This is the problem with the whole "X coach would have done better" argument. We have no idea how another coach would have performed in these circumstances, and guessing based on somewhat-related circumstances and intuition is simply not enough. I'm not saying RR is the best coach in the world, but divining how one coach would have performed in a given situation because it fits your argument isn't really fair.
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...
|Rushing Offense||10||257.36||Georgia Tech||319.36||1||Michigan||257.36|
|Total Offense||5||514.55||Oklahoma St.||552||1||Michigan||514.55|
|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.)
Rich Rodriguez's resume in 2007 was far more impressive than Jim Harbaugh's is today. There is 0 reason to assume Harbaugh would be more successful here than Rodriguez.
I'm not so sure about that. If Harbaugh goes undefeated the rest of the year - the bowl game being the only tough matchup -- this season will surpass Rodriguez's best year at West Virginia, in a tougher conference, and with far more recruiting hurdles (high academic standards, historic joke of a program).
Remember, even Rodriguez's best seasons at WV included losses to the South Florida's of the world.
A disclaimer, which seems to always be necessary these days - I WANT RODRIGUEZ TO WIN AND DON'T WANT HIM TO BE FIRED.
I'm not sure if this year's Pac-10 is any better than the 2007 Big East. This year's Pac-10 is basically Oregon and Stanford followed by a whole lot of 4,5,6 win teams, even allowing for USC's disqulaification. It is a foregone conclusion that the conference won't be able to fill its bowl requirements, and might only have 4-5 teams with a winning record at the end of the year. In 2007, the Big East had 6 teams finish with 6 or more wins, and a 7th finish 5-7. Considering there were only 8 teams in the conference, that's pretty good. And just to be a stickler, South Florida was 9-4 that year - not that bad IME. So no, I don't necessarily buy that Harbaugh's success this year should be discounted wholly, but its not like he is blowing through a Big 10/SEC-level conference.
Fair point, didn't realize that the Pac-10 was so crappy this year. Though, as a NJ native who cheers for Rutgers as my second team, I watched a lot of Big East football during the Rod at WV years, and I stand by my assessment that most of the teams in their (like South Florida) were crap, with overinflated records because they were feasting on their incompetent Big East brethren.
in his last three years at WVU.
Rich Rodriguez at WVU:
- 2001: 3-8
- 2002: 9-4
- 2003: 8-5
- 2004: 8-4
- 2005: 11-1
- 2006: 11-2
- 2007: 10-2 (did not coach bowl game)
Jim Harbaugh at Stanford:
- 2007: 4-8
- 2008: 5-7
- 2009: 8-5
- 2010: 10-1 (to date)
Rodriguez's resume in 2007 was much more impressive than Harbaugh's is now. There is no basis whatever to assume that a different coach would perform any better here. It's a guessing game. Past success is an indicator of future success, not a guarantee.
What I see is a desire for instant gratification rather than any rational thought.
I stand by my statement.
I'm not on the "fire rr, harbaugh now!" wagon, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here.
Being in the thick of the race for tops in the Pac-10 2x season in a row, producing back-to-back Heisman candidates (at different positions) while also being the coach at Stanford (!) with all its attentant academic restrictions, lack of fanbase, and inferior national recruiting profile, is nothing to sneeze at. In my mind, it's a lot tougher to dominate the Pac-10 from Stanford than it is to dominate the Big East from WVU.
Also, his defenses are solid (and he has not history/reputation of undercutting his DCs)
All that being said...
Am I the only one that remembers Harbaugh slamming M as short-selling football player's academics to get an edge on the field? Mike Hart said he considered Harbaugh to not be a true Michigan Man, and while that sentiment was probably too strong, I still don't see him as an honorable type. DUI + slamming your alma mater in the national media? Ice cold, man.
Salk said that intuition should lead a respectful intellect. It is fair.
And the tougher presence thing, I'd bet on Harbaugh.
Here's a quote from primatologist Frans de Waal about the hierarchy that is established unconsciously in every conversation between two people. . .
" . . . when a voice is filtered, removing all higher frequencies, one hears nothing but a low-pitched hum. All words are lost. But then it was found that this low hum is an unconscious social instrument. It is different for each person, but in the course of a conversation people tend to converge. They settle on a single hum, and it is always the lower person who does the adjusting. This was first demonstrated in an analysis of the Larry King Live television show. The host, Larry King, would adjust his timbre to that of high-ranking guests, like Mike Wallace or Elizabeth Taylor. Low-ranking guests, on the other hand, would adjust their timbre to that of King. The clearest adjustment to King's voice, indicating lack of confidence, came from former Vice President Dan Quayle.”
