Rodriguez was demonized pretty much from day 1 by a certain blue-haired segment of the fan base. The alumni and former players didn't support him (at least, not as much as they should have) even before he started losing.
in town for free camps
Peter Frampton:Michigan's offense::Let's stop this analogy right now.
It's nearing Thanksgiving; which means it's time to make pie! Who likes pie? Everyone likes pie! Unless it's a "why our offense sucks so much" pie. Alas, you have all been sampling lots of "Why our offense sucks so much" pie these last few weeks, and we've identified most of the ingredients in this suck pie. What we haven't done yet is say how much any one ingredient is contributing relative to any other. This seems important.
So, I'm going to give you a list of identified ingredients in this suck pie, and you're going to tell me--pie chart like (i.e. adds up to 100%)--how much each suck factor, in your estimated opinion, has gone into our pie:
|If you believe this is a result of Nebraska's defense having a sudden aneurism of competence (hence all the blood), please answer #10 "Universe" on your cards. [Fuller]|
[After the jump, the lede, buried]
the results come in…
Ace: Hoo boy. 5-7 are kinda tough not to lump together, but here goes nothing.
Coach Brown: Any way I can get some more percentage points?
Yellow shades are problems Michigan needs to address, blue are things in the past that we can only hope will improve naturally. We put about 2/3rds of the troubles are on the current staff. Clinking embliggens.
Now we explain…
Brian: I assume most of these are straightforward with the exception of #9, which is a lot of blame to heap on 2 or 3 of the 7 or 8 blockers on a particular play. But I have just watched AJ Williams execute the worst imaginable pass protection on a Gardner sack and I'm saucy. I'm saucy because Justice Hayes saw that and aborted his attempt to block a blitzing LB, leaving that guy to run free at Gardner, so when Gardner escaped the first guy he still got hammered.
That the TEs and RBs are awful at blocking is the hidden story of the season. Funchess is one thing (and he's still really bad); Williams and Toussaint and everyone else at tailback are another. Williams has seemingly gone backwards and the inability to find anyone who can pick up a blitz until game 10 is unbelievable. How much better is this offense if Vincent Smith is still here? Think about that. And then tell Fred Jackson to stop drinking three different beverages and do something about it.
Seth: I've got Borges shouldering more blame than you other guys so I'll explain why. I just watched the same play as Brian and that inspired Hokepoints yesterday. That the TEs and RBs can't block is as much of a problem as the fact that the OL can't block. The difference is while you have to play five OL every play, nobody's forcing the coaches to roll out five fullbacks. You're allowed to have receivers, and Michigan has some good ones being critically under-used.
|You can watch too.|
Borges's answer to teams blitzing has been to get heavier: more A.J. Williams, more Joe Kerridge, and barely more Dileo than Paskorz. On Saturday they often lined up A.J. Williams as the only eligible receiver to one side, and then sometimes tried to roll away from that side while the opponent blitzed, knowing full well that the pass blocking can't hold up long enough to drag a receiver over there. Rather than have their running backs run a pattern, they put Kerridge in at RB to say "yes we're passing, but at least you can't rag doll him a la Toussaint." This is the boxing equivalent of curling up in a ball and covering your face with your hands.
Anyway, I'm less concerned that a bunch of true sophomores and younger aren't good at blocking yet (it's a skill) than I am about their coaches throwing them into the fire while leaving Dileo and Chesson on the sideline, so I gave a bunch of those points to Borges.
I've also got just 5% on Rich Rod while the rest of you think he's a quarter of the problem. It was egregious to not recruit more bodies in 2010 but they had to be useful bodies and he was doing that recruiting under a 3-9 season and the cloud of crap from the Free Press witch hunt. He also had tons of redshirt freshmen on the roster so he was selling playing time as a junior/senior. He wouldn't be the first coach to pass on bad prospects and bank on a big OL class the following year.
As for putting the program in a rut with his mishandling of the defense and getting himself fired, well, it's been three years. Of Hoke's classmates, Kevin Wilson inherited an offensive roster with great receivers and nothing else and created a passing juggernaut that makes Oregon look slow, Jerry Kill built an identity at Minnesota, and James Franklin has Vanderbilt recruiting like an SEC team. That those guys had a few months more to recruit their first classes I put on The Process. That Rich Rod had to pick from the value bin for D.C.s and didn't get a fourth year I put on Martin, and the fanbase (including Rosenberg/Snyder) who didn't give the guy much of a chance.
|Minnesota and Indiana's head coaches as positive examples: now there's something I never in a million years thought I'd be saying right now.|
My points for Bloodyminded Universe is for Michigan State (of all people) having a pulverizing defense that gleefully beat the last vestiges of Notre Dame Devin Gardner out of him.
