Will Campbell credits Hoke & Mattison

Submitted by m1817 on February 26th, 2013 at 8:53 AM

Will Campbell credits Hoke & Mattison for giving him a mental edge.

 

Every snap, I know what to look for when the guard's coming off the ball, I can tell which way he's going just by looking at him. That's what Coach Hoke and Coach Mattison have taught me this past few years. Our film sessions were amazing. The stuff we learned to look at when we watched film, what we were looking for, it ran like an NFL meeting room.

Interesting to note that former DL coach Montgomery is not even mentioned.

http://www.freep.com/article/20130226/SPORTS06/302260117/Michigan-DL-Wi…

Comments

Magnus

February 26th, 2013 at 9:33 AM ^

Oh, knock it off.  He was a great big help when he got five snaps on defense!

I especially liked it when Rodriguez put Campbell on the offensive line.  That really seemed to be advantageous...

Section 1

February 26th, 2013 at 4:35 PM ^

Magnus, because you are a smart football coach, I am dedicating this old Russian proverb to you.

Now I had no idea, that they played college football in Russia, way back during the era of the Tsars.  That just surprised the hell out of me.  But this important old Russian proverb about football coaches was handed down through the generations.

There was a wise old football coach, who had done pretty well for his school but in his last year, he had survived an investigation by the RCAA (Russian Collegiate Athletic Association) and the commissars were widely rumored to be considering putting him up to a firing squad.  The editors of the local newspaper, "Pravda," hated him.  Then, he lost a bowl game by a score of 52-14.  And so he was disappeared.

When the new coach was brought into the head coach's office at Schembechlevsky Hall, there was a note on the desk.  It was from the old coach.  The note read, "Good luck, comrade coach.  This is not an easy job.  You will find yourself in trouble at some point.  When you do, I have left instructions, in the bottom drawer.  There are two envelopes, marked ONE and TWO.  Open the envelope marked ONE the first time you find yourself in trouble.  After that, if you are in trouble again, you should open the second envelope.  Прощай!   (Farewell!)

And so the new coach went to work.  He found out that the old team wasn't so bad after all and in his first year, the new coach went 11-2.

But in the second year, the team lost to all of its major rivals except for one, which they were very fortunate to beat on a last-second field goal.  Still, they began the year the same way that they began it; getting mauled by a team from the hated SEC (South Estonian Conference).

This was trouble.  Back at Schembechlevsky Hall, the new coach opened the bottom drawer and pulled out the envelope marked ONE.  He opened it and and read the note inside.  The note said, "BLAME YOUR PREDECESSOR."  And so the new coach went about the business of coaching and recruiting, and saw to it that all of the blame for the previous failure(s) were placed on his predecessor.

It worked, for a while.  But Russian football is a tough business.  And when the team failed to get back to a BCS (Beluga Caviar Series) Bowl game, the commissars were rumored to be looking for the new coach.  The coach thought about his predicament and decided he just had to look for the second envelope.

He reached into the bottom drawer and pulled it out.  He opened it up and read the note.  The note said, "PREPARE TWO ENVELOPES."

bluenyc

February 26th, 2013 at 4:56 PM ^

Can I ask you on the board and his dudeness, guys I respected tremendously, why is liking Hoke and Rich mutually exclusive?  Why cant you like both.  I like Rich and Hoke.  I thought maybe Hoke had said something bad about Rich, and I missed it.  As far as I know Hoke has done nothing but praise Rich and his coaches. 

Section 1

February 26th, 2013 at 5:06 PM ^

When have I ever written anything negative about Hoke?  Find it.  Quote me.  The proverb has nothing to do with Hoke, comrade.  You'll need to do the assigned reading all over again.  But you do get extra credit for the true, accurate and significant observation that Hoke has never badmouthed Rodriguez.  If only the MGoBoard could follow Coach Hoke's lead.

bluenyc

February 26th, 2013 at 5:15 PM ^

Find something, you are too smart to openly put it in writing.  But honestly say to yourself, all the implications and innuendos that have been made, if you like Hoke as much as Rich, and I will say I am wrong.   

If the proverb has nothing to do with Hoke, why bother responding. 

Bosch

February 26th, 2013 at 5:43 PM ^

dislikes Hoke.  You are reading too much into the comments from those that defend RR.

There are some of us who think that RR could have succeeded if he had full support from everyone associated with U of M - staff, ex players, fans - from the beginning.....  if he were able to bring Casteel with him.....  if coaches at other schools couldn't use the prominent rumors of his imminent departure as an agressive negative recruiting tool.....

None of that has to do with disliking Hoke and no one is advocating for RR's return but, IMO, the animosity towards him is extremely short sighted and the vitriol is unwarranted.  The guy gave his all.  Yeah, he often lost in spectacular fashion, but I'm pretty certain that every loss ate at him more than any of us. 

Final thought..... Can you imagine if Beilein would have been ran out of town after his disastrous third year?

 

BoFan

February 26th, 2013 at 5:37 PM ^

Well your "old coach" is clearly a veiled attempt of describing your favorite coach Rich Rod based on your version of history.   And other than the fact that your "new coach" that followed the "old coach" could only be Hoke, I'd have to agree that your description of the "new coach" is nothing like Hoke and so it's clearly not a reference to Hoke.  I'll give you that.  

You did miss envelope three in your proverb though.  It's the envelope that the "old coach" opened up after he left and it says: "If your old team is successful after you leave, take the credit for their success."  

bluenyc

February 26th, 2013 at 9:04 AM ^

I think Jerry knew that Hoke and Mattison were the guys handling DL.  He was a great recruiter, so he leveraged what he could out of the OU job.  He can handle the DL and recruit.  Cant fault him for thinking about himself.  I wish him luck.

