Harbaugh: the good, the bad, and the ugly?
I've stated my opinions as to why RichRod deserves another year. But I would like to know more about Harbaugh. What I really want to know: is he an a**hole?
Obviously, that's a provocative way of putting it. But I believe--media and haters aside--that both Lloyd and RichRod are pretty great people. (In fact, I sometimes wondered whether people hated Lloyd because he WASN'T an a**hole. Obviously, people venerated Bo, and Bo loved his boys, but he was indeed--and often--an a**hole, something I happen to know first hand. A lovable one, but often an irascible person and quite hard to work with.)
I know that Harbaugh brings the bloodline; I know that that and winning are what most people care about. I'm not asking people to gossip about Harbaugh so much as--those who know more than I--to sift through some of the crap that's out there and point us toward the truth--links, personal anecdotes, whatever. Because the stories of toilets, womanizing, screaming fits, ratting out our academics--to me--don't go down too well.
Maybe a lot of that is lies, or overblown. A lot of people think RichRod is some kind of ogre, while I've come to believe he's a good guy who really cares about the kids. (In fact, in some ways I've long thought he was almost the quintessential Michigan guy--good person, great football mind, and I believe a lot of people could be saying that a year from now.) What's really up with Harbaugh--anybody know?
November 29th, 2010 at 9:43 PM ^
Some guy named Bill Belichick is on record as saying:
"Stats are for losers. The final score is for winners."
He coaches some other guy named Tom Brady in the NFL.
I'm not sure they know much about football though.
November 30th, 2010 at 10:00 AM ^
This is incredibly poorly informed.
November 29th, 2010 at 8:17 PM ^
Kenny Demens: 6'1", 246 lbs.
Chase Thomas (Stanford's star linebacker): 6'4", 239 lbs.
By all standards, Demens is not "smallish" compared to Thomas.
November 29th, 2010 at 10:01 PM ^
Demens was a Lloyd recruit.
November 29th, 2010 at 9:00 PM ^
"RR's calling card is to win with smallish, quick guys."
JFC ... who are the small guys? Has Martavious Odoms been a disappointment to you?
On defense, he's had only 2.33 recruiting classes. Is it his fault that Banks and Patterson aren't big enough to do proper battle with the Badgers?
November 29th, 2010 at 9:48 PM ^
Our #1 TB by # of carries is currently listed as 5'6", 169, and at most he's going to fill out to 180-185. That's not a frame that is likely to hold up under a season of Big Ten play.
Even if we ignore any durability issues that's not enough beef to run between the tackles against a Wisconsin or OSU. I doubt their D-linemen even waste time pressing 180 as a warmup, maybe they go that low on some of the more dynamic Olympic lifts.
November 29th, 2010 at 9:57 PM ^
who is durable anymore? seems like most teams have injuries at RB. we've had big tough dudes like minor who get hurt just as much as the little guys. ask iowa. it seems like they have RB injury problems just about every year.
November 29th, 2010 at 9:27 PM ^
He put up respectable points against most of the big ten's elite this year...
It's his lack of judgement for hiring defensive personnel/recruiting/developing that has really killed him in my book.
November 30th, 2010 at 8:54 AM ^
Is an argument that changes with the wind, depending upon the most recent results. When the Big Ten gets knocked around in bowl games, the problem with the conference is that its teams are plodding and slow. Need moar speed. When Michigan loses its ass to OSU and Wisconsin, it's because they're way too small. Beef up and win.
Michigan is fairly small on offense - at QB, at OL, and at WR. And that offense is pretty good, last I checked. If a year of experience doesn't ameiolrate fumbling problems and red zone ineficiency, maybe you can say that a lack of size is part of the problem. But mostly I think you're fighting an uphill fucking battle here.
Michigan is also small on defense. This, I would forward, has less to do with Rod's secret love for 195 lb linebackers, and more to do with the horrendous lack of depth we have (which, yes, has increasingly more to do with Rod's recruiting missteps.) Maybe there is something to be said about the 3-3-5 favoring smaller players apart from the DL, but I don't think we have enough data to say whether it's a scheme problem or not. The variable isn't at all controlled: we have scheme, coordinator competence, and personnel problems all prominent in one big happy shitshow.
Essentially, you're basically just parroting the same bullshit line that OSU fans put forward when Rodriguez was hired. The Big East ain't the Big Ten, country boy! We got some big ol' boys in this conference!