Brian: You are far too kind to Rodriguez. There can be no excuse for bringing in just one offensive lineman in a year and even with Jake Fisher, his "load up" the next year consisted of Posada, who he took super early, Miller, also a really early take, Bryant, and hypothetically Fisher. Michigan is barely less screwed if RR sticks around, and recruiting super-heavy OL like Posada and Bryant a year after taking one (ONE! ONNNNNNNNNNEEEEE!) OL, that a center, is malpractice.
Ace: Brian, is that your rationale behind pinning such a small percentage of the blame on The Process? I agree with you that the failure to recruit more than one OL in the 2010 class created an inevitable time when depth (or at least depth with any experience) would be a major issue. While taking chances with Posada and Bryant looks bad now, however, there are always going to be linemen that don't pan out, big or small (Christian Pace and perhaps Miller being examples of the latter). Even though The Process cost Michigan just one Jake Fisher, I believe one Jake Fisher would make an enormous difference in the quality of this year's line, and therefore it's a major factor in why the offense hasn't functioned well this year; much like Schofield, Fisher started his career at Oregon as a guard before shifting out to tackle.
Brian: Maybe you're right, but if you regard Jake Fisher as the recruit who may or may not work out instead of the obviously very good player he is, then that's just a small part of the larger issue. You are probably right that I underestimated the impact since it's not just Fisher they're missing but a reasonable Fisher replacement they would have acquired if Hoke had more time.
Seth: So since this was kinda close to that argument you had last week I thought I'd put the question to Space Coyote as well. His answers:
(UPDATE 1:30 PM: Due to a bad sort I had the wrong data before. New chart now.)
Check the comments in a few minutes for his reasons. I guess that puts the disagreement in context: he argues Borges shouldn't be expected to be able to do very much with these guys because the positional coaches are failing; the argument is over how you divide up what is, at most, a third of the problem.
BiSB: Putting that much blame on The Process assumes Michigan would have done materially better with an extra month, but I'm not sure if I see it. They landed three offensive linemen, they just happened to land on a guy who can't stay healthy (Bryant), a guy who probably didn't want to play football (Posada), and a guy who still needs two eat two or three more sandwiches (Miller). They also landed two quality-looking TE's: Chris Barnett and Frank Clark (hence the General Bloodymindedness of the Universe). Maybe they land Jake Fisher if Hoke had been hired after the Ohio State Blerg, but Fisher didn't even commit to Oregon until February, so I sort of doubt it. Besides, assuming one quality guard would make a significant difference in the lineup ignores the lessons we should have learned from the Kyle Kalis Is Neo With A Mean Streak episode.
|*Hugs Christ Bryant* It's not your fault.
There seems to be a split on the Dithering in 2013. For my part, I look at where the team was in the first few weeks versus where they are now, and you never see this kind of regression without serious injuries (and Michigan has been fairly healthy). Notre Dame isn't great, but they have a competent run defense, and Fitz was able to rush for 3.2 YPC with that god-forsaken stretch. They brought a flawed but functional offense into September. They're dragged the lifeless corpse of an offense into Kinnick. Michigan put up 41 against Notre Dame. They put up 6, 13, and 9 points in the first 60 minutes of their last three games, two of which were against very bad defenses.
I don't know if the "spend two years gearing toward power, then go to the stretch, then go to tackle over, then go back to iso and inside zone" thing messed with skill development or messed with players' heads or what. But either Michigan's scheme is so simple even a Nebraska can solve it (which would be a Fusion Cuisine problem) or the coaches tinkered and broke the thing (which would be a dithering problem). Add in the eight different starters on interior line, and yeah.
Mathlete: One point of clarification for me, my large RichRod percentage is because of his massive failure at recruiting linemen. Beyond the obvious no o-linemen is bad, I think the continuity gap is a major untold side effect.
|If I didn't have to guess, I'd gladly confess to anything I might've tried, if I was with her too long.|
A typical team will have 3-5 guys per class, providing a chance for those guys to bond and a big group of guys within a class that they can learn from and assimilate quickly with. When you essentially have a two year gap, that continuity is gone and that's pretty uncharted territory for an o-line. The opportunities for mentorship, learning from guys similar in age, all of those team building things that are some times overstated, but are by most accounts highly critical for the offensive line are totally missing. That flow of players, leadership and training within teammates is absent. Right now, Michigan is in the process of rebuilding but that lead class are redshirt freshmen.
