Urban Negative Recruiting Michigan...

Submitted by TheTeam16 on June 2nd, 2014 at 1:28 AM

Details on Urban Meyer's special dinner with Hilliard, Harris, Cornell, etc #crootin pic.twitter.com/yU6DkHKnx1

— nezz21〽 (@nezzy21) June 1, 2014

Really sucks if these kids are eating this up the way this guy says they were. Not surprising from urban though.

Comments

NotADuck

June 2nd, 2014 at 1:47 AM ^

While Meyer and Hoke have been recruiting and, for the most part, bringing in the same level of talent, Meyer already had gobs of talent to work with while Hoke was left with the remnants of terrible 2010 and 2011 recruiting classes.  Neither of which provided him with sufficient talent on the offensive line which is the biggest reason why we went 7-6 last year.  Sure, Borges didn't make things better by changing schemes every week but the fact remains that he was working with freshman, redshirt freshman, and true sophomores last year.  Thats what the bulk of the O-line depth was made up of.

Also the fact that the coaches would have you believe that it was the players fault is a blatant lie but I doubt thats what he actually said.  That would be just stupid.  All Hoke talked about in press conferences was how they have to execute better and prepare better and how that was mostly on the coaches if not completely.

Absolute bullshit.  Pardon my french.

NotADuck

June 2nd, 2014 at 11:43 AM ^

I usually don't have anything to add to the conversation so I don't post but this was a good opportunity.

Anyway, I would also like to know who the source is.  Specifically.  The part where he talks about Hoke blaming the players seems waaaaaaaaay out of left field.  His press conferences are all the proof we need.

Prince Lover

June 2nd, 2014 at 2:21 AM ^

However, if Hoke has to say these things to his recruits, it just comes off as excuses, and excuses aren't sexy. Recruits will just hear, blah blah blah what could have been. Hopefully Hoke responds with, he's right, we have work to do, and I want you to help us, otherwise you'll just be in the way on our rise to the top! Cuz this is Michigan fergodsakes!!! Woohoo, go blue!!! And such and such....

Yeoman

June 2nd, 2014 at 8:56 AM ^

Some will hear "blah blah". Some will hear "ha ha Michigan sucks." Some will say "I visit Michigan and they talk about Michigan. I visit OSU and they talk about Michigan."

I guess that's why even though everybody's basically chasing the same pool of players, in the end you tend to get the guys that fit your program.

Desmondo

June 2nd, 2014 at 8:25 AM ^

The line was comprised of 2 NFL draf picks and a whole pile of highly recruited guys.  If we roll those guys out there and produce a MAC-caliber performance, then there is a huge problem.  Youth may mean that we shouldn't have had an absolutely dominant line, but it doesn't excuse the level of play that we saw.  

As for blaming the players..."execute better" explicitly means that the plan was fine but the players weren't making it happen.  So, either they were capable of executing and didn't do it (which is blaming the players) or they were incapable of executing (which means they aren't being developed well).  Either way, it falls right in with what Urban said.  

Meyer is a buttplug, no doubt.  But getting all up in arms because he pointed out that we have tons of talent to go with a 7-6 record is item #13,345,421 on the list of reasons that he is a pile. 

BlueKoj

June 2nd, 2014 at 8:44 AM ^

The majority of the time when Hoke talked about executing better, he often started with the coaches and himself. This has been Hoke's consistent theme.

However, in AB's pressers that seemed to not be the case nearly as often. I did feel that AB's comments left room to interpret that he thought players failed to execute his genius, and after games like OH and IN it seemed like "See? they just need to execute my scheme and its muppets."

At least that's the way I remember it.

trustBlue

June 2nd, 2014 at 7:02 PM ^

That's how I remember it as well.  There was a distinct difference between how coach Hoke spoke about shared responsibility and how Al seemed to focus much more on players "simply not executing."   In hindsight, Al may have been feeling the heat of his job being in jeapordy and felt the need to try to deflect the focus away from the job he was doing as a coach.  

Although I defended Borges much longer than most, but it was those kind of statements that finally pushed me off the bandwagon -- If you just called seven off tackle left run plays in a row and they all went for less than 2 yards, and you go ahead and call it the eighth time anyway, the main problem is definitely not a player execution.  

markusr2007

June 2nd, 2014 at 11:55 AM ^

But obviously a major rival (like Ohio, MSU, ND) is going to use a very different perspective and version of events to portray basically all you've written above as a bunch of "lame excuses" for not performing to standard. 

Urban Meyer doesn't have to negative recruit at all.  Looking at the state of Michigan football from Ohio's perspective, there's glee in throwing salt at the wounds of a debilitated enemy, especially when things will likely not be so easy going forward. Urban leaves this out conveniently in his schtick. The truth is that Michigan's number are building back up, and Ohio's days of easily and decisively beating Michigan are probably over, because the talent gap is no longer there.

