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.




February 26th, 2013 at 9:39 AM ^

BWC decided to grow up as a senior, sorta like Brian Griese did.  It's really too bad that some people took a classy statement by a kid who is finally "getting it" and used it as an excuse to piss on RR.  

RR's been gone for over two years now.  Maybe some people could stand to let go of their petty hatred and enjoy the current team.  Sorry, but bitching about former coaches is soooo Sparty.


February 26th, 2013 at 10:14 AM ^

Rodriguez's coaching and recruiting are relevant to Michigan, whether you like it or not.  This year's seniors played at least two years under Rodriguez.  He recruited a chunk of the class of 2011, too, so that means the effects are probably going to be felt through 2015.  You might as well get used to it.


February 26th, 2013 at 11:10 AM ^

was an absolutely horrible decision by RR, but it's not like he was the only coach in Michigan history to make a questionable redshirt decision. It goes on all the time throughout college ball. I hope BWC has the opportunity in the NFL to measure up to the potential that so many UM fans thought he had.


February 26th, 2013 at 11:24 AM ^

I don't really see Denard as a wasted redshirt.  He was an effective part of the offense in 2009, at least when he was running the ball.  There are freshmen who dominate, freshmen who are effective, and freshmen who shouldn't be anywhere near the field.  He falls into that middle category.

Obviously, it would be great if EVERY freshman could redshirt and then play for Michigan for five years...but that's just not realistic.


February 26th, 2013 at 12:05 PM ^

There's not a game that Michigan won that they wouldn't have with Denard in instead of Tate.  Iowa was the only game where he made a significant impact as a replacement, and we still lost.  And most fans thought Tate should have been brought back in on the last drive.

I also disagree that having every kid redshirt is an ideal. You'd have to take 20% fewer player than kids playing 4 years.  Yeah you can choose to not bring kids back, but coaches will rarely turn away a useful 5th year player in reality.  Now if you said gray-shirt, I'd agree.

The kids you want red-shirting are the ones who have a huge gap between what they are as true freshman and what they can be as 5th years.  That's why its no big deal that a kid like Houma (who is unlikely to ever be a star) 'burns' his red-shirt.  Denard, OTOH, is a superstar.  I know you don't love him as a QB, but it sure would be nice to have him at RB/KR, at least.  It might also mean keeping a red-shirt on Shane Morris...


February 26th, 2013 at 12:32 PM ^

Just because Michigan would have won the games anyway doesn't mean Denard was ineffective.  And when you consider that the team went 5-7 and didn't have any great wins that year, it's kind of a moot point.  It would have been hard for a lot of quarterbacks - even good ones - to win games with the kind of defense that Michigan had in those years.

And besides that, he was being groomed to be the starter in 2010, which he did fairly effectively.  Without game experience in 2009, maybe he doesn't have those record days against UConn and Notre Dame.


February 26th, 2013 at 2:15 PM ^

Just because Denard was effective doesn't mean it wasn't a wasted red-shirt.  It's about relative impact - if you have a stud starter you don't need to have a great backup.

The better argument is your second one - that he needed to play in order to take over in 2010, but I think that's a case of hindsight being 20/20.  At the time, Forcier looked like a Heisman contender and so I doubt Rodriguez was grooming that kind of player to be replaced.  For how little Denard played, I doubt that argument.  Even when the season turned sour in big 10 play Denard still spent most of his time as a backup.  If Rodriguez was 'grooming' him for a starting job he could/should/would have played more.  I think Rodriguez was impatient and unsure of what he had so he trotted guys out there.  The same thing goes for Will Campell - throw him out there and see what works.

Denard didn't affect the outcome in 2009 and it's doubtful that he grew apreciably more by playing in '09 than just practicing -- certainly the costs of not playing him would have been offset by the advantages of potentially returning in 2013.  And -- if you're the kind of person who thinks Denard isn't such a great passer or QB - maybe with 3 more years of eligibility under Borges, Denard gets moved to WR/RB sooner and Devin Gardner is your QB the last 2 seasons...who knows. 


February 26th, 2013 at 3:16 PM ^

Forcier looked like a Heisman contender in the pre-season?  Denard played in the first game.  Nobody had any clue what Forcier would do, but there were only two viable options - Forcier and Robinson.  And it's extremely rare that a team makes it through a season with just one quarterback.