When fast, smaller teams lose they clearly lack power and strength. When big, powerful teams lose they obivously were plodding and fat. Doesn't mean anything.
November 29th, 2010 at 8:44 PM ^
Why do all Rich Rod supporters think we will epically suck again if their is a coaching change. The talent we are left with on offense will most likely still be there. If Harbaugh can jump in and keep the transfers to a minimum the offense will still be great. Will we put up the same amount of yards? No, but we could score as many points. Whatever coach coaches this team next year could see a significant improvement in wins. Our extremely young team is older and just because Rich Rod is gone it does not mean we will revert to starting a Sheridangerous esque QB. Denard could stay, Devin could stay, and Harbaugh recruited Tate. What RB is going to leave(possibly Dee Hart) our WRs are quite good, our OL is young and our defense is extremely young. Plus we get back Woolfolk. I think 9 wins next year is very possible with both coaches, which is why im not worried at all.
Some people are worried that Harbaugh leaves for the NFL. If Harbaugh does not go to the NFL now he is going to have a few years as Michigan's coach and if he leaves after those few years for the NFL it means we most likely won a national championship or came very close. I'll take that.
I have not chosen a side yet. I like Harbaugh because he is cocky and has taken a 1-11 program to #4 in the BCS. I like a coach that thinks he is going to win every game and I think Harbaugh is like that. I could care less about the Michigan Man thing because say, completely hypothetical here that Bill Cowher wants to coach Michigan or any other awesome retired coach. would you really care if he was not a Michigan Man.
I still like Rich Rod but his coaching tenure has been riddled with things that were not entirely his fault. Also his team just turns the ball over too much. I dont think you can blame it all on youth. A fumble is a fumble and we have done that a lot the last 3 years.
Plus I could care less if my coach is an a**hole. Im most likely never going to talk to him. All that matters is the W column and the education of the players.
November 29th, 2010 at 9:38 PM ^
Does not appear wedded to one particular offensive scheme that requires particular types of players. He has put together, or brought in the right people to put together a solid defense.
Also, watch the Luck truck:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF9PFJI_t5I
My earliest memories of Michigan football are watching Bo on the sidelines with Harbaugh under center.
The Stanford clip above, and the style of play I've seen in other Stanford games I've caught the past few years are eerily reminiscent of the physically viscious football Bo coached and built Michigan's reputation on. Miami and FSU may have beaten us but they hobbled to their buses afterwards. Bo Jackson was stunned at the physical price he paid when we took his Auburn team on in a bowl game. You could call Bo's teams anything except soft.
I simply haven't seen any indication Rich will ever implement this type of intimidating football, particularly on the defensive side. Yes, I know he had Schmitt, but that was a single player. Bo had entire teams playing like that for most of his tenure.
To me, the other really mystifying factor is why Barwis' conditioning program hasn't cranked out more physically intimidating players. I know I don't have complete information, but from what I've gathered it seems as though Barwis' program may have too much of an MMA-bent to it. MMA combatants are incredible physical specimens, but their needs are much different than those of a D1 football team playing in the Big Ten.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:42 PM ^
I would add that San Diego (his first HC job) has a grand total of 2 double digit win seasons in school history and both of them came under Jimmy's tenure.
Harbaugh's 3 year record at USD:
2004: 7-4
2005: 11-1
2006: 11-1
November 30th, 2010 at 10:09 AM ^
At the University of San Diego, you say? Quick, without looking it up, what's their nickname? Name a single team that you know that they played while JH was there. Did you even know that they existed or had a football team prior to last year?
(Answers: 1) The Toreros 2) They did play Drake in the Sports Network Cup in 2006. 3) No, I didn't at least.)
November 29th, 2010 at 7:43 PM ^
Good thing he got that 4th year to prove himself after those crummy 1st 3 :-)
November 29th, 2010 at 7:56 PM ^
That's because even after three years, he'd done vastly better than his predecessor.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:52 PM ^
I know this isn't entirely related, but it is worth noting: Ty Willingham was a solid coach for Stanford, and by his 5th season, won the Pac 10 outright, landing a Rose Bowl berth. Ask ND how that turned out.
Also, I can also list RR's past accomplishments, but some people won't care. I guess my point is, Harbaugh has done a tremendous job, obviously, but so have other coaches, namely RR.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:55 PM ^
I don't think harbaugh is the golfing type, doubt you need to worry about that
November 29th, 2010 at 7:39 PM ^
"What makes Harbaugh that great as a coach?"