I think RR adjusts to Harbaugh.
That's leadership baby, and that strength is communicated to all the players on an unconscious level . . . and that counts, too, in the margins.
I guess...thanks, but it has also been said that "I may have been lucky with some sort of intuition, but I believe in training a great deal." Harbaugh is a good coach, and what he has done at Stanford is commendable. But we are judging a man off year 5 of his regime versus RR at year 3, and that is simply not fair. I know UM has more talent and resources than Stanford, but Harbaugh had a meh record until last year, and really only took the leap this year when his players finally worked their way into his system. My point is, trusting your intuition is fine if it is fully-informed, but if it makes too many generalizations and leaps of faith, you are left with nothing more than a guess dressed up with biases.
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.
You don't care? I thought you were a Michigan fan? OSU is a very good team, but I find your lack of faith...disturbing. Sure, our defense sucks, but like you argue in your post, our offense is really very good. And for how good OSU is on defense, their offense isn't exactly the best in the nation. Granted, it doesn't take much to exploit Michigan defensively...however OSU isn't exactly Oregon on offense. They're good, better than last year...but Pryor still armpunts and makes bad decisions once in awhile.
I really hope the team proves you wrong. And I really hope you care on Saturday and that you're just lying to us in your post. Because quite frankly it's sad if you don't. It's not like a mediocre 7-4 team has never beaten the other #1 team before...hey wait a minute, how about 1996, or 1969? Yeah, I know, completely different teams...but why can't they do it this year? Great offense, crappy defense...it's not too different from crappy offense, great defense (except being a much more volatile situation). But why not?
Please do not move my content--which was intended to be dialogue-provoking--to the front page if it is merely to be a set up for personal attack and insult.
This is an abuse of power. I am disappointed.
I didn't perceive your diary to be a criticism of the offense or of RichRod, so I liked the work you did on it. Brain could be referring to people who used your work as a launching pad for a FIRE RICHROD screed, so perhaps this is a misunderstanding.
This isn't a democracy. Any content that any of us put up here is fair game. Anywho, your content succeeded in provoking dialogue.
I honestly don't think Brian was attacking your post. He seems to be pointing more to the droll attacks you find in the comments for or against RR. I thought your post was pretty even-handed, and it seemed like Brian wasn't disagreeing as much as noting that in spite of the team's offensive struggles against good defensive teams, it is still an objectively "good" offense.
I liked your post, too. I think hard work and transparent analysis should always be respected -- maybe disagreed with, but respected. I also think you raise an interesting question -- why does the offense appear to be more effective when behind than when ahead?
Furthermore, if Brian disagrees with PPD as a metric, he should offer a proper rebuttal instead of calling you a raving lunatic.
Assuming you're speaking to Blueblooded, here is what Brian said:
Anyone seriously arguing that Michigan's offense is not a reason to keep Rodriguez around is a raving lunatic.
I don't think he was referring to Blueblooded.
You have your vocal defenders. I think you're great.
On a side note, we should hang out more. Maybe rent an apartment together?
Blublooded, your diary was indeed dialogue-provoking. When I first saw it on the main page, I must admit I questioned to myself how something that could at least be construed as going against the theories of the creator of this blog, and the vast majority of its commenters and diarists, ever made it to the main page. With Brian's post this afternoon, I finally understood: you were made into the straw man for those nameless, faceless e-mailers who allegedly claim our offense "isn't any good." That's unfortunate.
Still, nice work on your diary. Causing people to think, and maybe even question, is a good thing.
I agree. The idea to front page someone, thus helping fill his content level (which is truly being done for free, helping page hits to make him money), only to just later tear it apart is bush league. Even if Brian was attacking the reactions, or the emails, or whatever, of a VERY similar content to what he just front paged is going to come off as a related attack, whether it was meant or not. If that was the case, some notation that this is not re: the diary I just bumped is either sloppy, or if intended, classless. Certainly not what I see would encourage people to make content to make Brian money. I feel for him if he's having a bad email day; but we can't read the content of those, so we don't know what he's railing against, or even if it has anything to do with us. Best left for a letters column then. But in a shortened holiday week with Ohio State coming up, I can't imagine this was the best use of time for content.
The guy who has 23,000 + MGoPoints is criticizing the site founder for doing something to increase page views (assuming that's true and not just Brian venting about something that frustrates him because it's still, you know, his site).
That's... what? Ironic? Disingenuous? Douchebaggy? Help me out.
