Postmortem: How Much Did They Actually Improve?
After Michigan's 4-0 start the offense skidded downwards into mediocrity and inconsistency, gradually erasing the early giddiness around these parts. Early in the year, I said "the question is not whether this will be Michigan's best rushing offense of the decade, but by how much," which… well… Alan Greenspan has something to say about that.
Still, for anyone who actually watched the team this year and last, the idea that things didn't improve is laughable. The favorite tool of folks who like to claim this is Michigan's scoring offense in the Big Ten. Check this pre-OSU Michigan Monday for an example. Okay, actual scoring—despite being the point of everything—is is kind of a wildly unreliable metric, especially when your quarterbacks are freshmen and very, very turnover-happy. But when a tempo-free aerial says basically the same thing when it comes to yards per attempt…
…the offense has not exactly reached juggernaut status.
Still, it did improve significantly. All of this focus on conference play ignores that last year Michigan was 1-3 outside the conference and lost to a 3-9 MAC team because it scored 10 points. Against Notre Dame the net offensive output was probably negative because of five horrendous turnovers. This year the MAC snacks were swatted away and Michigan was one of many teams to scorch TAH-NOO-TAH's blitz-mad ways. They were in the ballpark of crappy, and this represents a step forward from last year, when Michigan football was the Indiana basketball of the Big Ten: too terrible to even fit on the scatterplot. To repeat a theme of late, this is progress of a not-very-fun variety.
There is noise yet in the scatterplot, though, as it makes Northwestern's dink-mad offense look worse than Michigan's when it wasn't. Let's take away all the noise caused by varying numbers of drives, varying average drive start, and opposition offenses, and just look at how efficient Michigan was on a drive-by-drive basis.
Brian Fremeau maintains a rating that does this called the Fremeau Efficiency Index. It's similar in concept to the numbers the Mathlete has posted here over the last year or so: find the average success rate in Situation X and measure teams by how far above or below that break-even line they are. Fremeau has many numbers; we'll look at a few. OE is "offensive efficiency" and is just a measure of how much you score relative to the D-I average. It's a tempo-free stat roughly equivalent to Points Per Possession in basketball. The second, FEI, is this in the words of its author:
College football rating system based on drive-based Game Efficiency data that rewards playing well against good teams, win or lose, and punishes losing to poor teams more harshly than it rewards defeating poor teams.
I couldn't find a more specific definition of what exactly this means; IMO, this is less interesting as a performance measure than it is an attempt to make the ratings more plausible to human eyes looking for a ranking system. So the focus should be on the raw numbers.
100% Awesome Mediocrity
Raw and adjusted, your results:
| Year | OE | OE Rk | Off FEI | OFEI Rk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | -0.29 | 98 | -0.15 | 80 |
| 2009 | -0.05 | 65 | -0.01 | 61 |
(This rating excludes I-AA games, as all serious attempts to quantify college football do.)
So there you go: from one of the worst teams in D-1 to totally mediocre. Totally mediocre seems acceptable, or better, when you're graduating four starters, have a freshman quarterback, play most of the year without your best offensive lineman, don't get to use your senior tailbacks all that much, and suffer from another epic turnover plague.
The Unfortunate Flipside
The other side of the ball is sort of horrifying:
| Year | DE | DE Rk | Def FEI | DFEI Rk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | -0.14 | 44 | -0.13 | 45 |
| 2009 | 0.12 | 75 | 0.04 | 63 |
…but a little less horrifying than i expected. Michigan's defense under Scott Shafer was actually sort of good-ish, but submarined by terrible field position and a ton of drives faced because of the offense. FWIW, I don't think this reflects poorly on Robinson yet; one year doesn't tell you much of anything. Also, Michigan's two best defensive performances of the year (relative to the opposition) were against Minnesota and Northwestern, after Shafer was basically fired. (And, yes, after Michigan's disastrous attempt to switch to the 3-3-5 cost them the Purdue game.)
The Net
Improvement + implosion = ?
Your net numbers in efficiency: Michigan went from 85th last year to 62nd this year. In FEI terms, Michigan went from 71st to 56th. That is almost exactly in line with what I believe is a reasonable take on the team: it was terrible last year and significantly better this year, but the amount of progress was disappointing not just relative to expectations after 4-0 but relative to those in the preseason.
