"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

dahblue

November 9th, 2009 at 7:35 PM ^

You could keep going but you'd run out of names quickly. The team defense is worse than last year. More depressing than that is the recent regression. Why is it so impossible for folks here to critically look at our team? We all want the same thing, but it seems that not drinking the Kool-Aid is a sin.

dahblue

November 9th, 2009 at 7:54 PM ^

I look at all the players that were high star recruits for Amaker that never improved. Maybe they didn't get worse, but he did them no favors. We have lots of talented kids on the football team, but I don't know if it's clear that RR is making a difference with any improvement. Maybe so, I just don't buy it at this point.

chitownblue2

November 9th, 2009 at 7:07 PM ^

I'm curious what your proposed alternative is. Let's say that RR is fired at the end of the season. Now what? We need to hire a coach. RR got tons of abuse for breaking his contract - what quality head coach is currently available that's not under a contract? Moreover, is there a good coach not under contract who wants to work for a school that just booted their old coach to the curb after he had brought in only a single recruiting class? Propose one, please. Second, will this coach be successful immediately? Soon? We lost a ton of players in the changeover from Carr to Rodriguez - what impact would this have on our existing class? Or the players that Rodriguez had brought in? Do we assume that most will want to play for a coach they didn't commit to, in a system that they didn't look to play in? What happens if we try to play power football with Odoms as a starting WR and Vincent Smith starting at tailback? Many defensive problems have come from having 3 coordinator in 3 years. Will a 4th in 4 years improve the situation?

dahblue

November 9th, 2009 at 7:18 PM ^

Frankly, the contract issue is merely a matter of buyouts and settlements. That's just the business of the game. The AD search coupled with a possible football coaching search would be very interesting. I'd be surprised if the AD search didn't exist on two tracks (with RR in the picture and without). As for recruits, I think what we've seen is that the tiny players favored by RR are too small. Should we have two more years of mini-players? At some point we will have to deal with another transition. Second, you raise conflicting points - saying that RR has only been given one recruiting class...and then asking what will we do with all the players we would lose if RR is fired. What's the big deal if it's only one class? Much like RR did late in his first recruiting game, a new coach would be able to alter course to suit his style. I'm willing to take a 6-6 year with a new coach, but not with RR.

chitownblue2

November 9th, 2009 at 7:22 PM ^

They're not conflicting. We're operating at 70% of out scholarships used now - how bad would we be if that number dropped to 60? You advocated Saban - are we ready for 45 man recruiting classes, and booting current players off the team to make room? I'm not sure if "being smaller" is what's reponsible for missed assignments, and walk-on's being out-talented,

chitownblue2

November 9th, 2009 at 7:29 PM ^

You didn't, I'm getting the people I disagree with confused. How many recruits do you think a new coach would pull in between the end of November and the final signing? How many do you think he'd lose?

dahblue

November 9th, 2009 at 7:43 PM ^

No worries. I think everyone disagrees with me (and I'm a die hard fan...becomes disheartening). I would expect a wash or minimal net loss. We are still (despite the terrible piped-in music and losing team) Michigan. There are plenty of uncommitted studs (or those being recruited by Miles, Kelly, etc.) who would follow.

Kvothe

November 9th, 2009 at 10:41 PM ^

A die hard fan is one that sticks with their team through thick and thin. This blog is full of them. In no way can you fire a coach after only 2 to 3 years. Remember all the fuss about ND firing Willingham after only 3 years? Calling for your coaches head as soon as things get tough does not show that you are a die hard fan but more of the band wagon type. Don't worry when RR turns things around there will still be a place on the wagon for you!

cfaller96

November 10th, 2009 at 10:29 AM ^

I would expect a wash or minimal net loss. We are still (despite the terrible piped-in music and losing team) Michigan. There are plenty of uncommitted studs (or those being recruited by Miles, Kelly, etc.) who would follow. That passage is such delusional crap, and it's at the heart of why you think it would be no big deal to drop a coach a mere two years into his tenure. "A wash or minimal net loss" are you out of your fucking mind? Wait, I think I know the answer. Yes, you are out of your fucking mind.

