How Good Is The Offense? Are We Really Asking This?
Emotionally, this is an odd week for me. I find that I don't care about Ohio State at all. They're a very good team that's going to win in a not-that-competitive game on Saturday, like they always do. I get irritated at the hurr hurr coming from the Ohio State blogosphere but mostly because Michigan's so far from their level that it seems like a waste of time.
My hate still exists but it's focused internally, as the emails pile up and message boards pile on because I have the audacity to say if it was my decision I'd keep Rich Rodriguez on the condition he reshapes the defensive staff in such a way that we can expect them to do one boring thing reasonably well. I've explained why. In a sentence, the offense is excellent and should maintain that level over the next two years as the defense digs itself out from a massive hole.
This has caused the wing of the Michigan fanbase that thinks keeping Rodriguez is absolutely insane to search high and low for various metrics in which Michigan doesn't rate well. They can't take any of the basic stats...
| Category |
National Rank |
Actual |
National Leader |
Actual |
Conf Rank |
Big Ten Conference Leader |
Actual |
| Rushing Offense | 10 | 257.36 | Georgia Tech | 319.36 | 1 | Michigan | 257.36 |
| Passing Offense | 30 | 257.18 | Hawaii | 391.18 | 2 | Indiana | 283.27 |
| Total Offense | 5 | 514.55 | Oklahoma St. | 552 | 1 | Michigan | 514.55 |
| Scoring Offense | 15 | 36.82 | Oregon | 50.7 | 3 | Wisconsin | 40.91 |
| Sacks Allowed | T-11 | 0.91 | Stanford | 0.36 | 1 | Penn St. | 0.91 |
…and they certainly can't take any of the advanced metrics that rank Michigan second* and fifth nationally, so they resort to things like in-conference points per drive. Michigan is tied for third in the league in that metric.
If you are using this stat, you have decided that Rich Rodriguez should go and are backfilling reasons. If you're trying to downplay Michigan's second-half points against Iowa, Penn State and Wisconsin, you're doing the same thing. Michigan got back in those games by scoring often and quickly, by bombing away. Michigan scoring drives against Wisconsin lasted 3:57, 0:22, 2:19, and 2:57. They could do this because defenses were aligned to stop Michigan's powerful ground game even with big second-half leads, which is why Denard Robinson racked up a bunch of deep completions against single-covered WRs in the second half. Prevent defenses do not give up sixty yard touchdowns to tight ends, as Penn State did.
The whole reason the FO stats exist is to smooth out differences in opportunities and schedule strength as best they can and they indicate that whatever problems Michigan has don't include being the nation's #15 scoring offense against a schedule with two real nonconference opponents and without Northwestern (82nd in FEI D) and Minnesota (98th).
David Brandon's got a tough decision ahead of him—something it only seems that people who are still in favor of Rodriguez returning acknowledge—because the offense is elegantly constructed and deadly. Michigan's quarterback couldn't throw a pass straight in the first half and the receivers couldn't catch it when he did, but they still ended the day with more points than any Michigan team had scored against Wisconsin since 1990. The 31 they put up on Penn State were the most since 2000. They're solidly in the top five of the best metrics available with two seniors and a sophomore quarterback. They're going to obliterate the best rushing YPC mark Carr put up since the turn of the century by over a yard and finish in the top 20 in passing efficiency.
Anyone seriously arguing that Michigan's offense is not a reason to keep Rodriguez around is a raving lunatic. Period. I'm tired of being vilified for using numbers in non-abusive ways, but that's what we've come to. My hate week is about other Michigan fans.
*(FEI ranks Michigan second but has not been updated for last Week's games. Since Michigan put up a touchdown better than Wisconsin's scoring average any drop from Michigan will be minimal.)
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:41 PM ^
I didn't mean you were cherry picking stats, I said/meant that you were defending the guy(s) who are. Subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.
I guess I'll have to go back and re-read some threads, but again, I got that impression somehow.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:20 PM ^
Could you be more conclusory?