StephenRKass

February 26th, 2013 at 10:05 AM ^

Mone is a great start in recruiting for the DL Malik McDowell is critical to add. Could we also get Da'Shawn Hand and Sam Mustipher? (Would there even be room for Lawrence Marshall??)

I am hoping that between Hoke and Mattison, we will see a number one position group at the DL. They are truly building from the trenches. As the lines get better and better, this has to help in recruiting all the other position groups.

Urban Meyer has had some success at the DL, and puts focus there. I'm glad that this is also key for Hoke. I generally believe that losing Montgomery won't make a huge difference in recruiting, but I definitely hope our head coach and Def. Coord. close the deal with Malik and at least one other solid prospect on the DL.

bluenyc

February 26th, 2013 at 10:49 AM ^

It makes you think how Hoke and Mattison didnt get any more high profile recruits prior, such as the group that OSU put together.  I think what is more important is intangibiles.  Dont get me wrong, I like Wormley, Strobel and Godin.  But it seems these guys see something that the analyst have not.  Pipkins and Poggi were the high profile recruits. 

Hand will be a huge fight, think our chances are 20%, probably higher.  I like McDowell, and I hope we get him.  Mustipher will be tough also.  I think this is one area where we trust the coaches, as much as I hate that term.  Clark has been a pleasant surprise.  I wonder if they are going to get a DL coach or look for someone on offense.   Jerry was important, and was an excellent recruiter who did most of the leg work. 

LSAClassOf2000

February 26th, 2013 at 9:06 AM ^

At least to me, Campbell's story is one of dramatic turnaround in outlook and attitude towards both himself and the game. He took on a leadership role in his senior season, even leading the film sessions for the defensive line, as I recall, and did everything Hoke and Mattison asked of him essentially. To read this now and see him talking about being motivated, concentrating on the workouts with the goal of impressing scouts at Michigan's Pro Day in March is the culmination of all that. Hopefully, he does get a shot at the next level as a reward for all the work over the past two seasons.

Hagen

February 26th, 2013 at 9:12 AM ^

I hope he has learned enough to get taken on day three of the draft, or at the very least make a practice squad.  It's unfortunate he didn't have Mattison coaching him for four years, we may have seen an entirely different player by his senior season.

As for the coach Montgomery stuff, let's not turn him into some sort of villain.  He was a good coach (well, from what I've read) and an even better recruiter.  But he still is a classy man who wanted a change in his career (and presumably more money).  Good coaching staffs have turnover, it's part of the game.

 

Michigasling

February 26th, 2013 at 1:43 PM ^

Don't think anyone means to villainize him (or most, at least).  Hard to imagine a better place for a young defensive line coach to learn his craft than with Hoke & Mattison to mentor him.  And can't imagine that with a bit of experience and ambition, he wouldn't want to move on to where he could go solo.

Hagen

February 26th, 2013 at 3:05 PM ^

Learn under Hoke & Mattison at UM, then head down to another premier program at Oklahoma and go solo.  He did just that, and for someone who is looking to further his career it seems like a great move.

I just thought the addition of "interesting to note that Montgomery wasn't mentioned" was unnecessary.  It just seemed like the OP was trying to say "hey guys, see? Montgomery wasn't that important afterall!"  I think we should all be thankful for the time he spent with us, wish him the best of the future, and that's that. 

Magnus

February 26th, 2013 at 9:35 AM ^

The only reason it was a disappointment is because of the recruiting sites' hype.

If he were a 3-star or 4-star recruit, you would be pretty satisfied with his career.  That's why I think it's important not to get too caught up in recruiting hype.  There's a lot more that goes into being a football player than the number of stars on your recruiting profile.

Business Time

February 26th, 2013 at 12:35 PM ^

This is a bit misleading. The whole point of recruiting stars/rankings/etc. is to try and quantify a player's potential. When there is disappointment about someone not meeting the recruiting hype, that's just another way of saying someone hasn't met their potential. Especially when it comes to 5-stars. It's not like you can fake your way into being a 5-star, you have to show some sort of elite athleticism or physical tools to get that rating. The rest is work ethic and coaching, and Campbell's issues with both are well documented.

So no, I don't think the only reason Campbell was a disappointment was due to recruiting hype. People are disappointed because of a lack of work ethic and proper coaching in the early part of his career, leaving him far short of his full potential.

Magnus

February 26th, 2013 at 2:02 PM ^

Campbell lacks some basic attributes to be a good defensive lineman.  If you look back at his high school film, yes, he was big and fairly athletic.  But he also struggled to stay low in high school, and he wasn't extremely aggressive.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that he was overrated coming out of high school, and that led to some lofty expectations that just weren't realistic.  I imagine there's an analyst or two out there who might learn some things about how they rate kids based on Campbell and other players like him.

MFanWM

February 26th, 2013 at 12:36 PM ^

I think that is a major area of change in focus.  I am biased, but after watching some of the interviews at the various all-star games and then comparing that to the players being brought in by this staff,  I think that the focus on the total person is going to more than just close the gap in the perceived talent gap in certain groups with many teams to include Ohio State.

I would be interested to compare side-by-side interviews with the top players by position brought in by Michigan compared to the interviews of the same group from the rest of the top 10 recruiting classes just as another way to make a comparision.  Yes, physical talent is a key requirement, but having the "smarts" to put that talent into use and absorb the coaching and schemes also is vital to success.

The most physically talented player may have Justin Turner's motivation as an example, or provide priceless gems in every interview ala Terrell Pryor.  I think that is one area of marked improvement in these last two classes.