I trust Dave Brandon entirely, except not entirely, FTW.
fair point that
I have been on the MGoSidelines for an extended while, too shellshocked by the current state of Michigan football to participate much or even complete my McBean Rating System. Yet, I return on the eve of the season because I think a point need be made. Assuredly, it’s been made before, but perhaps not with this emphasis.
I am somewhat hesitant to post this, and some will say I was not hesitant enough. I am going to the UConn game overflowing with optimism, but the optimism comes with a catch, which, because it is cathartic, will now pollute MGoBlog.
Absolutely nothing, in my opinion, now stands or can stand between the results we see on the field and a verdict on this coaching staff. We are at a moment of refreshing purity where a simple answer to a simple question now awaits the spiritually hungry:
In previous Rodriguez campaigns, muddy waters divided the Michigan faithful; one side, with justification, pointed at coordinator changes, mismatched personnel, attrition, distractions, and injuries, while the other side declared that, despite all these high-quality excuses, no serviceable coaching staff could ever lead a Michigan team to 3-13 against Big 10 teams over two years. (Can this actually be true? Pinch me. A 3-13 record against the Big 10? Hit me.)
The debate is thankfully over. Almost like the nauseating propaganda that precedes an election, this confusion now ends in Election Day: eleven votes are to be cast that will answer many questions, but one in particular:
Reading scrimmage notes prompted me to post this; in particular, I detected a faint odor of excuse wafting from comments about the secondary and the marginal tackling performance.
No more excuses, no matter how tempting. If our entire team transferrs tomorrow, no excuses. If we’ve had the bad fortune to overrate every linebacker on the planet since David Harris, no excuses.
Last year after the Indiana game, I posted on how other coaches are doing more with less. Allow me to quote myself:
The Iowa defense is younger than ours overall and features a less-experienced secondary that averages 5.3 for a Rivals Rating, or a middle range two-star. Brian says about Michigan, “There is exactly one junior and no seniors at both safety and cornerback.” Iowa has less experience. Yet my gut tells me – with absolute certainty – Darryl Clark will have a far better day against our secondary. Who wants to take me up on that bet?
In general, their players are more lowly rated at every position (possible exception of one LB), often significantly so, with players converted from the offensive side of the ball (a TE turned DL) and one playing out of position.
Occam’s Razor makes it difficult to accept that our stud HS talent was pretty much collectively overrated, and Iowa’s meh HS talent was pretty much vastly underrated. Ferentz would have given a kidney to have Cissoko or Warren or Graham or Brown or Mouton or Martin. He doesn’t have enough organs to bargain with the devil to get those types of players with mega-hype coming out of HS, yet he easily is fielding a better defense that probably would have consumed Indiana whole without any sauce.
As for the “new system” argument – that switching from Shafer to Robinson has resulted in our guys being at the start of a new learning curve – I accept some of that, but not all. Now, I will defer to Sharik or gsimms to tell me whether a new system can transform studs into non-studs, but it would seem to me that stopping Eastern in the first half or stopping Indiana at all would frequently be possible with raw stud talent playing by instinct.
I backed down last year. New DC I was told. New system, fool. Well, it’s not new anymore. No one in today’s game gets a decade to establish a system. If Appalachian State can manage Mannigham, Arrington, Matthews and Butler with walk-ons, we can manage better than last year with our secondary. If Michigan State can dominate most of a football game with putrid DBs, so can we. If Iowa can mold nasty defensive lineman out of corn oil, tight-ends and spare body parts, then our row of premium four-stars is ready to be twice as nasty…if the coaches are competent.
I look at the Michigan football team, and I don’t see players, I see red litmus paper hovering over a solution know as UConn, that, if basic Michigan coaching is present, will turn that paper Blue.
(FWIW, I feel the paper will turn Blue. I think we shall catch a glimpse of WVU-style offensive firepower against Oklahoma come September 4th en route to an 8-4 season.)
I trust Dave Brandon entirely, except not entirely, FTW.
then you should trust him in supporting the current coach also, right? At least until a reasonable amount of time passes to, you know, re-construct a major D-1 football program from the ground up.
Suppose RR is replaced, how long do you give the new coach to produce the results you desire....let me guess, 2 years?
You can't teach, install and field two divergent offensive schemes, ask any of the football coaches or people that are on here. You can't recruit for that effectively either.