Attempting to downplay the real improvement that was obvious to anyone watching the offense in something other than the fetal position is silly, and a sign they're about to bring up the Braylon Edwards #1 jersey "controversy" as further evidence that Rodriguez should be fired.
I don't think you can cherry pick stats to try to prove someone improved and I think Brians points are very well balanced.
However, for me at least, if I was trying to measure improvement for college football in the big10 relative to peers my hierarchy would start with Wins, then Offensive Points scored to measure the offense relative to others and Defensive points allowed to measure the D.
As for Wins, none of the other stats, no matter how hard you look at them, get you to a bowl game and that is the goal.
For offensive points scored in the Big10 and measuring the offense, we were exactly the same as last season 22.1 points per game scored in the Big10(and that includes the 14 points the defense put on the board for us). Relative to the competition we went backwards. 8th in 2008 and 9th in 2009. So others improved at scoring points but we didn't move. Sure we felt more confidence in our offense, but it didn't translate to an improvement in points scored (which is the goal of the offense).
For defensive points allowed in the Big10 and measuring the Defense, we allowed 33.5 in 2008 and 33.2 in 2009. Actually, we improved purely on the basis of points allowed from 2008. However, relative to conference we went backwards here to from 10th in 2008 to 11th in 2009.
So, strictly speaking we went backwards on offense relative to Big10 and backwards on Defense relative to Big 10 from 2008 to 2009. Since my initial point was it is all about the wins, that is consistent with the story of offense and defense, We went from 2 wins in 2008 to 1 win in 2009.
No matter how we hard we try to explain that our offense improved and our defense did not, strictly speaking the improvement in offense really only shows up in the warm and fuzzy feelings we had from the 4-0 start. Relative to the competition in the Big10 we did not show improvement on either side of the ball.
MGoBleu
People seem to agree that, despite the seven-game B-10 losing streak and a second year of intermittent second-half collapses, this team looked altogether more viable this year than last. The statistical support for this gut feeling appears to be subject to interpretation. But I think that, even in the worst case, a similar or maybe slightly worse output from a young team that we can reasonably expect to improve with just another year's growth and experience is a step in the right direction.
Not all losses are equal, either. I had a better feeling about the chances of beating OSU throughout this year's 11-point loss than I did in 2007, with Henne's arm on the fritz. 2007, though not overwhelming, seemed almost inexorable from the opening kickoff. This is to say that I can picture a trend toward success even starting with 7 Big-10 losses in a row.
Will win:
UMASS
BGSU
Should Win:
UCONN
Notre Dame
Indiana
MSU
IOWA
ILLINOIS
WISCONSIN
Might Win:
Purdue
Won't Win:
Penn State
Ohio State
You will notice that all of the home Big Ten games are "should win". When a coach is in his third year, it should be a real advantage to play in your home stadium(a la Wisconsin,Iowa, PSU, or tOSU). If you are hemming and hawing about your homes games as tossups, your team has not progressed. No excuses. I have been a Michigan fan for a long time, and until recently, coming to Ann Arbor was usually not a pleasant experience for the visitor. Capiche?
I predicted 6-6 in 2008, and was obviously wrong, but closer to reality than most people. I predicted 5-7 this year (switched Purdue and ND). I felt like 5-7 was an average year for this team based on the situation and wrote that a "good" year, meaning playing better than average, would mean winning our last game of the year. It didn't happen and I am dissappointed.
But I think next year is the leap. I predict 9-3. I am having a hard time picking out our three losses to be honest. OSU probably, Wisconsin maybe, UConn? but other than that I don't know. PSU loses Darryl Clark, Illinois loses Juice, MSU comes here and barely beat us this year, ND loses Clausen, Purdue will not do it again.
Even if Warren leaves, we return 8 starters and all reserves on defense and essentially 9 starters and all significant reserves on offense. That alone is good for two more wins. Add in an easier home schedule getting us 4 home conference wins and I think we are on our way.
Having two returning qbs and a defensive coordinator for two years in a row will help a lot. I think Turner and Vlad will be impact players. I think the reason Vlad wasn't this year is that he was still recovering from injury. For Turner (this is speculation) I think Rodriguez was very concerned about him academically and since he came in late anyway, decided to redshirt him no matter what happened on the field. I predict he will start and be good next year. I also think either Ezeh or Mouton or both will have the "light go on" like Brown this year and play really well as seniors.
