Was Hoke a victim of poor recruiting/scouting? Let me make a case..

[Reality Man]

leave off the roster inherited by Hoke. Leave off player development. Leave off Cole/Isaac.

Did Hoke recruit poorly? Grades


QB recruiting (D)
RB recruiting (C)
WR recruiting (D)
TE recruiting (C)


The point I am trying to make is the offense was pretty woeful in his tenure as essentially a DL coach. His defense was actually o.k. and is structured to be pretty effective this year. The offense let Hoke down in part to either guys not really as good as the rankings especially early in their career.

Morris, Green, Smith, Darboh, etc. etc. Not to say Butt isn't good or some of these guys might prosper but Hoke needed to strike Gold and it sure looks like his 'missed'.

I think Hoke knew what to look for on defense but from what I see....relying on Borges and other guys didn't quite work out.

Agree or disagree? When 'we' say Hoke recruited well...are we saying on the defensive side?



Reality Man

 

[St. Joe Blue 3]

Wasn't a "victim", but that was a big part of it. So was really poor game


preparation and management.

 

[ArrowheadBlue]

Hoke was more a victim of inexperience and, as you point out,


poor recruiting in key areas. This team is coming into its own with WRs, RBs and more experience in the OL. But Hoke was a victim of loyalty which also killed RR. He brought his BG, SDSU staff with him and I believe those coaches were more laid back because of their divisional competition. In other words, outside of Mattison and Samuelson, the assistants are pretty much not hirable, the same as RR's assistants

He couldn't coach up a QB! I remember a quote once that noted the difference between UM and OSU was the quarterback play. UM had good QBs until LC retired; OSU has had a solid to great at QBs since. Hence the record between the schools.

Some of your grading is interesting. Hoke gets the #1 RB in the country and you rank it a "C"; WR recruiting with two very high 4s a "D"

I think the problem was lack of leadership/experience at all positions and I believe there was a consensus on this board that the coach hired after Hoke would reap the benefits of his recruiting.

We'll see this season because the atmosphere is completely different.

 

[BuckeyeNut69]

Hoke just wasn't a good coach period. He recruited quality players in his time at UM but the coaches didn't coach them up. To be elite you have to demand perfection and motivate players to get them most out of them. Urban basically took the same team that went 6-7 and took them to 12-0 that is what good assistants will do for you. Harbaugh will have UM looking like a completely different team this year. He might not go undefeated but he will definitely pull more out of the players on the roster than Hoke would have. Harbaugh commands respect because of what he has accomplished throughout his carrer. Players will lay it on the line and run through a wall for Harbaugh.

 

[michigangoblue999]

Hoke failed because of RichRod, who failed because of Carr *

*

 

[Reality Man]

Glad you point this out AB....because this is the point I am

trying to make in regards to these stars.

Is Green really a 5*? The wr's? Forget about Harris.


I am not paying attention to the *'s but the talent I see on the field. Was the recruiting overrated by the services? Do you think Chesson was a high end wr coming out of h.s. I remember a couple of long passes thrown to him and he looked like a 2* (if graded).

Maybe recruiting and development go hand in hand but I don't think there is any question that I'd rather trade some of the guys that were recruited by Hoke for less touted guys.




Reality Man

 

[TDFever]

Originally posted by BuckeyeNut69:

Hoke just wasn't a good coach period. He recruited quality players in his time at UM but the coaches didn't coach them up. To be elite you have to demand perfection and motivate players to get them most out of them. Urban basically took the same team that went 6-7 and took them to 12-0 that is what good assistants will do for you. Harbaugh will have UM looking like a completely different team this year. He might not go undefeated but he will definitely pull more out of the players on the roster than Hoke would have. Harbaugh commands respect because of what he has accomplished throughout his carrer. Players will lay it on the line and run through a wall for Harbaugh.

Well sure. Meyer is a better head coach than Fickell. But going from 6-7 to 12-0 had more to do with Fickell way underachieving with a very talented roster (and also needing to start a raw true freshman because the all america junior got himself ineligibled).

 

[Portland Blue]

By that standard Rich Rodriguez crippled this team with his recruiting. Given your grades, does Rich Rod even have a grade for his offensive line recruiting?

Hoke brought Smith, Johnson and Green to Michigan. What was the grade you gave him? All underclassmen.

Jake Butt will be an NFL draft pick and he brought in Bunting (too early too rate). And that is a weakness? If that's the case, I'll take that 8 days a week. Harbaugh is very thankful he has Hoke recruits rather than Rich Rod recruits. We will be as well.
We have an offensive line with upperclassmen. We have an outstanding defensive line. We have depth and talent at linebacker. We have the best young player in the country in our secondary. Our weakest position on defense has a former all big ten player.

Hoke did fine.

Originally posted by Reality Man:
leave off the roster inherited by Hoke. Leave off player development. Leave off Cole/Isaac.



Did Hoke recruit poorly? Grades





QB recruiting (D)

RB recruiting (C)

WR recruiting (D)

TE recruiting (C)





The point I am trying to make is the offense was pretty woeful in his tenure as essentially a DL coach. His defense was actually o.k. and is structured to be pretty effective this year. The offense let Hoke down in part to either guys not really as good as the rankings especially early in their career.



