some institutional handicapping) but he seems very good with developing the talent he does get.
Having high ranked classes is great (I would always prefer to be there), but developing is just as important, if not more important than recruiting. Also, parts of recruiting are recognizing which kids have the potential to make it and which are overrated. Lots of kids with high rankings don't make it for one reason or another, and good coaches/recruiters are able to identify and develop then ones who have the best chance (whether it's a Stephen Schilling or a Patrick Omameh). Recruiting should not be fully analyzed until a couple years down the road.
I think one could even argue that developing and recruiting are the same thing.
I guess you could say that, especially in terms of going after "sleeper" recruits. Targeting the right players is obviously crucial to success, but I do think that getting a five star to sign on the line is another skill.
I can't think of anyone that recruited so well yet had worse teams than Weis.
This article was interesting. Nothing that makes too strong an argument, but certainly at least a better comparison than just the straight up win/loss record.
Obviously it's not a bullet-proof argument, but a lot of people didn't realize how bad Ball State and SDSU were before Hoke got there. He didn't show up at an average mid-major school and win games, he showed up at piss poor mid majors and turned them into winners.
I have a good buddy out here who went to SDSU and he though Hoke was a God, moreso than we do. SDSU hadn't done anything before Hoke got there. In 2008, they won 2 games, and lost to teams like SJSU and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. In the 6 years prior to that they had one 6-6 season, one 5-7 season, and all the rest were 3 or 4 win seasons.
The best thing about the SDSU stop is that it shows nothing about his recruiting, because he never got a chance to play with any of his recruits who werent freshmen. But he was able to win 9 games in his second year with talent that was attracted by a 2-10 team. Now we know Hoke can recruit, so if he can do with our talent what he did with SDSU's talent, plus Mattison, we could be in for a real treat.
Brady Hoke is the only undefeated coach in the history of Michigan football. GREAT HIRE!!!
Really interesting read. I wonder what criteria was used to categorize talent level but the point is clear and I hope it plays out that way. I'm also curious about how RR pre-Michigan would've graded by this system. Perhaps higher than Hoke?
Best part of the article? First thing you see? A big picture of Hoke pointing!
I thought it was a great hire, but in the end all that matters is Scoreboard.
OSU and USC
he lost me when he said rr never coached a game with inferior talent. there was very little offensive talent in 2008 and little defensive talent in 2009 or 2010. how else do you account for sheridan at qb in 2007 and six freshmen starting on defense last year.
I rarely click through to links that are posted here because usually the OP provides a summary of the most important points, but, I clicked through to read this and it was well worth it. Very interesting, highly recommended.
I an more impressed with the hires at dc and oc than I assn necessarily with Hoke himself. The main coach doesn't have to be more than a manager if he's got the right coaches around him.
That's why Hoke was a great hire.
Isn't it obvious?