Seth: I probably am being too nice to Rich Rod—sorry Section 1 and His Dudeness, you can have the back-pats back. But I think we're very wrong to look at it and say "if they only had Jake Fisher," or whatever. I keep going back to linemen like stability and things outside of RR's control caused Michigan to not have that. Anyway, had he brought in a couple of low 3-stars for his system who's to say they wouldn't have transferred anyway once Hoke arrived with MANBALL? Actually, scratch that: Burzynski is tiny and they were all about playing him. Anyway if Rodriguez had taken a moment away from FREE SAFETY PANIC to grab some OL fliers in 2010, we're probably talking about how spread dudes suck at MANBALL right now instead of how freshmen suck at it.
Rodriguez was demonized pretty much from day 1 by a certain blue-haired segment of the fan base. The alumni and former players didn't support him (at least, not as much as they should have) even before he started losing.
It was because he was cussin' at practice, something the players never heard from Ron English and Lloyd Carr.
Those were in no particular order. Look at the delicious pie chart; that one took home a cool 1.2% of the blame
an area that I am wondering why isn't attempted to address in this:
Is DG able to play QB at this level? He may, and he may very well may not, but it's interesting you don't ascribe a slice to him.
Not only because it's very clear Gardner has the capacity to be a very successful college QB (it's really just a matter of consistency), but because the backups would almost certainly be disasterous.
You've made it clear in the past that you really don't like Devin Gardner for whatever reason. Tough shit. Without him, we'd probably have a losing record.
First off it has nothing to do with my liking or disliking him so think what you want. I see on this board discussion on whether players have the potential to excel at a position or not so I think this is a fair issue if you are willing to look at it objectively and have perhaps some football background.
It's a chicken-egg arguement. Is DG struggling because he burdoned with Borges or is Borges struggling because DG is not able to execute components of the QB position. This does not mean that DG can't do it next year and my early vote would be yes he will make the leap.
But if you really...... understand football you would have to allow for the argument that DG despite his incredible efforts to save games has been a lead/key role in getting the offense into tight spots. Now the reason for that is up for discussion and conjecture.
Are all the troubles he has soldiered through a direct result of a young line, bad play calling, poor blocking TE's etc? Maybe but a valid discussion could be is the QB's "performance" causing downstream effects for the offense.
When I have coached I knew that if we felt we could unnerve a QB or he had tendancies to bail (for whatever reason) we specifically addressed that in our defensive game plan.
Unfortunately now we are in a loop where DG can't really develop because of what state the offense is in and therefore teams are aggressively pressuring him in the areas where they believe he can make an error or be conflicted (not throwing quickly enough for example)
To answer an above question I do think a pocket passer with a low turnover rating and accurate arm could very well have gotten this team to a 1 loss season. I am not saying that is Shane yet either since he needs game experience. I also say that DG's early struggles have enabled "some" not all of the problems the offensive system now faces. Yes his athleticism and fight has absolutely saved the game multiple times now - I am pretty confident the offense will get to a point next season where DG doesn't have to rely on the rib-risking heroics with but a few exceptions.
Pocket passer is the absolute worse thing we could trot out there. DG has pressure up the middle almost every play and we would see a non mobile QB get sacked almost double digit times. DG has bailed us out of alot of holes this season and people need to lay off him. The couple games after ND were bad but he has definitely improved since then. With a pocket passer and our OL we probably might get more respectable scores vs Akron and UConn but Penn State is probably a loss and Nebraska is still a loss with that horrendous play calling and i'm guessing you had MSU still a loss because even in training camp before the issues and Darboh got hurt I thought it would be a mminor miracle to score 20 on that D. Also i think we would get beat by Notre Dame with out Gardner being Superman both passing and running so our record would be worse in my opinion not bettter. Gardner put us in position to win at Penn State and we would have if Brandon Gibbons kicks a 33 yard field goal which he has no excuse for missing. Nebraska was solely on Borges IMO so I don't see how DG's play has cost us a single game this season, just some respectability which is still bad but he's a good QB and I think people will be thankful for him before he's done.