03 Blue 07

November 9th, 2009 at 8:34 PM ^

I am 100% with you and this is the argument I make to people. I first ask them who they'd rather have had; I always hear Les Miles. I agree somewhat- hell, I wanted Les Miles. It didn't work out. We got the next-best guy, IMO. If we sack RR now, who the FUCK is coming here to coach? Are you guys delusional? "Hey, they just fired a great coach after 2 years, yeah, I want to leave my school and go work there." Yeah, right. And all the people who are on the Brian Kelly bandwagon, come on. RR in 2007 = better resume than BK now. All I am saying is, if you want RR gone, I want an ALTERNATIVE who you think would actually TAKE THE JOB. The point is, there aren't that many good college football coaches out there, period. We have one of them now.

DCBlue

November 9th, 2009 at 8:48 PM ^

let me first say I agree with you. It would be folly to fire Rodriguez after his 2nd season. However, if I was an element of the fire Rich Rod crowd, what I would point to in my defense to counter the argument that hiring another coach now wouldset the program back even farther is the North Carolina basketball example. The parallels and precedent are there. The legend, Dean Smith (Bo), retires. Replaced by a loyal assistant, Bill Guthridge (Mo and Lloyd in this tenuous example). Guthridge (Carr) retires. After publicly flirting with Roy Williams (Les Miles), North Carolina hires Matt Dougherty (Rich Rod, although not directly analagous because Dougherty was an NC player). After 3 years, things have SERIOUSLY regressed. Doughtery is not liked in the program. Dean Smith calls up Roy Williams (Miles) and says, essentially, "It's time to come home." Williams leaves an established program, Kansas (LSU), to come home to North Carolina. Now, I make no bones about the fact that these are two COMPLETELY different scenerios and two vastly different sports. However, it is kind of scary how things are somewhat parallel. Only catch is, and this would NEVER happen, it would take Carr calling Miles in the Michigan scenerio because of Bo being gone. Anyway, that is a quick, admittedly not well thought out scenerio. And with all that being said, I still think it would be suicide to fire Rich Rodriguez.

SeattleChris

November 10th, 2009 at 12:52 AM ^

I must admit that I've had the same thought regarding Miles and/or Jim Harbaugh. The issue is that Carr and Miles do not get along to put it mildly so I don't think that phone call would ever happen. It would be more than suicide to fire RR at this point, he has 4 years to turn the ship and now we should all just turn the page on this discussion as Brian has already done. I have no issue with standard criticsm, leveled wisely (why can't we tackle? can't we use Denard in more creative ways, even the RPS metric to a certain degree...) but some of the blather I'm reading here is so ridiculous I might have to go over to GBW to get perspective.

Brodie

November 10th, 2009 at 10:20 AM ^

I'd say Brian Kelly's resume is more impressive, his work in D-2 was much better than RR's and he's on pace to be just as successful in the Big East. His time at Central is more proof of his talents as a head coach.

umchicago

November 9th, 2009 at 7:15 PM ^

the paralles between JB and RR are quite similar. year 1 horrible. both have show improvement in year 2. both very young teams. the big difference is that JB's boys pulled out close wins against Savannah St, Indiana, Northwestern, etc. JB needed all of those wins to make the tourney. RR, however, has lost some close games (granted we got ND and Indy). But if we pulled out a couple more winnable games: msu, iowa, purdue, even illinois, we would be giddy. we are just a couple plays short of being giddy, even with our pourous D. you could argue that coaches help win close games, but most would agree that it's easier to turn around a team in basketball than football.