Meanwhile, Michigan had Mike Martin, Ryan Van Bergen, Renaldo Sagesse, Greg Banks, Adam Patterson, and Will Heininger when Campbell was a freshman.  Rodriguez couldn't find a way to keep Campbell on the sideline with four viable players (five if you count Heininger) and Patterson potentially playing ahead of him?


February 26th, 2013 at 6:48 PM ^

Sheridan as backup would have won you as many games as Denard as backup.  And yeah - some people had some clue of what Forcier could or couldn't do.  He was well-hyped and expectations were high.

The DL rotates, unlike QBs.

I think Rodriguez should have red-shirted both Rodriguez and Robinson - and I think he would admit that - but he was desperate to improve after a terrible rookie year.  He knew he wouldn't be around for their 5th year if he didn't produce results sooner.


February 26th, 2013 at 12:25 PM ^

He was obviously effective on one play against Western.

He was devastating against Eastern.

He had one great drive against Iowa.

I don't think that was good enough.

I'd much rather have 2013 Denard than the 69 rushes and 14-31 passing Denard we had in 2009. He was not ready to play.


February 26th, 2013 at 11:17 AM ^

and burning his Redshirt. I should point out that I'm not a #[email protected]%$^%$ head coach either. If we were to follow the trail of crumbs back to the beginning, that might very well have been one of the first warning signs. I have no intention of revisiting it though. Good luck, Will Campbell, and thank you for the knowledge you have passed along to our young stalwarts.


February 26th, 2013 at 11:11 AM ^

Montgomery's name necessarily means much. It is easy to parse newspaper articles with too fine a filter. I really don't see a need to bring that up.


February 26th, 2013 at 11:33 AM ^

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


Seriously?  The man leaves UM for a job with 1) higher pay and 2) more responsibility and now we're all going to act like girls with too much makeup and too little clothing, dancing drunkenly at Ricks RIGHT IN JERRY'S FACE so he KNOWS that we're totally OVER him.  

The fact that you, OP, mentioned Jerry Montgomery is a lot more revealing than the fact that the article you linked to didn't mention him.  Get over it.  Don't be that drunk girl at Rick's.  

Sione's Flow

February 26th, 2013 at 11:52 AM ^

Jerry Montgomery deserves nothing but our thanks and best of luck moving forward. Remember years ago UM had a defensive line coach leave to take over at Ball State, that has turned out pretty well for us so far.

Mr. Yost

February 26th, 2013 at 12:35 PM ^

...may truly be Rich Rodriguez' 2nd biggest screw up. GERG will always be #1.

He truly changed this kid's life with his incompetence off defense and defensive personnel development. Kind of sad when you think about it. He made millions and got away to another university where he makes millions. He very easily could've cost BWC millions by his hire, the redshirt fiasco, and his lack of development when it comes to defensive players.

I'm not a RR hater like many, I don't let this overshadow that he found Kovacs, he made a way for Brock Mealer, he gave us Denard, etc.

But with the good, there's certainly a ton of bad.


February 26th, 2013 at 1:42 PM ^

One of my personal phrases to live by is: it's not what you are, It's what you can become that is most importatnt. Never stop endeavoring to improve yourself.

Best of luck, Will. May you be one of the few who thrives in the NFL, and becomes a champion in everything in life.


February 26th, 2013 at 7:11 PM ^

But then again, so should Devin and so should many others.  Rich made tons of player personel mistakes in his tenure but I think the biggest part of that was his coaching staff.

Bruce Tall was a DB coach his entire career and was the DLine coach at Michigan....I had read he attended coaching clinics for coaching dline that spring/summer.. 2008...  Shafer and Gibby were the 2 db coaches for that 2008 team and Hop the lber coach...a safeties coach his entire career........

Bruce Tall being the dline coach tells you everything you ever needed to know about RR's tenure.  He never adapted or changed and defense starts up front just like offense.  If the oline performed just like the dline did, that oline coach would have been fired....Rich protected Tall at dline rather then move him to db coach like he should have the moment Shafer was fired...and took the fall.....