The guy can build a program. He's a good coach. Look man, Stanford was 1-11 the year before he arrived. They were not even remotely competitive in most of those losses. The year before that Stanford lost to a I-AA opponent (UC Davis). The three years before that were 10-23 (give or take).
I'm not sure people understand the institutional challenges. The administration was making loud noises that they were not interested in admitting players who didn't meet the general academic standards. The AD had pledge mediocrity. Many in the community were resigned to the idea they'd just have to accept sucking and cash those profit-sharing checks from the conference.
Now? Two winning seasons in four years. Two (potentially) Heisman Trophy finalists. Best record in forty years. Three wins over USC, two on the road. At least one victory over every Pac-10 team. A BCS bowl bid. Next to zero conflicts with the university bosses; zero trouble with the law.
I'm of a mixed opinion as to whether he's the right guy for Michigan. But what he's done at Stanford is a hair shy of miraculous.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:45 PM ^
as well as I've seen it made.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:48 PM ^
What he's done is pretty Lucky. As in Andrew Luck-y. I'd be interested to see how good they are next year if he stays and Luck goes to the NFL. That's the sign of a great program; success after a great player leaves.
Besides, the PAC 10 only has 3 bowl eligible teams. Three!
November 29th, 2010 at 7:53 PM ^
They had the Heisman runner up leave last year. They got better.
Also, they have 4 teams with 6 or more wins. Its being disingenuous to word it the way you did in my opinion. USC is a bowl team that is serving NCAA penalties. I may be mistaken but I think Stanford has a very high SOS (top ten according to some sources).
November 29th, 2010 at 9:25 PM ^
UM and Stanford have a common opponent this season: Notre Dame.
UM beat ND 28-24, they needed a last minute drive, +3 TO margin and ND to be without their starting QB for the first half to pull it off.
Stanford beat ND 37-14 even though they were -1 in TO margin and had to face ND at full strength the entire game.
Just wanted to point this out...
December 1st, 2010 at 3:56 AM ^
Yeah, but nobody's debating whether or not 2010 Stanford is better than 2010 Michigan.
November 29th, 2010 at 11:20 PM ^
He already has had success (increased success, for that matter), after Heisman runner-up Toby Gerhart left for the NFL.
November 29th, 2010 at 8:53 PM ^
Not to mention that the AD was so down on football that they reduced capacity of Stanford Stadium by 45,000 seats (and they still don't sell out).
November 29th, 2010 at 9:27 PM ^
It was incredibly sad to see all those empty seats in Stanford's final home game against OSU.
Senior Night, playing for the most wins in a single season in program history and you can't even sell out your small stadium?
Pathetic.
November 29th, 2010 at 9:39 PM ^
Obviously more is involved, but is it surprising that people do not tune in (or show up) to watch Stanford play? RR football (e.g., 2007 WVU) is exciting to watch; even if it weren't my school, I'd watch 2007 WVU, but I wouldn't watch 2010 Wisconsin or Stanford. Yes, we all want to win, but among winning teams, I'd rather watch '07 WVU or '10 Oregon than the pro style, illegal chop blocking Bielemas.
November 29th, 2010 at 9:57 PM ^
I've watched a few Stanford games in the past few years and I think their physical brand of football is plenty exciting to watch.
November 29th, 2010 at 10:10 PM ^
You're correct. More is involved.
November 30th, 2010 at 12:31 AM ^
did you see the NU game? great defense by wisconsin is pretty exciting.
December 1st, 2010 at 9:01 AM ^
zero trouble with the law.
Except for that pesky DUI that is.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:43 PM ^
This is just good for creating click throughs. Harbaugh is just a cocky guy, we was when he was the ball boy for Michigan and a coaches son, with special access privileges. He was cocky when he was a player at Michigan, predicts a win over OSU. And he's a cocky coach, and here I don't care about the recruiting remark at all, but the going for two to score 50 points or whatever it was, is a cocky move, and a selfish one.
None of that would make him a bad prospect. What I think is unproven is if he can sustain what he has built at Stanford. I think he's a good prospect if Lloyd were retiring this year, but presently we have two recruiting classes of players who agreed to play for Rodriguez, and have been trained to play with his system.
This is just a good opportunity for the media to stir things up and drive revenue.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:53 PM ^
We do what Nebraska did and realize the wrong guy is the head coach and replace him with a guy who is a former player/coach. Now you have solidified the foundation by quieting the noise that was hindering progress and allowing football to be the number one priority.