jamiemac

November 9th, 2009 at 7:30 PM ^

I dont care if you, others or any of these hyopthetical fans would not have tolerated Beilein had his second season ended up differently. He is still a great coach. Fact is, he was a few breaks going against him from putting up a second season like RR is now. So, if IU hits more FTs and LLP hits one less second half trey vs Minny and with those comebacks wins turning into losses we end up out of the tournament, suddenly you would find that outcome unacceptable and not tolerable....or, as you imply, others would and would be right to feel that way? I point this out because basically that's what is happening on the football field. A 6-6 w/ bowl win is about the same from a pure hoops equivalent of what the hoops team did last year, basically .500 against like foes with tourney win (bowl win). Its not like Rodriguez is really that far off now from what JB did. It helped JB that he had the best player on the court everytime and maybe thats why the IU and Minny game does not get away from him. Rodriguez does not have that luxury, and the whole best player on the court thing is widely a hoops thing anyway, and the teams falls apart at shitty Illinois (like IU hoops) and cant make the clutch plays at the end and lose to an equal Purdue (Minny in hoops). If this if later in his tenure, with his recruits as upperclassmen, I would have major problems. In year 2, with such a young team, hampered by six years of poor recruiting on defense, I'm not going to freak out about anything....other than feel sad that the kids arent getting the success yet out of all the hard work they're putting in.

jamiemac

November 9th, 2009 at 7:41 PM ^

Are you fucking kidding me? You dont see improvement? They are scoring 12 more points per game this year than last year. The offense could not cross the street last year. This year, its almost good enough to cover massive defensive issues and still get us wins. We're 5-5. Easily could be two games better. But, the offense is led by a true freshmen and that's been costly throughout. I said its almost been enough. Next year, everybody on offense will be in their third year with Rodriguez and for the first time ever they can grow with an experiened, playmaker QB in this offense. It will be enough to mask the D weaknesses. The difference between 7-3 and 5-5 right now is an experienced QB. If you're not having fun watching this offense grow and seeing improvement from where we were a year ago, then maybe you need to go do something different.

dahblue

November 9th, 2009 at 7:48 PM ^

Are you fucking kidding me? You don't realize that getting worse from week to week is not improvement? As I said to another blind loyalist, if you think this team has improved from September to now...you need to share what you're smoking.

jamiemac

November 9th, 2009 at 8:31 PM ^

Its about not wanting to shit on a bunch of teen agers who are busting their ass trying to impress douch nozzles like yourself so that you dont use words like regressiomn, unacceptable and accuse them of ruining the great michigan brand. And, yes, they are improved since September. Forcier just had his two best back to back games passing. I think this will keep up. Very stoked to his game Saturday. Roundtree has emerged into a legit playmaker. Omameh is now starting on the line. All of these have occurred since September. Just off the top of my head. Seriously, find a new pursuit.

dahblue

November 9th, 2009 at 9:32 PM ^

I never thought I'd see the day when Michigan fans behaved like Lions fans. "Forcier had his best..."? His best what? We got blown out by Illinois and beaten at home by Purdue. I don't care if he had his best breakfast. It's pathetic to see how many people are in here defending what is shameful. How blind can a person be to think this team has improved since September? We were 4-0. We are now 5-5 with our only non-September win against a D-II school. I love my school enough to acknowledge its faults. That's more than I can say for every simple shut-in on this board dropping negatives on me purely because you don't like the truth that I speak. Find a new pursuit? Can I join your Dungeons & Dragons club? I really thought this forum would be a fun place to trade thoughts with other Michigan fans. Instead, it seems to be a cage of rapid sycophants...eager to pounce upon anyone with a different opinion.

