RR v BH Recruiting Comparison

Submitted by rockydude on June 24th, 2011 at 10:22 PM

This is in no way meant to be a "Bash RR" or "try to love RR" thread, so look elsewhere for that. This is just meant to compare two very different approaches to recruiting. Something interesting jumps out at me about RR's recruiting v BH's recruiting.

Given that the 2011 class was kind of a weird Frankenstein compilation between RR and BH, I'm not looking at that one. However, 2010 was all Rodriguez, and 2012 is all Hoke. The class of 2010 had 27 players, of whom 15 were under 200 lbs. The class of 2012 is 17 currently (counting Jeremy Clark as the last commit), of whom two are under 200 lbs, and both are CBs, who are typically the smallest players on the field.

I'm not trying to make the point that the RR recruiting was objectively bad, because a lot of those smaller players carried high grades and it was a well regarded recruiting class, as is our 2012 class so far. I bring this up because it would seem like a pretty objective way to look at the different philosophy that the two coaches bring to the game.

Sure seems to back up the general idea that RR wants speed and agility at all cost, whereas BH wants to play a physical game and see who wins the strength contest. We won't know for a while whose approach is best suited to the Big Ten, but we should certainly get an answer that we can take to the bank, once all is said and done . . . 

Comments

IHateScarlet

June 25th, 2011 at 8:21 AM ^

I think it's interesting because I like all the recruiting stuff in the off season. Especially when the posts point out differences in coaching style or recruiting style. If you don't like it then shut up and stop reading and posting. Take your drunk ass to bed and wake up in the morning and instead of trolling on here find a diff post to read. One that you deem "interesting" so we all don't have to read your pointless babble about how you don't like recruiting thread when you knew what you were getting when you clicked on the thread.

Magnus

June 25th, 2011 at 1:04 AM ^

The 2010 class was pretty f-ed up.

The more highly regarded prospects are the ones who are bombing out and/or looking like career backups, and the meh 3-stars are the ones who look like multi-year starters.

That's not the case across the board, but it's a strange combination of recruits.

jwfsouthpaw

June 25th, 2011 at 1:16 AM ^

The heavy emphasis on linemen and like positions this year renders the OP's comparison mostly useless, in my opinion.  13 of the 16 commits for 2012 are either tight ends, linemen, or linebackers.  By contrast, just 10 of the 27 commits in 2010 were tight ends, linemen, or linebackers.

Guess which class of players is likely to be bigger, on average?  A better analysis would be to compare the size of recruits at each position over a number of years.

BrandonGarrison

June 25th, 2011 at 6:01 AM ^

Even if RR was still here that means we would still have GRob as DC so our defense would still be terribly coached. and since he obviously did not recruit the state of Michigan than we lose players like RJS and TRich and JRoss to places like MichState. And I don't think RR has a clue on how to take advantage of this Ohio State situation.
<br>
<br>2nd. There was no guarantee Hart was even coming to Mich. I highly doubt he would of stayed committed to Mich regardless of RR or not. It was easy to see Mich was not ready to compete with the rest of the competition of the B1G.
<br>
<br>3. I would of loved to of seen McGuffie and DRob on the field together. McGuffies YouTube videos were sick. And I think they would of been fun to watch if only he could of not been injured with concussions and handled his family/personal problems. What could of been.

ND Sux

June 25th, 2011 at 7:21 AM ^

but a few tips:

  • Who is this GRob you're talking about?  His name is GERG (I can't remember how that started) 
  • "I would have loved..."
  • "What could have been."

Not trying to be a dick, but these are easy fixes.  Welcome to the board sir. 

althegreat23

June 25th, 2011 at 4:06 AM ^

Rich Rod's problem was that he tried to play Big East football in the Big Ten and he was in for a rude awakening when he realized Rutgers, UConn, and Syracuse and the  rest of that bullshit in the Big East aren't Ohio St, Penn St., Iowa, and Wisconsin.

wenttoosubutbl…

June 25th, 2011 at 8:25 AM ^

I could go on for days about the Michigan tradition and why that's what has gotten us the most wins in 1-A football but I will just bring up a few points of RR vs. Hoke.

"The cupboard was bare" I have heard a lot of ppl say when RR took over. And it's usually those same ppl to point out who Hoke" let get away" (Hart and Frost).
--------the facts don't lie- but has Hoke replaced those players with the same caliber of player at those positions? He kept Hayes and he is going after the build/style of RB as the Michigan greats- Wheatley, Biakabatuka, etc. The big yet fast RB that can either knock you on your ass or outrun you to the endzone.

And don't ever bring up the" cupboard was bare" stuff when RR took over. Did he talk Mallett, Arrington or Manningham into staying??? No.

And for those that claimed that Michigan tradition is dead and gone and that Michigan doesn't sell itself, maybe you've forgotten what got us more wins than any other 1-A team- tough, hard nosed, fundamentally sound defense more than anything. Just look back at our National Championships- look those stats up: points/game allowed, rushing yards/game, etc.

RR never got that- he is and even was at WV a brilliant spread option offense designer/coach. But when a man doesn't put an emphasis on defense or doesn't go to a huddle on offense when the D is gassed (especially when our offense would rattle off consecutive 3 and outs), does he really understand the defense or its importance on the field?

Hoke knows what Michigan tradition is, obviously understands the need for a tough, fundamentally sound defense run by a good DC, and is letting Michigan tradition and its football legacy help to bring in recruits. Bo got it and Hoke's got it too. The kind of coach that makes recruits want to become part of that history and not just part of a flashy offense with a piss poor defense on the other side of the ball.

