Tom Luginbill from Scout.com

Submitted by maznbluwolverine on
Tom Luginbill from Scout .com says he thinks RR will succeed at Michigan. He says the Big Tens 3 yards and a cloud of dust is longer is good enough on the national stage. Luginbill also says RR first two years of recruiting went well and says most of Michigans talent are freshmen and sophomores, singleing out Roh and Stonum as two of Michigans better players. He also says RR will need at least four years to get these players developed and some experience. Agree or disagree with Luginbill?
MGoBoard

chitownblue2

December 29th, 2009 at 12:14 PM ^

All I'm saying is that our expectations are meaningless. And if they're "multiple NC's", even moreso, because how often does that happen? Meyer has 2. Either Brown or Saban will walk out of this year with a second. Any other active coach reach that? No.

Joined: 06/03/2009

MGoPoints: 7178

turbo cool

December 29th, 2009 at 1:37 PM ^

I hear ya and that makes sense. Ultimately, our expectations are meaningless, however fans have the right to want a winning program. And at Michigan we have been spoiled over time so that has heightened our expectations going forward. That's all i'm saying.

Joined: 07/10/2008

MGoPoints: 977

Simi Maquoketa

December 29th, 2009 at 2:38 PM ^

You guys have taken some abstract self-righteous high road since Rich Rod has gone 8-16. Yes, you guys are so wonderfully aloof, and just watch football for the gol' darn sake of watching it. Win, lose, or overtime--you ol' boys just sit around in your velvet smoking jackets, downing cognac, smoking long Cubans, and chat about the good ol' days in Tappa Kegga Bru fraternity. Meanwhile, the minions, the dinizens, the lesser people expect something from Michigan football like--GASP! WINS! A competitive product! Oh for shame. And as for "enmity"--you brats deserve every bit anyone tosses your way. You're hypocrites. YOU have been the ones pounding out ridiculous BarwiS Porn, saying how much better Michigan will be, and how great Michigan will be under Rodriguez. Kind of sounds like--yup! Expectations. Now maybe challenge yourself a lil bit and come up with a new line other than "go looking for boys, Simi"

Joined: 12/03/2009

MGoPoints: 4

BleedingBlue

December 29th, 2009 at 6:30 PM ^

you're so full of shit KofB/Simi/BarkingSphincter/ZipGoshBoots: John Staller “Date of Birth: May 13, 1963 Age: 46 Biography: I was in prison for a decade Location: dex and the WLA are my bitchez Interests: Camel Filters and Potato Chips Occupation: Making the intranets my bitch " http://www.wtfdetroit.com/forums/showpost.php?=330787&postcount=25 http://mgoblog.com/diaries/what-exactly-rich-rodriguez-building http://mgoblog.com/diaries/calling-out-defenders-rodriguez

Joined: 07/25/2008

MGoPoints: 2165

los barcos

December 29th, 2009 at 3:46 PM ^

"And as for "enmity"--you brats deserve every bit anyone tosses your way" agree. ive watched the wla last year rip into any poster who dare question rr (although they have been awfully quiet this year) and its amazing to me the amount of vitirol and unneccessary obscenities can spew forth from their mouths while raback obama can be negbanged to oblivion for calling someone "gay". if rr does fail, the best part will be the wla crawling back into the hole from which they came with their tail between their legs.

Joined: 03/27/2009

MGoPoints: 10865

BigBlue02

December 29th, 2009 at 4:18 PM ^

You sound like a complete tool. Maybe if you didn't sound like a nozzle, people wouldn't dislike you and actually read what you have to say before negging you. You could actually have some valid points, but when you come across as a dickhead before you even make a point, not many people will agree with you. Your point could be that killing babies is bad, but if you start it out with "I am extremely sarcastic and I banged your mother last night," no one is going to get past that and they will probably stop reading. Edit - this somehow replied to the wrong post. It was directed at Simi Moquoketa

Joined: 06/29/2009

MGoPoints: -1003

Magnum P.I.