But Ohio lackeys will love just about anything Urban Meyer says. "On the fence" emotionally-tied recruits will be persuaded by this "ohio show", but more deliberate and rational thinking prospects probably less so.

Despite all the press negativity and "OMG is Hoke on the hot seat?", Michigan is recruiting remarkably well.  At the end of the day, the two teams still have to play 12 games of football including each other in Columbus in November. No amount of trash talk is going to beat Michigan. 

markusr2007

June 2nd, 2014 at 12:04 PM ^

Ohio will have best DL in the BIG10 this fall, but the OL has holes. Can Miller survive a new OL and the season uninjured? Ohio has (3-star, No. 24 QB) Cardale "Why should we have to go to class" Jones and (4-star, No. 13) QB JT Barrett as backups at QB. 

Michigan doesn't have a proven OL either, but it's not like Ohio doesn't have questions.

dickackus2004

June 3rd, 2014 at 7:27 PM ^

I want you to know up front I am a buckeye fan. That being said I am also OLDER than a lot of you Michigan fans. Over the years I have really enjoyed the rivalry going back to Bo and Woody and Moeller , Carr and Tressel. We have had great games in the past. I have great respect for the Michigan program. But calling us Ohio just doen't give you any credibility. It makes you look childish. Call Ohio State - Ohio State and let the discussion begin. I believe next years game we will beat you again. We have a lot of our offense back, and will be better on defense. We will score on you. It should be a good game, but I believe we win beat you by at least 20 points. I realize I am prejuiced, but we will outscore you 2-1. Please comment back, because I enjoy talking to great football fans even Michigan fans. lol Semper Fi

Voltron is Handsome

June 4th, 2014 at 7:02 AM ^

Oh, and TTUN or scUM is any less childish? I don't presume that you call them that, but calling us scUM is way more childish than our calling OSU Ohio, which is what you guys call each other in the first place. Script Ohio, Ohio Stadium, OH-IO chants, etc.

BlueCube

June 4th, 2014 at 7:42 AM ^

THE Ohio State University?

Please.

 

You may be right that you beat us this year since you play at home although I don't think it's a given. I do think you will understand at the end of the game that Michigan is back and will be competitive going forward. I'm not sure the experience is where it needs to be this year. But in 2015 we will be restocked.

Seth

June 2nd, 2014 at 8:42 AM ^

"Everyone does it" is one of my pet-peeve fallacies. You just picked two schools on extreme opposite ends of the tenor of their recruiting, and then made a statement concerning the entirely of the field. It's like saying every dog sheds: it is true, but ignores a massive difference between a portuguese waterdog and labrador retriever that can be useful in making your dog decision.

Spinning half-truths into a negative sales pitch against a rival is common in sales, and it justifiably gives the sales guy and his company a bad reputation. When the client realizes he's been lied to, they come away feeling like the salesman's more interested in making his sale than getting the client value.

What you hope is that it comes back to bite him in the ass. Media advertising guys dogged on blogs for years: nobody takes us seriously, we'll be gone in a few years when everybody has to grow up. I still come across clients who've been told Quantcast numbers aren't trustworthy because you can't tell how many people looked at the ad, as if that makes a 728x90 on a website inferior to one in a newsletter that goes into someone's junk mail. They wouldn't be doing it if it didn't work, but long-term (and I believe Hoke and Co. will be here long-term) it tends to come around. The longer you lie, the more likely you are to be caught.

Though I agree a high school football player deciding between Michigan and Ohio State probably isn't very savvy in sorting through sales bullshit. So it goes.

Yeoman

June 2nd, 2014 at 10:33 AM ^

"Though I agree a high school football player deciding between Michigan and Ohio State probably isn't very savvy in sorting through sales bullshit."

I want the ones that are.

I'm serious about this. The difference between recruiting and sales is that in recruiting you're not just selling your program but you're creating a community out of the people that buy your product. They're going to interact with each other for four years and you're going to be stuck with the results. Of course you have to bring in good players, but the approach you take influences which of those players you end up with. You can have a locker room dominated by guys that responded well to sincerity, or you can have a locker room dominated by guys that responded well to negative sales bullshit. Which would you rather have?

 

Yeoman

June 2nd, 2014 at 10:56 AM ^

You go on a date; she spends half an hour running down some other girl in your class that she thinks you might be interested in.

That's probably a sign, and there are a fair number of high school kids that can read it. And some that can't, and some that will actually enjoy it and join in.

You don't have to be wizened on par with the best philosophers of the day to be part of the first group, you just have to be a fairly perceptive 16-year-old.

Mr Miggle

June 2nd, 2014 at 11:16 AM ^

There's a big difference in relating to a classmate as opposed to a celebrity and authority figure. I also think it's fair to assume that Urban is capable of using more finesse in his pitches than a teenager.  