If you try to field a hybrid of a traditional pro-style and spread-style offense, you are going to need to teach two entirely different sets of skills, reads, assigments, signals, so you would double the amount of information that players need to learn, unless you essentially cut the playbook for each scheme in half, which would severaly hamper the effectiveness of either approach. Not to mention you then lower the humber of reps that each scheme gets in practice, so the number of mistakes would increase exponentially. Not to mention you train VERY differently to play in a spread than you do in in a pro-style set and focus on VERY different aspects of conditioning, how can you train for both?
Now consider that you want to extend that process over what, 5, 6, 7 years to transition to a completely spread offense rather than 3-4 and you are looking for a much longer period of sub-par results than you are looking at right now.
Recruiting...so how do you recruit players for both systems? Do you tell a taller, pro-style QB to come to M to play the next 1-2 years until he reps start getting taken away by a spread style QB as the transition continues, and tell a highly rated spread QB to come to UM and wait? Do you have any idea what kind of recruiting wasteland that would create and what other coaches would tell recruits that were considering M? And that would go on for as long time. not good.
Not to mention, I don't really think either Threet or Sheridan were QBs/players that you really want to dictate your scheme. Rich DID definitely try to make adjustments to accomodate their limitations and focus on the things they could do effectively (which weren't very many), but to mold your long term plans to a walk-on and a QB from GT that didn't win the starting job there would be a poor coaching decision.
RR was hired to bring the spread to Michigan, not to pick up where the previous coaches left off. There is no doubt that the University in hiring him intended to make a changes, or they would never have agreed to let him clean house and bring in his own staff the way they did....that was the plan, change and lots of it. Bringing in his own staff and shaking things up is what he was hired to do and was absolutely a part of the hiring process. He is doing his job in that respect.
When Bo came to M, the only scheme change he made to a very limited overall set of offensive and defensive schemes to begin with, was to switch to a 5-man, angled defensifve front, which he predicted would take 5 years to get working correctly. Compare that to the changes currently underway in a 3-4 year timeframe and that is pretty impressive (should RR pull it off, I will state again that while think he can, the jury is still out for me on RR, no guarantees on anything).
Couldn't resist, it is sort of like seeing a crabby old lady about to cross the street in traffic and helping her across. Even though she is going to hit you with her purse and curse you for helping her, in the end you will prevent her from being hit by a car and it is worth it.
"We all want the turnaround now."
I'm sorry, but what you want doesn't mean jack to the Athletic Department or anyone else. Please try again later, perhaps when you've grown a pair.
Each year, more accountability has fallen onto the coaching staff. I think this year will be the first when the majority of credit can be placed on them -- though it won't reach 100% until next year.
At some point, a person should not be judged on his intentions, but on his results. I agree that it will be fair to judge Rodriguez on this season's results.
Takes time. I remember reading about Mundy getting broken down by Barwis over there and how he couldn't do the whole program in only one season like their veterans. Now the team will be filled with guys in year 2 and 3 of the program. Look no further than the "good weight" gains of Roh, Lewan, and Omameh and the rampaging beast he turned BG into. I am excited for this upcoming season for this reason more than any other- the offensive line and defensive front are typical Michigan (and Big 10) size for the first time since Rodriguez took over. I'm eager to see them pushing teams around in the trenches again. That's where the Barwis dividend is going to pay off. Injuries are part of football and no matter how hard you train, sometimes you just get snake bit with bad luck.
Yes, I agree. But that dividend you describe has to be plainly evident in two weeks.
So, you're saying if M does not beat UConn and/or does not end the season at 8-4 or better, then RR and all the staff should be fired?
No way, no how!
Close, very, very close. The circumstances must be so overwhelming that the following things are certain...
"The circumstances must be so overwhelming that the following things are certain..."
GERG clearly knows what he is doing. Horrid breakdowns in scheme on defense are no longer evident.
Maybe his past coaching experience was all riding on having a great mane. If RR's offense still leads us to a bowl game then I would think we could roll the dice on another DC rather than scrap the whole project.
The players that RR has brought in to the system are thriving in the system.
RR's system is arguably all offense. If the offense does not meet the requirement here, then fine, maybe RR's time is up. Last year's offense definitely showed signs that this will come true though.
I do wish RR would give the defense more personal attention however.
We do not lose to the following teams: UMass, BG, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, MSU, against whom we have ONE WIN in seven game during the RR era (Big 10 teams).