I can't wait for this season to start- the re-emergence of Michigan tradition.

DixieWreck

June 25th, 2011 at 6:21 AM ^

RR's first full year of recruits are finally upper classmen this year, we were a very young team the last couple years, just hope RR's players pan out these next couple years and can transition smoothly to a pro-style offense. The players on D are still very young but hopefully with the early early playing time they were thrown into last year they have gained some growth and experience that Mattison can work with. RR and BH are both good recruiters and coaches but this team was extremely youthful so I expect great things now that we have larger numbers of upper classman experience. Go Blue!

DixieWreck

June 25th, 2011 at 6:21 AM ^

RR's first full year of recruits are finally upper classmen this year, we were a very young team the last couple years, just hope RR's players pan out these next couple years and can transition smoothly to a pro-style offense. The players on D are still very young but hopefully with the early early playing time they were thrown into last year they have gained some growth and experience that Mattison can work with. RR and BH are both good recruiters and coaches but this team was extremely youthful so I expect great things now that we have larger numbers of upper classman experience. Go Blue!

Magnus

June 25th, 2011 at 8:50 AM ^

Yeah, it seems like some of the defensive recruits Rodriguez pulled in - the ones who stuck around - are going to be good players in the long run.  I'm excited about the futures of Courtney Avery, Craig Roh, Carvin Johnson, Jake Ryan, Cameron Gordon, etc.  The problem was that there were so many washouts among them that it was hard to build depth and continuity.

When Lloyd Carr was here, it seemed like the only freshmen who got serious looks at playing time were cornerbacks, running backs, and the occasional quarterback.  These past few years, the starting lineup has been full of freshmen, and the two-deep too.  Even this year, with all the attrition in the past few classes, we'll probably have a couple freshmen on the two-deep.

joshfull931

June 25th, 2011 at 11:55 AM ^

Obviously they have two different recruiting styles for two different systems, both defensively and offensively. However, I'm not exactly sure you can just look at the listed weight of recruits on recruiting websites as a deciding point in looking how the two recruit.

The players' weight is often not up to date or just totally inaccurate. Between the major recruiting websites, it is possible to see a recruit weigh 185 on one and 210 on another. Who is right? You never know until they get on campus.

Also, the 200 lb over/under number is subjective -- it is a number you chose. If you bumped it up to 250, obviously the recruits would be about the same, with the number above 250 mainly being just defensive lineman and offensive lineman.

I don't think players' weight is the best way to understand recruiting style but nonetheless the two coaches are drastically different as you have pointed out.

mackbru

June 25th, 2011 at 12:08 PM ^

All we can say at this point is that, assuming most of Hoke's class sticks, he has nabbed a higher percentage of coveted recruits; the percentages suggest (but do not assure) future success. RR certainly recruited some very nice O talent. But it's highly debatable whether he recruited enough D talent. I tend to doubt it. I'm not sure I see a bunch of future all-league stars.
<br>
<br>And Hoke's recruits would seem better suited to withstand the punishing B10 teams.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>

Schweddy Balls

June 25th, 2011 at 12:39 PM ^

The difference between Hoke and RR will be how the coaches develop the talent they recruited. I'd say that RR didn't do all that well in developing the talent he recruited. We saw flashes but no consistency. The new staff has showed they can recruit but now it will be imperative for the staff to show it can develop raw HS players into proficient college players. It also helps that Hoke believes in a more traditional type of play and has a bigger net to recruit with versus the smaller specific net that RR used for his scheme.

turtleboy

June 25th, 2011 at 2:39 PM ^

will be player retention and continuity or momentum. RR couldn't manage to have returning starters to save his job, literally. While both coaches lost recruits and both coaches are going through attrition there's a difference in how it's happening. RR lost a good number of his own recruits (maybe through no fault of his own) but it hurt him having not recruited the area regularly before, while the recruits Hoke has lost (so far) we're from a class RR was building. RR had attrition it seemed from projected starters to the NFL or transferring. While 3 and outs aren't uncommon or neccesarily bad, RR lost too many starters or potential starters to the NFL so his attrition came from the 2-deep and the team really suffered for it. Hoke will lose current players to attrition but all estimates are it will come from transfers due to redundancy or from kids who might not thrive in a pro-style offense or 4-3 over-under defense.

BigBlue02

June 25th, 2011 at 2:06 PM ^

This thread is fucking horrible. The entire thing. Why on earth are we even talking about recruiting? RichRod had 2 full classes, neither getting to their Junior year. Hoke isn't even half way through his first recruiting class. Not only did the OP not look at what type of players were being recruitied, he just took 200 pounds as an arbitrary number. I would assume that, since not a single player in Hoke's class should be under 200 (as we have 1 DB and all TEs, DBs, OLs, and DLs), then yes, it is pretty obvious that Hoke has recruited heavier guys. This place is fastly becoming MLive

Bobby Boucher

June 25th, 2011 at 2:44 PM ^

Not much evidence for comparison.  RR recruited quick offensive type players from the South.  Hoke has so far recruited big defensive players from the North.  Does that about sum it up?

Irish

June 25th, 2011 at 4:51 PM ^

This doesn't work, to compare apples to apples you have to compare RR's first recruiting season to this year.  A coach coming off a 3-9 season while going through a 5-7 season is not even close to the same situation as a first year head coach.

Rivals had that 2009 class at 8th btw