Firstly, this post seems a year late.
Secondly, I for one believe most of the Major schools guru rankings are over-inflated just because of the names.
based on what you saw: Were all of Lloyds classes top10?
Firstly, this post seems a year late.
Secondly, I for one believe most of the Major schools guru rankings are over-inflated just because of the names.
based on what you saw: Were all of Lloyds classes top10?
your right....pretty much Lloyds classes were all top ten. however I dont think Lloyd developed that talent as well as other coaches in the country do..
Lloyd inherited a roster with 24 All-Bigten and 1 Heisman trophy winner on it.
Lloyd gave RR a team with so far 2 All-Bigten players on it B. Graham and Z. Mesko
This post is never late. it is especially relevant during this years recruiting as some michigan fans do not think RR is the Guy.
Lloyd produced a Heisman winner, a #1 NFL pick, perhaps the best QB in NFL history, the top two passers and top rusher in school history, a couple first round receivers, a potential Hall of Fame guard, and if I recall correctly, Michigan currently has the second-most players in the NFL behind Miami, etc., etc.
Yep, Lloyd sure wasn't very good at developing talent.
Carr really doesnt have much to do with Brady's PRO success, if your giving him cred you have to talk about the great college players who didnt make it in the PROs. I think Carr gets a bad rap for his later years blunders and losses to some teams he shouldnt have lost to and being a non factor in the BCS. Which is probably just.
Carr (and his staff) deserve considerable credit for Brady's pro success. They recruited him, they put him in a pro style offense, they taught him how to play QB, and they gave him a chance to compete at a high level in college. Credit has to go somewhere, and options are somewhat limited.
don't get me wrong Carr was a decent coach....maybe a good coach.
They may have given Brady the tools he needed to start off but Brady developed himself into a quarterback. Brady's first few years in the leauge he was always the last one to leave patriots practice facility and we are talking till like 10pm at night. the Point is Brady made himself a good QB.
Also of note:
After the Pats drafted Shawn Crable Bill Bellichk compared him to Piere Woods. Bill also metioned that woods didn't play much in college and to that he sayd, "You'll have to ask Michigan why they didn't play him."
Lloyd could have been a lot better. But then again Bo never won a NC either.
Carr was a good coach. Decent coaches don't win national championships, win several Big Ten championships, and produce NFL talent in droves.
Woods was in the doghouse at Michigan. His lack of playing time was not due to being a poor football player.
Brady was practically an instant star with the Patriots. He took the QB job from a guy who some thought was on his way to the Hall of Fame. And he did it from the beginning of his second year in the league. Brady himself deserves more credit than anyone, I'm sure - but if any outside contributor deserves credit for developing him as a quarterback, it's Carr and his staff. He was excellent at Michigan and he's been excellent in the NFL.
If college coaches deserve credit for getting their players ready to succeed in the NFL, then there's really no argument. If you think college coaches have no effect on what a player does in the NFL, then I disagree, but you could still make that argument, I guess.
Pierre Woods hit Matt Guiterrez in practice the first game week of 2003, the hit that injured his shoulder and prematurely launched Chad Henne's career as a starter? I seem to recall him being in the doghouse for that.
That was a rumor, but I think it was refuted by insiders.
I dont see how you can give him credit for Brady's NFL success. College yes. Just like you cant say he did a bad job with other players. He helped prepare him yes. But Brady is fucking good for a reason. Talent and drive and heart etc. A college coach can only do so much to help a guys in the NFL. I give Belicheck (sp) and Staff more credit personally.
I could be wrong, but I'm guessing he learned more about playing quarterback from his five years in a pro-style, major college football program than he did in one season sitting on the bench in New England.
Like I said, if college coaches deserve any credit for developing players for the NFL, then Carr (and his staff) deserve it.
If college coaching has no effect, then he doesn't. But obviously I believe the former rather than the latter.
But if college coaching doesn't matter, then why has every quarterback since Elvis Grbac spent at least a year or two in the NFL? Grbac, Collins, Dreisbach, Griese, Brady, Henson, Navarre, Henne, etc. (I know not all of those guys were in Carr's time as head coach, but my point is that COLLEGE coaching matters.)
Is Brady successful ONLY because he worked really hard?
Is Michigan just flat-out better at recruiting QB's than 99% of the NCAA?
Again, I'm not saying that there aren't other factors. But if college coaching doesn't matter, then why does Michigan have such a good track record and why doesn't Michigan just hire Brooke Burke to coach the team?