Morris, Green, Smith, Darboh, etc. etc. Not to say Butt isn't good or some of these guys might prosper but Hoke needed to strike Gold and it sure looks like his 'missed'.



I think Hoke knew what to look for on defense but from what I see....relying on Borges and other guys didn't quite work out.



Agree or disagree? When 'we' say Hoke recruited well...are we saying on the defensive side?







Reality Man

Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[klemman]

Home was a good coach, not a great one. He could consistently provide 8-9 win seasons with his coaching and recruiting if he stayed. With occasional championship runs. However in today's sporting world good isn't good enough. Everyone wants great. Harbaugh gives that potential.

Similarly at OSU. Fickell didn't underachieved. He was given a team missing what would have been his starting QB, RB, WR, and left tackle. A .500 finish was pretty impressive. But he still wasn't great. Meyer gives them that potential.

 

[candid]

Recruitine doesn't mean squat if they don't win. All the big names, none of them were obvious starters until their 3 rd yr. I don't think he or his staff could develop players and I don't think he or his staff could game plan to boot.

 

[R1950]

Hoke just wasn't a good coach period. He recruited quality players in his time at UM but the coaches didn't coach them up.

I feel that "coaching players up" or developing players after they arrive on campus is even more important than recruiting and identifying high school talent. A perfect example: the starting right side of OSU's 2014 offensive line were all 3 stars out of high school - Boren, Elflein, and Baldwin. Those three beat out other 4 star recruits for the starting positions. Some of the "star gazers" were complaning when they were recruited but I'd bet right now that if you ask last year's Alabama and Oregon defensive fronts, they'd have thought those three players were 5 stars out of high school. Hoke (IMO) failed in this part of the coaching game.

 

[Mroad]

Recruiting was the one aspect that Hoke actually did well. But as others have mentioned, recruiting doesn't mean anything if you don't develop the players, coach them up, and put a good game plan together to put them in position to succeed. I believe Hoke did a fine job recruiting but failed in the other aspects of coaching. There are plenty of examples of coaches that don't get 4 and 5 star recruits but compete at a high level. Look at Bill Snyder at KSU. He has a team full of 2 and 3 star recruits but he knows how to develop players, coach them up and he puts a great game plan together and they win 8-10 games every year under him. On the other hand, Texas had a bunch of 4 and 5 star recruits on their roster the past 5 years but their record hovered around .500 over this time period. Yes, it helps to get good players but coaching is critically important to the success of a football program.

 

[Blue_J]

Hoke recruited good enough. He just failed miserably in developing that talent and was even worse preparing his teams and his in game coaching. Good recruiter. Terrible football coach. Never should have been hired at Michigan. Major fail by pizza boy.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[KevinWerner]

Re: Was Hoke a victim of poor recruiting/scouting? Let me make a case

Hoke was the victim of hiring a poor staff to coach the side of the ball he had the least amount of expertise in.

He laid out what he expected the team to be - his staff had no ability to create that and he seemed to lose the credibility necessary to get the kids buy in.

You can not have mediocrity on a staff and expect to compete with the Urban Meyers or even Mark Dantonio's of the world.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[hydro2fifty]

leave off the roster inherited by Hoke. Leave off player development. Leave off Cole/Isaac.

Did Hoke recruit poorly? Grades


QB recruiting (D)
RB recruiting (C)
WR recruiting (D)
TE recruiting (C)


The point I am trying to make is the offense was pretty woeful in his tenure as essentially a DL coach. His defense was actually o.k. and is structured to be pretty effective this year. The offense let Hoke down in part to either guys not really as good as the rankings especially early in their career.

Morris, Green, Smith, Darboh, etc. etc. Not to say Butt isn't good or some of these guys might prosper but Hoke needed to strike Gold and it sure looks like his 'missed'.

I think Hoke knew what to look for on defense but from what I see....relying on Borges and other guys didn't quite work out.

Agree or disagree? When 'we' say Hoke recruited well...are we saying on the defensive side?



Reality Man

 

[scfanblue]

Hoke recruited very well except the QB position. He completely restocked the OL and DL and there is where it all begins in the game of football. Hoke became "comfortable" after winning 11 games in his first season and that was evident in his approach to his final years. Michigan looked like more of a "We will win now because we are Michigan" team in Hoke's final years than the hungry and focused team in his first year. I said it January and I will stand by it now and that is the fact that Harbaugh has inherited a talented roster and he will win and build upon what is already there. The biggest question of course is the QB position and he is correcting this by bringing in Ruddock for one year of play. Morris is NOT the answer for Michigan and will NOT start for them come game one. The defense this year will be stronger than it has been since 2006. Offense takes TIME to gel and it begins the OL and QB. The biggest change for Michigan will be in the area of game prep and approach. Harbaugh's teams will never look unprepared, lazy, or methodical. They will play tough, physical, football like they use to do before Carr started to become lazy in his final years. Michigan will win 9-10 games this year and will beat either MSU or OSU. They will beat one of those teams. OSU is not an automatic lock for another NC because they got on a roll at the end of the season. Even that team struggled with a horrible Michigan team last year.