November 29th, 2010 at 8:01 PM ^
For every Bo Pelini there's a Charlie Weis. Remember when Notre Dame thought they would be great once they got a true Notre Dame guy in there?
Look, I'm not saying there WON'T be a turnaround. The difference with Nebraska is that after initial improvement, Callahan's teams had started to regress again. RR's teams have gone 3-9, 5-7, 7-5- that is improvement.
As we have seen, it is tougher to transition into/out of RR's offense than it is to switch between other offenses. Callahan's pieces didn't need a whole lot of reworking to fit Pelini's offense. Michigan's will. I just don't want anothe repeat of 2007. The sad thing is, if Harbaugh goes 3-9, 5-7, 7-5 in his three years he will be given more time, because there is such a double standard with "outsiders".
November 29th, 2010 at 8:55 PM ^
Bo Pelini is a college coach first and fore most. Callahan and Weis came from the NFL and had never shown any success as a college coordinator, recruiter, program builder at the college level. Hell, Callahan had been out of college football for over ten years prior to coming back to Nebraska. Well, Weis could call plays, recruit, but had no clue how to develop 18-23 yrs old young men.
RR has shown he can build a specific kind of program and system that is less prone to attrack big time recruits on both sides of the ball; maybe even win in the Big Ten as we all have documented with the porous D.
Harbaugh has a more multiple program and system that could work in any conference. His offense runs pro sets, pistol, spread five wide. Its a true modern pro offense, something U of M fans have been dying to have for well over five to ten years. No matter who is the coach, until we fix the D, the program will continue to die a slow death.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:31 PM ^
and confirmed that JH was a major asshole. No joke, and not all that relevant. I would bet that 95% of the most successful HCs have lots of asshole in them, and it's silly to pretend that RR doesn't either.
This isn't a Mother Theresa contest.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:36 PM ^
Mark Dantonio shows us how big his asshole is.
November 29th, 2010 at 9:03 PM ^
He's showing us one of Drew Sharp's orifices.
November 29th, 2010 at 10:08 PM ^
posts like this make it fun to laugh in my own misery.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:36 PM ^
November 29th, 2010 at 9:16 PM ^
They teach it.
November 29th, 2010 at 10:12 PM ^
you're all killing me with these posts above. me sides are achin'.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:37 PM ^
I happen to give a damn. At least a couple of others do, too. And if he's prone to some of the stuff he's accused of, starting with the DUI, then it can impinge on eventual/potential success.
It ISN'T just gossip; you vet an important hire, and carefully, esp. when there are millions of dollars at stake.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:55 PM ^
Nothing is being said here that is not either common knowledge or complely unverifiable.
You aren't vetting anyone, your asking people on the internet to spread rumors..all you have to do is look at the answers your getting to realise most of these people are messing with you.
November 29th, 2010 at 9:01 PM ^
post; see below.
November 29th, 2010 at 9:00 PM ^
horseshit. If the guy has a DUI and you're Brandon, you don't find out if he's an alcoholic, given what the U went through with Moeller? If word is that he's awful to women you don't make sure that's in the past? F yeah, it matters if the guy is a dick, and (read my OP) I asked if the rumors were true or not, people have offered--and aggregated--information.
And I'd say this thread has been damned productive, elicited tons of information. You sound like some shrieking old schoolmarm; get some rest.
November 30th, 2010 at 12:38 AM ^
to play devil's advocate: you don't think he was carefully vetted on these matters with stanford and their seemingly high standards?
November 30th, 2010 at 9:18 AM ^
Yes, Harbaugh has a DUI in his past. Is he an alcoholic, I don't know, but I doubt it. Did Harbaugh play the field during his days as an NFL player. Probably, especially with all the 2nd hand stories we hear from his days coming back to Ann Arbor in the off-season.
Now has he matured and grown up in the last 10 years. I would think so. He is in a high profile job and he knows that he cannot behave the way he did in his youth.
November 29th, 2010 at 10:01 PM ^
I loved Lloyd. Having a philosopher-coach at UM was perfect, especially one who brought us a long lost MNC. However, I have also grown to love RR, for reasons stated here by others, he's a truly good guy who cares about his kids and does things the right way (all just my opinion). RR is not a philospher-coach, and that's totally cool with me. But I do think M's coach needs to uphold the basic values of the university, starting with integrity.
It's up to us to not turn this into a gossip-fest. If there are facts, let's hear 'em and discuss 'em.