Blublooded had a very thoughtful, analytical diary using these metrics. Nothing in that diary suggested that Rodriguez should be fired. Sometimes people perform an analysis to have a greater understanding of something, not as a means to an end.
Read his diary. Tell me there was "no use" to it.
I repeat my earlier claim, now targeted towards you: You sound like a hack sportswriter complaining about newfangled sabermetrics. "We don't need these darned statistamatics, a pitcher's win total is all we needs ta know!"
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:54 PM ^
Yes, there is no use to it. We have:
- A stat that shows the scoring offense is just as good per drive as the boring per game stat
- A stat that shows the offense has good games and bad games
- A stat that shows that we end up behind multiple scores if the offense doesn't score every drive
As opposed to the stats in Brian's table up top, which show
- How well we run the ball
- How well we pass the ball
- How well we do in both
- How well we score
- How well we prevent drive-killing plays
These stats show that our offense, which is lead by a true sophomore and only has three seniors receiving significant playing time throughout the season, is among the best in the country and only trails upper-classmen laden teams in a few categories in conference. Blueblooded's stats, on the other hand, add nothing except that we fall behind against good teams, which has much more to do with the defense (we wouldn't end up behind by multiple scores if the defense could make a stop or two when the offense fails to score). Congratulations, a young offense doesn't score every drive. This is only something you complain about if you started at FIRE RICHROD and need excuses to dismiss conventional offensive stats.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:14 PM ^
A large part of the reason we've fallen behind MSU, Iowa, PSU, and Wisconsin is that we've averaged less than 1 TD in the first half of those games. The defense wouldn't have to make a stop or two to keep us from falling behind, they'd have to make several.
Here we see the disconnect. People like Blueblooded observe an enormous difference in offensive performance in first and second halves in the games we've lost. He posts some very interesting numbers. He makes no comment whatsoever regarding Rod's employment. Yet, people assume the only reason he could possibly have for posting his analysis is that he wants Rod fired. I know that's absolutely false, as I posted a diary similar to Blueblooded's (although far less impressive), and I have not, am not, and will not (at least not this year) argue for Rod to be fired.
Clearly this is all about star-bellied Sneetches at this point; you're either "one of us" or "one of them," and if you're saying anything that disagrees with something we might say, it's the latter. Whatever happens in the off-season, I'll be glad when we get back to a point where we can make observations about the team -- and perhaps even be critical -- without being assumed to be the enemy. I have a vague recollection such a time existed.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:37 PM ^
So much wrong here.
1. You're the one that appears unduly result-driven, as apparently the only useful stats are the ones that show how "well" we do something.
2. As you apparently concede, blublooded's stats confirm that the offense -- which, as you say, is lead by a true sophore -- is good. So how in the world do you go from that to saying that his diary was an argument to FIRE RICHROD, something he didn't remotely propose in the diary itself. Wait, are you -- gasp -- a MIND READER?
3. Your one sentence summary of blublooded's lengthy diary:
Blueblooded's stats, on the other hand, add nothing except that we fall behind against good teams, which has much more to do with the defense (we wouldn't end up behind by multiple scores if the defense could make a stop or two when the offense fails to score).
is complete bullshit for reasons too numerous to mention.
4. You have no sense of nuance. You seem to think statistics can show one of two things. 1- Offense amazing, Rich Rod stays, or 2-- Offense terrible, Rich Rod go now! Blublooded's actual conclusion is more along the lines of "our offense is really, really good, but maybe not the unstoppable juggernaut that other statistics make it out to be." Only someone who has completely bought into an "us vs. them" paradigm could think that such an analysis has no value.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:45 PM ^
is complete bullshit for reasons too numerous to mention.
Just name a few...
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:59 PM ^
Because it was a very long and reasoned diary that presented much more data than just that "we fall behind against good teams"? When a summary is so wrong, its hard to refute it except by referring to the original work (which maybe you should read, before weighing in).
