"When Can We Fire This Guy?" Comment Count

Brian

A very special mailbag, with just one question. This one has been asked, or implied by people sending me reasons the play of the team is definitely the fault of the coaches, by many, many people the past couple weeks. If you sent one, I read it. I'm not responding except here. Sorry. Usually I try to be better about it.

The platonic ideal:

Just talk me off the ledge...

Please explain what it would take for you to no longer support Rich Rod.  What specifically has to happen?  And then, please state not just what you expect to see from the program in the coming years, but how the team will improve?  To me, that's why I just can't support Rich Rod anymore.  Show me where are the underclassmen who will show improvement and how you actually see the coaches making them better.

I just don't see it.  Instead, I see a mentally soft team, that while yes, has serious deficiencies, is currently losing to teams that also have serious deficiencies.  Our players seem to be all over the place and just poorly coached in general.

Like I said, talk me off the ledge..

I get emails like this because I've been a supporter of Rodriguez throughout his tenure at Michigan and am moving much more slowly towards the conclusion that Rodriguez should be fired than the rest of the universe. The emailer asks for specifics. To set ground rules, here are the assumptions I am working with.

---------------

Virtually nothing that happened in 2008 was avoidable, and it was mostly not Rodriguez's fault. Michigan's program had already been gutted by attrition and poor motivation by the time Rodriguez made it to campus, and the exodus of offensive stars in the aftermath of his hiring was an inevitable consequence of the radical shift in offensive philosophy.

I have it from reliable sources Ryan Mallett was gone no matter who was the coach and that Manningham was headed for the NFL after three years from day one. Arrington left because Mallett left. Boren left because he was asked to put in the same amount of effort as the rest of the team and not given special exemptions to go be Mr. Plow. If you want to blame Rodriguez for Boren, fine. Add him to the team last year and you still have a disaster of an offense that starts Nick Sheridan most of the year.

Arguments that Rodriguez should have stuck with a pro-style offense he's never coached and forgo the installation of his system in order to get to 5-7 when hardly anyone on the roster has even played in a pro-style system have been discussed already; I think they are silly.

Rodriguez is not responsible for the enormous holes on the roster. Rodriguez has had a single full recruiting class and had a brief window in which to patch some spread-type players onto Carr's last class. The gaping holes on defense and the lack of talent at outside receiver and offensive line are almost entirely Lloyd Carr's doing. The freshmen quarterbacks are a combination of Carr putting every egg for three years in Mallett's basket and the radical shift in offensive philosophy.

This has been discussed elsewhere on the blog; I won't belabor the point.

Hiring Scott Shafer was a terrible mistake, and the other hires are questionable. At the very least it was a misjudge of the guy's ability to fit in on the staff. At worst, he allowed his DC to get submarined and saw the defense implode because of his assistants' impatience.

This may extend to Rodriguez's other hires as well: Jay Hopson has recruited very few players as Michigan withdrew entirely from Mississippi after last year's debacle; Hopson also secured the commitments of both defensive tackles who went elsewhere on signing day. His linebacking corps has regressed horribly.

And while the jury is still be out (very, very out) on Robinson given the players he has to work with, but his track record since his salad days with the Broncos is one of relentless failure with a single good-not-great year at Texas mixed in.

It is worth noting that the guys who can really be considered DeBord-style crony legacy folk are Magee, Tall, Smith, and Gibson. Dews is a vagabond who was a grad assistant at WVU for a few years before wandering around to Holy Cross, CMU, and UNLV.  Frey was picked off from South Florida a year before Rodriguez left WVU and had no prior connection to Rodriguez. Hopson is obviously new. Fred Jackson was an enforced hire by the Michigan AD.

The crony guys are the offensive coordinator who everyone loves, the DL coach who is, IME, doing a very good job, the QB coach who helped Pat White be Pat White, and… well… Tony Gibson. At this point I'd rather see Rodriguez hire a guy he knows inside and out; the folk he brings in from the outside haven't done that well.

We are not at the point yet where the deficiencies in the team are clearly the doing of the coaches. It's pretty suggestive at linebacker, sure. But the secondary is just a disaster zone and would be a disaster zone if Monte Kiffin cloned himself eight times and had all eight players try to teach the safeties how to play football. The offense has improved greatly from year one to year two and has done so with true freshmen at quarterback. Since Rodriguez has a track record of success, he should be extended the benefit of the doubt.