Can we get Brooke Burke on the sideline anyway?
Awesome post that is a very exciting point. Well done nateusmc
Pat White....was a 2 star? That can't be right. Please check again and provide a source.
Ok so scout ranked him a 2 star QB and Rivals ranked him a 3 star ATH.
I always thought he was a 5* dual threat #1 recruit who picked WVU because of his well-known fascination with coal mining.
I guess he learned the sarcasm tag is invisible after that one.
Invisibly, of course.
I never thought he was ranked as low as he was...and it is also important to remember that P.White won 4 bowl games. and started as a walk on freshman......I am imagining the things RR can do for Tate!
Pat White was not a walk-on. Every guy you see listed as committed on the recruiting sites are guys offered a scholarship.
I meant to say true freshman
You are right - and if Pat was a 2*, and Tate is a 4*, that means he is twice as better. Multiply by 2 again because Rodriguez is great at "developing talent", and I think Tate will win 8 Heismans and 9 straight bowl games.
...who had committed to National Champion LSU (until he was snake oiled away by WVU on the last day) and was also being heavily recruited by Alabama. I'm guessing none of them bought the 2-star bit either.
Technically, you are right, because LSU wanted him to play safety or WR. So they probably thought he was even worse than a 2* QB.
2002: finished 25th AP 20th USA today
2003: finished unranked *dropped from top 25 after bowl
2004: finished unranked *dropped from top 25 in USA today
2005: finished 5th AP and 6th USA today
2006: finished 10th Ap and 10th USA today
2007: finished 6th Ap and 6th USA today
now look at RR recruiting classes
RR in 2001 at WVU 3-8
If that were true about Rich Rod doing such a great job with supposedly underwhelming talent, then how do you explain a 3-9 season in a bad Big Ten conference for us this year? It's not as simple as you make it out to be, Nate. Chitown had a great post about this very subject a few months ago (before the season, I believe). It compared RR's classes at WVU with the rest of the Big East. I'll try and find it when I have the time to go digging for it.
The key is relative talent. His classes were above average for the Big East.
Bottom line is that even a great coach can't consistently make up for a large talent deficit. If Rodriguez wins here, a lot of the reason will be he brings in great talent.
-2 Walk on QB's
-a patchwork O-Line
-Lots of True Freshman everywhere
-Totally new Offensive System
-and Stevie Brown!!!
besides, RR, every time he was a first year coach he had a horrible season.
1988 at Salem 2-8
1990 at Glennville St 1-7-1
2001 at WVU 3-8
2008 at UM 3-8
he turned around glennville and WVU
i was just comparing WVU classes nationally and their rankings nationally.
"2008 at UM 3-8"
Right - his classes were, on par, about average (at worst) for the Big East. So he wasn't competing with a disadvantage - at least in conference. That said, when they beat Georgia and Oklahoma, there was clearly a talent discrepancy there.
If you consider BC, Miami, and Va Tech in the Big East (as they were for part of RR's tenure), then his recruiting wasn't on the same level. BUT, the Big East, in general, has an appreciatively lower level of talent than the Big 10.
Getting classes ranked in the 30's and succeeding in the Big East, where all the other teams were getting classes in the 30's, 40's and 50's also, does not make the point that he thinks it does. If that were so then Utah's coach would automatically be thought to be a lock to win NC's if he goes to a BCS conference--he may in fact do that, as RR may, but not due to this analysis. This recruiting analysis shows nothing other than what we already know, that RR can coach, but the jury is out.
If that were true about Rich Rod doing such a great job with supposedly underwhelming talent, then how do you explain a 3-9 season in a bad Big Ten conference for us this year?
You explain it the same way you explain John Beilein going 10-22 last season, Pete Carroll going 6-6 in 2001 - and the same way you explain Larry Coker going 12-0 in 2001, Brett Bielema going 12-1 in 2006, and so on. The theme? The first year of a coach's tenure often reveals little about his coaching ability, and more about the situation he stepped into.
Almost everything you see above is sarcasm. It's nothing personal, but we all know Pat White was lowly regarded, Rodriguez had success anyway, etc. These guys are messing with you.
I decided to look into this today. My interest in this topic was sparked by the high school all-star games this weekend and us getting back the Otter. Most Michigan fans i meet do not know what to think of RR....and they also reguard Lloyds days as the prime....I however think lloyd is responsible for the decline of michigan football. I also recently came across a Fire RR website....probably a hoax or a buckeye but still....the fan base hasn't entirely bought in....and all this talent relative to the big east thing has weight but, look at WVU top 25 finishes.