I think his inability to see backers in the middle of the field vs. the slant is a big deal and should deserve at least some of the blame. Michigan QBs of late have been constantly bailed out of terrible throws by leaping receivers (See: Roundtree, Roy) and sure-fire interceptions. Honestly, we're a completely different team over the course of the last 2 years if we're not throwing 20 picks/season. That's ignoring O-Line catastrophes of course.
EDIT: This isn't to say I think we should move toward backups. I think it's a development issue that can and will get corrected.
I agree that Gardner is in for some blame. He is the QB after all. But much like my stance on Borges, I cannot expect good QB play behind this line. That we've got a live QB is a near-miracle, that he's been good at times is a full-fledged miracle.
That said, I do think you have a point. Gardner has been outright bad on almost anything short and/or quick. Make a pie chart for that, though, and I think this fan base would blame Borges for 70% of that, with 25% on the line, 4% on the defense, and 1% on Gardner.
seriously bubblelevel??? its fans like you that would probably be happier if a traditional pocket QB were starting even if that meant Michigan would be 3-7, maybe worse...DG has plenty of ability (as he has shown multiple times) and makes a few bad decisions here and there (moreso in the beginning of the year).....his OC/QB is absolutely terrible and needs to be canned in order for DG and this team to move forward next season...I like Morris, but he would have been destroyed this year with the current o-line and playcalling
I just don't think you can fairly judge a QB when he's getting sacked 19 times in three games.
That said, "Gardner shell shock" could probably get a pie slice - he's certainly made some poor decisions to escape / take a sack in cases where a throwaway or stepping up to throw would be a better move. But those are more likely to be symptoms of "Poor Damn Gardner" syndrome than indicative of his true ceiling.
Great content, but pie charts are the worst. If you truly care about people making meaningful conclusions/comparisons using your data, don't use pie charts.
Looks like the consensus (outside of Space Coyote) for Borges is around 25%, and I think that is about right, maybe a bit too much in my mind but it works.
However, if we were to take a more forward looking perspective, that one skies above all else as the major program concern and why I spend the most time fretting about it. Given the way Hoke is recruiting and (barring epic meltdown) the stability he should bring over the next few years, pretty much all those problems go away. Maybe not the universe but we are in the Big Ten, after all.
I'm still not convinced that Borges is the right answer going forward. He does a lot of stuff that just seems like nonsense to my untrained eye, and his disdain for understanding and learning from popular college football trends just seem worrisome to me. I'm willing to give it another year, but if we don't show significant progress in the cohesion of our offense next year, Borges is dead to me (dead!).
I'm not really a Borges fan, but I think 25% in the "Borges can't cook fusion cuisine" box is a bit high. I'd probably halve that, and add most of the part I took out to Funk, plus some extra in the 2013 dithering bin (which is really another Borges bin).
If we're talking about failures THIS year, it seems to me that all the tinkering and gimmicky sets that are quickly abandoned have really prevented an opportunity to gel. As a result, we do nothing well. Oddest to me was the installation of the zone stretch - the use of which would have really helped the 2011-12 fusion cuisine, but seems to take us away from the scheme the young guys were recruited for.
Now, the zone stretch was a good thing to use against a ND team with a great but relatively slow interior D line and poor depth. Could it be that Borges is just installing the "ideal" packages for a given gameplan without properly considering how it plays into the team's abilities? Maybe. I guess that goes into the "Borges can't cook" slice (see: 2011 trash tornado)
Why has the pie chart fallen out of vogue? I've heard this several times over the last year or so and don't really get it. Is ordered bar chart (pareto) the preferred way to represent this stuff? I don't really see how that's superior, different, but not necessarily better.
I think there are just more creative ways to visually display data with tools like Tableau available. Personally I don't mind pie charts if there are limited categories but they can get hard to read the more categories there are. Different strokes for different folks.
My work browser is ancient and doesn't work well with MGoBlog comment thing. Hopefully this edit works:
The main issue with Pie charts is the difficulty in comparing two charts with different info because the location of the slices changes. Look at Mathlete's massive Rodriguez hate. If I want to compare his Denard hate with Seth's, the slices are now in different locations. Yes the color is the same, but sameness of location is far more important for easy comparison than color.
Also there is greater error in estimating the exact value. Quick, what is Brian's value for Funk? I'd guess the average error making that estimate is +/-3%, which is too high imo.
Finally, labelling is a major issue. You can either put the label in the slice and have awkward, sideways labels or put them outside with arrows, which is messy and hard to track.
In conclusion, pies are for eating not for displaying information.