December 29th, 2009 at 5:45 PM ^

I can't believe someone with a Castro avatar is contending that expectations and the will of the people have no influence. It's exactly the expectations of fans, taken collectively and maintained over time, that make some schools "tough places to coach" whereas the Michigan States of the world name buildings after perennial 7-game winners. Expectations at U-M, Texas, USC are higher than they are MSU, Baylor, Arizona State. Because of us.

Joined: 07/16/2009

MGoPoints: 30781

SFBlue

December 29th, 2009 at 12:56 AM ^

I agree that NCs should be a goal, but success at Michigan has been defined in other ways, and should continue to be defined as such. Beat Ohio State, win the Big Ten, go to BCS bowls. MNCs are not the cherry that titles in other sports are. Going 12-1 and beating USC in the Rose Bowl would give Michigan just as much national exposure and respect. I like the handle. If I could do it over again, I think I would choose theSITUATION.

Joined: 11/02/2009

MGoPoints: 15699

funkywolve

December 29th, 2009 at 12:58 AM ^

What years after the NC did Carr win 10 games? 1998: 10-3 thanks to the extra game at Hawaii. 1999: 10-2 2000: 9-3 2001: 8-4 2002: ??? I know they lost to ND, Iowa and OSU so unless they played 13 games that year they only won 9. 2003: 9-3 (losses to Oregon, Iowa and USC. so unless they played 13 they only won 9) 2004: 9-3 2005: 7-5(?) 2006: 10-2 2007: 9-4

Joined: 10/08/2008

MGoPoints: 20265

orillia

December 29th, 2009 at 12:31 AM ^

I really want RR to succeed so I am not sure if this desire is clouding my judgement. I have been a high school coach for 24 years and am not claiming to be an expert, I at least have a little bit of knowledge. 1)I am not excited about the passing game under RR- it does not seem like a sophisticated passing game in anyway- very simplistic at times. 2)O-line play needs to improve- seems Michigan wants smaller quicker which doesn't seem to hold up against the Penn st. and tOSU's and Sparty's of the world. 3) RR likes a running style spread and I am not convinced that Tate is THAT guy. Yes I think RR will be successful but I am not convinced he has his guys yet- even for the next couple of years.

Joined: 07/22/2008

MGoPoints: 562

Clarence Beeks

December 29th, 2009 at 12:35 AM ^

"1)I am not excited about the passing game under RR- it does not seem like a sophisticated passing game in anyway- very simplistic at times." That is a pretty consistent knock on his game throughout his coaching career. Even the really strong years at WVU their fans were constantly complaining about the lack of creativity in his passing scheme.

Joined: 09/06/2008

MGoPoints: 22850

orillia

December 29th, 2009 at 12:42 AM ^

I watched every game this year on television- I live on the west coast so I cannot make it to the big house to see games live. From the limited view I have- our high school passing game has more to it. For example- you run certain routes when a team is running zone and you run certain routes against man-to -man. You send certain receivers in motion to create mismatches in the coverages- getting linebackers covering receivers etc. I do not see a lot of that- I see plenty of routes that are "banana" routes which defenders have an easier time getting underneath. Anyway- I do not know if the O-line didn't protect well enough to allow better routes, or if the receivers just are not fast enough to run them. Sorry- passing offense is my thing and I tend to ramble.

Joined: 07/22/2008

MGoPoints: 562

wishitwas97

December 29th, 2009 at 12:43 AM ^

is Brian Kelly's passing offense is not an complex scheme. It's a pretty simple scheme yet Kelly succeeded because he is a good coach(knock on wood). I know that it's totally unrelated to RR but RR doesn't need a complex passing scheme because his offense is not made for passing 75% of the time. It's made for downhill running.

Joined: 01/29/2009

MGoPoints: 91

orillia

December 29th, 2009 at 12:51 AM ^

Oregon also graduated most of the o-line from last year and started a lot of inexperienced guys and never skipped a beat. I think a major reason is that Massoli is a threat to run- Tate is no Massoli. Tate is more of a passer- which goes back to my point about the passing game for Michigan. Do not get me wrong- Tate did a phenomenal job considering he is a true frosh- not sure he is THE GUY for RR's system

Joined: 07/22/2008

MGoPoints: 562

Ziff72

December 29th, 2009 at 11:52 AM ^

They rolled right thru Boise at the beginning of the year with those 8 pts. Then they uh hammered Purdue when Purdue gave them like 7 turnovers. The Oregon offense was terrible for the 1st half of the year, they got some breaks and took off from there. To say they didn't have a rough time this year is ridiculous. Look up their offensive output for the 1st 4 games.