They're not "soft." They don't play like mincing Frenchmen. They play like speed-addled kids with ADD. They are irresponsible and sometimes dumb. This is because they are terribly young or Michigan's linebackers. What does "soft" even mean? Jonas Mouton blowing coverages and cutback lanes game after game is not soft. Mike Williams overrunning everyone on Illinois is not soft. Michigan blowing assignments on the Illinois goal line stand is not soft.

It takes time to dig out.

--------------

Michigan was not a 3-9 team by accident; they had the talent of a 3-9 team. If you disagree with that, it's probably to suggest that Michigan was really a 5-7 or 4-8 team that Rodriguez screwed up into being a slightly more horrible team, right?

If you think that Michigan's downfall was entirely Rodriguez-made and you're pointing to the gutted recruiting classes that were in the top ten at their inception but have been ground down to dust, you can safely move on from this post since nothing in it will convince you. My opinion is that a combination of poor late stewardship from Carr and the wrenching transition to the opposite of Lloyd Carr in so many ways is what doomed us to this transition.

So:

I expect Rodriguez to provide continual improvement until Michigan is back to being Michigan. That's my baseline. I'm not exactly thrilled with what's gone on this year but I think it's understandable. Given the roster situation and the chaos at DC—which Rodriguez is responsible for—this Michigan team is within the range in which Rich Rodriguez is not an idiot who got lucky with Pat White and Steve Slaton. It's towards the lower end of the range but it is in the range. It takes time to dig out from the hole they were in.

Next year, Michigan must be better than they are this year. I have no idea where the emailer is getting the idea that Michigan can't be a better team when they return at least 16 starters on offense and defense, with Donovan Warren a potential 17th, some combination of Dorrestein and Omameh a potential 18th, and Darryl Stonum a functional 19th.

Additionally, the players on this team are still extremely young. There are 11 starters on the team who are sophomores or freshman by eligibility, and many of the guys with redshirts in there are guys like Hemingway, Huyge, and Molk who missed large chunks of time with injury. The quarterbacks should take huge leaps forward in their second year. The only spot at which Michigan should be appreciably worse next year, excepting special teams, is Brandon Graham. That will be a major loss; it won't offset improved play at every position on the field.

So, sure. If you really don't think Michigan is going to be better next year I can understand why you'd want to see Rodriguez fired. I also think you're completely nuts.

If they aren't obviously better, then Rodriguez should be fired. If they don't make a bowl game, if they aren't obviously moving away from the Big Ten cellar, if they don't approach yardage parity against BCS opponents, Rodriguez should be fired. I think all of those things are seriously unlikely, and am willing to invest a year to find out. Where it is in black and white: acts of God nonwithstanding, 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.

This is the last I'll say about it until next year.

Comments

Fuzzy Dunlop

November 9th, 2009 at 5:13 PM ^

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I think we need to see "marked improvement" next year, but I wouldn't arbitrarily lay out a particular wins-losses bench mark that we need to meet. There are different ways of going 6-6, and in certain circumstances such a record could be seen as showing the necessary improvement. One issue I've had in recent days is the spate of excessively Pollyannish commenters who are saying thing's like "hey, we all predicted 6-6 or 7-5 this year, we're not far off, so what are you so upset about?" It's not purely a matter of final record. Having 7 losses but playing better as the year goes on and pulling off some upset wins is one thing. Losing seven in a row (against non-HS level competition) and regressing as the year goes on is something very different. This is what causes me concern, not the fact that we're 5-5 right now.

jim48315

November 11th, 2009 at 1:15 AM ^

Well said. The win against Delaware State counts as nothing at all. The Iowa and MSU games, I submit, were pretty good efforts. But Illinois, Penn State, and Purdue were debacles, and these debacles must be limited. Not that there weren't debacles in the past. The 2002 Citrus Bowl was perhaps the worst effort by a Michigan team in the past 41 years, and I don't go further back because I simply don't know. The 1991 Florida State whipping was more in the nature of culture shock than anything else. Likewise the 1992 Rose Bowl loss, although that was a loss to no doubt about it steroid monsters (Steve Emtmann). And one more thing. RR should be saying that any blame falls on himself and the coaches, even if he and they do not deserve it, just to try to preserve the kids' confidence in their own ability to improve.