Come on, a bad loss to another B10 team can't be balanced by a more impressive win elsewhere? Michigan has just about always coughed one up against a much lesser opponent for the past two decades.
Hard to argue this without at least a ballpark figure, but would being negative in the single digits be enough improvement? While this is an area that desperately needs improvement, it certainly isn't something to can a coach over. If it leads to another losing record, that is another kettle of fish.
Attrition is under control.
It will not be possible to demonstrate this by the end of the season. While we are unlikely to lose many transfers during the season, the recent attrition problems will still be glaring and nothing can change that.
Come down off the ledge already. Or jump.
I really couldn't agree more with this sentiment. At a certain point results are all that matters. I understand that RR is an extremely good coach. However if he can't show more improvement this year(which at this point I put at 7 wins), then it may be time to move in another direction and see if another coach can win more than 14 games in 3 years
That's a great comment about Novak.
You cant take what you hear from the scrimmage and set it as stone. Coaches and guys in the know said this was the first time since pads that the tackling was sub-par. That means previously the tackling has been soliid.
I for one do not think that Rich Rod hasn't been paying attention to the D, he has recruited well actually and if not for a rash of attrition and such would probably have the bext secondary in the conference. The fact of the matter is a few guys who were expected to contribute either just couldn't get it done or were overhyped from the day they got on campus.
The LB play at Michigan save 05 and 06 has mainly not been good this decade if you want to be honest with yourself. The days of slow plodding run stuffers is not more and yet this program was still bringing in that same type of LB. I feel that we have got alot faster in this aspect and it's gonna take a little more time for some of the young guys to come along.
I agree with both the OP and the guys who argue other points. I feel that there doesn't need to be a line in the sand and that the program needs to show consistency from week to week.
Bottom line is that none of our opinions matter in regards to RR's future. And that until the season is over, there is no point in talking about this number of wins or this much progress.
Dave Brandon and the rest of the higher ups at Michigan will have a decision on their hands at the end of the season regardless of our final record.
Let's leave it at that.
Personally, I would much rather you brought all this up in January.
I don't want or need to hear it now because the season is still over a week away.
I refuse to watch every Michigan game this fall and say "RR is a bad coach" every time something goes wrong.
Will you give RR credit every time something goes right? When someone makes a great tackle or a nice interception, will you give GERG props?
It has to go both ways IMO.
This is a fan blog. We do things like this. We call it fun.
This post is a year or two too early. 2011 and 2012 will be determinative. 2010 is not. Just look at the youth in the 1 and 2 deep.
And another question I would like to ask everyone is this:
If RR doesn't win your magic number of games this year or beat your list of "must beat" opponents, would you honestly be able to tell me that you would be happy if we fired him and brought in Kirk Ferentz, Bret Bielema, Dantonio, or a similar level coach?
According to you they are better coaches than RR. So I hope you are rooting for them next fall if things dont go well.
I personally would rather stick with Rich Rod.
There's no doubt that Ferentz and Alvarez are/were outstanding coaches, especially in light of the recruiting classes they're able to get in. They're two of the more notable counter-arguments to the idea that you have to have 4- and 5-stars across the board to be competitive within your conference, and outside of it.
However, it is valuable to keep these things in mind:
Ferentz's first three years: 1-10, 3-9, 7-5; his fourth year was 11-2
Alvarez's first three years: 1-10, 5-6, 5-6; his fourth year was 10-1-1
In Ferentz's case, Ken O'Keefe is entering his 13th year as OC, and Norm Parker is entering his 13th year as DC. That's a level of continuity that Michigan fans can only dream of.
There's no arguing the fact that Alvarez inherited a program that was completely in the dumper, while RR did not; Wisconsin had fallen down into the depths under Don Morton, who had taken over after Dave McClain died.
Ferentz seems to be regarded by many as the guy who built Iowa into the power it is, but that completely ignores the fact that Hayden Fry built Iowa first. Fry had a tremendous career at Iowa, and it was only his last season that was really bad at the end; his last three seasons were 9-3, 7-5, and 3-8. Clearly going in the wrong direction, but it's not as though Ferentz took over a program with no history of success.
Having said all that, I basically agree with the OP—we're at the point where we should expect significant improvements in the quality of play in all phases of the game. Those improvements may not get us more than 7-5, but we have to play better. We can't be blown out by Illinois for the third year in a row. We shouldn't be beating Indiana barely by the skin of our ass. We have to beat MSU at home. We can't lose to Purdue for the third year in a row. We have to win freaking road games. I don't think that there are too many likely scenarios that should result in RR's departure after this season, but if we can't do those things this year and in 2011, then I could hardly quibble if Brandon decided that a change was warranted for 2012. Four years should be long enough to show that you can build a program that is competitive with the best in the conference.
