Hokepoints: Why Lloyd Didn't Leave a Tree Comment Count

Seth

carrtree

We're from the Erik Campbell branch

From 1995 to 2007 Michigan had a Hall of Fame head coach who embodied the ideals of ethics and education within a championship-caliber football program, the thing we're actually referring to when we venerate "Michigan." It won a national championship, usually beat its rivals, took a lot of trips to Pasadena and Orlando, won a share of the Big Ten as often as not, and put more players on NFL rosters than any team save Miami (YTM).

But in two (soon to be three) coaching searches hence, there has been a remarkable lack of suitable head coaching candidates from that 13 season span, and it's all due to the single biggest flaw of its last successful head coach: Lloyd Carr was too loyal to mediocre assistants.

A baseline. I'll start with what I consider normal. A coaching staff will typically go through a lot of dudes. On the whole it's more common for an assistant to get a better job than be fired from their current one, with the caveat that a new head coach most often cleans out the old assistants. One or two new guys per year is normal for a successful coaching staff.

You want fresh blood and fresh ideas coming in, but also a core stability, especially from the guys you lean on for recruiting, and that's why a mix is important. The group is usually a mix of the head coach's best bud, a few lifetime position coaches who are loyal and great fundamental teachers but not coordinator/HC material, and a few up-and-comers who are. Have one spot for a young guy who's loyal to your program and can relate well to the players. In coordinators, unless one of them is your best bud, you optimally expect a pair of strategic operatives who'll be around for three seasons or so before their success gets them a head coaching job. You replace those guys with other up-and-comers, or promote one of yours if you think they're ready.

The head coach can take on one of those roles, since in himself he probably has one of the best possible position coaches or coordinators in the country. You see why Mattison is so valuable to Hoke then, because he's good at his job, and good at recruiting, and doesn't want to leave it. That's the kind of rare luxury who can make a staff extraordinary.

For Lloyd's guys, I'll break it up by group.

Offense

Year Coordinator Quarterbacks Off. Line Receivers Backs
2007 Mike DeBord Scot Loeffler Andy Moeller Erik Campbell Fred Jackson
2006 Mike DeBord Scot Loeffler Andy Moeller Erik Campbell Fred Jackson
2005 Terry Malone Scot Loeffler Andy Moeller Erik Campbell Fred Jackson
2004 Terry Malone Scot Loeffler Andy Moeller Erik Campbell Fred Jackson
2003 Terry Malone Scot Loeffler Andy Moeller Erik Campbell Fred Jackson
2002 Terry Malone Scot Loeffler Andy Moeller Erik Campbell Fred Jackson
2001 Stan Parrish (Parrish) Terry Malone Erik Campbell Fred Jackson
2000 Stan Parrish (Parrish) Terry Malone Erik Campbell Fred Jackson
1999 Mike Debord Stan Parrish Terry Malone Erik Campbell Fred Jackson
1998 Mike Debord Stan Parrish Terry Malone Erik Campbell Fred Jackson
1997 Mike DeBord Stan Parrish Terry Malone Erik Campbell Fred Jackson
1996 Fred Jackson Stan Parrish Mike DeBord Erik Campbell (Jackson)
1995 Fred Jackson Kit Cartwright Mike DeBord Erik Campbell (Jackson)

Primary complaint was offense so I'll start there. Number is parentheses is the guy's current age.

Lloyd's first OC, Fred Jackson (64), was promoted more for loyalty than any supposed grasp of the offense. The fan consensus at the time was that Jackson was in over his head, and wasting all of that air-the-ball talent that Moeller had so carefully constructed. The latter half of '96 was brutal (except for OSU), and Jackson was demoted back to RBs coach, where he will remain until the end of eternity.

10370587676_7cf10f5f5a_k
The reason we thought Lloyd Carr would only be an interim head coach at first was he made Fred Jackson his first offensive coordinator, i.e. he replaced GARY EFFING MOELLER with a lifetime running backs coach/program glue guy. [photo: Fuller]

At that point, rather than find a real OC, Lloyd promoted OL coach Mike DeBord (58). It's likely that had the defense not been enough to win a championship with just mediocre offense, DeBord would not have become as entrenched. Nevertheless Michigan spent half of its championship season doinking Chris Howard into stacked lines for two plays then passing on third down, succeeding just enough thanks to a couple of really shining young guys on the offensive line, and spot offensive duty by Woodson.

The DeBord who ran zone left all damn day in 2007 had been a wonderful offensive line coach before that. Prior to 1992 Michigan had Bo's de facto associate HC Jerry Hanlon as OL coach, and then Les Miles, except for a year Bobby Morrison (more on him later) coached it. Moeller hired DeBord after watching Northwestern's theretofore crap OL suddenly not suck in one year, and found a resume of just-as-quick turnarounds at Fort Hays State, Eastern Illinois, Ball State, and Colorado State in a matter of 10 years. From Runyan and Payne to Hutchinson and Backus, DeBord's OL were ready to insert after a year in the system, and usually ready for the NFL after three.

The problem was he approached offense coordination the same way: repetition, execution, toughness. Carr recommended DeBord to CMU as a training ground for eventually taking over Michigan, and when DeBord proved bad even by directional school standards (this was the disaster Brian Kelly remediated), Lloyd made room for him as special teams coach and recruiting guy. The loyalty to DeBord was the biggest complaint we had about Lloyd's tenure, and the caveman-style football they championed survives as a cancerous ideology within the program. As Carr's handpicked successor, DeBord is the personification of this complaint.

Michigan found a spot for him coordinating various non-revenue sports. This seemed nice and natural because dude did dedicate his life to Michigan, but something about DeBord being around now gives me the willies.

[After the jump: the rest of the staffs]

Stan Parrish (68) had probably the most head coach alleles among them. He had been an OC before, at Rutgers, and before that had 10 years of head coaching experience between Wabash (success), Marshall (success) and Kansas State (no success) for the bulk of the '80s. This meant he was also as old as Carr, so his contemporary value could not be transmitted to the future. Parrish was a great QBs coach, used his weaponry well enough in 2000 to give Michigan its best offensive season in Carr's career, and did about as well as could be expected after the mass exodus left him with just Marquise Walker and underclassmen.

malone_terry_v2
Malone was a great TEs coach Peters'd to OL coach under DeBord and Parrish, then OC (and TEs). Now he's in the NFL coaching TEs well.