It really depends on what you're trying to convey. The thing pie charts are very good at is showing one category relative to the whole. Bar charts are better for showing each category relative to other categories, but you lose the intuitive percentage of the total information a pie chart provides. As this article was to discuss the indivdual contributions to the offensive sucktitude as a whole, IMO a pie chart is appropriate.
Edit: Supposing this post was premised on making suck pie I'm no longer certain of my stance.
This might be one of the best things I've read from you guys. I love the way you each break out the relative importance of each issue and each of you have very unique ways of ascribing responsibility to the current situation. And I'm glad you invited SC to the party too - it's interesting to contrast his take on the "why" to yours. Extremely informative.
Really well done Seth. Nice work!
Frampton only played on one of those albums I believe: Rock On.
Can I get some whupped cream for my suck pie?
1. Fans have some affect on things, but that affect is minimal compared to other things.
2. Mostly due to what he did to the OL, but also simply because he forced another change.
3. Killing two more OL classes and not allowing Hoke to build up a TE class at all (or even Rich Rod to perhaps steal a guy that could be a TE) really is hurting
4. Think it's being overstated. I think he prefers a more MANBALL approach, I don't think he demands it.
5. Don't really think play calling is as significant of an issue as other things. Game planning takes the majority of this, but I've thought his initial game plans were understandable. Feel for when to "ride the game plan" and "screw the game plan" hasn't been good, and that's the majority of the issue here.
6. Does it affect this years team? To a degree. I still think it was the correct decision though.
7. Though I understand the reason for each change, constantly freaking out and going to the next thing rather than just settling on something, anything from the start has stalled the offense.
8. Some combo of coaching and doing things at this point they should be able to do has really hurt the team, and is a key contributor to other problems (as are the missed OL classes to a slightly larger to even degree, as seen by the scores).
9. Backs should be able to pass pro. Funchess should be better at blocking at this point and Williams should be good at something.
10. DG Up and Down Confidence, MSU Broke DG, MSU Broke OL, MSU Exposed Huge Flaws, DAMN YOU MSU! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!
Estimating, where would you rank this offensive lines performance/"execution" out of BCS teams?
Bottom three? It seems like the Michigan has to be very, very close to the bottom in terms of results with regards to pass pro and rushing.
To get the sort of production Michigan is getting with what you consider good playcalling, you must also believe that Michigan has the worst personnel along the line in the nation.
This went through some iterations and think there was a copy paste error. fwiw
1. Fans 5
2. Rich Rod 10
3. The Process 20
4. Hoke demands MANBALL! 5
5. Borges can't cook fusion cuisine 5
6. Dithered on MANBALL transition for Denard 5
7. Ditering in 2013 10
8. Funk/OL and Execution 20
9. Ferrigno/Jackson and Execution 10
10. Bloodymindedness of Universe 10 (DG Up and Down Confidence, MSU Broke DG, MSU Broke OL, MSU Exposed Huge Flaws, DAMN YOU MSU! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!)
So you think the fans are as much to blame as Borges' playcalling? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHH
And therefore RRs demise and the process etc etc. If you want to lump that in the other groups feel free. My guess is that clarification isn't the intention of your post
I apologize for being a dick in my response. You contribute a lot to this site, and I shoud not take my Borges frustrations out on you.
If you bothered to look at his pie chart, no he does not
1. No need to be a dick.
2. Given the inexactness of subjectively assigning percentages to unquantifiable metrics, it looks like space coyote just rounded everything that was small into a 5, and he has defended his Borges opinion exhaustively in other locations.
3. seriously we all know this season has sucked let's not be dicks.
I think what's clear is that Borges and Hoke will NOT screw the game plan. They aren't just running plays for this year, they are trying to lay a foundation for the future. They won't revert to a spread offense, even if it might be more effective right now. I think they are focused on moving forward, and are taking the pains that come with transition.
2014 and 2015 will determine if it was worth it.
but why the outcry on RR deciding to use his system in his first year at the time? Sure made it a lot easier by year 3.....
With a only freshmen really built for spread is quite the same thing as doing it in year 3 with a squad of split talents.
But in any case, 3-9 vs. 7-3 is why.
we wouldn't be having the discussion of why the offense suck. It would be humming by then because the players knows the system. Instead Hoke/Borges installed it slowly but the growing pain is there at year 3 and will take a couple more years before we really see it humming. By then, we may not see Hoke or Borges if Michigan continue to play crappy next year.
