But it is fun to compare each guy's first year because both were exciting. Hoke bleeds Maize and Blue, and I will always consider him an odd part of the rehab. I am happy he was here. Of course, Harbaugh being here is much better......but that's versus anyone else, period, not just Hoke. I agree, though. Let's move on.
Brady Hoke was not bad (at first). Regardless of any "luck" we may attribute, his 11-2 first year was an 11 out of 10 on the charts. His second year, he faced the two BCS Championship teams (AL, ND), a 12-0 OSU, and a Jadeveon Clowney hit show to go 8-5. I thought that 8-5 team was a top 12 unit that faced as brutal a schedule as possible....so Hoke gets a B...(8 of 10). His third year 7-6, with the ugly K-State bowl loss was a fail, say a 5/10. And his last year was worse, 3/10.
I give him 27/40. That's a D, but the great memories of his first year combined with his solid recruiting (which provided the manpower for a solid Harbaugh turn-around) pulls him to a C-.
But for those of you arguing who had the better first year, why not measure it in straight mathematical record improvement over the prior year? Hoke's 11-2 was 4 games better than RR's 7-6. Harbaugh's 10-3 was 4.5 games better than Hoke's 5-7.
You see, we could argue for days about which season was better and why. But what did each coach have to work with? Hoke had a talented Sr squad that had been trending solidly up (just not quickly), and he did a great job icing the cake. Harbaugh had a "seasoned" squad as well, but the team's mindset was a wreck and had been trending down.
For those truly interested in which first year was better, we really should use comparisons to the previous seasons for each. Bottom line: 4.5 beats 4. Harbaugh with another win!
McGary was only good for 6 games while that team stunned its way to the finals. The Fab Five were dominant and expected to be there. The '92-3 team wins 81-70. The '88-9 Rice-led CHAMPIONS would beat the Fab Five, though. Closer, like 88-85. Fun scenarios.
.....of the game once talent gaps get reduced. Harbaugh's culture had Stanford whipping a more-talented USC early on. Now Urbz will continue to recruit well, but his teams will not have the backbone of Harbaugh's teams.....and his chest pains begin anew in December.
.....Asiasi is a really big deal, I think. He and Gentry will be tight at the top as well. Maybe wishful thinking, but Harbaugh probably wouldn't have asserted Gentry at TE if he wasn't performing well. I just think this year is too early. Bunting stays for sure!
He's too young and valuable.....#2 behind Butt as receiving TE, while I see TWJ and Asiasi (yes, really) being the jumbo guys. Gentry needs a year learning to be a GOOD TE while the other two FR not named Asiasi will redshirt. Hill will be a tweener. If Butt goes down, Bunting will be needed.
Recent Comments
was like popcorn!! Nice explosion of runs.....great team!
But it is fun to compare each guy's first year because both were exciting. Hoke bleeds Maize and Blue, and I will always consider him an odd part of the rehab. I am happy he was here. Of course, Harbaugh being here is much better......but that's versus anyone else, period, not just Hoke. I agree, though. Let's move on.
Brady Hoke was not bad (at first). Regardless of any "luck" we may attribute, his 11-2 first year was an 11 out of 10 on the charts. His second year, he faced the two BCS Championship teams (AL, ND), a 12-0 OSU, and a Jadeveon Clowney hit show to go 8-5. I thought that 8-5 team was a top 12 unit that faced as brutal a schedule as possible....so Hoke gets a B...(8 of 10). His third year 7-6, with the ugly K-State bowl loss was a fail, say a 5/10. And his last year was worse, 3/10.
I give him 27/40. That's a D, but the great memories of his first year combined with his solid recruiting (which provided the manpower for a solid Harbaugh turn-around) pulls him to a C-.
But for those of you arguing who had the better first year, why not measure it in straight mathematical record improvement over the prior year? Hoke's 11-2 was 4 games better than RR's 7-6. Harbaugh's 10-3 was 4.5 games better than Hoke's 5-7.
You see, we could argue for days about which season was better and why. But what did each coach have to work with? Hoke had a talented Sr squad that had been trending solidly up (just not quickly), and he did a great job icing the cake. Harbaugh had a "seasoned" squad as well, but the team's mindset was a wreck and had been trending down.
For those truly interested in which first year was better, we really should use comparisons to the previous seasons for each. Bottom line: 4.5 beats 4. Harbaugh with another win!
McGary was only good for 6 games while that team stunned its way to the finals. The Fab Five were dominant and expected to be there. The '92-3 team wins 81-70. The '88-9 Rice-led CHAMPIONS would beat the Fab Five, though. Closer, like 88-85. Fun scenarios.
of you, remdog, for getting it right! Couldn't agree more.
Just two more wins, any combo, and we're a lock for the tourney.
.....of the game once talent gaps get reduced. Harbaugh's culture had Stanford whipping a more-talented USC early on. Now Urbz will continue to recruit well, but his teams will not have the backbone of Harbaugh's teams.....and his chest pains begin anew in December.
.....Asiasi is a really big deal, I think. He and Gentry will be tight at the top as well. Maybe wishful thinking, but Harbaugh probably wouldn't have asserted Gentry at TE if he wasn't performing well. I just think this year is too early. Bunting stays for sure!
He's too young and valuable.....#2 behind Butt as receiving TE, while I see TWJ and Asiasi (yes, really) being the jumbo guys. Gentry needs a year learning to be a GOOD TE while the other two FR not named Asiasi will redshirt. Hill will be a tweener. If Butt goes down, Bunting will be needed.