cfaller96

November 9th, 2009 at 5:28 PM ^

Our legal system = if bhallpm anally rapes farm animals then arrest and incarcerate him Me = arrest and incarcerate bhallpm because he anally rapes farm animals Radically different statements, I'm sure you'd agree.

imdwalrus

November 9th, 2009 at 5:29 PM ^

Even in the simplistic (and arguably wrong) way you stated it, they're still radically different. In your wording, Brian's statement is an "if," hinging on future performance. Yours is already writing off a season that's still a year away, before we know who's going to commit, who leaves, who's going to redshirt, who might get injured, what (if any) position coaches leave or are fired...all sorts of factors. Your "we're going to fail" isn't the same as Brian's "if we fail," no matter how much you might want it to be. Ignoring all of that, tone is also important. Brian is calm and reasoned. Your posts have been...not so much.

Fuzzy Dunlop

November 9th, 2009 at 5:24 PM ^

But see the -9 points bhallpm just received a few posts above. Maybe he went overboard with some previous posts, but he didn't say anything wrong here. Even if it's not a full-throttled neg-banging, any critical comments that aren't accompanied by extensive mea culpas and caveats seem to draw unwarranted negs. I know I brought it up, but I'm going to respectfully cease from discussing the issue now. I know that excessive whining about negs is, well, whiny. Don't want to distract from the substance of Brian's post by making it about the board.

bronxblue

November 9th, 2009 at 5:03 PM ^

To defend the neg-bombing somewhat, most posters do not make the reasoned arguments Brian just laid out. They tend to be more of the vein that "RR better compete for a Big 10 title next year or else." I still do think that RR should get 4 years, but if the team regresses next year then I am open to reconsideration. If he makes a bowl game next year and the defense shows any signs of improving, then i think you let RR stick it out one more year and see if his new recruits can put the team back to where it belongs.

notetoself

November 9th, 2009 at 5:25 PM ^

nonononono.. you can no longer create content because you were a dick about it. also, notice how you said "this is not a 8-5 team in 2010" and not "i think this is not a 8-5 team in 2010"? see how less dickish that seems now? if you don't see that, then please, never write an email to your girlfriend, mom, or boss.

BigTen Guy

November 9th, 2009 at 5:21 PM ^

Not even close. Huh Two exemplary institutions rich with tradition Indiana basketball Michigan football Both lose a coach that brought them a NC Both bring in a new coach that is an outsider to the program Both coaches have more than a little baggage Winning makes a very powerful deodorant When the wins don’t match the integrity lost the stench Becomes unbearable I’ll check back with you in a year or two

notetoself

November 9th, 2009 at 5:27 PM ^

really? you're going to check back with jamiemac in a year or two? i'm going to hold you to that. you made a promise on the internet. that's a legally binding contract.

BigTen Dude

November 9th, 2009 at 5:49 PM ^

Well, I was equating a Final Four with a NC - my bad. But since I have been punted from your forum for not being in lock step with the RR hire... Ya'll just argue amongst each other now mkay? Apparently there is no room for a dissenting opinion. (and no I was not referring to any poem - just my own prose)

BigTen Dude

November 9th, 2009 at 6:42 PM ^

not being a dick. Is is hard to use logic. The preceding statements were solely the opinion of BigTen Dude and are, therefore, probably not based whatsoever on fact, research or more time in thought than what was required to physically type them, and he's a fast typer yet somehow, they're probably correct anyway, so you shouldn't argue too much, because otherwise he'll just blather on forever about how stupid he thinks you are, how much Notre Dame sucks, ask you how many posts YOU have in the GBI Hall of Fame, or how your opinion is clearly not rooted in fact. In the unlikely event that his opinion actually turns out to be correct, you should stay off the boards for about a month because there just isn't room for you AND his head on one internet. Seriously. Even the one invented by Al Gore.

In reply to by BigTen Guy

jamiemac

November 9th, 2009 at 5:49 PM ^

I'll compare them, listing KS off first: KS replaced a coach who resigned because he was getting fired at the end of year. KS didnt replace a coach who won a NC. In fact, he replaced an outsider as Mike Davis wasnt even with the program for a year when they "hired" him. KS left Oklahoma one step ahead of NCAA sanctions KS commits same violations at IU KS had widespread, fairly universal support at IU when he was hired. KS had a terrible academic reputation and it carried over at IU as none of his players went to class and several became ineligble during his two years. KS didnt suffer mass departures, in fact, the players still there could not wait for his arrival. And recruits flocked to Bloomington. Everything was in place for KS to succeed instantly, and he did, at IU and was on the way to winning a big 10 titel, when it was revealed that he continued to commit phone violations and after being warned they got rid of a popular coach in midseason. Now for Rodriguez. He replaced a coach who retired at the end of an amazing career. Most of the players leftover did not welcome Rodriguez, many transferred or turned pro. Rodirguez has never had the wide spread support KS had among the fanbase when he was hired and during the first year and half. Rodriguez was forced to build from scratch. KS was not. Rodriguez did not leave one step ahead of NCAA Violations. In fact, his record is clean. Total opposite of KS in that regard. Rodriguez baggage is inflated by the folks he left behind in WVA. Sampson's baggage was real and already on the record when IU hired. Rodriguez makes his kids go to class and his kids have more than held their own in the classroom. Rodriguez has never had half the popularity within the base that KS has during his peak time at IU. Rodriguez was set up to fail thanks to player defections when he arrived and recruiting attrition the previous 2-3 years before his arrival. IU looked the other way at KS.....with these practice accusations, UM is not looking the other way, actively starting an investigation. Do these sound similar? I treasure both of these schools. Both hires were risky. But only one can you say integrity was sacrificed. This is just off the top of my head. If I felt it worth the time, I'd expand a lot more on the differences between these two situations. Crean and Rodriguez are much closer in integrity and in position of talent when he arrived on campus.

BigTen Dude

November 9th, 2009 at 6:30 PM ^

No, I didn't read all that - a cursory scan shows the gist of the response is to point out that there are obvious differences. (sorry if that belittles the effort that went into that). Ya-ok I get that there are differences - maybe one or two more. Obviously there was not enough context of my post to express my view that the RR hire was a mistake and reflects badly on the school and the conf. I find it very similar to the situation IU went through with Sampson. The messy divorce. From his own school? I'm sorry if I am the only one that still is uneasy about his character. Complete disclosure here - I have two degrees from two other BigTen schools (and no, one of them is not O$U); but am forced to follow Big Blue because of a 25 year shotgun wedding.

BluCru

November 9th, 2009 at 5:00 PM ^

Wailing fans of the internet, look at the offense. With a green offensive line and either green and/or not-too-special receivers we have piled up enough yards and points to be in contention for the Big Ten title. The offense will get better. Given the choice between the backs we will have next year and the little pieces of Minor and Brown we have had this year, it's pretty much a tossup. And every other position group will be better. It all on the defense. RR certainly bears some blame here. he didn't get a long-term answer in at DC in his first year. I don't know who he tried to get or how exactly he ended up with Shafer, but that is where he ended up. That didn't work out well and here we are. God knows how GERG will work out, but it very hard to argue that anyone would have made a big success out of what he has had to work with. If we don't have vastly improved linebacker and safety play next year, then we can talk about whether GERG can do the job. Another thing to keep in mind, all defensive stats are going to look uglier under RR. The offense goes fast, the defense faces more plays and more drives. The team will give up more points than we are used to. It just will. If this team had a mediocre defense to go with even this rebuilding offense, we would be contending for the B10 title this year. Hopefully, we will have a built offense and an improved defense and that is where we will be next year. Not a blind RR supporter, but seeing way too many signs that things will get better to bail out now. Another thing to note, Amaker didn't lose his job until his post-sanctions, self-recruited squad failed to deliver the year they should have. That moment is still a couple years away for RR.

jcgary

November 9th, 2009 at 5:03 PM ^

I know others have already said it but great post, Brian! Pretty much exactly what I have been telling friends that feel RR should be fired. I can't wait to see what improvement we will see next year.