BluCru

November 9th, 2009 at 9:44 PM ^

Our glorious 4-0 was over EMU, WMU, ND, and Indiana. They had no tape on our D and no tape on our O. We lost games from Minor, C. Brown, and Molk, Cissoko, and, oh yeah, our QB sprained his shoulder and got concussed. Yea, results haven't been as good. Brilliant analysis. I can tell you authoritatively that any team that plays WMU and then Penn State will regress. You posters here don't understand and acknowledge M's faults? Jeez, the people on this board are obsessive about our faults, but they seem to prefer a little rational analysis along with the despair.

dahblue

November 9th, 2009 at 9:50 PM ^

Easy wins with solid play against EMU, WMU Good, close win over ND. Terrible play to barely beat Indiana. Terrible performance against: MSU, Iowa, PSU, Illinois, Purdue. It's not just the score; it's how the team played. No fan, who is honest with himself, can deny that the team has played worse as the season has worn on. Why I get attacked for that, I don't know.

jwfsouthpaw

November 9th, 2009 at 10:44 PM ^

Yes, losing to the #10 team on the road at night was surely a "terrible performance." And you wonder why you "get attacked"? Isn't it obvious? Everything for you has to be a superlative. Just look at your post: wins are "easy," "good," or "terrible." Losses are "terrible" or . . . wait there are only terrible losses! Another example: your argument that the team has regressed from last year. Certain aspects maybe, but certainly not the team as a whole. You leave no wiggle-room, or mention that, for example, the offense dropped 36 points this past weekend. For you, that was apparently a "terrible performance." The defense? Yes. The offense? Not so much. Heck, OSU struggled to put up points against Purdue. And of course the team will appear to regress when it plays teams like Penn State, Iowa, etc. Those are very good football teams. DId you expect us to just walk all over them like we did Western Michigan? If you stopped spewing ANGER everywhere, perhaps people would be more amenable to your perspective. You talk of spirited debate, yet your posts are consistently combative, and not in a good sense. Nobody here is saying that RR is flawless. Nobody here is saying that he has not made mistakes. You would do well to acknowledge this.

Ed Shuttlesworth

November 9th, 2009 at 10:34 PM ^

Let me preface this by saying I loved the Rod hiring and drank the Kool-Aid a gallon at a time for a year and 8 games. That said, the "improvement" logic is fail because there's no way the 2008 defense was a 3-9 defense. Brian didn't think it was a 3-9 defense, I didn't think it was a 3-9 defense, no commentators thought it was a 3-9 defense, no one on this board thought it was a 3-9 defense. If the 2008 team shouldn't have been 3-9 -- and it shouldn't have been -- this year is not an "improvement" year. This year looks like "improvement" only because last year was way below what it should have been. The ugly, unvarnished truth: We beat the Florida Gators in Florida the last game before Rod took over. Actually, we kicked the crap out of the Florida Gators in Florida the last game before Rod took over, but Mike Hart got the fumbles, so we only scored 41 points, not 55. Obi Ezeh was a very promising freshman MLB in 2007. He had an excellent Citrus Bowl against Florida, helping Michigan actually beat Florida in a bowl game in Florida. The Wolverine 2008 season preview -- hardly a shill -- had him ranked 8th in Big Ten LBs, ahead of Greg Jones. He now can't find the field. Donovan Warren was a very promising freshman CB in 2007. The Wolverine magazine had him ranked the third best freshman CB in the last 25 years at Michigan, behind Charles Woodson and Marlin Jackson, ahead of Ty Law and Leon Hall. He's been average in almost 2 years under Rod. Jonas Mouton has regressed horribly. Brandon Graham has outperformed his pre-08 projection and the '08 defense had plenty of starters back from the '07 defense that wasn't fantastic but was light years ahead of either '08 or '09. Light years. Beyond the winged helmets, there's no resemblance. Greg Mathews was another solid '07 contributor who has regressed under Rod. With Arrington and Mario gone, it was his turn and he's done very little. How bad was the '08 offensive line, really, when the same guys projected to start '09 and, if healthy, would have been more than serviceable, maybe even good? Donovan Warren, Morgan Trent, Brandon Harrison, and Stevie Brown as a starting defensive backfield, with a top-grade freshman recruit, Boubakar Cissoko, should have stopped ... precisely nobody? How's that? You have one so-so guy in the defensive backfield and a so-so linebacker or two, a deep and talented and experienced d-line and you get shredded every single game? How's the recruiting going? Will Campbell's been mediocre to put it charitably. J.T. Turner can't find the field on the worst Michigan defense since at least 1969. I like Roh, we all do, but he plays a tweener, freaky position that is kinda cool when you have a defense that clicks on all cylinders but with this dreadful outfit just seems misplaced and silly. Who'd argue strenuously with the claim that Graham, Minor, and Warren are the three best players on the team? They won't be here next year. Barwis ... yeah, great, guys are in better shape ... but why then has the team generally played worse in the second half than the first half of games and regressed during the season? And so it goes. I'd love to be optimistic, but at some point you are what your record says you are. Sure, Rod gets 2010, but I'm not seeing 8-5. What's going out isn't as good as what's coming in (We all like Tate, but he isn't Henne) and what's coming in doesn't seem to be getting better after it comes in. When that happens, you aren't building anything. You're regressing.