But a fair point deserves a response. I believe he has every right, and is in his best interest to increase pageviews. As you correctly point out, I've helped him a great deal in that area. It's a business, and treat it as such. But there are good and fair business practices, and shady ones. I think taking someone who is adding content for free, and not content of the "delete this nonsensical crap", but worthwhile, if "Controversial", front paging it to highlight it ONLY to turn around in a very short time and rip it apart is well within his rights, OBVIOUSLY created page views, but isn't the way I'd want to do business with someone. No one every said he didn't have the right to say it, and it's silly because no one could stop him if they wanted to.
I did say, but I will posit that maybe I didn't make it clear enough - what people have said that it wasn't a direct attack, it was about "those other guys", could be completely true. In fact, it makes a lot of sense, and is in character. But the timing of it looks awful. I'm sure you can think of other situations where something is done innocently, but the timing looks bad. Because he JUST front paged it, and then had a harsh article attacking very similar, if not the same points. I didn't make clear enough, but this could have easily been fixed by being more direct in the rant who it was directed towards ("those dirty emailers"), or a * saying *this is not directed at Blueblooded's well thought out article, which, even though I don't agree with, and have problems with, is fairly argued....it's towards some of the people who have taken this and taken it to far flung idiotic levels. Maybe it wasn't thought out, but the timing of it looks like crap.
So yes, if he took a low blow just to increase pageviews, it comes off as very Freepish. If it was an honest error in the heat of the moment, I can respect that. But it isn't one very hard to correct.
I'm pretty sure that any mod (or some mods) can put stuff onto the front page. Just because something gets bumped to the front page doesnt mean that Brian did it.
If miso put it on the front page and then Brian reads it and goes "this is retarded I will refute this".
In sum don't bitch about Brian. This is the fucking Internet it's his site he can do whatever the fuck he wants. Get over it.
I'm pretty sure that any poster can complain about what mods do. Just because a site mod can do it doesn't mean it's not a low-blow.
In sum, don't bitch about MGo forum posters venting. This is the fucking Internet, it's his account and he can do whatever the fuck he wants. Get over it.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
So if someone else other than Brian or Tim are calling themselves that just because they are a Mod, it seems a stretch. And it was bumped for "interestingness", not "so the piss can be taken out of it".
The rest of your post, considering the week you've had and how much you've whined about it may make this the most hypocritical thing ever posted on this site; unless you have obtained enlightenment or something.
I find that I don't care about Ohio State at all.
I must have reached acceptance.
I'll be rooting for the good guys, but I know a loss is coming. Probably be like 2007 or 2009. Dominated but the score looks close.
It's young and decimated; odds for its betterment are stronger than for the offense.
But sound as the arguments for retaining Rodriguez are, I think there's ample possibility that we progress less, in a tough conference, than supporters hope, and find ourselves back in this (divided) position next year. At, say, 8 and 5. It would be Civil War.
And I have to admit I've come to dread football games more than enjoy them. Not that a lot of over-invested fans aren't already like that. . .
the defense is ALSO a reason to retain RichRod
It's young and decimated; odds for its betterment are stronger than for the offense.
Sorry, no. After three years, Michigan is wallowing near the bottom of the NCAA in total and scoring defense. This is not a reason to retain the staff.
I think the DC needs to go, but I do think Brandon will consider the defense's youth and inexperience - and the potential returns next year - when gauging the trajectory of RR at UM.
you would argue that considerable strides can't be expected of them next year? That wouldn't be reason to retain? Of course I'm right. It may not be reason to keep the D staff. . .
But those considerable strides could conceivably be made with any coach -- unless greater strides could be expected under Rodriguez, that's not a reason to retain him. At best, your argument amounts to the defense not being a reason to fire him.
the defense is ALSO a reason to retain RichRod
My hate week is about other Michigan fans.
Tell me about it. Only a few minutes ago did the bleeding stop from yesterday's salvo
Co-sign on the post, btw.
The only one whose opinion counts and really matters is Dave Brandon's, and he has made it clear that he will sit down and evaluate the ENTIRE program at the end of the season. That means the good, the bad, the pretty and the ugly and work out a plan to get better. The amateur coaching and analysis wannabees can all post their stuff and flap their jaws, real analysts understand what the data tells us and what it does not tell us.
While I don't totally agree with Brian on this post, I do think detractors of the offense ignore the fact that this is the worst defense in UM history, by a pretty wide margin, and that their inability to get off the field without giving up points has played a major role in the offense's struggles against certain teams.