It's like me saying "the Bible essentially boils down to slavery being OK", and then asking you to refute it. I don't think the obligation would fall on you to write a 1,000 word essay on the bible to refute my idiotic point.
November 24th, 2010 at 11:00 AM ^
It's like me saying "the Bible essentially boils down to slavery being OK", and then asking you to refute it. I don't think the obligation would fall on you to write a 1,000 word essay on the bible to refute my idiotic point.
No, but the obligation would fall on someone to provide one or two points to refute your contention.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:30 PM ^
I think there's plenty in blueblood's diary entry to read into the idea that he's proposing that the offense really isn't everything we think it is, and that in our loses it has been as big of a problem as our defense. This analysis seems to be based only on points per drive statistics, which is a very limited means to draw that conclusion, yet he claims it to be more nuanced. It might not have been his intention to try and discredit the one glaring success of the Rodriguez era, but it doesn't take much of a jump to read it that way.
Furthermore, he could have eliminated any doubt to his intention if he had just said: "considering we return a very youthful offense almost in its entirety, next year, I would expect any negatives of the offense to be greatly diminished."
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:12 PM ^
I think there's plenty in blueblood's diary entry to read into the idea that he's proposing that the offense really isn't everything we think it is
Well, yes, he was proposing that the offense isn't quite as good as other stats make it appear, but he certainly acknowledged that it was very good, and certainly did not remotely suggest that it was not a factor in favor of retaining Rodriguez.
and that in our loses it has been as big of a problem as our defense.
Poppycock. Quote me one portion of blublooded's diary that supports that reading.
This analysis seems to be based only on points per drive statistics, which is a very limited means to draw that conclusion, yet he claims it to be more nuanced.
Why is points per drive not a very useful statistic? It adjusts for pace, takes into account that the number of offensive possessions teams have over games are likely to differ due to a variety of factors (including our terrible defense costing us some possessions).
In basketball, for example, terrible teams often give up fewer points per game than strong teams, not because they have better defenses, but because their offenses are so plodding that there are fewer possessions per game. Points per possession accounts for this. If you're going to claim that its a "limited" statistic in football, can you explain why? I think its certainly more helpful than points per game.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:41 PM ^
However, the offense has been outshined in Michigan’s losses. In these contests, Michigan's offense didn't just fail to play like a top-five unit nationally. It wasn't the better unit on the field during the game. In these games, Michigan produced 377, 522, 423, and 442 yards against Michigan State, Iowa, Penn State, and Wisconsin, respectively, while yielding 536, 383, 435, and 558 yards. Michigan’s maligned defense was party to these opponents’ gaudy offensive outputs, but Michigan’s offense did not keep pace.
I think that supports one possible reading.
I'm also not saying PPD is not a useful statistic. It is. But it's just one statistic in a team sport. It's no more useful in isolation than yards/play or even points/game. When almost every stats show a very good offense and one stat in isolation shows one that might be merely good, it's ok to question the motivation behind highlighting that one stat.
I'm not saying blueblood meant to malign Rich Rodriguez. He does say some positive things about our young offense and how Rodriguez has developed it. I also agree that it brought up some interesting points. All I am saying with my posts is that with how blueblood wrote it, it's not out of the question that Brian read it as simply a way to discredit Rodriguez.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:58 PM ^
take care of blueblooded's concerns by doing what he was trying to do with more statistical rigor. They already adjust based on score and opponent. After 11 games, there aren't any hidden weaknesses. We know that Denard is way more variable when he throws than when he runs, which is more or less what bb found out.
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:34 PM ^
Lack of executions are the main reasons why Michigan offense seems to go off to a slow start. The only way that Michigan can beat OSU is the offense to go off to a fast start and the offense gets into a rhythm once they get the ball rolling. As you can see, once Michigan starts scoring TDs, you will see them moving the ball on them with ease and scoring TDs with ease too.
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:59 PM ^
Yeah, why can't we ever score on the first play of the game?
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:24 PM ^
Not usually, anyway...