I think this argument is a bit weak. Hoke and Borges tried to install their offense and found that it didn't work, so they kept falling back on (mostly) Denard and ran the fusion offense in spurts. Had they installed the offense in the first place, it still would have cratered. The defense has been this team's saving grace during Hoke's time, and that probably won't change going forward.
If the presumption is that it will take another 2 years to fully implement their offense, then that means they've spent 5 years to get to that point, and along the way have fielded some pretty inconsistent offenses. And despite the presumptions about fit and players, this team has had an AA tackle for that entire time, another tackle who'll play in the NFL for years, a Remington winner, and a couple of other guys who range from above-average to adequate. The backs and WRs have not been optimal but are certainly good enough to run a reasonable facsimile to the offense Borges claims to want to run. And while Denard certainly wasn't a great option, Devin has shown an ability to throw the ball with force and accuracy that should fit with Borges's offense; if not, then he has painted himself into a very narrow window in which he has to have a top-10 QB every year to be successful.
UM seems to be going the direction of Florida; a really good defense and (at best) inconsistent offenses. Mattison deserves a raise in that case; Borges and Funk deserve a ticket out of town if that continues.
better to take the growing pain early on so you can get expotentially better for the future. This year is like year 1 for Michigan in terms of implementing offensive system. My question is why wait? Why just move Denard to RB where it's his future? Yes, I know that there would be outrage by fanbase and players. Denard might transfer, but we don't know. You're hired to run the college program and recruit players to fit your system.
The "growing pains" argument would work better if the 2013 offense actually looked like something building towards a MANBALL future, but it doesn't.
Installing the zone stretch, tackle over, and the pistol do not bring us closer to the supposed downhill power running team we want to be long term. Nor are they stuff that worked in the last two years that are being kept around for the sake of continuity. They are brand new things that don't seem to fit in with the 2011-12 "fusion cuisine" or the long term future of pocket passers and between-the-tackles thumpers.
If we fully committed to the man-up, power run game, we'd still be awful but at least we'd be repping for the future. Instead it looks like Borges really is willing to try anything to get some yards, but as a result we're not particularly good at anything.
Schofield is going to play in the NFL for years?
And can you imagine the uproar if they had instituted a complete pro-style from day one and cratered the 2011 season? They would never have gotten any traction.
To be fair, the better record this year is because of the defense playing significantly better than anything RR had. That is probably partially due to his own weaknesses as a HC, but Mattison has protected this offensive ineptitude to a good degree.
Tied with Vandy.
That's really embarrassing man.
(I'm colorblind, so the colors might not match)
Rich Rod came out with the biggest chunk simply because I didn't know where to put a double, to spread and back, transition cost. He did some specific things to hurt the situation now as many have already pointed out, but to me lack of continuity is maybe the biggest single issue. That was further exacebated by not fully transitioning in years 1 and 2 and then this year's throw it out there and see what sticks gameplans.
That said, all of the above would cause a program to struggle, but we've been going far beyond normal struggles. That goes back to the position coaches, IMO. Some of the stuff I'm seeing guys mess up is so WTF that it can't really be explained any other way.
Borges shares some blame, not in the decision to dither, but the implementation of it, i.e. failure to come up with a hybrid system that has any coherence instead of a grab bag of plays from all styles and directions.
This is the best post I've seen in 2 years.
Coach Rod still coaches here, so this comment makes sense.
The comment still makes sense in the context of this post. By stating that the offense would be fine under coach Rod, he's placing most of the blame on the current staff. I assume he means most of the blame is on Funk and Borges for not formulating a gameplan around their players. It's a valid point. Your comment (unless I'm reading it incorrectly and in which case, I apologize) is just trolling.
You read it right. Not trolling. Maybe being a bit of an asshole.
I don't think his comment fits in the context of this post. It would like putting up a big taupe pie and labeling it "Firing Coach Rod". It might be 100% true, but it deals with something other than what's being discussed.
While I might agree with some of your points and do assume that the line would be better under Rodriguez, where does that "blame" go for his low recruiting numbers and the substance of the O-Line recruits he did bring in? I think the panel is right that depth at the OL would still be an issue for a Rich Rodriguez coached 2013 Michigan football team and that transitioning from pro-style to spread to pro-style is part of the reason that we're bad. Where does that blame get placed if not with Rich Rodriguez? Which is not to say that he's at fault for not anticipating his firing and not chosing to set up the subsequent staff with players they would like.