For example, Wisconsin punted 1 time all game, and that was the first drive. They also caused two turnovers, though the INT was somewhat meaningless considering it was near the end of the half and basically left UM 85 yards are so from the endzone. That left UM's offense with 4 real drives in the first half, during which the kicking game missed an extremely makable FG, and Denard's slight overthrow probably left another 7 points on the field. Against PSU, the defense forced PSU to punt twice and could not generate a turnover. UM scored on 2 of their 5 drives in the first half in that game, but were still down 28-10. 10 points isn't great, but an offense playing at night in Happy Valley shouldn't be emberrassed by that total in a first half. Same goes for Iowa, in which the offense did turn the ball over once but probably should have had 10 points with a competent FG kicker. Yes, the defense forced 5 punts, but otherwise gave up TD after TD drive. MSU was much the same - the offense struggled but the defense tended to give up huge scoring drives with a couple of punts thrown in.
I guess my point is that while the offense has struggled against good defenses, it has been done no favors by the defense. With such a young team, you kind of expect them to scuttle a bit when the other team starts moving the ball. At the same time, though, saying the offense has underperformed with incomplete data isn't fair. It may not be as good as its lofty stats, but I still think it is the sole reason this team is going bowling.
While I don't totally agree with Brian on this post, I do think detractors of the offense ignore the fact that this is the worst defense in UM history, by a pretty wide margin,
I don't think anyone's ignoring that this is the worst defense in UM history.
and that their inability to get off the field without giving up points has played a major role in the offense's struggles against certain teams.
Just kidding, onto your real point.
You seem to be focused on the lack of possessions that the offense has had due to its bad defense. But that is something taken into account by the points per possession statistic (which Brian seems to be decrying, at least when its limited to Big 10 play). It's why some of us believe points per possession, while not perfect, is a better measurement than points per game. Michigan is in a weird position in that it gains extra possessions due to the speed of its offense, but loses possessions at times due to its defense. Points per drive takes any variances caused by teams' differing numbers of possessions in a game out of the equation.
Another way that the defense harms the offense is that we may typically have worse field position than most teams. If there is a criticism of blublooded's analysis, it is that he did not take this into account. But while one can, and should, suggest ways that his analysis could be improved, it was completely off-base for Brian to impugn his motives.
The thing is, I don't think Brian was taking a shot at Blueblooded. If he was, then yeah, not really necessary in this forum.
My issue with points-per-possession is that it places the drives in somewhat of a vaccuum - you look at the number of drives, determine how many points were scored during them, and treats that as a static number.
But there is context involved, and with a relatively small sample size (I think a single season, with lots of young players at key positions, is not a representative sample), you strip away the circumstances that are a very real part of this offense. Let's say a team just scored on its 2nd straight long drive of the first half, gashing the defense in the process. The offense will be sent out with the unstated goal of moving down the field quickly, to "answer" the other team with a TD-scoring drive. While you would hope the coaching staff and the players would continue to run the offense as designed irrespective of the score, we all know that isn't the case. Denard may keep the ball instead of handing off because he is trying to make a play, he might hold onto the ball too long waiting for a WR to get open down the seam instead of taking the shorter out, the coaches might call more passes, etc. I think these circumstances are lost in any statistical analysis, and that creates an incomplete picture. I do think that these higher-level stats should be part of any argument for and against this offense, but I think people sometimes fall back on them to justify their perspective instead of using them as a component for a completel opinion.
It's not perfect, to be sure, because as you say there are many variables from drive to drive. I just think its better than points per game, or yards per game, because there are even more variables in those circumstances (including, most importantly, number of possessions).
That I agree with. I never really cared much for yards per game as a stat because of the factors you stated above - when you always starts from your 20, you have more yards to gain before you score. I do think points-per-game is relevant to an extent because except in extreme cases, teams don't give up points until at least the 4th quarter. Being down 24-0 probably doomed UM, but they had the ball to start the 2nd half and ran down the field rather quickly. A single stop by the defense and another UM score makes that a VERY interesting game. Personally, I think stats are great as part of an argument, but relying on them too heavily one way or another just leaves you with an academic argument without a complete picture of the game.
It doesn't take into account initial field position--and doesn't also account for lousy FG kicking, which is not the offense's fault. That's why the advanced metrics, which take into account likelihood of scoring given starting position, are even more relevant.
For baseball geeks, we've gone from RBIs to Bill James' runs created to PECOTA and other complex metrics. The main reason for choosing the least favorable, less sophisticated metric is to advance a position not supported by more developed metrics. I understand why Brian finds that less than useful.
I agree. And if you look at the really advanced metrics, like the Fremeau Efficiency Index used by Football Outsiders . . . . drumroll please . . . . Michigan has the second best offense in the country. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feioff2010
Which is to say that maybe blublooded's analysis, which was based primarily on points per possession metrics, did underestimate how good our offense is. But the proper response is to point out flaws in his reasoning and show an alternate analysis, not to impugn his motives and accuse anyone who had questions about the extent of the offense's dominance of being a raving FIRE RICH ROD! lunatic.
Here is what Brian said:
Anyone seriously arguing that Michigan's offense is not a reason to keep Rodriguez around is a raving lunatic.
That was not a shot at Blueblooded. That was a shot at "[a]nyone seriously arguing that Michigan's offense is not a reason to keep Rodriguez around." I'm not sure who those people are, and I thought that was a weakness with Brian's post. I assume he gets emails that would make your head asplode, but I think he would have helped himself out by giving an example or two.
By the way, one of the many things Brian does well is admit publicly when he's wrong. If he thinks he owes Blueblooded an apology, I bet you'll see it.
Man I hope we get some "Hellos" soon, there's so much hate in the posts below.
Brian's snapped! Brian's snapped! Brian's snapped!
This offense can work and is good. That said, I think our yards and scoring are artificially inflated a bit by us doing some of that work in games we were already functionally out of. Obviously this past Saturday springs to mind, but so does Penn State, Iowa, and frankly MSU. I know in at least some of those we moved the ball and had bad luck or stupid turnovers etc.
The point is our first half offensive performances against quality opposition this year have been lacking in the points department and that has sucked and hurt us badly. Of course, the offense is super young too (!) so there's every reason to hope it will get better.
Had we not had that fucking debacle against Penn State I would be feeling a good bit better about this season.
I called it a week ago Monday...do i win the pool?
That video is such bs and the RR haters are just as fucking stupid.
The reality is that the situation is in the middle and there is no clear fucking solution.
To even say that Brian is the retard woman in that video is a fucking joke and just shows how much of a piece of shit troll you are.
I wholeheartedly agree. It's too bad that our fanbase is so bipolar that you even had to post this in the first place.
Well I posted this in one thread...mentioned it in another...and so here we go again.
1st Half - Michigan vs Michigan State (17-10 MSU)
Michigan Yards: 263
Michigan State Yards: 246
1st Half Drives: RZ INT*, FG, Punt, TD, Punt, Missed FG*
1st Half - Michigan vs Iowa (21-7 Iowa)
Michigan Yards: 200
Iowa Yards: 188
1st Half Drives: TD, Punt, INT, Missed FG*, Punt*
1st Half - Michigan vs Penn State (28-10 Penn State)
Michigan Yards: 177
Penn State Yards: 246
1st Half Drives: Punt, TD, Punt*, FG, Punt (drive began on 2-yd line), Turnover on Downs
1st Half - Michigan vs Wisconsin (24-0 Wisconsin)
Michigan Yards: 126
Wisconsin Yards: 364
1st Half Drives: Punt (drive began at 1-yd line), Missed FG*, Punt, Punt, EOH
* designates missed scoring chances defined as turnovers, missed field goals, or punts on the opposing half of the field.
Clearly, our offense doesn't work against the best teams in the Big Ten unless they are playing vanilla, prevent D.
We outgained MSU and Iowa in the 1st half and left 6 points for sure on the board with 2 other missed scoring chances. 1 drive each against Penn St and Wisky began inside our own 5 yard-line and against Wisky, Denard and Co. got into a position to at least give the D a chance. We missed a scoring chance each against both of those teams too.
This offense is really good no matter which way you slice it. They've suffered a disaster at Kicker and some ill-timed turnovers, but in each of these games Michigan was within 2 scores in the 2nd half.
Note: The yards info is gleamed from adding up drive chart totals for the 1st Half which means it is a summation of yards traveled. Adding/subtracting penalty totals may alter the numbers a tad, but the point remains.
smwilliams, you did what I had the intention to do but didn't have the time. The reason this offense is #5 in total yardage and "only" #15 in scoring is missed field goals, inconsistent passing by DR and Taylor Lewan's rookie mistakes. RR has put together a wildly potent offense that will be sick next year.
I'm amazed that there's actually a dichotomy of views on the quality of the offense. There is no argument that will hold water that says this isn't a very good offense, even with their inconsistencies.
I agree with Brian that those that want RR gone will make up anything to denigrate the offense in order to make their point.