Mr. Yost

June 2nd, 2014 at 11:07 PM ^

But I'm willing to bet Jadaveon Clowney isn't...and I would've taken a couple of those for sure.

Sure you have guys that are more mature, educated and grown up...and I want those too, the ones that can play good football.

But some of these guys, football is all they know and they know football extremely well, but they don't have the skills or background at 16, 17, 18 to know bullshit when they see it.

If these guys can play football and know football, shit, I'll take them just like I'll take the other kids who can see through Urban Meyer's crap.

Let's be honest, you really think a bunch of these SEC guys and first round draft picks don't fall into the category that you're saying you don't want?

Yeoman

June 3rd, 2014 at 6:05 PM ^

I'm sure they do.

I'd put long odds on the likelihood that Aaron Hernandez fell in that third category. Meyer gets more than his share of those guys, and I don't think it's an accident. It's not so much that he chases them, or even that he stays on the trail when others have figured it out and backed off. It's that they like him. It's who he attracts.

Inuyesta

June 2nd, 2014 at 1:46 AM ^

Honestly, if Urban weren't squeezing us with everything he has, he wouldn't be doing his job.  Like, imagine the tables were turned and you found out Hoke wasn't blasting recruits with reminders about how OSU is 15-11 over the past two years, how we'd beaten them 9 out of the last 11 times (I think?  Too depressing to fact check), how they were coming off a season that featured one of the most inept running games in history, how another mediocre season might get their head coach fired...

...you'd be furious, right?

Urban is pressing his advantage, as he should.  But our coaches are pretty darn good recruiters, too.  Hopefully we can show something on the field this year, and keep our rivals in recruiting from building insurmountable leads in the meantime.  Winning can turn things around prettty quick.

Raymond Reddington

June 2nd, 2014 at 3:34 AM ^

he'd go back to the 1985 season to demonstrate how the series is somewhat cyclical.  In that year, the Wolverines began 15 years of domination over the Buckeyes which exceeds the current OSU streak.  Michigan won 12 games from 1985 - 2000, with the men from the Snakepit posting 3 victories.  Further, from 1988 through the 1997 seasons, OSU managed just one victory during those 10 seasons which is similar to the Ohio streak from 2001 through 2010.  Finally, Brady Hoke would remind the players that each game against the arch rival has very close since he's taken over; although 1-2, the average difference in the score of the three games is only 4 points.  

It's really hard to make the case that Urban Meyer has demonstrated superior coaching vs. Brady Hoke when you understand that - as other's have duly noted - the OSU roster was filled with a greater number of talented players when Urban came on board when compared to what we had available....it's true we had some great recruits, but as prevoius analysis shows most of those great recruits ended up leaving the program thus leaving the mostly cupboard bare.  In fact, given the talent superiority of Ohio State the last three meetings, one could argue that Brady's done more with less and Urban's teams have underperformed.

GoWings2008

June 2nd, 2014 at 10:15 AM ^

He said that these rivalries have a tendency to be cyclical.  And right now, we are on the verge of changing the cycle back to Michigan and we can use their (the recruits) help.  If you're going to be part of the best rivalry in college football, you need to understand the history of it, just my opinion.

GoWings2008

June 2nd, 2014 at 10:59 AM ^

The last three games are a great indicator of that.  We appear to be very close to "home field gets the edge" sort of situation.  Despite how terribly we played during the season last year, Michigan still made it a very close game.  The year before, in Columbus...OSU was very good, another close game.  We'll see though.

Njia

June 2nd, 2014 at 11:56 AM ^

Sure, "cyclical rivalries", and so on ... However, the last meaningful, U-M dominated cycle ended when most of these kids were just out of diapers. As the parent of two teenagers, I can tell you with certainty that talking about The Good Ol' Days with them is irrelevant.

turd ferguson

June 2nd, 2014 at 1:51 AM ^

Seriously, it's time to explain to these kids' parents what happened at Florida, chemistry-wise, what's up with Meyer's "circle of trust," and how many incidents Meyer's players have been involved in at Florida and OSU.

The response to that kind of thing is always, "Yeah, well Michigan's not perfect either."  Fine - no program is - but Meyer sure has had a lot of ugly, ugly shit happen with the players he's recruited and coached.  As a parent, there's no doubt in my mind about which staff and team I'd trust to take care of my kid.

keep_em_honest

June 2nd, 2014 at 1:55 AM ^

Florida has continued to have issues with arrests even after Urban left.  I guess you could say he recruited them, but it looks like more of a Florida problem than a Urban problem.  Players have pretty much stayed out of trouble for the most part at OSU, and when they've stepped out of line he's handed down harsh punishment.  On the other hand, Hoke has had some very questionable calls on player punishment (Gibbons, Clark, etc)