I think Campbell will be a solid starter. I think Roh will get bigger and better along with Martin and Van Bergen. I think Woolfolk will make one of the all big ten teams. I also think Toussaint, who I put in the same category as Turner above, will be pushing for playing time and pass Shaw on the depth chart. Same goes for Gallon.
The biggest concern I have for the team next year is health. Forcier cannot get hurt. And the defense will be just as thin at defensive line as this year. A serious injury at either of those places is a major problem. If they stay healthy though, 9-3.
Some of the naysayers need it too.
Seriously, the offense was substantially better this year, despite a true frosh at QB and our best RB and best OL hurt much/most of the year.
The defensive woes are mostly explained by a shocking lack of depth and youth.
Not that anyone is happy with the past two years, but realistically it's going to get much better. It's not like RR forgot how to coach football when he left WVU.
1. We were so bad on offense last year, it would take a monumental brain fart not to improve. Read: #1 in the NCAA in 3 and outs. That will never happen in Michigan football.
2. Our conference average in scoring is the same this year as last year. 21 ppg (10th in the conference I believe).
3. Our defense was better this year, making life a touch easier for our offense.
Do I think our offense was better this year? Yeah.
But unless we join the MAC, I think we'll need to get much better, b/c 21 ppg doesn't cut it in conference. And it showed: we were 1-7 in conference.
"Our defense was better this year, making life a touch easier for our offense."
I strongly disagree with this statement. I think last year's offense was so bad that the defense had no prayer. I thought they did admirably last year, given the circumstances. Take away the awful deep safety play last year, and that defense gives up a lot less points. Perhaps Shafer's biggest failing was not moving Wolfolk to safety and letting Stevie Brown flounder back there all season.
Last off season, one of Brian's oft-cited stats demonstrating the positive effects of Rodriguez Revolution was that Michigan's rushing yards/attempt in conference play climbed from 3.41 yds/att in 2007, the last year of the Carr era, (good for 9th place in the Big 10) to 3.94 yds/att in 2008 (6th in the Big 10). In 2009, that fell to 3.07 yds/att (8th in the Big 10).
This is the most worrisome stat in my mind and I'd guess Coach Rodriguez himself is racking his brain to figure out how it happened. Anybody have any theories? Can it all be blamed on the loss of Molk? Too many carries by Forcier? Poor reads in the run game by Forcier? Injuries to Minor and Brown? All of these were undoubtedly factors but there is a pressing need for the offensive line to step up next year and for Tate to make better decisions in the run game. He rushed nearly as often as Minor.
We can't have our cake and eat it too. The RYPA fell off precipitously. I think this can be greatly attributed to:
"Yo RR! Why can't you be more creative with our running plays?!?!?!"
How many times did Denard go nowhere on an ISQBD??? What was Denard's RYPA? Don't tell me Denard couldn't have learned some triple option plays over the course of the season. Don't tell me that. I won't buy it.
Also, it seems like the opposing defenses had M thoroughly scouted out by the middle of the year, and yet... we did little or nothing to counter their cheating!
It seems like the opposing defenses were being tipped off by our formations. You want unacceptable? That, my friends, is pretty unacceptable. Good coaching staffs do not tip their hand. Right?
I refuse to believe that such a massive drop in RYPA can be attributed to Molk and Minor being injured. Not buying it. Not with this year's speedier QBs, another year of a BARWISSED! offensive line that didn't graduate ANYBODY and other perfectly able RBs with speed to kill like Brown and Shaw and the shifty Vincent Smith.
In summation, I was very disappointed with the design of our runnning game over the last 8 games of the season. It lacked creativity, adjustments, and execution. Doesn't that reflect poorly on the coaching?
Go Blue
I want the team to win, and have been all-in / cheering for team and coach -- particularly after the outrageous Freep accusations. I also knew when we missed getting Pryor, the usual year two was at risk because we'd be going through another freshman QB curve. (For those of you who want DG to take over as starter next year, do you really want to go through this three years in a row?) I have read, agreed with, and understood all the mitigating circumstances this year as well.
Anyway, this year is over, maybe mercifully. My sense moving forward is this: we either have a winning Big Ten season next year or I'll be about done with patience. We have to knock off MSU, and either PSU or OSU as well.
Seriously Brian, everyone: defense aside, his system has to start scoring big time in Big Ten play next year, and it can't be dependent on Tate and Molk (other teams have key injuries too, and overcome them). You can't project to be competitive nationally in 3 years, if you can't put together a winning season in the much maligned Big Ten next year.