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:36 PM ^
Harsh, but perhaps fair.
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:37 PM ^
I couldn't agree more. I'd go so far as to say Rodriguez should be given two more years with Denard, but the defensive staff has GTG. Thank you for this.
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:49 PM ^
Simple question: Is it fair to keep a coach simply because of one player?
Hypothetical: Denard Robinson walks out of Angell Hall sin January, the week after the bowl game, listening to his iPod. And gets mowed down by one of those stupid sidewalk plows they use on campus. Gets an Antonio Bass-type injury, never plays again.
Now, love me some Denard, he's exciting and one in a million, but you can't use one player's talent as a rationale to keep a coach. It's a big picture decision, not a Denard Robinson decision. No player is more important than The Team, right?
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:00 PM ^
Is it fair to fire a coach before most of his recruits are Juniors? Obviously not, but that's what a wedge of the Michigan fanbase is advocating for some insane reason.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:04 PM ^
That's not what I said. I merely asked if it was reasonable to base a major portion of your argument to keep him on the talent of a single player out of 85 scholarship athletes.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:15 PM ^
Denard is a great QB and perhaps there would be some rushing drop off if Tate had to take over but I have no concerns with giving him the keys, either. DG is hanging around, soon enough red shirting and I have every confidence he turns out to the the player Terrelle should have been (if he wasn't an abject idiot).
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:19 PM ^
The argument is being based on two more years of Denard Robinson, without mentioning either Tate or Devin Gardner. You're right, both of those players could fill in just fine, and Tate has certainly proven that.
I'm merely pointing out if you're going to defend bringing back Rich Rodriguez, basing it on Denard alone, that's not the correct way to base your defense. The means of framing the argument is inherently flawed if the argument starts with "Denard has two more years..."
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:42 PM ^
I would read JonSobel's comment about giving two years for Denard to basically stand for the proposition of giving the coach the time to let his recruits come through the system.
In this circumstance, Denard is the QB, and the QB is the engine of this type of offense, perhaps more so than in other offenses, so I think it's fair to say "we've got a great potential with this coach's players running this coach's type of offense, so let's let this particular premier talent fully mature".
It's a much more nuanced than saying "1 player out of 85 is the reason to keep the coach". It's saying "this 1 player, combined with this ridiculous O-line, these awesome RB recruits (or Fitz), these WRs, and an improving defense, could lead us to a title".
I can't say JonSobel necessarily thought that way, but that's how I would explain it if I were making the argument.
November 24th, 2010 at 1:15 AM ^
Of course the offense isn't just Denard Robinson. Denard Robinson is, however, a single year into starting at quarterback in a system designed to utilize the quarterback to make it hum the way it's supposed to. To me, the most impressive part of this year has been watching our offensive line go from offensive (yuk yuk!) to excellent in a single off-season and seeing receivers destroy safeties and corners to free the dreads up to be what Rodriguez (and ONLY Rodriguez) actually thought he could be; a dynamic threat at quarterback.
Watching an offense being captained almost entirely by underclassmen running ripshod all over the rest of the conference (scoring or not) should be enough to garner the completion of that maturation process with the current coach that put it into place. The coach has a mind for offense that is stunning. Before there was Bo, there was Bump Elliot, a middling coach who barely had a .500 record and got 10 years to continue doing it (more on this below).
The key, to me, is flexibility on staffing. If it's there, I say we ride out another two years and see what happens. By then we will know beyond a shadow of a doubt what we can expect of the defensive talent Rodriguez has recruited with the new coaching staff in place. We will also have watched an entire cycle of Rodriguez recruits come through the system on offense and I'm fairly confident we will continue to get interest from a lot of Robinson-like QB recruits.
If that flexibility doesn't exist, I won't be lining up to give Brandon a hard time about parting ways. But neither will I be rubbing it in people's faces if/when he stays and succeeds.