The fans who think Carr caused the downfall of the program are very short-sighted and fail to remember that we've won exactly one national championship in the last 50 years and he's the one who got us there. He's not the greatest coach in history, but he did win 1 more national championship than Bo.
Won with Gary Moller's Talent
Which is something that Gary Moeller failed to do.
Please don't tell me you're one of those people.
I guess Urban Meyer isn't very good, either. Ron Zook was the REAL genius!
We should also just give John Blake (12-22 at Oklahoma) the credit for Stoops' championship.
No Im not....I just am not that fond of Lloyd Carr. and thats that! My personal Opinion. But i felt he underachieved as a coach. and I really didn't like loosing to App State.
Well that's nuts. I fuckin loved it.
....then you would have hated losing to an unranked, losing record team like Minnesota in 1977 and 1986.
Cost us national titles each year.
Bo. Fawking underachiever.
Quit pissing and moaning about the Appy St loss, fer gawd's sake. The better team, with the better QB, won that day.
Awful, Nate. Just fucking awful. You can do better than that bullshit cliche.
Gary Moeller's talent? This was Carr's third full year coaching the team, and although a lot of these guys were GM's recruits, certainly not all of them were. And any guys in their 3rd year or younger (this includes Woodson) were coached by Lloyd for their entire college career. Unless you think a coach's job is done after recruitment, this is an unintelligent comment.
He probably heard Colin Cowherd or one of The Clones on the Jungle spew it.
Also, Lloyd, as an assistant, was the point man for the recruitment of much of the defense (Woodson, Steele, and Sword come to mind).
Epic, all time upset of historic proportions.
All the credit clearly goes to Bump Elliot.
for UM to play WVU in a bowl game. Can't wait!
Because I have always heard that Stewart was the brains of that organization and RR was just riding his coattails.
Get the sailboat on the horn. Schedule an OOC game NOW!
Seriously, I do think RR thought the world was gonna lay down for him once he got here. I remember the interview when he was talking about recruiting with tht big M on his chest. Trouble is, kids these days can barely read.
So, there's that.
i appreciate the optimism nate and share it with you.
pointed out: this is all relative.
But here's a really good article from last year about recruiting, and final rankings: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/recruiting/football/2008-02-06-recruit-ra...
Not too many coaches (if any) did more with less, than RR did. If you get a chance check it out.
"I've done so much with so little for so long..."
"that I can do just about anything with nothing"
If things go according to plan, Coach Rod should be able to use this line starting 2010.
Its like these comments are all being written by William Shatner.
I think that there is a some truth in both what Magnus and Nate are saying. Lloyd was a good coach. No doubt about that. He was also a hellavu recruiter. It is true that we have the second most players in the league. It is also true that he put a QB in the league that is being considered as one of the best ever to play in the NFL. That is saying alot. Under his tenure we have witnessed the most prolific passer and rusher combo in the schools history. We saw the acrobats of Braylon Edwards, the tenacity of Larry Foote and the heisman striking pose of that dude Woodson in New York. With all that talent, that high level talent he only got one NC. He went under five hundred with the suckeyes and started us on our current losing streak. Lloyd was good but he lost his fire along the way and the game passed him by. And what he left, just like his legacy, was a cupboard half full for RR. Then the defectors came a plenty. Two top notch wideouts, offensive linemen, a five star Quarterback...you all know the list. I do have faith in RR maximizing his talent. I have faith in the man's system. I also can see that the guy has an ego the size of east lansing that gets in the way sometimes. He needs to dump that back in WV and drink the same Kool Aid Bo had for breakfast, lunch and then a sensible dinner. But in the end I am excited to see what this guy does.
Before you chastise Lloyd for winning "only" one national title, keep in mind that very few coaches ever win one at all, let alone more than one, in their careers. Bo had some nice talent but never won it all. Does that make him a failure?
As for Carr having the "the most prolific passer and rusher combo in the school's history," that has something to do with the fact that those two got to play a lot more games than their predecessors. I love Henne and Hart, but I wouldn't consider either to be the best in school history (or even the best of the last 20 years). They just happened to be lucky enough to start as true frosh, and stayed four years.
I agree that Henne and Hart had more opportunities, but still, being the all-time leader at ANYTHING at a program with the history Michigan has is quite an accomplishment.