Anyway, if I were MSC and Bill Martin, I'd be having that conversation with Rich right about now. With a new AD at the end of next season, if we suffer another Big Ten implosion -- well some coaches better coach their butts off.
Go Blue!
Michigan went from the 44th toughest schedule to the 88th toughest schedule, and ND's defense fell through the floor. The offense was definitely better at moving the ball against horrible teams, but not demonstrably better at moving the ball against reasonable defenses.
That could be due to injuries, of course.
Good piece Brian. The defensive stat's are pretty eye opening.
not just "douchey" MGoBlog user, but now TRUSTED MGoBlog user
This is too complicated for my Indiana Univeristy education.
Having watched all 12 games, its obvious without stats.
O improved lots, but further improvement was slowed by 2 ture frosh QBs turning it over time and time again.
The D did not as we slowly realize our talent problem on that side of the ball.
People are actually debating this?
The Winter Olympics at www.justcoverblog.com
God Bless Your Cotton Pickin' Maize & Blue Hearts
I like numbers. Numbers are good.
In this case, I think the numbers may be obscuring, somewhat, what is qualitatively obvious. Michigan's offense was much better in 2009 than 2008. Just watching the games was enough to know that. Numbers like the SOS or these more complicated metrics can confuse the issue. Michigan was in almost every game it played in 2009. In 2008, Michigan struggled ridiculously in ever single game they played--and lost or nearly lost to some of the worst teams in DI-A.
Give it to Wheatley!
Go Hoosiers! At least we have better looking co-eds than UM.
Nope, this is not a debate. That would require facts instead of just e-pinions.
Anyone who denies the progress probably has an ulterior motive.
Yeah, that is my license plate.
First, nice stat breakdown Brian.
Second, the numbers on offense and defense vs. last season, isn't surprising.
Offense:
Like Brian said, from God-awful to mediocre. Consider that we had no returning QB starter (no, Sheridan doesn't count) and the only returning upperclassmen at the skill positions were Minor and Brown who were both injured much of the season.
Instead, we started two-deep freshmen quarterbacks, a position replacement at center, and by the end of the season the offense relied heavily on a sophomore WR (Roundtree) and freshman RB (Smith).
In short, Rodriguez had to start from scratch on the offensive side of the ball two years in a row. The second year was less experienced and they *still* showed improvement because it was players that fit Rodriguez's system.
Defense:
Unlike last year's offense, last year's defense had more upperclassmen and experience. They perhaps underperformed with the new coaching staff, but it was still better than *this* season where the defense had shed most of the upperclassmen and had walk-ons starting.
Ultimately, the difference between this year and last year is not a Shafer vs. Robinson argument, but an issue of experience.
So the difference between offense/defense this year and last makes sense by the numbers and by the personnel.
I like the charts (even though the little corner UM occupies btw NW and Minn is disheartening), I like empirical evidence of better performance & sustained above-average mediocrity, but damn, still can't feel good about what has happened this season. I have great hope for next season, but I don't think any charts can displace the almighty W/L table when it comes to improvement.
this season was supposed to make up for last season (or at least give us reason for hope). it didnt.
lloyd was better.
The offense to me this year was much improved. As for the defense on the other hand...
Brian,
love the effort, admire the faith, but, really, the team sucked. I mean, another year, another no bowl game, another Big 10 basement, another little brother beatdown, another seeking out solace in a victory over a punked Notre Dame team. Is this what any of us really expected? At any time in the RR regime? Evdr?
Saying there is improvement is like saying Jennifer Granholm brought in good high paying green tech jobs to the state of Michigan. It's a true statement on its face, but, in fact, meaningless and worse, ignoring that whole big picture thing.
Minimum 8 wins next year, or he's out. As it should be. Don't forget. Lloyd's worst year, his last, the team rebounded, beat Notre Dame, was competitive throughout the season and kicked Tim Tebow's ass in an actual bowl game.
And for all the little girls who get all upset with me cause I'm talking about firing, I remind you, I'm both agreeing with Brian, merely stating the obvious, and not creating a topic, just commenting on one of Brian's typically sublime posts.
A process of transition is obviously too much of a difficult concept for a troll like yourself to understand. Please enjoy Bucknuts or whatever irrelevant site Little Brother's trolls enjoy.