Interesting and well said!
Word. I'm ALL IN for Coach, but at some point it's time to pull your money out of the market before you become a MAC team. .500 or below in 2010 will likely make me hoard my assets in my matress and hope the AD makes a good hire or RR has an incredible improvement in 2011.
I agree that this is the year that the metal of this team and coaching staff will come to bare. I for one don't feel the need to be thinking about what if we don't do well. I feel confident that we will come out strong and roll through the first 5-6 weeks of our schedule. The question will be whether this team will handle the adversity of their first close game and/or loss. Last year a few crippling injuries basically pulled the rug out from under the team. This cannot happen again. The coaches and players have to believe in themselves and block out the naysayers. The bar is set at a New Year's Day or later bowl, and anything less is simply not an acceptable goal. I am certain that we will achieve this year far more that most outsiders felt possible and more than the pessimistic portion of the fanbase is willing to hope for. A leap of faith in something that has no impact on our lives isn't too much to ask...
RR said the defense is going to be good this season and I am taking him at his word.
I have no issue in giving RR a 4th year, however, if we do not see drastic improvement this season, I am of the belief that it ain't happening with RR.
Posters are quick to lavish praise on RR and Barwis, and many of the players. We have great coaches, great players, the greatest at S&C, so what's the problem with expecting a great season.
RR runs a great Offense
RR is a great recruiter, can really find those diamonds in the rough.
Barwis is the best in the business, he can develop players better than anyone.
Probably 50% of our players are certified "Beasts"
Meeechigan Dan ain't asking for much, considering all the greatness we have in this program, it is time for some positive results.
Who knows how this season will end. But for the first time since RR came aboard I am really thinking that the team fielded on Sept. 4 is really ALL IN FOR RR and what this coaching staff is trying to put together. Some spots look thin but when the players believe anything can happen. I'm not predicting how the season will end up but I believe that this team can compete every game. I can see big wins this year against: UConn, Sparty, PSU (in happy valley and perhaps a home victory against Iowa or Wiscy. Enough to keep the faithful happy and a spring board for big years in '11 and '12.
ALL IN FOR MICHIGAN
I will sign up for that!
Just how the fuck did we get back here to this same, sorry state of affairs on this thread, again? I am seriously having a bad case of deja vu all over again. It's like I'm reading a rehash of last season's board melt downs. Yuck. Now I've got this shit on my clothes.
Have none of the analyses that MCalibur, Misopogon, Mathlete, Brian and others done for the past two seasons meant anything to some of you? The shit storm that hit our defense has been brewing since at least mid-decade. The chickens, which have included an appalling number of five-star and high four-star washouts, the lack of a meaningful number of solid upperclassmen on which a program rests its laurels and some, (particularly DBs and LBs) who have looked just plain awful, and the cancerous attitude that led to a defeat to a I-AA school, started showing up on the program's doorstep in 2007 and finally came home to roost in 2008. None of those things are RR's fault.
Make no mistake. I am not an apologist for Rich Rodriguez. But, some of these criticisms, (I won't dignify them by suggesting they're "critiques") of him and the program he is trying to build are just bush league and more appropriate for MLive. Making statements such as, "But we almost lost to ND and IU, therefore, RR is a lousy coach!" is just plain idiotic. Those were "Ws" and they all count the same. Of course, so do the "Ls".
Some of you have apparently sold the team and its coach up river, and are ready to form the search committee for a new coach, and they haven't even played the first game yet. That's pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. There's no other word for it.
Having said all that, if this team can't get to at least a winning record and a bowl game this year, then questioning whether progress is being made is perfectly legitimate. We are still the same twelve games from that point as we were late last November.
Well, my apologies. I will pay for your dry cleaning, if you like. I did not realize that this was MGoPravda, and that I had strayed from doctrine. Please don’t report me. Don’t cut my ration of potatoes!
I do admit that somehow the cart got unhitched from the horse and moved out front; much of the tone of these comments would be appropriate only if we are witness to troubles this season.