To me, what it seems Brian is most pissed about is the incomprehensible and seemingly irrational lack of patience from a fanbase that prides itself on NOT being kneejerk (you can read that as Notre Dame) but also savvy enough to be able to part ways after a fair amount of time and not hanging on too long (I'm looking at you Ohio State with Cooper). We're Michigan. We give you the benefit of the doubt until you don't deserve it anymore because we're Michigan and NOT Notre Dame or Ohio State. We give Bump 10 years even though he was horrible, and we allow Carr to ride it out even though it was obvious his recruiting was running us into the ground near the end.
And let's all be honest. This isn't some experiment. It's a proven offensive scheme that works everywhere it goes. This IS our team. Whether you like it or not, you don't get to go back and wipe these years out. This is it. Every single year. This is good for us. This keeps our coaching tree from becoming inbred and ineffective. And there are going to be a lot of people who don't want to go back to 3 yards and a cloud of dust because frankly it's outdated, it's mind numbing to watch, and going back to it means setting off another 3-5 years of nuclear winter in a program that, for all it's tradition of winning, is in a very tenuous position at best right now. People may not like the pace of progress, but for every year Rodriguez has been here, the team has improved by a minimum of 2 games (having 2 opportunites left this year). Every year. Progress. While the first two years of Rodriguez' tenure have been painful, they haven't been nearly as painful as the reality people saw (but don't seem to remember now) of our steady decline since 1998. This is pain to let us know we're alive. And not just alive, but on our way to pretty f-ing amazing and a team to once again be feared by not only the rest of our conference, but the rest of the country.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:09 AM ^
You lost me when you said Bump Elliott "was horrible."
One point against Purdue away from a National Championship in 1964. Finished 2nd in the Big 10 in 1968, 8-2, Top 15 in the polls. Though the fanbase prefers to treat it as a 2nd to last finish when viewed in the context of what happened in 1969. "Horrible" indeed.
Different era, different expectations. And lest we forget, at the presser when Bo was hired, Bump sat on one side of Canham, and Bo sat on the other. It was a peaceful transition of power.
November 24th, 2010 at 8:59 AM ^
Focusing your attention on a minor aside that is in no way crucial to your counterpart's main point is no way to conduct an argument.
Sobel takes the time to write a well-thought, detailed, and in my mind very persuasive case for what he meant by letting Rod stay through Denard's tenure and why he thinks this should be done. All of this is in direct response to your attack on this notion and your general pro-firing stance expressed elsewhere in this thread, and you respond by critiquing his throw-away reference to Bump Elliot? Poor form.
November 24th, 2010 at 9:57 AM ^
Bump Elliot had two good seasons in Ann Arbor, the first of which wasn't until he had been there for 6 years. His first 9 seasons, the team started mediocre, eventually slid its way to horrible and then got better, only to slide back into mediocrity/poor play. The team was really good for one season out of his first nine.
1959: 4-5-0
1960: 5-4-0
1961: 6-3-0
1962: 2-7-0
1963: 3-4-2
1964: 9-1-0
1965: 4-6-0
1966: 6-4-0
1967: 4-6-0
1968: 8-2-0
To try and tell me Bump Elliot was even a mediocre coach, based on the Michigan standard and his record, doesn't fly. Even with a sub-500 record in the Big Ten though, he probably could have stayed and coached at least another season, choosing instead to step down and allow someone else to coach (unless he was told to "step down" to save face).
Ten seasons of sustained mediocrity with 2 bright spots and the Athletic Department probably would have kept him around for another year at least. And we can't give a coach 5 years (4 full recruiting classes) before we run him out of town now? That screams quick-fix, flavor-of-the-month, "returning to glory" Fighting Irish.
Every year Rodriguez has been here, the team record has improved at a steady pace of two wins per season, despite the obvious lack of talent left behind when he started. If that isn't the surest sign of progress toward winning, I don't know what is.
Bo's transition was a smooth one (although not much less controversial than Rodriguez' from what I understand) because he inherited players that had talent and fit his scheme. That he took his predecessor's players and turned mediocre into fantastic is a further indictment of his predecessor's coaching abilities.
Canham's hire was controversial but he had a vision in the midst of criticism and was willing to stick with it. IME, that is what took him from ok to great as an A.D. I would argue that Brandon has the same vision, and that he will make a decision based on his vision. I really think he likes the direction this team is heading, regardless of the criticism. I think that takes a certain amount of courage on his part. His legacy will be whether or not he is proven to be correct, just as Canham's legacy turned on Bo's success or failure.
November 24th, 2010 at 8:39 AM ^
Bump Elliott had been a star halfback for Michigan on the 1947 "Mad Magicians" team. People may have been inclined to cut him a little more slack because of that.
(Aside: From the article I read he played in the 160 lb. range that year and averaged 6.44 yards/carry rushing.)
November 24th, 2010 at 10:02 AM ^
But as I state below, 2 years of decent football out of 10 does not live up to the Michigan standard of coaching, and I think calling it horrible in comparison to almost every coach we've had, based on sample size, isn't out of line.
If Rodriguez' team takes a giant step backwards next season, you can count me in the category of "it's time to part ways". Until that time, 2 additional wins each season he has been here counts as progress to me, especially taking into account where he had to start from.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:56 PM ^
So like, if i said:
"Lets keep him cuz the offense is really good, and stuff...."
Is there anything iherently flawed about that?
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:13 PM ^
Denard is just icing. That's the argument.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:02 PM ^
Seriously, we all know where you stand on RR, can you spare us your painfully one-sided take on things for even a few days? Do you have to add your negative little spin or barb on EVERY post that might seem to be optimistic about the coach or the program?
Denard is a special player, no doubt, but he doesn't do this on his own, look at the numbers the receivers are putting up, even when Forcier is in the game.
Look at how solid the offensive line has become, with a fairly young set of players and a lot of room to grow.
Look at the downfield blocking.
Plus, correct me if I am wrong, but I think there was a grand total of 1 coach in the country that saw Denard's promise at QB and had the vision to put him there and build an offense around him. Accident? i think not, see Pat White.
If you are going to criticize RR, at least so with some objectivity and restrict yoursefl to areas in which he is clearly lacking thus far.
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:11 PM ^
Hypothetical: the band marches out onto State Street in January, the week after the bowl game, playing music that no one can hear because they're too damn quiet. And gets mowed down by a snowplow being driven by Justin Boren. They're all in traction for at least a year.
Now, love me some band, it's stirring and fun and part of college football, but you can't use that as a rationale to have crappy high school stand-ins do music during TV timeouts. You gotta pipe in the music to keep the players pumped. It's a big picture decision, not a band decision. No band is more important than The Team, right?
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:38 PM ^
Anyone seriously arguing that Michigan's offense is not a reason to keep Rodriguez around is a raving lunatic. Period.
Correct.
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:41 PM ^
Well, yeah. But who's arguing this? Even the quibblers who say that the offense may not be the dominant force it appears on paper acknowledge that the offense is still damn good.
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:49 PM ^
We don't see over 99% of what crosses Brian's inbox.
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:56 PM ^
Understood, pretty unicorn. But given that Brian's post is targeting those using advanced metrics like points per drive in Big 10 play, I took it as challenging the more sophisticated critics on these here boards, rather than the mouth breathers posting on mlive or elsewhere. (My response is also directed to dr eng1ish, above)
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:27 PM ^
I took it as challenging the more sophisticated critics on these here boards
Eh, I'm not fully convinced it is. This is speculation but it's probably reply to tens, maybe hundreds of emails he's gotten from people that draw poor conclusions from analyses similar to blublooded's bumped diary. I.E., it's in response to mouthbreathers improper use of sophisticated analysis.
It's illogical to draw that conclusion: all analysis points to the offense being above average (i.e., good) but not great and still able to improve. And to be frank there's always room for improvement on offense unless they're scoring eight points per drive.*
Brian's just saying that arguing the offense is even remotely a reason to fire Coach Rodriguez is absurd. I agree.
* - this provides an interesting segue for theoryball. A football team consisting of perfect offense/defense/special teams has zero need for its defense and only needs its offense for two-point conversions: the special teams kicks off, forces a fumble, scores a TD, and the offense punches in the 2pc. Rinse, repeat.
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:52 PM ^
Check the freep, mlive, annarbor.com comment sections. Actually don't, because it's terribly depressing that these are people that consider themselves Michigan fans.
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:52 PM ^
As a quibbler on this point, you are correct. I don't think that we are as good as our stats suggest, but I still think that we are pretty damn good.
But, the offense is "a reason" to keep RR, not a determinative factor. Likewise, the defense is a reason to can him.
At the end of the day, DB is going to have to go through all of the reasons that are pro-RR and anti-RR (and both exist), and weigh heavily which list outweighs the other. He will also have to weigh whether, even if he fires RR, he can get a top-notch replacement to come here. If DB decides that he wants to fire RR and can get (for arguments sake) Harbaugh or Miles (don't want him at all, just using because he is high-profile, now a NC, has ties to the program, etc., but again, don't want), it could make sense. But, if we are going to fire RR and then go out and hope to find someone, to me this would not make sense.
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:59 PM ^
I think the point everyone seems to be making is the fringe nutcases, on both sides of the argument, should just go away. It would be nice if everyone approached the decision in a rational way that didn't include personal opinions about RR.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:11 PM ^
How do you give your personal opinion on the subject of whether or not we should keep RichRod while keeping your personal opinion out of it? What is this I don't even
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:27 PM ^
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:57 PM ^
I still hear people who unequivocally want RR fired say stupid things about the offense such as
"It's a gimmick "
"The only reason it's doing well is because of Denard, and Denard can't pass"
"Doesn't work in the Big Ten"
"Players are too small"
"QB gets hit too much"
and so on and so forth. Sadly we get spoiled by the (mostly) reasonable people posting here and Brian's detailed analysis, but if you talk to Average Joe Michigan Fan these are the kind of things you hear.
Typically the conversation starts about the football team, and before long this guy/gal is talking about how RR needs to be fired. Of course if you try to bring up any statistics or, you know, facts into the argument about how the offense is phenomenal or that other coaches have struggled for their first couple years before having success (Jim Harbaugh, anyone?) people just resort to talking about how Michigan football "just isn't like it used to be." I'm definitely feeling Brian's rage here.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:34 PM ^
I hear and see this constantly, and it makes me furious with rage. It is so stupid, so utterly lacking foundation, without one single redeeming value, that I can't stop myself. And as a result, sometimes I lash out and use "moron" and other choice words instead of calmly explaining the facts to the idiot. Thus stopping to the level, and looking no better than they are. Sigh.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:06 PM ^
So says the strawman.
Fuzzy and michgoblue have it right. No one is saying that the offense isn't a reason to keep RichRod. In my opinion, it's the only reason to keep RR. It's his only positive. Certainly the defense is not a reason to keep him. The special teams? Nope. What other factor plays in RR's favor? Recruiting? Eh...it's been ok given the bad record. Player retention? No way. Judgment in assistant coaching hires? Nope. Good work in the community? Sure, he seems like a good guy, but that won't keep a coach.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:56 PM ^
No one is saying that the offense isn't a reason to keep RichRod.
Brian says that people are making that very argument to him, in what arrives in his inbox.
Now you may choose not to believe him, but given that we've all been coming here to read his blog for years, I would give him the benefit of the doubt that he's responding to actual arguments that someone has made to him.
Just because it may not be your argument, doesn't mean that it's not someone's argument. And if the offense is not your argument, then this post isn't really directed at you. In fact this post is specifically NOT about all the other arguments you raise.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:46 PM ^
He and those of his ilk just like to bring them up whenever and wherever they possibly can.
Not sure what they will come up with next year, but they will be looking and ringing their little bells just the same.
Comments