Joined: 07/07/2008

MGoPoints: 9823

The Other Brian

December 29th, 2009 at 12:36 AM ^

Rebuttals: 1) Yes, I much prefer the passing game from the past that involves all these complex, long-developing passing routes while our OL gets shredded and our QB gets killed. 2) The thought that Michigan and RR wants these "smaller" lineman is a fallacy that is not supported by facts. Look up the average weight of the OL of some of the other teams across the country. 3) Tate can be the guy when he starts making the correct reads. As a freshman, he rarely did that.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 1419

griesecheeks

December 29th, 2009 at 7:13 AM ^

rebuttal to your rebuttal... to be fair, I saw nothing in the previous guys post about a preference for the pro-style dinosaur QB's out there. i think it's certainly fair to question whether Rich has the chops to develop a passing game that isn't totally predictable. Yes, you're right about Tate... i think he CAN be the guy as well, and thought he played pretty well for an undersized freshman starter. better reads will help, but the question is, can Rich Rod's system really support a consistent and creative passing attack? Put another way, I wonder if Tate's really the guy Rich wants running his system. It really seems he might prefer a QB with more athletic ability who can ACTUALLY evade tacklers like Tate thinks he can, but clearly can't (ala Devin Gardner). Tate will be fine, as long as the system adjusts to his abilities as a passer. He may get stronger and a bit bigger, as well as showing improved decision making, but i don't see him magically getting faster or more elusive. So, back to the OP's concern, i think the simplicity of the passing game could limit what we get out of Tate at QB. IMO, if a true RR scrambler comes in, the scheming/creativity of the pass game becomes a little less important, as a Pat White or Gardner or Pryor-type QB can make the plays with his feet and buy time to find the open guy downfield. don't get me wrong, I like Tate, and want to see him continue to improve, but I'm also wary about Rich's ability to cultivate a passing game with the efficiency of a Florida, Texas, Oklahoma (ie: the top-flight programs). regardless of what kind of offense we're running, the pass game has to be effective.

Joined: 09/06/2008

MGoPoints: 643

BigBlue02

December 29th, 2009 at 1:58 PM ^

So you think Tate being a True Freshman had anything to do with a simplified passing attack? I don't think people realize just how hard it is for a true freshman to step in and be the leader of a D1 offense. Ask USC what they think about starting a true freshman at QB. They had won the Pac 10 seven straight years and went to seven straight BCS bowl games until this year. With all the talent every year they bring in, do you think a true freshman QB had something to do with that? Someone said it before, at Tulane, when Shaun King was breaking records, I don't think anybody was complaining about predictable passing schemes.

Joined: 06/29/2009

MGoPoints: -1003

WolvinLA2

December 29th, 2009 at 12:40 AM ^

Since you are a coach I respect your points, but disagree with a couple of them. I agree that the passing game has been simplistic, but I'm wondering if that's because RR has never had a starting QB with more than a year of experience. Let's see if it becomes a little more complex this year. The O-line needs to improve, but not because of the quicker, smaller guys that RR has been recriuting. NONE of RR's O-line recruits have really played yet, except Omameh who playes very well. Molk is the only guy from our line last year who qualifies as "smaller and quicker" and he was our best lineman. RR does like a running style spread, and Tate might not be the ideal guy, but he will be successful because he is good at both running and throwing. I do think that DG will be Jesus-frickin-Christ in this offense by about his Junior year. RR does not have enough experienced guys this year; in 2011 he does.

Joined: 11/13/2009

MGoPoints: 58189

orillia

December 29th, 2009 at 12:47 AM ^

That is why I made the point I do not believe he has his guys yet and is still a couple of years away. The beauty of Barwis is that guys get into the best shape of their lives. Maybe the negative is that they also lose too much weight and are slightly undersized. Don't tell Barwis I said that- he might eat my baby.