"If the haters they don't hate you then you're doing something wrong" - David Cone
Speak for yourself, Clarkie. I look quite fetching in a dress, and my garters and panties and whatnot always turn heads.
What?
The Wolverine Liberation Army- saving Michigan fans one dick joke at a time.
Is this what any of us really expected? At any time in the RR regime? Ever? Saying there is improvement is like saying Jennifer Granholm brought in good high paying green tech jobs to the state of Michigan. It's a true statement on its face, but, in fact, meaningless and worse, ignoring that whole big picture thing.
Well, this wasn't unexpected, not by me, Brian, or a lot of other people. Honestly, before the 2008 season began none of us had a clue how it was going to turn out, because A) there were almost literally no returning offensive starters on which to base expectations, and B) the defense had been shitty/inconsistent the previous year. So with the benefit of hindsight, we see that A) the offense needed a complete overhaul, more so after transfers and injuries, and B) the defense had zero depth, little talent, and little development.
With all that in mind, what rate of progress should you reasonably expect? Seriously- starting from scratch on offense and dealing with serious depth problems on defense, how much time do you think it should take to turn that ship around?
If you thought the program was humming along at peak efficiency when RichRod came in, then of course this has been an UNACCEPTABLE!! shock and disappointment to you, and more progress was expected. But for those clear-eyed fans who saw The Horror as merely a continuation of a disturbing trend at M understood that RichRod would need time and space to rebuild the program.
This program was in desperate need of a change, and some people were/are just unwilling to accept that. So be it- there will always be people who deny facts and reality simply because it undermines their faith in something. The world is flat, evolution is just a theory, global warming is a myth, M always has enough talent to win 8+ games, etc.
You speak of the big picture, yet strangely you ignore the future in this "big picture" of yours. That's an odd way to look at things. Do you really think the future is going to be the same or worse than it is now, given what you see on the roster and what you've seen on the field? Be honest.
The Wolverine Liberation Army- saving Michigan fans one dick joke at a time.
"Well, this wasn't unexpected, not by me, Brian, or a lot of other people."
I don't recall a lot of 3-9 predictions in 2008 or 5-7 predictions this year. I don't remember anyone writing that Michigan would go 3-13 in the Big Ten over the last two years.
Considering Brian predicted 8-4 in 2008 and 7-5 this year, I would argue these results were at least unexpected to him.
Before the 2008 season began, Brian wrote Stalactite of Fear. Passage (emphasis mine):
Immediately after the Utah game, Brian wrote Under Construction. Passage (emphasis mine):
I think you look at predictions as binary, i.e. "if Brian predicts 7-5 then he has 100% confidence in that prediction and anything short of that is unexpected/unacceptable/tragedy/etc.
That's simply not true. Again- none of us had any idea how this was going to go, but it wasn't entirely unexpected that this wasn't going to start well.
The Wolverine Liberation Army- saving Michigan fans one dick joke at a time.
I believe Brian posted a worst-case scenario of 4-8 in 2008 and they actually underachieved that low barrier. They did sink to the depths of Notre Dame's 2007 campaign.
Based on the information at hand PRIOR to the season, when expectations are set, Brian predicted 15-9 over the last two seasons. The team is 8-16 in that timeframe. That's not just below those predictions, but quite far below them. Wouldn't that be the very definition of "unexpected?"
That's not just below those predictions, but quite far below them. Wouldn't that be the very definition of "unexpected?"
Quite simply, no. One more time- "not predicting" and "not unexpected" are not mutually exclusive. You can predict something but not feel very confident in that prediction, so that when things don't turn out the way you predicted you're not surprised.
I don't know why "not unexpected" is continually challenged with examples of predictions. The two concepts don't necessarily contradict each other. Why is this so hard to understand?
The Wolverine Liberation Army- saving Michigan fans one dick joke at a time.
and I think it humorous that you provide links to prove your wrongness.
In fact, Brian -- and the vast majority of all posters here -- expected, at minimum, the bowl streak to continue unbroken.
We all absolutely assumed ANY bowl this season.
And start saving your links now cause I, along with Brian, are expecting 8 wins next year, and a bowl game.
Or the end of the Rich Rod experiment.
Again, you seem to think that a prediction is binary, without context or nuance. I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever that Brian said something along the lines of "I fully expect Michigan to win a minimum of 7 games in 2008 anything less is a disappointment," and "I fully expect Michigan to win a minimum of 7 games in 2009 anything less is a disappointment."