Actually, it is precisely because of the fine efforts of the people you cite that I posted this, because…wait for it…I disagree. Of course, I don’t disagree that some tragic things have happened to the defense. Sad, that is. But my post very clearly argues that there are independent data points that offer the unindoctrinated observer clues as to an important question: can comrade Lenin really pull this collective farming thing off—I mean, can this coaching staff really coach, particularly on the defensive side of the ball.
Things like whether or not an individual player can tackle another human being. We happen to be blessed by examples all around us with players just removed from flag football games in the rain who can tackle like mad bulls. Things like what schemes can be used to camouflage weak corners. Let me suggest you rewatch the Appy State game, if you’ve the stomach for it. Watch the schemes that coach used to protect walk-ons from Manningham, Arrington et al. More data points.
What all your fine math-oriented party members fail to realize is that while the data do indeed say: “devastated defense,” other data say, “so what?” I happen to be in the “So what?” column. And, while this side of the debate annoys you and makes you think of soiled clothes, I conversely enjoy your almost-clever condescending post and am the better for it. I think.
you have absolutely no basis at all to say RR and company cannot coach. if you think that RR cannot coach football you're an idiot. maybe he's a bad fit for Michigan but if you think that his resume over the years proves that he can't coach foot all you're an idiot
platitude - a flat style, or trite statement uttered as though it were fresh and original
Disagreement is fine Meeech. It really is. But, it's not enough to say "I disagree and this is what I think and that's the way it is because I say so". You're free to do it, but that doesn't make it a good argument. Then you have guys like your buddy dahblue who devolve into a two year old when their opinion receives return fire. His style is shining on you, and it reflects poorly on you. You couldn't even answer a simple question with supporting evidence; only platitudes and ALL CAPS just like dahblue.
You rightfully complain about poor tackling, but you act as if that is something Rich Rodriguez brought to town. Michigan has sucked at tackling for most of the last decade. Do you think Lloyd Carr is a shitty coach, too? Has Michgan's ability to tackle deteriorated somehow from bad under Carr to worse under Rodriguez? Give us something. Anything.
You seem to think that my aim (I'll let the others speak for themselves though I think their's is the same) is to defend Rich Rodriguez; it's not. My goal is to understand, even if just a little, what the fuck is going on. Most of my work is divergent (broad look) which I then bring back to Michigan because that's my team. He doesn't need me to defend him and I'm not foolish enough to think that I can convince butthurt people like dahblue; that back and forth up there is sport, nothing more.
I can't see the thread layout on my Blackberry, so I will answer here.
To the guy who said I would be an idiot to say RR can't coach, you are correct. Hyperbole sometimes gets the best of us. He clearly can coach and is even a genius at parts of coaching. The statement should have had the clause "at Michigan" as suggested. It is not his coaching that is in doubt, but his decisions and to whom he has delegated coaching authority (on D).
To the guy who says I haven't offered an argument because I dared express my frustration with CAPS: I have given a most complete argument. I have written of others more successful with less, even did, in the past, recruiting analysis to support this. You may not like the argument, but don't pretend it's not there: other teams have prospered with less than we have and the only rebuttal put forth was "time in the system." My post was to say - you would say unnecessarily - that now we have had enough time and we will either see the results of how this staff is going to do more with less or we won't. If you want to preload your argument that more time is needed, I disagree.
Look at the reply you supposedly quoted me from. You took an interrogative sentence, stripped the punctuation, then assigned the altered statement to me as if I had made a declarative sentence. I had thought you were just being cute, but your subsequent responses indicate that you actaully mis-read the question.Aren't you 40-something? Do I really need to teach you grammer?
My reference to Willingham wasn't to show that he was a good coach, it was to show that Notre Dame didn't not achieve the results they hoped to achieve when they replaced him. English, do you read it?
You didn't respond to my question,and still haven't. You responded to your bastardized interrpretation of my question. Then you devolve into name-calling by saying that I'm retarded and desusional and on and on. Then you take objection you being called a child.
I have no problem with people having a different opinion, I'm geniuinely curious as to why you think your way will work but you can't articulate that in a reasonable convincing manner. I've asked for an example, and you've failed to provide one.
The entertainment value you were providing has been exhuasted; this thread is now worthless. Feel free to carry on without me.
I'm trying to understand what you're trying to say with Willingham. You said...