Joined: 07/22/2008

MGoPoints: 562

Maize and Blue…

December 29th, 2009 at 12:25 PM ^

1) Simplistic can be quite effective. Also, his Tulane offense led the nation in passing. Maybe, the combination of lack of protection and Tate's shoulder injury limited what they could do. Florida's best pass play is a shuffle pass and it doesn't get much more simple then that. 2) RR has constantly stated he would gladly take 5 Jake Longs. If Barwis' program does for the Oline what it did for BG you should be greatful. The goal is for athletic lineman that are strong and lean. He doesn't want excess fat. As for your assertion about not holding up, let's wait until he has some of his lineman playing together. 3) RR has run many different spreads in his career. Led nation in passing at Tulane, balanced at Clemson with Danzler, run oriented at WVU. How can you assume to know that he likes a running spread? Ever think that he didn't have the talent at WVU to pass more? Maybe just maybe he ran what his talent was best suited for. Do you believe he went out and recruited a bunch of WRs wthout the intent of using them?

Joined: 03/15/2009

MGoPoints: 6750

mblood7

December 29th, 2009 at 1:42 AM ^

Well we do play 13 games now adding the bowl game but 7-6 with wins over ND and MSU is not something Id burn my couch over, but Id accept that as yet another improvement. For all these bloggers who are saying expecting a NC in the near future is too much to ask I say this is Michigan every year I expect a NC I realize this is not going to happen but I'm sorry I refuse to root for my team to go 9-4. To me that's like rooting for Michigan to lose 4 games. Every year I say 13-0 NC! Is this realistic NO but I'm a michigan fan where in the rulebooks does it say I have to be realistic. Every game I watch I root for Michigan to win and am disappointed when they lose. Everyone on this blog expects Michigan to win week in and week out, thus everyone expects Michigan to go 13-0.

Joined: 03/22/2009

MGoPoints: 1126

RayIsaac91

December 29th, 2009 at 6:06 PM ^

ND, OSU, PSU on the road. UM could lose all three of those games even with superior talent and the greatest coaching staff ever assembled. If those games are losses and assuming the other non-conference games are wins (is that safe?), the rest of the B10 schedule must be at 5-1.

Joined: 06/25/2009

MGoPoints: -372

funkywolve

December 29th, 2009 at 1:43 AM ^

the defense scares the heck out of me going into next year. The dline should be okay, but the LB core is a disaster right now. I really hope the new LB coach can get Mouton and Ezeh (or whoever starts there) to at least be decent. Anyone other then Leach who sees time is going to be pretty inexperienced. The secondary is going to be young and probably very inexperienced. I just hope RR can get through next year and still be on the sideline in 2011.

Joined: 10/08/2008

MGoPoints: 20265

the_white_tiger

December 29th, 2009 at 1:03 AM ^

He says the Big Tens 3 yards and a cloud of dust is longer is good enough on the national stage.
To this, I disagree. Alabama runs a very "3 yards and a cloud of dust" type of offense, there just needs to be a great offensive line for it to work well. USC hasn't run the spread, and they've been successful. Is that type of offense more conducive to having success than the spread? No. Can it work? Yes. Sitting on the ball and being ultra-conservative can be very bad, as just a few plays can make a very good team lose to a clearly inferior one. With the spread, scoring early and often to pounce on a team and exploiting one-on-one matchups with the potential for big gains with faster players than the defense usually distances the better team from the lesser one. Defense is just as important, and Rodriguez's fate will probably be predicated on the defensive play in the future.
Luginbill also says RR first two years of recruiting went well and says most of Michigans talent are freshmen and sophomores, singleing out Roh and Stonum as two of Michigans better players.
Yes! I wouldn't use Stonum personally to make my example, instead probably Roundtree, but with these players that "fit the system" going into their sophomore and junior years, the team will obviously be better with experience.
He also says RR will need at least four years to get these players developed and some experience.
Probably. By then, Forcier will be a junior, Gardner will assume the change-of-pace role, and Denard will be running the "Percy position" (to take Florida's terminology). The defense will have even more experience, as will the offensive line. The team will probably be very good in 2011 if there is enough patience to keep Rodriguez around for that long.

Joined: 02/07/2009

MGoPoints: 5224