qwatkins

November 9th, 2009 at 5:08 PM ^

I keep hearing, "its a young team," as the excuse for losing. But who says that a team full of young players necessarily gets much better? Is there evidence for this? At what point do players reach their potential, as juniors, as sophomores? Granted, no question players improve from freshman to sophomore year, but at some point that improvement slows or stops. And if the players are bad now, how much better will they get? I'm looking for a little more analysis to what I consider to be the most common apology for the Rich Rod regime. You can't just say, well they are young. They might be getting worse. We have some highly recruited players on D right now, so why haven't they improved in 2 years (see Mouton, Williams). Mouton is going backwards! Absent some sort of better analysis, I'm just not buying it that when we get older, we'll be better. In fact, the critique of the coaches is a direct affront to this apology. The argument is that some of these position coaches simply are not making the players much better. So waiting for players to get older, won't make any difference.

MGoScene

November 9th, 2009 at 5:21 PM ^

fwiw, only 2 of the 74 heisman winners have been sophomores (one rs, and both within the last two years) -- the rest were juniors or seniors. it's a small sample, and an arguably biased system, but it still indicates that juniors and seniors are typically better than freshmen and sophomores. edit: there were 73 winners in 74 years; i had forgotten that b-hole archie griffin won it a couple times.

cfaller96

November 9th, 2009 at 5:24 PM ^

But who says that a team full of young players necessarily gets much better? Is there evidence for this? Um, I'm pretty sure, without looking anything up, that every single young player on a team improves as he gets older. So it follows that if you have a disproportionate # of young players on your roster, that a disproportionate part of your entire team will improve as that disproportionate group of youngsters gets older. Am I going too fast for you? We have some highly recruited players on D right now, so why haven't they improved in 2 years (see Mouton, Williams)? WRT to highly rated D recruits not being good, this is another thing that I'm pretty sure of without looking anything up- sometimes highly-rated recruits are busts. That's why coaches generally don't bet an entire position on just one or two highly-rated recruits. Read Misopogon's post again. It's not just quality, but quantity as well. M has been struggling with defensive recruiting since 2005 (i.e. since well before RichRod got here). Also, though I doubt there's empirical evidence of this, you greatly increase your chances of having recruits go bust if you change your coordinators a lot. On defense, M has had 4 defensive coordinators in 5 years. If you want to criticize RichRod for the hiring/firing of Scott Shafer, knock yourself out because I and many others won't disagree with you. But at the end of the day, the problems you see with the defensive personnel are connected to things that have been happening for years. The blame can and should be spread around to all the people involved in those years. I'm looking for a little more analysis to what I consider to be the most common apology for the Rich Rod regime. You can't just say, well they are young. I think you need to reread the post. Several times. Do you see those bolded parts? Do you see how there's several bolded parts, i.e. not just one "well they are young" statement? Reading comprehension is fun! I don't think "well they are young" is the crux of this post, but again that's because I actually read and understood the post. I'm weird like that.

cfaller96

November 9th, 2009 at 6:08 PM ^

Seriously, ask around and everyone will tell you that I try and win arguments by overwhelming you with my massive tl;dr comments. Utilizing large volumes of words is the only way I know to compensate for my incredibly disappointing 2 inch penis.

qwatkins

November 9th, 2009 at 6:21 PM ^

To sit here and defend the staff based on the assumption that as the team ages, they'll get better as sure as gravity is a mistake. One major assumption of Brian's post is that the young players will improve next year and in the years beyond. But I just don't know if its true. Look at Mouton and Williams. 2 years in a system, 2 years older. They are not much better as far as I can tell. Many players didn't improve much in season last year either. Don't ridicule my post. Obviously, as I stated, players improve. A 22 year old senior is almost always better than an 18 year old freshman. But the question is by how much will younger players improve and why. There needs to be good coaching. And, at some point, players approach their potential. Maybe ours have hit that. Its not a given that players improve into eternity. A lot of great HS players peak young. Many good recruits develop different bodies or lack the skills to make significant gains at the college level. Any player needs good coaching. Its simply not a given that year over year our players will improve. So the suggestion, which was in Brian's post, that RR should be cut slack because his team is "young" doesn't do it for me. He has to prove he and his staff has some talent for improving young talent, and that the talent he recruits is in a position to get SIGNIFICANTLY better. You can assume that like gravity, but I don't think you should.