This wasn't desired or predicted, but neither was it unexpected. You seem to think that "not unexpected" and "not predicted" are mutually exclusive. That's incredibly dumb.
The Wolverine Liberation Army- saving Michigan fans one dick joke at a time.
Just wondering -- if tomhagen got banned for his constant rants against RR, can Mister "Little Girls" here be far behind? Of course, he insists at every opportunity that he's an RR supporter and expects him to succeed -- but have no doubt that anything short of "success" on his terms (the magic number 8) is UNACCEPTABLE! Can you tell us that a few MORE times, and then challenge us to negbang you for flogging the bejesus out of your one and only point? Time to actually contribute something (if you can) or move along already.
Wha?
You really think it's acceptable to win 7 or less in year 3? Really?
Not me.
Not our dear leader Brian, neither.
Not at Michigan.
And, yes, I do expect RR to succeed. Course, I expected Weis to succeed at Notre Dame.
No one is forcing you to read my comments (I assume), and certainly they are no where near the number of ... oh, i knew all along the cupboard was bare and year 3 would still be a rebuilding year and anyone who says otherwise is a dick or a liar or both.
But, it's Brian's site. If he wants to actually ban me for my comments, and I invite him to read every single one, so be it.
There, I've said it. And, by the way, to the extent you or I need to agonize over whether Brian agrees with us, you might want to check out his most black-and-white statement on the subject, in the post subtly titled "When Can We Fire This Guy?"
"[A]cts of God no[t]withstanding, Michigan has to go 8-5 next year or Rodriguez should be cut loose. 7-6 might be okay if the bowl matchup is obviously bad." (sorry, I would link, but I'm link-challenged)
Now, if you don't mind, I'll go back to actually watching the football games, looking for signs of improvement, and wondering why/what to do about the things that don't seem to be improving. If you'd like, you can come back at the end of next season, check the record, and cast your up-or-down vote on the coach, without regard for anything that actually happened during any of the actual games. In fact, that would suit me just fine.
Brian, in your esteemed wisdom, you said, as the feller above quotes:
"Michigan has to go 8-5 next year or Rodriguez should be cut loose."
Funny, I also used the EXACT SAME stupid numerical quota (as opposed to the more common innumerical quota) and Mr 230 points say we should thus just stop participating, stop posting, and not speak til the end of next season.
You can't buy that kind of dumb. Not for no amount of money.
I should have realized a two-sentence quote was one sentence too long for you.
Brian and I BOTH SAID: 8 wins or go home.
But, in fact, Brian ALSO said, okay, 7 wins and a tough bowl loss.
Now I understand your consternation. My stupid numerical quota of 8 really should have been 7 plus a tough bowl loss. Such a chasm of disagreement. It's almost like, a whole game. I get it now.
To me at least. The difference between, say, 8-4 and 7-5 is unlikely to have a huge effect on my assessment of the team's performance next year.
You, OTOH, have committed (ad nauseum) to a strict numerical quota, with anything less than the magic 8 wins leading to RR's head on a platter. So, one win makes all the difference in the world to you. Or does it? Are you now saying that maybe 7-5 would be acceptable? Maybe if Brian says so? How about 6-6, maybe with a bowl win to take us to 7 -- practically no different from 7-5, after all. You're arguing against yourself -- not that I'd expect you to realize that.
Let's review the questions that are still on the table:
1. What rate of progress should you reasonably expect? Seriously- starting from scratch on offense and dealing with serious depth problems on defense, how much time do you think it should take to turn that ship around?
2. Referring to the "big picture," do you really think the future is going to be the same or worse than it is now, given what you see on the roster and what you've seen on the field? Be honest.
and since I suspect this is the core disagreement we have (as it always ends up being with RichRod critics), perhaps you should answer this question first:
3. How much talent and experience is required on the 2 deep (on both sides) for Michigan to have a reasonable chance to win 7-8 games? Be specific. Did RichRod have that requisite talent and experience when he walked in? Did he have that this year?
I'd love to see you work through the logic on these questions.
The Wolverine Liberation Army- saving Michigan fans one dick joke at a time.
Are you counting Mallet, Boren et al?
What was the two deep at Saban's Alabama, now in the national hunt?
Oh, and are you actually serious? Year 2, not even going to the Silverdome Bowl and you don't think that we'll make it there after year 3.