"My reference to Willingham wasn't to show that he was a good coach, it was to show that Notre Dame didn't not achieve the results they hoped to achieve when they replaced him. "
I don't really see how this backs up the idea that they shouldn't have fired him. If he was a bad coach not capable of succeeding at this level, firing him wasn't ND's mistake. Their mistake was making another bad hire. If you're trying to say they should have given him a fourth year because Weis didn't work out, I think that's too big of a jump of logic. In my mind, the decision to fire Willingham and the decision to hire Weis are completely separate events. Just because they screwed up the second one doesn't mean the first one was wrong.
Anyway, I guess the Pitt example is better in my mind if it shows that someone that could have been fired after year three stayed and turned things around. I'm not sold on Pitt, but that's another matter. Asserting that Weis' failure reflects poorly on Willingham's dismissal is flawed logic, to me at least.
What's funny is that I don't even consider myself a "defender" of Rodriguez. I love the program and want it to succeed. That's it. I think firing him may do more harm to the program than good. You were never able to understand that original point and instead, as you did with others, twisted my words into something you felt more comfortable arguing and ranting against. If there's anyone here for which this is personal, meaning, their position is informed by hysterical like/dislike of the man, it's clearly you.
I appreciate the view point, and I pretty much agree with your overall premise. Rodriguez had some bad luck with attrition initially, but that tide hasn't slowed down, and that is on him, one way or the other.
The biggest issue is the defense though. If it turns out that the combination of Rodriguez's 2.5 classes of recruiting and Robinson's coaching can't show significant improvement this year, then you really have to consider going a new direction. It's on Rodriguez to hire someone that can manage the defense and if he's 0 for 2, I'm not sure he should get a third shot. I don't expect a '97 or '06 defense, but measurably better is a realistic expectation.
who just walked up to a gang hanging out at the playground, to find a couple of kids fighting in the middle of them. I don't know how the fight got started, and I am not sure who is winning. But I just find myself yelling "Kick his ass" alot to both of them and oohing and ahhing alot when either one of them gets a good shot in.....
I understand the point that players should be able to tackle. And players should be able to catch punts, and "HOLD ON TO THE DAMN BALL!" But, how do you coach at a major D-1 level and not know how to coach these simple fundementals? I don't understand how GERG doesn't know how to coach tackling? I think some players just, to a point, can't hack the pressure of the D-1 level. I think coaches know how to coach these things at this level. Just my two cents on that.
I see us improving to a much better record. I think it's a little weird to say...do this or you're fired. You're just constantly looking for fuck-ups by coaches. I am looking for positive things, if a bad thing happens I'll blame it on the player unless it's strictly a coaching decision (going for it on 4th down in a ridiculious situation[own 12]).
Thank god after this season these posts will go away.
I really like that you look at things beyond wins and losses in your litmus test post. And, I tend to agree with you. While we can talk about the future, realizing that next year bears even more hope than this year, we ought to be able to expect basic competency this year - without apology. We've had enough apology, and it's not really about wins and losses ... it's about being able to do the things that good football teams do.
My question, though, hopefully looks at the other side of the litmus issue. Whereas you raise (non-loss) concerns that would be a litmus test of a negative answer to your question. What would be some (non-win) successes that would provide a positive answer to your litmus test?
Sorry for the delay in responding...was traveling.
I can honestly say I don't have much in the way of non-win litmus tests in my lab. I guess if we were intensely competitive even though just devastated by more injuries, I would not be so idiotic to ignore excellent fundamentals, flashes of brilliance, a victory over OSU.
But it would have to be really apparent that, when the parts were in place, we were a good-looking team.
Michigan has sucked the last 2 years, we can all agree on that. If some of you can just admit going 8-16 at Michigan is unacceptable, common ground can be found. RR has been sub par as a coach his first 2 seasons, embrace that truth and you won't feel the need to do mental gymnastics to defend him. 8-16 is shit at Michigan.
No matter who was the coach the defense needed to be rebuilt, especially depth of talent. We had a long winning streak since '68 and we were over due to have a few down years. Hopefully this season will end the two year drought and we will start our winning ways again. But even if we do finish with 5 or 6 wins this season we should give RR one more season to prove himself. His first recruiting class will be upper class-men and there will be no excuse for not being in the hunt for the b10 championship and have greater than 8 wins after the 2011 season. If RR fails in 2011, then he should get canned. I'm optimistic that we will see at least 7 wins this season. If we only have 5 or 6 winds, and the team improves its play through the course of the season, then RR should get one more year IMO.
Probably too late to add this, but this from Dave Brandon, via Angelique: