24to12 wrote:

Post count score card this thread:

HokeIsfat  4
Brutus79    5
Scartlet71  20

Scarlet71 is clearly the winner at this point, especially with all those special graphics.  Can anyone catch him?

NiTrane wrote: I give hoke an A++++++++++. The fact hes won even 4 games with the pile of crap rich rod left him is one of the greatest coaching accomplishments in modern day history.

Of course he had some help from a crappy B10 but that wasnt the question. Unfortunately for scUM they are going to get a rude awakening in 2013 and 2014 in life without denard. Its goong to get worse before it gets better.

unizan wrote: I don't get the look who they lost to statement. You are saying they lost to good teams so they are good? They beat one team with a winning record. So they lose to good teams and beat bad teams. To me that is an average team they win when they should and lose when they should.

I would also say that having lost 5 games at OSU or Michigan is a grade of D at best. I would say last year was an A so I would go with a C to C pulse so far for Hoke over his first two years

-

superman2424 wrote:

unizan wrote: I don't get the look who they lost to statement. You are saying they lost to good teams so they are good? They beat one team with a winning record. So they lose to good teams and beat bad teams. To me that is an average team they win when they should and lose when they should.

I would also say that having lost 5 games at OSU or Michigan is a grade of D at best. I would say last year was an A so I would go with a C to C pulse so far for Hoke over his first two years

-

I did not say the part in bold nor did I make that connection. If Ohio State played Bama, Oregon, Georgia & Texas A&M instead of Miami, UCF, UAB and Cal, there's a chance they would have been 8-4 instead of 12-0. Does that suddenly make Ohio State an average team or does that simply mean those teams are better(elite) and OSU is somewhere behind them, but better than average teams. To completely discount a schedule seems biased as opposed to honestly discussing the team. Losing to elite teams and beating average teams receives a grade of D (which is below average)?

In Hoke's first season his team went 11-2 with a BCS win. In his second season 4 of his loss were to teams in ranked in the top 8 and 3 of the top 4. 3 of those 4 losses were by a touchdown or less. I would be curious to hear how you grade Ohio State then, since OSU only beat Michigan by 5, at home and Michigan was a D+ team.

My original point was that Hoke has definitely not been an A, but not a C either. A C implies he and Michigan have been average. Michigan has not beaten elite teams, but has beaten average teams, which pretty much puts them in the B category.

osubuckeye21 wrote:

WalkerNCH wrote:

http://espn.go.com/college-foo...ear/2011/week/2

 

So why were they preseason #16/18 and #15 in week 2 of the rankings

HokeIsFat wrote: http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=162&f=2019& t=11128501


WTF this guy has a very disappointing season and they grade his performance an A? If this was Ohio State we would grade him a C at best. Like Krenzel says when we stop demanding excellence we become wisconsin. Maybe michigan has already become wisconsin.


What Urban did was an A. Hoke is a C (not just in cup size).

Krallen33 wrote: Wisconsin, the Team that has won the last 3 Big Ten Titles and you're degrading them?

HokeIsFat wrote: http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=162&f=2019& t=11128501


WTF this guy has a very disappointing season and they grade his performance an A? If this was Ohio State we would grade him a C at best. Like Krenzel says when we stop demanding excellence we become wisconsin. Maybe michigan has already become wisconsin.


What Urban did was an A. Hoke is a C (not just in cup size).

Krallen33 wrote: Wisconsin, the Team that has won the last 3 Big Ten Titles and you're degrading them?

HokeIsFat wrote: http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=162&f=2019& t=11128501


WTF this guy has a very disappointing season and they grade his performance an A? If this was Ohio State we would grade him a C at best. Like Krenzel says when we stop demanding excellence we become wisconsin. Maybe michigan has already become wisconsin.


What Urban did was an A. Hoke is a C (not just in cup size).

superman2424 wrote:

unizan wrote: I don't get the look who they lost to statement. You are saying they lost to good teams so they are good? They beat one team with a winning record. So they lose to good teams and beat bad teams. To me that is an average team they win when they should and lose when they should.

I would also say that having lost 5 games at OSU or Michigan is a grade of D at best. I would say last year was an A so I would go with a C to C pulse so far for Hoke over his first two years

-

I did not say the part in bold nor did I make that connection. If Ohio State played Bama, Oregon, Georgia & Texas A&M instead of Miami, UCF, UAB and Cal, there's a chance they would have been 8-4 instead of 12-0. Does that suddenly make Ohio State an average team or does that simply mean those teams are better(elite) and OSU is somewhere behind them, but better than average teams. To completely discount a schedule seems biased as opposed to honestly discussing the team. Losing to elite teams and beating average teams receives a grade of D (which is below average)?

Like i said for OSU or Michigan losing 5 games is not good. So OSU would geta D. Last year OSU would of got an F. What is so hard to understand.
In Hoke's first season his team went 11-2 with a BCS win. In his second season 4 of his loss were to teams in ranked in the top 8 and 3 of the top 4. 3 of those 4 losses were by a touchdown or less. I would be curious to hear how you grade Ohio State then, since OSU only beat Michigan by 5, at home and Michigan was a D+ team.
LOL now you want to look at wins. OSU did only beat UM by 5 but also took a knee on the 20 the last two or threeplays of the game when the RB was ave 7 yards a pop. OSU WON them all big difference but still would only give them a B+ because they were not running away from thems they should of.
My original point was that Hoke has definitely not been an A, but not a C either. A C implies he and Michigan have been average. Michigan has not beaten elite teams, but has beaten average teams, which pretty much puts them in theB  catagory                                                                                                     Then we disagree Beating ave teams and losing 5 games in one season looks like an ave team to me. Add in they did not play two of the top two teams in the B1g the last two years and did not win their side of the B1G and I see Average all over the UM team

DerpRedwine wrote: OHIO now gets a decade of beat downs from Michigan, so get ready to DEAL WITH IT

scarlet71 wrote:

DerpRedwine wrote: OHIO now gets a decade of beat downs from Michigan, so get ready to DEAL WITH IT

SonofJorEl wrote: Umm...(some) of you guys realize that the OP of that thread was looking to grade Hoke's first TWO years in Ann Arbor and not just this last one right?

So...the "A" grades that you are ripping on were not given just for 2012....they were for the 2 years combined..

I feel like I shouldn't have to point out something that was pretty obvious...

UCLAMarv wrote: I'll give Hoke a B-minus so far, but upgrading the defense next fall will be a priority.

wcbuckeye80 wrote: When was the last time you saw a guy as fat as Hoke who was super successful? You see fat guys that do well, but they're usually not world beaters. This could be because they lack the discipline and self control to fix their fattness.