Sure, but it's also true that, thanks to the combination of longer season schedules, scholarship reductions (which mean more underclassmen being pressed into service) and a general trend towards higher offensive production, almost every school in the country has had a bunch of new career offensive records set in the past 10 years.
Personally Id rather drink the kool-aid Yost drank!
He drank the blood of catholic children.
I try not to read too much into class rankings, as they tend to reflect a far level of bias and speculation, with players signing with big-name teams usually receiving a ratings "boost" that may make them appear far better than they actual are (I call this the Notre Dame effect). Plus, recruiting sites have only recently come to realize that rankings are not one-size-fits-all, as a 5-star pro-style quarterback is pretty useless in the spread, and 5'8" 4-star WRs are pretty much limited to the slot and, thus, may not work as well on teams that don't feature that position.
That said, it is telling that RR never recruited top-level classes even when his teams were finishing in the top-10 and were winning BCS games. That doesn't necessarily mean his ability to turn lead into gold at WVU will translate into diamonds with UM, but it gives me hope that he'll get good players for his system and develop them to a high level.
5'8" 4-star WRs are pretty much limited to the slot
This is actually why most 5'8 WR's don't get rated highly. Smurfs are almost always lower rated, regardless of position.
Also, there is ample documentation that shows an incredibly strong correlation between recruiting class ranking and team success in addition to recruit ranking equallying NFL success (roughly 90% of players that receive five-stars end up in the NFL). Obviously, they are at times wrong. They are, however, accurate in aggregate.
You're right - I know that smurfs are usually lower-rated (I meant to put that as 3-stars). And yes, if you receive 5 stars, that means you are one of the top 40-50 players in all of high school that year, and that certainly portends to success in the future. My point with 5-star QBs is that they are still only as effective as the system they are placed in. Mallet and Clausen were great pocket passers, but both of them would have not been as effective in a spread offense. I guess that's my point - just looking at the number of stars, without the situation, can lead to some illogical conclusions.
Tom Brady runs a spread offense in New England.
As we've seen, spread offenses run the gamut from Purdue to WVU to Texas Tech. Brady runs a modified, pass-friendly spread at times, but also plays under center and has done so throughout his career. A pro-style passer in a Purdue or Texas Tech-like offense is a far better fit than the one RR runs, which requires the QB to take off and run and be able to make plays with his feet. My whole point in this post is that merely relying on the "star" system to quantify how good a class/player is misguided.
"My point with 5-star QBs is that they are still only as effective as the system they are placed in. Mallet and Clausen were great pocket passers, but both of them would have not been as effective in a spread offense."
I think you meant spread OPTION offense.
Good catch. But you said spread with Brady, and that really isn't a spread either. Again, my point is that one-size-fits-all star systems don't work as a true barometer of success for every player on every team.
The shotgun is not the spread. I'm not disagreeing with you're star point, just saying.
Yeah, I know - I was responding to the post above's characterization. Good catch. In the NFL, though, that's about as close as I think we'll get to the "spread" anytime soon.
magnus made a good point on lloyd getting a number 1 pick, heisman winner,leading rusher, leading passer, and leading reciever..
pat white was indeed a 2/3 star...
guess what else? mike hart and braylon were 3 stars too...
lloyd won with moeller's players?!?!?!
That's just plain wrong.
Guys like Marcus Ray, Charles Woodson, Sam Sword, Andre Weathers, Rob Renes, Dhani Jones and many, many, many more contributers on that 1997 team never played a single down of football at UM with Moeller as their coach.
Lloyd stayed a year or two too long, past a point where the fire burned as hot as his competitors, but to make the above statement and also imply he caused the downfall of UM football, is ridiculous and not based in fact.
My heartbreak with Lloyd came when he said that the Henne/Hart class was the best he ever had, and they went 0-4 against UOS and 1-3 in bowls.
My 2 cents: can we please, all of us, separate Lloyd Carr pre-2003 from Lloyd Carr 2004-2007?
It's true, the game passed him by and he relied on his assistants to do things. I can't imagine his strategy as a DC under Bo was the same as what he let Ron English use ("have Ed Reed at all positions"). He trusted his assistants, and people like Debord, Andy Moeller, and Ron English putting Graham on Gonzalez totally fucked Lloyd. But in Lloyd's defense, he was fiercely loyal and always took the blame, but none of the credit. He was a tremendous man and coach that just took a step back that didn't sit well with all of us.
I think that pretty much sums it up.