Ed Shuttlesworth

November 9th, 2009 at 10:42 PM ^

Read the first sentence of the post. That might explain why I haven't posted much. There's no reason to sugarcoat things two games short of two years into a guy's tenure. Rip it or take it at face value, up to you. The sentiments are genuine.

tbliggins

November 9th, 2009 at 11:09 PM ^

I agree that Mouton and Ezeh have seemed to regress. At the same time Brown has been more productive at LB than he was at safety. Also RVB and Graham have improved significantly over the last 2 years. Warren played hurt in 08 and has had a solid (but not spectacular) season so far in 09. Woolfolk has gone from a 3* recruit to a serviceable CB this year. Seems pretty harsh to give very little credit for Roh being a solid contributor as a true frosh and then ding him for Turner coming into camp late (and supposedly out of shape) and Campbell not seeing the field much (even though all reports on him were that he need a ton of work on his technique). You are unhappy that our defense is not good. We all are. Just be fair in your analysis and remember that not everybody lives up to their recruiting rankings and that all freshmen are not ready to see the field immediately.

Marshmallow

November 10th, 2009 at 1:10 AM ^

These are the two lines of thought we see every time someone wants to prove that this season and last are "unacceptable" and "shameful", that RR is to blame and that Kelly or some other jackass coach would do better: 1. The 2007 Capital One Bowl. Enough. We get it that a team with several NFL players and 50 days off to heal came in and outscored Tim F'n Tebow. It is so irrelevant to 2008. Kind of like how the preseason polls are useless. The 2007 team has nothing to do with the 2008 team. Granted, some of the 2007 players came back for 2008. But the ones primarily responsible for the (limited) success we enjoyed in 2007 were gone. And by the way, that last year of "glory" that everyone who makes this argument keeps referring to included the loss to App. State. Enough said. 2. "I just don't believe that Carr left the cupboard bare" or "we're Michigan and I assume that our top __ recruiting classes should be good enough to win more than 3 games." In case it isn't obvious what my complaint is about these statements, I'll point out the operative words that capture the stupidity of these statements: "believe" and "assume". Check out Misopogon's diaries on these issues. Research goes a long way. Try it and you won't have to assume. You'll know the facts are realize what the real story is about our talent and depth deficiencies. These two lines lead to the same place: RR is a bad coach and someone else would have done better at keeping the players who left here and using them to win more games. It is well-established at this point that Mallet wanted to leave. And it's not as if any of those players had any significant experience. We were taking a step backwards one way or the other. And in terms of RR being a bad coach, where is the proof? Because the defense is regressing? You don't notice it is the same players making the same mistakes over and over? Maybe they are just supremely talented, but not experienced or football-smart enough to use that talent to make plays. Maybe they get nervous during the games. Who knows? The point is it is obvious that it isn't the schemes (i.e. the part the coaches are responsible for) for where the defense is. It is a lack of consistent execution. I have no problem with dissent. Just stop throwing spitballs that aren't backed up by research or relevant facts. 2007 is irrelevant to everything except 2007. The roster and depth chart are immutable. Rivals ratings and assumptions about Michigan based on outdated notions of prestige are not immutable. Nor are they useful. I would love to hear a cogent analysis about why RR shouldn't be given the chance to succeed. I disagree with that argument. But it would just be refreshing to debate with someone armed with logic and the facts. Nevertheless, I hope the dissenters don't go away. Even if I don't think they are logical and even if people negbang you to hell. Thanks.