Terry Malone (54) was Bowling Green's OL coach and OC for a decade, long after Nehlan, long before Urban Meyer. He was about to join Vanderlinden's staff at Maryland but his father fell ill right when Mattison bolted for Notre Dame. Lloyd took him in, then promoted him to OC years later when DeBord did his CMU vision quest.

He was technically Michigan's OL coach during those monster OL years, but from a guy close to that staff DeBord was heavily involved with that group at the time—credit should be spread the way you would Michigan's DL under Hoke, i.e. there were several guys who were doing a great job.

My problem with Malone as OC was similar to that with DeBord except not as pronounced. With all of those offensive weapons Malone preferred to run-run-run until Michigan had to pass, then we'd get this amazing display of Braylon Edwards et al. unleashed and complain where was this all along? He did open it up starting in 2003 except for the first few Henne games (understandable considering they thought Gutierrez would start until the last week and had to scrap half the offense).

Erik Campbell (48) you know. He was ever effective wide receivers coach and nothing more, and though Iowa can rarely be bothered to use them, he's had a solid record since of developing wideouts there like he did here, though with less wasting of redshirts on blocking.

Weirdly this guy has yet to have a job beyond WR coach despite being successful at that (and TEs at Iowa) at two major programs. He's still pretty young. Campbell's now coaching WRs in the CFL after falling on the sword for Greg Davis's 2013 offense. His career arc probably isn't finished but neither is it likely to take any great leaps now.

Gary's son Andy Moeller (50), who replaced Malone as OL coach in 2002, was a nepotistic hire (he was out of a job after Mizzou), and joins Carr at fault for the state of the OL Rodriguez inherited. He inherited "The Daves" (Baas, Pearson, Petruziello) plus Pape and Stenavich, and Matt Lentz behind them, but kept inserting Courtney Morgan as a tackle.

By 2005 most of those guys were gone, and Michigan started getting diminishing returns from big-time recruits. Moeller got Jake Long and (converted tight end) Adam Kraus, but by 2006 we had Mark Bihl and Alex Mitchell and Reuben Riley starting by default, and were forced to play true freshman Justin Boren. When Carr left the offensive line was a disaster area even before Boren transferred and Zirbel was hurt.

Moeller landed under John Harbaugh and Ravens fans liked him well enough; last year he remained nominally the OL coach while actually sharing the job with another guy, with crappy results. The other guy was retained, and Moeller's now coaching OL in Cleveland. He's used a zone scheme everywhere in the NFL.

Scot Loeffler (40) too was a bit of nepotism; he was a onetime big recruit with just a two-year span at CMU between being a GA and QB coach at Michigan. Loeffler is now the last of a dying breed of competent OCs available to teams that don't quite trust the spread. In his two-year stay at Florida he worked wonders with Tebow's passing. Scot followed Addazio to Temple as OC, and did well enough there to be a hot major program OC name. Out of many choices he unwisely chose Auburn for Chizik's last year, then got picked up by Frank Beamer last year. He'll be a head coach somewhere someday.

That's it except Kit, a longtime Don Nehlan guy whom Moeller hired to modernize M's passing game; after a year of watching Carr just run Biakabutuka he joined Cam at Indiana, where Kit's now the asst. AD.

Note that every guy from the 1996 offensive staff except Campbell would be Michigan's offensive coordinator at some point, and not a single one of them went on to be successful OCs anywhere else. That right there is the Worst Thing About Lloyd Carr™. He promoted guys because it was their turn, and never once reached outside the program for an offensive assistant who might bring fresh ideas or innovations. As his assistants were Peters Principle'd beyond their abilities, the performance of those positions also deteriorated.

Defense

Year Coordinator Linebackers Def Backs Def Line
2007 Ron English Steve Szabo Vance Bedford Steve Stripling
2006 Ron English Steve Szabo Ron Lee Steve Stripling
2005 Jim Herrmann   (Herrmann) Ron English Steve Stripling
2004 Jim Herrmann   (Herrmann) Ron English Bill Sheridan
2003 Jim Herrmann   (Herrmann) Ron English Bill Sheridan
2002 Jim Herrmann Bill Sheridan Teryl Austin Brady Hoke
2001 Jim Herrmann   (Herrmann) Teryl Austin Brady Hoke
2000 Jim Herrmann   (Herrmann) Teryl Austin Brady Hoke
1999 Jim Herrmann   (Herrmann) Teryl Austin Brady Hoke
1998 Jim Herrmann   (Herrmann) Teryl Austin Brady Hoke
1997 Jim Herrmann   (Herrmann) Vance Bedford Brady Hoke
1996 Greg Mattison Jim Herrmann Vance Bedford Brady Hoke
1995 Greg Mattison Jim Herrmann Vance Bedford Brady Hoke

Greg Mattison was the DL coach when Carr was DC; when he left to join Bob Davie's staff at ND Carr promoted from within: Bo/Mo's long-serving LBs coach Jim Herrmann (56). Jim left to coach LBs for the Jets, then the Giants, where he is still.

x-default
Jim Herrmann: a really good linebackers coach who then couldn't get good linebackers.

Herrmann was kind of the defensive DeBord, with the big caveat that on defense old and steady and tough is more effective than offense. There have been plenty of innovations and tweaks to defense in the last few decades, but nothing approaching the level of shift that went on with offense. Like DeBord, Herrmann was a nepotistic promotion of a good positional coach to coordinator. Michigan had a hard time recruiting linebackers under Herrmann, and it showed after the post-national championship class graduated. The one great LB after 2001 was Dave Harris, who was all practice buzz dude until his (medical) redshirt junior season. Sometimes he'd have a really good one (Lawrence Reid, Roy Manning) and would sit that guy on the bench for a run plugger like Carl Diggs or Zach Kaufman. Or Sarantos. Or McClintock.

Herrmann felt to me behind the times. He didn't adjust to the spread well; the times they stopped were when they went to a 3-4 defense and Michigan's nose tackles could suck up doubles while a string of next-Woodsons shut down a three-wide. He also ran a proto-Dantonio defense in 2003, having those big corners play right up on the line, Shazor in a backside run/helper role, and Marlin playing Cov2 or Cov4 depending on what the receivers did. It worked great until Marlin was hurt and Willis Barringer was the lynchpin.

It was English in 2006 who started using Woodley and Crable as backfield slashers, and letting Harris really roam the middle; they could have done that earlier. On the other hand, other than the Howard/Whitley year (sorry buddy) Michigan's defense was always the team's better unit. Herrmann went on to become a very good NFL linebackers coach.

When Herrmann left Carr offered a landing spot for Steve Szabo (71), who'd been Jack Harbaugh's main assistant at WMU in the long long ago; Szabo by the late aughts was coming off the DC job with the Buffalo Bills, and on the tail end of his coaching career.

Vance Bedford (56) was at Oklahoma State and Carr (who coached DBs when he was a coordinator) had his eye on Vance to replace himself. Bedford caught on with Charlie Strong at Louisville and is now with him at Texas; he still gets mentions for various mid-level coaching jobs and high-level DC openings.

Teryl Austin (49), who's killing it at the Lions' DC right now, was a PSU assistant who followed Jim Caldwell out of there. Michigan grabbed him out of McNabb-era Syracuse. He left to be an NFL DBs coach in 2003, and was good at that too.

Austin's on track to have his name brought up as a potential head coaching candidate in a year or so. He has gone back to college once, serving as Urban Meyer's DC in his last year at Florida. After Urban left Austin joined John Harbaugh's staff at his old DBs spot until Caldwell tapped him as the Lions' DC. Austin's going to have a head coaching job one day, probably in the NFL.

english
Ron English seemed like another Bedford or Austin at first, but not getting away from Michigan when he should have resulted in English getting involved with a lot of the bad things from 2007-2010.

Ron English (46) was a rising star on the west coast who, while coaching DBs at Arizona State, got a masters in education (like Bo did at Ohio State).

English's time at EMU (after a season at Louisville) probably didn't do him any favors. For one, nobody can succeed at EMU, and failure just looks like failure despite that. Second he was way too close to Michigan during the Rodriguez years, creating a sort of "Ann Arbor East" where anti-Rodriguez sentiment could fester. The whole thing stank of sour grapes. That might have been alone to turn me off from him. English's other legacy was his horrible mismanagement of Michigan's defensive backs in Carr's last years. He didn't recruit enough of them. His safeties were usually linebackers, or, you know, Stevie Brown/Ryan Mundy. At corner Ron whiffed on some big-time recruits, and put all of our eggs in Johnny Sears/Chris Richards/Donovan Warren. Appalachian State was on him.

Bill (father of Nick) Sheridan (55) was a former Bo graduate assistant who'd been coaching all sorts of places (including Saban's MSU, Davie's ND) and seemed ticketed for a head coaching job someday; Carr hired him for his potential, then found him a spot. Sheridan's bounced around the NFL (plus a year at OSU on Meyer's staff), topping out as the NY Giants' DC one year, and that went horribly. He's now with Austin on the Lions. You won't give a damn about this but my high school's football coach (and Sex Ed teacher, which was exactly as awkward as it sounds) was Sheridan's boss at Royal Oak Shrine.

When Sheridan left Carr hired Steve Stripling (60), a Bill Mallory protégé who'd since been a John L. Smith assistant at Louisville and MSU, whence we stole him because we could do things like that. Since Michigan Stripling's lost the great mustache and hooked up with Butch Jones. Stripling is the technically the fourth in that line of Dantonio-Brian Kelly-Butch Jones that went through CMU and Cincy in succession, since he gets to be interim head coach whenever Butch leaves.

3392_1323382177
Remember that one time they had a spat and media who knew nothing about Michigan thought they could make something of it, and those of us who've covered Michigan were like "I wonder which crappy bar they'll be sharing a beer and laughing about it at tonight?"

Finally there's Brady Hoke (56), who's inseparable from Greg Mattison (65) since serving together on Jack Harbaugh's staff. Moeller was convinced by Mattison to pry Hoke out of Oregon State, where the DL had been the best (only) good thing going under Kragthorpe, which is why Hoke survived Krag there by four seasons. Then Moeller resigned the same offseason.

Under Greg Mattison (65) Michigan switched to a 4-3 (they'd been a 3-4), and Hoke was immediately a success and player favorite. Michigan's defense had been stout against the run before but after Hoke arrived they strung off three straight years of giving opponents less than 3 yards per carry. Just about every dude to come through the program (offense or defense) became close with Brady. Hoke, whose office was in the same hallway as Bo's, was taken under the wing of Woody Hayes' onetime DL coach. It was Bo himself who put the idea of being Michigan's head coach one day into Hoke's head, and he started working more closely with Carr and talking to players about what he'd do as Michigan's head coach one day. In 2002 Lloyd made Hoke associate HC and began grooming him in earnest as a possible heir (or the Carr to DeBord's Moeller). But Ball State took notice and offered Hoke their HC job that December.

Discussion: There was nepotism here too but not to near the same degree, and as a result there are actual dudes who can coach from the defensive tree.

Other (Basically Recruiting):

Lon Horwedel, The Ann Arbor News
Mike DeBord served as Michigan's offensive coordinator for three seasons. His first year as offensive coordinator - 1997 - Michigan won a share of the national title.
Mike DeBord was OL coach under Moeller, then promoted to OC by Carr in 1997 after Jackson was demoted back to RBs. The more loyalty Carr showed to DeBord, the more fan sentiment hardened against him. [photo: Ann Arbor News]
Year Tight Ends/OTs Special Teams
2007    
2006    
2005   Mike DeBord
2004   Mike DeBord
2003   Mike DeBord
2002    
2001 Andy Moeller Bobby Morrison
2000 Andy Moeller Bobby Morrison
1999   Bobby Morrison
1998   Bobby Morrison
1997   Bobby Morrison
1996 Bobby Morrison  
1995 Bobby Morrison  

DeBord coming back is discussed above; Lloyd brought him back from his failed HC stint at CMU and made him special teams and recruiting coordinator as he groomed him as his successor.

Bobby Morrison was Navy's DC when Bo invited him to join his staff in '87 and tasked him with turning Michigan into a modern national recruiting power. This he did. He's still around Ann Arbor (lives in Plymouth) and shows up to softball games with various grandchildren. I got to meet him briefly at one of Marlin's events. TomVH interviewed him once.

So conclusions: Lloyd built his initial staff like an interim guy would. That is, he kept anyone around who wanted to stay, and promoted from within the program. He tactfully avoided adding innovators or people with substantial experience in things being run differently from his way, which became "Michigan's" way to a degree of religious fervor. He also favored giving an old guy a landing spot instead of new blood when positions opened up. Only on defense, specifically Carr's old DBs position, did he feel at all comfortable looking for up-and-comer assistants with upside as major program coordinators and coaches.

In general Carr was way too loyal to mediocre assistants, and that prevented him from doing the kind of rising star shopping to fill his ranks that coaching trees are made from.

Comments

93Grad

November 18th, 2014 at 11:01 AM ^

I've been saying for awhile that Lloyd's greatest failing was not having a suitable candidate to replace him when he retired.  At the very least, Harbaugh should have been hired as OC/QB coach in 2002/03 before he took the San Diego job.

jmblue

November 18th, 2014 at 1:25 PM ^

At the very least, Harbaugh should have been hired as OC/QB coach in 2002/03 before he took the San Diego job.

It's easy to say that in hindsight, but Harbaugh in 2002 had no coaching experience, outside of a little unpaid stuff he apparently did on the side at Western Kentucky.

In any event, the man who did get the job, Loeffler, has turned out to be an excellent QB coach in his own right.  Maybe the question to ponder is, what if he had been promoted to OC in 2006?  Maybe his career trajectory could have been accelerated.

ChrisCraft

November 18th, 2014 at 1:54 PM ^

Easy in hindsigh, jmbluet? Let see, Harbaugh's experience when begging Lloyd Carr to let him coach quarterbacks at UofM . . .

- One UofM's all time great QB's, including taking the team to a #2 ranking his junior yr, Rose Bowl his senior yr and 3rd in Heisman voting

- 14 year as a successful QB in the NFL

- Recruited 17 of the players on WKU's 2002 national champs team

. . . and Loeffler?

- Grad assistant at UofM

- 2 yrs as QB coach at CMU

Hmm. Who had the better resume at the time???

GoBLUinTX

November 18th, 2014 at 2:49 PM ^

Because included in Harbaugh's resume was a 1998 DUI.  I'm quite sure the pain and embarassment of 1995 was still fresh in the minds of many at Michigan.  Besides, how does it look when the guy that was promoted to his current position, because his boss was a drunk, then himself hires another drunk to the staff?

Carr might have been overly sensitive about the issue, but it was an issue not so easily ignored in 2002.

APBlue

November 18th, 2014 at 3:15 PM ^

According to this article, he did a pretty fair amount of recruiting for a starting NFL QB.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--harbaugh-sons-used-unconventional-means-to-help-father-build-college-football-powerhouse-053413373.html

 

In 2002, the program peaked with the Hilltoppers winning the Division I-AA national championship. Jim was credited with signing 17 of the players on that team. Not bad for a volunteer.

jmblue

November 18th, 2014 at 4:50 PM ^

They don't offer specifics other than that he was "credited with signing them."  

He was playing in the NFL during their recruitment.  We can assume he was not doing the heavy lifting and going on the road to do in-home visits .

 It was probably more of a thing where they might meet him when they took a visit to WKU's campus (at least if it wasn't during the season).

 

APBlue

November 18th, 2014 at 5:11 PM ^

What do you want, a detailed accounting of how much time he spent recruiting?  The article did explain the process:

The plan was simple: Jim owned a home in Orlando, the heart of one of the most talent-rich recruiting areas in the country. So he became an NCAA-certified volunteer assistant coach for WKU, which allowed him to recruit. John, meanwhile, leaned on the scouting services, deep contacts and endless high school game footage they had at Cincinnati, which as a Division I-A school had a far larger budget than Division I-AA Western Kentucky.

After NFL seasons, John would supply a list of potential hidden gems along the Interstate-4 corridor in Central Florida that, while not right for Cincinnati, could be great for WKU. Jim would pay them a visit and use his stature as an active NFL star to talk up a little known school in Bowling Green, Ky.

"John gave Jim a list of names in Florida and Jim came out and recruited us, school by school," Taggart said.

Jim later expanded his recruiting turf to Indiana, where he played for the Colts, was popularly known as "Captain Comeback" and had his own TV show. Back in 1996 he told reporters about winning NFL games on Sunday and touching base with Indianapolis high schools as a college recruiter on Monday.

 

"I called the coach at Warren Central [High School] last year after we beat Miami,'' Harbaugh said at the time. "I introduced myself and asked if he had any prospects. There was quiet for a moment, and then the coach said, 'Yeah, and I'm Mike Ditka.' "

You can choose to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, especially given the information from the article, or you can choose, as you seem, to be skeptical about his recruiting contributions.  

When I think of what I would do to help out my dad if he were in a similar situation, the story does not seem that far fetched at all.  

Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree...and that's okay.  

ChrisCraft

November 18th, 2014 at 6:32 PM ^

Jim Harbaugh was massively over qualified to be the quarterbacks coach at UofM. It wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to talk with a few people in the NFL to find out that Harbaugh had the skills necessary to be a position coach, at a minimum, at the college level. To think that all his skills were somehow undectable is ludicrious.

Either Carr didn't want Harbaugh on his staff for reasons other than competence or Carr must have been one of the most incompetent spotters of coaching talent ever, seeing as he passed on the man who has become arguable the best quarterbacks and football coach in the country!

turd ferguson

November 18th, 2014 at 11:10 AM ^

Isn't another interpretation that he employed assistants who were generally good assistant coaches but generally not good future head coach material?  Maybe that's not ideal, but it's very different from saying that they were a bunch of mediocre assistants.  In fact, it's probably hard to win as much as Lloyd did with mediocre assistants.  

My guess is that a big part of why we're struggling now is that our assistant coaches aren't as good at being assistant coaches as the guys on Carr's staff were.

Magnus

November 18th, 2014 at 11:25 AM ^

I agree with this. You generally get to be a head coach by being a good assistant, but good followers don't always turn out to be great leaders. Personally, I don't think that a head coach's job is to groom the next head coach or head coaches in general. A good head coach is supposed to win football games, and Carr did a lot of that. Whether Mike Debord turned out to be a good head coach or not is irrelevant to whether Carr was a good coach or not.

I've said this before, but in a world of more parity in college football, Lloyd Carr won a national championship (which Schembechler never did) and he raised Michigan's all-time winning percentage. Those are the on-field things that matter.

Reader71

November 18th, 2014 at 12:11 PM ^

Not only does their performance as head men not really reflect on Carr, but it doesn't reflect on their performance as assistants. Those "mediocre" assistants coached some damn good teams. The whole thing seems to boil down to a distaste for DeBord. But DeBord won a National Championship. Jim Herrmann was a "nepotistic hire" who won Assistant of the Year in 1997 for putting together perhaps the best defense any of us have ever seen. Ron English wasn't much of a head man, but that 2006 defense speaks to his ability to coordinate a defense. The article is pretty good, but it really conflates head coaching record or prospects with performance as assistants. Its not that there isn't a coaching tree -- the article says that basically every single guy has moved on to either a higher level of football or a higher level jobs at the college level. Guys haven't washed out or moved down. Those guys could coach football. Not everyone is a good head coach. Look at Jerry Hanlon. Great, great, great OL coach. This article might call him mediocre because he was never a head coach.

Don

November 18th, 2014 at 12:23 PM ^

When I encounter the term "coaching tree," it's virtually always meant to refer to head coaches who are spawned from other head coaches.

Bo has a much more impressive "coaching tree" in that sense than Carr, but it was Lloyd who won a NC, which just confirms the point that a great coaching tree doesn't necessarily equal reaching the ultimate prize.

Seth

November 18th, 2014 at 12:24 PM ^

He'd only be mediocre if he coached a mediocre offense.

I think I just responded below with the same analogy, but it's like how i was ALL ABOUT Jake Ryan as a SAM, but when they made him an MLB I took his star away because he wasn't an awesome Mike and people got pissed at me.

Jerry Hanlon was an excellent OL coach and general assistant. Brady Hoke was an excellent DL coach and general assistant. Neither showed in that time they could be great at more CEO-type positions.

One of the best coaches in all of college football is Larry Johnson Sr. He is an excellent recruiter. He made PSU's defensive lines great for a generation and just built OSU's into a dominant unit. He has resisted every attempt to make him more than a DL coach because he knows he's awesome at that, and isn't the kind of organizer you need to be to run a program or a unit. I think Lloyd had some guys who weren't LJS but were close enough to produce some excellent units, but Carr promoted them beyond their capacity, and that's what this article delves into.

Reader71

November 18th, 2014 at 12:50 PM ^

I get your point, but I respectfully disagree. If the coordinators that he promoted were so mediocre, why were the units they coached good? Say what you will about DeBord, but as someone below pointed out, his results were damn good. Which even I found to be odd; I was never a big DeBord guy and I thought our passing game made huge strides when Malone was paired with Loeffler. I dont think anyone can call DeBord a great OC, or an innovator, or anything along those lines. But the numbers show he was better than mediocre. The same goes for Jim Herrmann. You call him a nepotistic hire and a mediocre DC, but his defenses were never bad, always above mediocre, occasionally great, and once, the best you've ever seen. The truth doesn't fit the narrative, man. You say why you dont like him: you didn't like the amount of PT he gave Diggs, Sarantos, McClintock, et al. Which is cool. But the man was a good DC. It seems like you want to make a judgment of his quality as a DC from some small personal niggles that you have instead of the results. And as LB coach, he worked with Sword, Gold, Jones, Foote, Hobson, Woods, Harrris,and Woodley along with the Diggs' and Sarantos' of the world.

westwardwolverine

November 18th, 2014 at 1:57 PM ^

Because they had more talent than everyone else. 

See, unlike the mess Lloyd left his successor, he basically got to step seamlessly into a stereotypical Michigan team.  

Michigan outrecruits 95% of the country and has only one rival in the Big Ten when it comes to the caliber of players they can bring in. With that base and such weak competition, its pretty hard not to be good. It takes incredibly special circumstances (2008) to break up the line. 

Reader71

November 18th, 2014 at 2:28 PM ^

That is not true. The B1G stinks now, but during much of Lloyd's tenure, it was arguably the best conference in the country. Ohio State was always good. Penn State was a top 10-15 team. Wisconsin became Wisconsin, winning back to back Rose Bowls. Northwestern had their run. Iowa was actually a regular contender. And Purdue went from Brees to Orton. So, while Michigan doe get better talent, they still averaged 9 wins per season over those 13 years, despite having to compete with really good teams. One thing that I really wish the last 7 years would have done for us a fantasy is disabuse us of the notion that what Lloyd Carr did, or what Bo did, or what Michigan has ever done, was easy. It wasn't. Coach Rod had the scheme and couldn't get it done. Hoke has the institutional advantages and great recruiting talent and can't get it done. It's hard. Lloyd and his coaches got it done.

Hail-Storm

November 18th, 2014 at 4:17 PM ^

Carr was lambasted much for not being in position to win it all most years (dropping an early game that was winnable). However, as most college seasons bear out, going undefeated is VERY hard in college football.  Managing the winning percentage that Lloyd did, with the BIG championships he had, he was a very good to excellent head coach.  

I was frustrated at times when he got conservative on offense, to let teams back in, or went to prevent on defense after dominating for 3.5 quarters (OSU 2005 *ahem*). He did always seem to open up the offense during OSU and bowl games, and I wish I got to see more of that during the season, but his record does stand for itself.

My biggest problem with Lloyd's nepotism was not during his tenure, but after it.  He did not have a viable replacement for him on his staff, which is fine, again because of record. I think his alleged undermining of the new staff for not retaining or being one of his guys is where his true failure occurred. Arguing against his results is a tough argument, arguing his alleged actions after his tenure is less so. 

Still, this article was a great source of who what and where coaches came, did, and went.  

Gulogulo37

November 19th, 2014 at 5:06 AM ^

"He did always seem to open up the offense during OSU and bowl games"

Eh, not so sure about that, at least with bowl games. Obviously there's his send-off game where he really did, but I remember 6 running plays right up the gut for 2 and three and outs to start that Citrus Bowl (IIRC) against Tennessee where we got annihilated. Or the one Rose Bowl with USC where we kept it close through halftime until USC decided to air it out and Michigan didn't until it was too late. Carr was 6-7 overall in bowl games. The last half of his career being much worse than the first. Same goes for OSU. I got downvoted quite a bit when someone a while ago said they wished Carr was back and I said I didn't want him back. Obviously he was a great coach at one time and I appreciate all the good memories of Michigan games I have because of him, but it seemed pretty obvious the game had passed him by the last 5 or 6 years. They could still get things done against the weaker teams but his record against Oregon, OSU, and in bowl games those last few years was atrocious. Yes, he was doing well against ND still, but those were some bad ND teams.

Hail-Storm

November 19th, 2014 at 10:15 AM ^

but it was more 50/50 than anything.  The 2005 Rose Bowl vs Texas, the 2000 bowl against Alabama, the 99 Bowl against Auburn. There were some obvious duds, but there were some wide open offenses.  Outside of the 2000 offense, I don't remember any offense that really opened up until the bowl game and OSU.  Might be just selective memory though. 

And you had to mention that Tenessee game. Ugh, I think that was the first time I'd seen Michigan truly embarrassed on the football field.  

westwardwolverine

November 19th, 2014 at 9:54 AM ^

Michigan outrecruited everyone (even during the Tressel years, Lloyd finished slightly better in the rankings on both Scout and Rivals) and put more players in the NFL than any other Big Ten team (and more than any other team other than Miami) during the stretch we are discussing. 

So while you may be partially right that the Big Ten was better than it is now, Michigan still had more talent than the other teams in the conference. When you are better than everyone else, its not surprising that you have success.

Meanwhile, Lloyd left Michigan at the worst possible time, as whoever came in next had to replace the entire side of the offense and the talent that was there (in comparison to the replacements on the 1995 team) was not remotely comparable to the talent that had left. 

 

Magnus

November 18th, 2014 at 1:21 PM ^

The reason people got annoyed that you took Jake Ryan's star away (and I'm one of them) is that you gave Frank Clark one. Clark is/was a pretty good player, but he's not an All-American or a future first rounder. If Clark is where you set the bar for that particular achievement, then Ryan should get one, too.

gustave ferbert

November 18th, 2014 at 12:42 PM ^

defensive coordinator in 2005 that lost to Ohio State in Ann Arbor.  Michigan had a two score lead with 8 minutes left in the fourth quarter.

Michigan gave up back to back touchdown drives to lose the game.  Ohio State never registered a third down on the final drive to take the lead.

Jim Hermann was much like Brady Hoke,  incredible first year followed by a steady decline and should have been dismissed three years earlier. . .

GoBLUinTX

November 18th, 2014 at 3:10 PM ^

OSU was averaging over 32 points per game with their only losses to 11-1 PSU and 13-0 Texas.  Michigan, a mediocre team that year, did well to hold OSU to seven points below their average and shutting them out during the third Q.  By the time the 4th Q came around both the Michigan offense and defense were impotent.

Michigan beat MSU, though they gave up 31 points, and Michigan handed PSU their only loss of the season though giving up the same 25 points they did to OSU.  Sometimes the offense has to come through to achieve the win.

Bez

November 18th, 2014 at 1:31 PM ^

I think another aspect to evaluate is the interpersonal skills needed  to be a head coach.  I met a fair number of the coaches mentioned in the post during my time coaching.  I don't think many of them had the requisite charisma required to be a head coach at a big time school. Carr dwarfed them all (except maybe Fred Jackson).

I get the impression that you know most of these guys? I'd be interested to get your take.

Reader71

November 18th, 2014 at 2:35 PM ^

If you would have asked me who I thought would eventually be a head coach, I would have told you the most likely was Brady Hoke, and the only other option was Ron English. As highly (or lowly) as I think of the other coaches, I didn't see the makings of a head coach in any of them. But to be fair, I never thought Dantonio would ever be a head coach for lack of interpersonal skills. So, my record ain't spotless.

Hail-Storm

November 19th, 2014 at 10:20 AM ^

They were very good at teaching aand getting their players to do what they needed to do.  The d-lines were always strong and the o-lines new how to block and create holes.  The coaches didn't really innovate, and struggled with athletic QBs that could extend plays when they broke outside the pocket.  

schreibee

November 18th, 2014 at 4:33 PM ^

Positively those things matter, but to say they are THE things that matter is pretty blindered. HOW you leave a program - for those very few who get the opportunity to be the one to decide when they leave - is also important to how your tenure is viewed in retrospect.

And while 10 years may have seemed like a partial generation in Bo's years or Woody's, it is positively eons now. Between the NC in '97 and Lloyd's retirement in '07 the game changed and evolved more rapidly probably than any time since Crisler.

Many successful coaches (Saban, Urbs, B. Kelly) moved from job to job to job, evolving, adding new staff members and wrinkles. When Saban or Meyer (or Harbaugh) move on, they leave behind strong programs, they keep top talent in coaches, find new ones when they can do better.

Spending over 10 years retaining marginally successful assistants, and hiring mostly only ones you feel comfortable with fitting into what you're already, doing is a failure.

What are the true successes of Lloyd's tenure? Apart from being a pretty stand-up guy?

'97 for sure, even though the offense was often maddening.

'03 (beat Tressel for only time)

'06 (narrowly lost "Game of the Century")

Howeva - Lost Rose Bowl being badly outcoached both those years too!

Seth

November 18th, 2014 at 11:50 AM ^

I think a good staff has a balance. Carr had some excellent assistants, some of whom were in those roles for Bo and Mo, but promoted them to beyond their capacities, thus making them mediocre. It's like having a lot of Jake Ryans and making them middle linebackers.

I don't think every position coach should be a rising star. You should have a good mix of excellent position coaches--if they want to be promoted beyond that you let them do it elsewhere--and up-and-comers you steal from lesser programs and ride on their way to greater things. We had a lot of the former, and way too few of the latter except at DB (which is what Carr knew best).

Magnus

November 18th, 2014 at 11:59 AM ^

I still don't get all the bashing of Jake Ryan as a middle linebacker. Statistically, he's having his best season (90 tackles, 13 tackles for loss, 2 sacks) with two or three games to go. But hey, his first couple games this year were mediocre, so I guess the book has been written. Jim Harbaugh was 4-8 in his first season at Stanford, so he must not be a good coach.

Reader71

November 18th, 2014 at 12:20 PM ^

Jake Ryan is the best inside linebacker Michigan has had since David Harris a decade ago. Lets complain about that. Why do we like only offensive coaches to put their best players in position to succeed? Jake Ryan is now the middle linebacker on every snap, in every package, against every look. No good? AND we needed a middle linebacker after Morgan got hurt anyways. AND our outside backers have been good anyways. This meme should be as dead as Woody Hayes, but its hard to put that cat back in the bag.

westwardwolverine

November 18th, 2014 at 1:53 PM ^

Jake Ryan is the best linebacker we've had since David Harris. 

As a sophomore, he looked like an up and coming superstar, raw but incredibly athletic and talented. He put up very good numbers (relative to his age) against a schedule that included NC Alabama, National Runner-Up Notre Dame, 12-0 OSU, Top Ten South Carolina and a ten win Nebraska team.

Now, this year, he's doing pretty well at middle linebacker (as our resident blind simpleton notes, he's having a very good statistical year!) facing off against...well, the best team we've played thus far is a two loss MSU and the defense got stomped. 

People on here seem to get improvement confused with a weakening of the schedule. The real question isn't whether or not Jake Ryan is a good middle linebacker or not (he is, because he's a great player overall), its whether or not he'd be even better playing his old position. Chances are, given how he played his freshman and sophomore year, he would be. Instead, he's playing about as well statistically against far weaker competition as a senior. 

Magnus

November 18th, 2014 at 2:45 PM ^

"Now, this year, he's doing pretty well at middle linebacker (as our resident blind simpleton notes, he's having a very good statistical year!) facing off against...well, the best team we've played thus far is a two loss MSU and the defense got stomped."

Statistics are an easy way to quantify something that is otherwise difficult to explain. You can talk about a weakening of the schedule if you want, but Jake Ryan has done really well as the year has gone along. That indicates that there was a somewhat rough transition period for the first couple weeks, and then he improved. You mention that the whole defense got stomped, but that's the WHOLE defense. If the New England Patriots have an off night offensively, does that mean Tom Brady is a bad quarterback? No. It means that he had a bad night and/or so did his teammates. Ryan, in particular, had 12 tackles (second most this season) and 1 tackle for loss. Meanwhile, he's #7 in the conference in tackles and #4 in tackles for loss. Every team ends up playing a good team or two, a bad team or two, and a bunch of mediocre teams. All of the scheduling stuff evens out once you get about halfway through the season.

UMaD

November 18th, 2014 at 8:07 PM ^

Statistics are not easy and they rarely simplify explanations. The opposite is true. The fact that you'd say this really exlains a lot about your misuse and misinterpretation of statistics.

Statistics are hard and require lots of explanation.  The "easy" statistics (like batting average or tackles or punt average) are very coarse measures and require heavy contextual scrutiny.  Baseball and basketball analytics have revolutioned the sport and many scribes have gone to great lengths to try to explain why only an idiot would measure players by batting average, era, or points per game.  Because of the nature of football (11 players working in synchronicity) it's even harder to parse out their value.

To put it back into a football anecdote - the Lions barely miss Stephen Tulloch at all, even though he, like most MLB, was their leading tackler and was statistically having a good season.

Reader71

November 18th, 2014 at 9:30 PM ^

No offense, but your definition isn't much better. Advanced stats dont tell the whole story, either. The creators of the formulas dont even claim that they do, although they certainly try harder than the old familiar stats. And all of those metrics are constantly being tweaked, reweighted, and supplanted by newer stats. Which is a long way of saying tackles dont tell you a lot, but they do tell you something. In that respect, Magnus is right. Its an easy way to get an idea of performance, even if the idea is very raw. Tackles are like batting average: overrated and perhaps not a true measure of success/worth, but not useless.

Seth

November 19th, 2014 at 12:53 AM ^

I'm not bashing him by saying he's not a star since his move to MLB. I'm relaying my sense from watching every play this year at least twice, and being the guy who has to copy edit (and therefore read closely) every goddamn word in the UFRs.

I trust what I see and what that's saying, which for most of the season was that Ryan was still awesome once he diagnosed the play, but he misses chucks, gets out of his coverage often, and has a handful of plays per game when he's reading and gets blocked when he had somewhere to attack.

That's not bashing him. Middle linebacker is REALLY hard to do. Neither do I advocate replacing Jake, since that means drawing Gedeon into the lineup (since Ross seems solid now at both SAM and base nickel). Ryan had a great game against Indiana, but I didn't respect Indiana's passing game at all, and felt their obvious run bias made things as easy as they've ever been on Jake since the switch. That was the information I had when I made the last FFFF graphic prior to the NW'ern game. I'm reserving judgment until the UFR comes out and I do my second-watch.* Even then, I can only go so far because this was another bad offense we played. The only good one we played was MSU and they picked on Ryan.

I get kinda upset at this accusation because my bias is to give him the star, and I'm fighting that bias with what my eyese and my limited knowledge tell me. I was early to jump on the Ryan bandwagon. And I'm a fan of MLBs. For a year in college I had Larry Foote (and the scores of that year's games) as my wallpaper. David Harris was the first guy I proudly knew was good from my own observations (that was before I even read MGoBlog). Well, him and Manning and Reid. In these pages I've been effusive of Te'o, and Bullough, and Hull. Those are great MLBs, and when I compare the plays they make to the plays Ryan makes I have to honestly assess the difference that I observe, however much I want it to be otherwise. Ryan was a great SAM--better than Vic Hobson (don't kick my ass Vic), maybe in the LaVarr Arrington conversation. I won't say he's a great MLB until my eyes tell me so.

Frank Clark on the other hand was obviously blowing shit up. Obviously that's moot now since he doesn't play for Michigan anymore.

*Which I've been saving for when my buddy's in town later this week because he didn't see it and only knows people in the South were laughing about it and it's called the "M00N' game. If I'm gonna watch it again, I need a fresh face so I can capture the expressions that were probably on mine.

Magnus

November 19th, 2014 at 8:25 AM ^

"I trust what I see and what that's saying, which for most of the season was that Ryan was still awesome once he diagnosed the play, but he misses chucks, gets out of his coverage often, and has a handful of plays per game when he's reading and gets blocked when he had somewhere to attack."

Frankly, this is where I believe the UFR stuff gets in the way of things. The UFR is not the end-all, be-all. Every time I read a UFR, I have numerous disagreements about the way it is graded and the things Brian says. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm always right, but I trust myself, too. The fact is that if you "UFR" any athlete or sporting event, you're going to come up with errors. Tom Brady would get negged. Peyton Manning would get negged. Ndamukong Suh would get negged. Ray Lewis would get negged. Miguel Cabrera would get negged. Mike Trout would get negged. Lebron James would get negged.

Jake Ryan makes mistakes. He's also won a couple Big Ten Defensive Player of the Week awards. You say that middle linebackers lead the league in tackles, but he's also #2 in the conference in tackles for loss among linebackers (#4 overall). Pretty much every team has three linebackers, so there are 42 linebackers and he's #2 in that category. You also say that Michigan hasn't played good offenses, but everyone has played their share of patsies by now. If you're going to knock Ryan, then you have to knock everyone else in the conference down a peg or two. Maybe Joey Bosa isn't a star, either, because he hasn't played a good offense except for MSU, either...

Seth

November 19th, 2014 at 3:12 PM ^

"[Name of superstar] gets negged" is the basis of everything I'm saying. Yes, great players have bad plays. But I bet you all the mgopoints that Ray Lewis would come out with a monster number of pluses, Suh would break Mike Martin's BEAST MODE record, and Tom Brady would have more "DO" passes than anyone since the UFR system settled into a standard. Play-by-play scoring won't say such-and-such superstar is perfect; it will say "wow, this guy is appreciably better than everybody else." If Peyton Manning comes out of a game with one bad read, three IN's and more CA and DO throws than anyone in UFR history, that is the strongest case you could make for why a few imperfections don't mar a body of work.

UFRs have diagnosed good and bad players in the past. They have been more predictive than things like tackles (I didn't even say tackle numbers are what I use to assess). No, I wouldn't use it as the be-all/end-all. I would trust it more than base stats, and more than the people who vote for players of the week in the Big Ten, because they've missed things that people who take a closer, objective-as-possible look have noticed a lot. Like the fact Mike Hull turned himself from a good coverage linebacker into a seek-and-destroy missile who's still a good coverage linebacker, and that has made Penn State's run defense perhaps the best in the country.

The thing is Ryan's only looked anything star-like this year in the last couple of games, which were against HORRIBLE offenses, not just bad ones. Specicially, the Indiana game made reading as easy as it's ever been, and we saw a performance likenable to the Ryan of old, since he was doing all the stuff in his wheelhouse.

I've been watching him carefully live because I'm looking for that progression. I think there is a great MLB in there, but I also think it's really hard to become one in a single offseason. I promise you, I'll use my best judgment and if I think Ryan is becoming the kind of player Maryland has to scheme around, he'll get the distinction. As of this moment, agree to disagree on whether he's there now.

westwardwolverine

November 19th, 2014 at 9:56 AM ^

Except comparing 2012 and 2014, the schedules don't even out. They aren't even close. 

So Jake Ryan was playing as well then statistically (ILB tend to have more tackles than OLB) against a better schedule as a sophomore, yet we're supposed to view his move to 

And no, your Tom Brady example doesn't work because some of us actually watch the games (I know eyesight isn't your thing). The MSU game was like Brady throwing for 300 yards and two touchdowns but on a 50% completion clip and never really making a big play or never really having an impact that helped his team win. Ryan did not have the impact that he did in some of his better games in 2012 because its not the position that he's best at. He did okay. Using crazy Tom Brady examples, it'd be like Tom Brady rushing for 80 yards on 10 attempts at RB while they had whoever their back-up is having an okay game at QB. You'd go "Wow, Tom Brady sure looked good at RB, it was really smart to move him there!" because I guess that's how your brain works. 

Also, he was third in the Big Ten in TFL in 2012. As a sophmore. Against a better schedule. 

Magnus

November 19th, 2014 at 1:33 PM ^

You're conflating numerous things.

First of all, Jake Ryan's stats this season come in 10 games, while his 2012 stats came in 13 games. He's on pace for 108 tackles and about 16 tackles for loss this season (if Michigan plays 12 games). Those TFL numbers are excellent for a middle linebacker.

Furthermore, you mention the TFL's at the end of your post. But SAM linebacker in an Under defense is much easier to make tackles for loss, because you're essentially a defensive end and setting the edge, not wading through offensive guards and centers and fullbacks to get in the backfield like he now has to do.

Going back to the stats, David Harris had 96 tackles, 15 tackles for loss, and 3 sacks in 2006. He had Alan Branch and LaMarr Woodley taking up blockers in front of him. while Jake Ryan has Ryan Glasgow and Frank Clark.

You may not like a reliance on stats, but they're quantifiable. Forgive me, but I don't trust your "eyesight" more than mine.

Again, I'm not saying Jake Ryan is flawless. But the incessant watching/replaying/UFRing of Michigan's players means we're going to find flaws that we didn't find 10 years ago because of advances in technology, blogging, etc. If you go back and UFR those guys from the past, you'll find missed reads, poor technique, etc. Nobody can be perfect every down.