At Michigan? Stop the silly re-writing of history about how the Michigan cupboard was bare. Had just one of Lloyd's seasons been as bad as the best of RR's you'd be out for his head. I say, give a coach 5 years, as long as he's a proven candidate. Which RR is.
EXCEPT: if this is Michigan, or Notre Dame, or USC...and you can't win 16 games in THREE YEARS, then I'm sorry, I really wanted it to work out but we have to move in a different direction.
3 years. 16 games. Or go home.
Tell you what: since you can't post, early next week I'll post a diary asking these very same questions so that all the haters can come in and explain how, with the roster that RichRod inherited, 7-8 wins per season right away was the reasonably minimum expectation. I can't wait to see all the willful ignorance concentrated in one thread.
In the meantime, you should take this opportunity to think about what a minimum 7-8 win roster looks like to you, in terms of * rankings, experience, etc.
The Wolverine Liberation Army- saving Michigan fans one dick joke at a time.
IS NOT RIGHT AWAY!
There's a whole lot of rewriting history going on around here, including by the little girls referenced above.
3-13 in the conference over the last two years. When the Big 10 has been, what, second best, third best, fourth of all conferences? Lloyd's team beating Tebow's Florida is ignored. Suddenly, the cupboard was really bare? I don't con that easy.
I'm proud that our team is the kind that attracts the top coaches, like RR. I'm also proud that the program is the kind that would say, you can't win 8 games -- at Michigan -- after year 3, then here's your walking papers.
Let's embrace those high standards, not run from them.
nt.
The Wolverine Liberation Army- saving Michigan fans one dick joke at a time.
No one was predicting Big Ten championships (well, maybe Tater...), but NO ONE was predicting 3-9 with all that foresight knowledge. maybe 5-7 at worst. Then again, likewise this year. And hey, we achieved the worst case scenario - hurray!
Lets not all act like, oh yeah, some of knew it was going to be this bad. Nobody did.
...I have shown him...a man without hope...is a man without fear...
nt
The Wolverine Liberation Army- saving Michigan fans one dick joke at a time.
While I don't agree with all of your points, I think our offensive progress was exceptional considering our circumstance, I do agree that if RichRod doesn't bring in 8 wins then we can probably find a better option...maybe 7 wins depending on how the season goes. As you said, I'm not too worried about reaching that plateau, but I would have no regrets if we did not reach it and RR was fired.
Any loss to Sparty is a beatdown...especially to a 1-3 Sparty.
But to say that our progress was meaningless is ignoring everything that has taken place the last several years here.
The Money Shot
http://gmoneysack.blogspot.com
Little brother beatdown? Losing in overtime on the road is not what I'd call a "beatdown" per se.
And "minimum 8 wins or he's out" is according to... you? Cool.
Kittens help make the pain go away.
Else, we'd stop calling them Little Brother (which I love to say).
8 wins by end of year 3. You're questioning this? We are Michigan!
I think we'll get 8 wins. I think RR will be around a long long time. I think he'll probably deliver a national championship. But if you're the coach at Michigan and year 3 you don't get 8 wins, I'll sure be there to help you pack. That I'm very cool with.
Who will they beat?
I think it's fair to say that it's likely they will lose these 3 games
PSU (A)
Wisconsin
OSU (A)
Only ONE more loss out of this group to go 8-4. Doesn't look likely to me.
UMASS
BGSU
IU (A)
MSU
Illinois
UCONN
ND (A)
Iowa
Purdue (A)
I just don't see it. I don't think they'll win all 3 road games. I think 7-5 would be a very good season for them. However, I don't think that's enough to keep RR's job. I still support him, but it's hard to see him being kept on with that record. Definitely not if they lose to MSU again.
Either way, I'm excited to watch the team again. Can't wait for Spring!! :)
Since you cited Lloyd's worst year as his last, let's remember that he had Henne, Hart, Long, Manningham, and Arrington.
Who the heck does Rodriguez have? The only real threats he had were Minor (injured), Warren (who teams not named Iowa liked to avoid), and Graham (who in all his beastliness, was very limited because of our poor coverage).
Look at the guys who HAVE developed under Rodriguez. Craig Roh has been fantastic. Omameh looked very competent for a red shirt freshman, especially with his athleticism. Vincent Smith and Roy Roundtree were both very effective towards the end of the season. To me, this at least suggests that Rodriguez can pick out talent for his system and develop it.