clarkiefromcanada

November 9th, 2009 at 11:06 PM ^

You make a nice effort to be analytic (at length) but just spouting the same hyperbole on a million other posts in the board. So, you compare the 07 play of a few players in one bowl game...this is not analysis...followed by some crapping on freshmen (talk about William Campbell and JT Turner in a year or two...it's not basketball)...Roh is a great young player and his ufr stats back that. ...then you play the "regression" card. So weak. In future, do better.

jwfsouthpaw

November 10th, 2009 at 1:06 AM ^

Michigan beat Florida in the last game before the Rich Rodriguez era. Therefore, Michigan should have been better last year. Never mind that the offense lost something like 10 starters, had such poor offensive line depth that a defensive tackle converted midseason and actually STARTED... and on and on and on. Greg Mathews is a great complimentary receiver, but he lacks the speed to carry an offense. This was not a problem with Arrington and Manningham running around, but it is readily apparent to anyone with eyes. Will Campbell is a true freshman defensive lineman, who almost always need time to develop, no matter how talented. Plus, defensive line is easily the best group on the defense (not saying much, but Graham, Van Bergen and Martin are more than serviceable as a unit). Wait, why am I wasting my time actually responding to this pathetic, trollish post?

jg2112

November 9th, 2009 at 11:26 PM ^

Dah - stop posting. Seriously. And calling other people sycophants just because they happen to have a positive outlook about the rebuilding of Michigan football is not useful to the conversation. You're doing what every other anti-Rich Rod, anti-rebuilding poster does here. You make ridiculous claims, posit that what is going on is UNACCEPTABLE, and then when someone calls you out on your folly, you then claim you cannot believe people don't share your opinion. Seriously. You are ruining your e-credibility over a football team you neither play for or coach. You have as much influence over Michigan Football as does my neighbor's dog. Get a new hobby, watch a porn flick, drink some Glenfiddich (or Glenlivet. hell, any Glen will do). It's obvious nothing anyone says here that is rational and indicative of the ZERO influence we have on the team is going to change your mind. So, let it go, and find another interest because you either hate this one too much to really be a supporter, or you are so obsessed with the team's lack of "progress" that you really are a frightening poster.

BostonWolverine

November 10th, 2009 at 1:03 PM ^

I said it earlier, but I'll say it here, too. When we play teams that aren't Western or Eastern Michigan or Delaware St. - there has been one game (ONE!) in which we've given up fewer than 30 points: Michigan State. It's not regression if you're bad all year. You're blinded by the 4-0 start. But that doesn't say anything other than we won four games. It definitely doesn't mean the defense played well the whole time. And as for the "blind loyalist" stuff, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm blind. I'm actually pretty well informed. I don't think you're an asshole because I disagree with you. I think you're an asshole because you keep giving statements with no basis other than your own take - with no decent analysis to back it up.

hillhaus

November 9th, 2009 at 7:19 PM ^

Incredibly reasonable perspective! One thing I haven't heard mentioned anywhere (I don't even know if anyone agrees): I always thought that Lloyd Carr's teams relied too heavily upon a small group of extremely talented players. For example, Hart was great, but it was boring to see him run left so frequently. It worked, but it was boring, and when Hart wasn't available it failed more often than not (as far as I remember). I'm still excited about where this team is going because I see more kids getting playing time. Sure, more kids get time when there are no clear superstars, but it doesn't seem to me as though Rich Rod is building a team that's so one-dimensional. When the talent of the current team matures, I fully expect to see a team that's more exciting and less predictable than Carr's teams. That's important when going up against great teams (or tOSU).