MGoBoard's Opinion on the State of the Program
[Ed: Bumped for interestingness. Here's where you're at.]
[UPDATE: The new poll was not functioning at the bottom of the page, please retake it]
Last night, I posted a poll to see what MGoBoard’s opinion is regarding the state of the program. Much has been said over these topics in the past few days, but there truly hasn’t been an accurate way to see how the board has reacted as a whole. The bickering has been not only annoying, but unhelpful in determining what people are really thinking. Unfortunately, I can’t post the results directly from the host (as I don’t want to shell out the $200 to be able to share the information other than copy and paste), but here are the results. This poll was flawed and there are more questions that can be asked after seeing this data, so a follow-up poll will be conducted at the end of the post.
Question #1 - Has Michigan's offense improved enough in the past three years?
- Yes – 82%
- No - 18%
This is pretty unsurprising, considering how the offense has come from being one of the worst in the country in 2008 to arguably being one of the best in 2010. There has been improvement from year to year, and with Michigan’s young talent at many offensive players, including Denard Robinson, this looks to continue.
Question #2 - What has been the single biggest reason Michigan's defense has struggled?
- Lack of talent – 30%
- Youth - 22%
- Rich Rodriguez has made poor decisions trying to influence the defense - 18%
- Attrition – 18%
- Greg Robinson has coached poorly schematically – 12%
Admittedly, all of these reasons have probably been a contributing factor to how unsuccessful the defense has been this year. Nothing has really stood out as the main factor, but a combination of all of these has definitely crippled the defense. The two biggest factors, the lack of talent and youth, combine together with attrition to make the biggest reason for the failure of the defense to be the personnel for 70% of the respondents, while coaching was signaled out by 30% as the biggest reason.
Note: I am not questioning the effort of the players on defense; they have worked and played as hard as they can. They are great representatives for the University of Michigan in how they conduct themselves on the field. They may have struggled, but they haven’t quit.
Question #3 - Should Greg Robinson be retained as Michigan's defensive coordinator?
- No – 54%
- Let's wait until after the season to decide – 37%
- Yes – 9%
Over half of MGoBoard wants Greg Robinson to be removed from the defensive coordinator position at the end of the season, and more than a third will reevaluate their position after the conclusion of the season. After the struggles on defense this season, there seems to be a consensus that someone should take the fall after the season.
Question #4 - What was Rich Rodriguez's most egregious off-the-field mistake?
- Nothing was particularly egregious – 25%
- Attrition – 22%
- The NCAA practice violations – 22%
- Poor choices on recruits who did not make admissions standards – 20%
- Other (leave in comments) - 7%
- Comments he's made in press conferences - 3%
- Not being a "Michigan Man" - 1%
Despite this being a poorly worded question (one commenter stated: “egregious may be a little strong” and I agree), the responses have been all across the board for this question as well as Question #2. I think that the top three have been mistakes on Rodriguez’s part, but I wouldn’t call anything that he’s done “egregious” per se. Some of the comments left in other that have been echoed in others:
There's not a whole lot that RR has done that many or all other coaches go through.
Everything
Remember the way he left West Virginia?
Not giving his DC enough freedom to install his own staff.
Hiring Scott Shafer
Forcing out Scott Schafer
Too much focus on offense, not enough on defense or special teams. Not enough recruiting there (or recruiting ones that can enroll), not enough coaching there. This is a team based on offense first, I see no whole team concept.
Neglecting to recruit defense enough until the late stages of the 2010 cycle. If we had gotten some of those freshman DBs in for spring practice, they would be further along than they are now.
I enjoyed:
He ruined the sanctity of Michigan Football.
the audacity of having a west virginia accent /s
Question #5 - Has Michigan shown enough improvement in Rodriguez's tenure?
- No – 70%
- Yes – 30%
Agreed, although I think this figure would change a lot when Michigan makes or fails to make a bowl game. In year three, I think the fanbase has reasonably expected the team to make a bowl game and have a winning record but it remains to be seen if that will happen or not.
Question #6 - Should Rich Rodriguez be retained after the season?
- Let's wait until after the season to decide – 41%
- Yes – 37%
- No – 21%
Very interesting, despite all the anger and frustration voiced on the board after the Penn State game, only a fifth of MGoBoard wants a different coach for 2011. Personally, I think that it’s fair to wait until after the season to assess final judgment and that will be addressed in the follow-up poll.
There is something interesting of note though: the 257 people who indicated that they would like to see Rodriguez stay around for 2011 responded that Michigan has improved enough under Rodriguez’s tenure (62%), Michigan will beat Illinois (61%), and that the defense’s struggles are not his fault (2% selected “Rich Rodriguez has made poor decisions trying to influence the defense” as the biggest reason).
On the other hand, however, the 147 respondents who do not want Rodriguez to be retained said that Michigan has not improved enough under Rodriguez’s tenure (only one said that they have), only 9% think that none of Rodriguez’s off the field mistakes were particularly egregious, and 47% think that his poor decisions in trying to influence the defense is the biggest reason why the defense has struggled.
Questions #7, 8, 9, and 10 – Will Michigan beat each of its final four opponents?
- Michigan will lose to Illinois – 65%
- Michigan will beat Purdue – 88%
- Michigan will lose to Wisconsin – 88%
- Michigan will lose to Ohio State – 85%
The board has been pretty clear; most of us see a 6-6 conclusion to the season, with 7-5 being possible and 5-7, 8-4, and 9-3 as being pretty improbable. This is pretty obvious; Illinois should be coming in as a favorite, Michigan should be heavily favored against Purdue, and Wisconsin and Ohio State look to be heavy favorites against Michigan.
Here’s the follow-up poll. [FIXED]
November 1st, 2010 at 9:55 PM ^
I am STUNNED that 46% of those responding either want to retain Gerg as the DC or havent made up their mind yet.
Is it April 1st?
November 1st, 2010 at 10:14 PM ^
I don't know what's going on at practice, so I can't judge whether the problem is insufficient coaching or lack of execution by the players.
I've been a coach (soccer, not football), so I can sympathize with GERG to an extent. I've worked with players on skills for weeks, only to see them drop right back into old bad habits as soon as they get under pressure in a game. I know what it's like to have only 4 or 5 players worth a damn while still having to put 11 on the field.
So I honestly don't know if he's a crappy coach or if he's actually doing a pretty good job with what he's got to work with. I will leave the decision as to whether he stays or goes to the people in a position to know, and will support whatever Rodriguez and Brandon and company decide to do.
November 1st, 2010 at 10:25 PM ^
I've been working as a coach for freshman high school. I've worked with a few of the pitchers all of the off-season. I specifically give them drills to fix their mechanics. When the game starts, they reverted back to the old mechanics which frustrates me to no end. After all of the work that I've done and drilled them to use their proper mechanics, they revert back to their pitching motion. I moved up to varisity so I got work with the same kids that I've been coaching for the duration of high school. Their mechanics have improved to the point where it's natural for them to pitch with proper mechanics. It took them 2-3 years to finally get it. Some will pick it up faster than the other, but others takes longer.
November 1st, 2010 at 11:08 PM ^
Of the players starting on defense, under normal circumstances only about 3 or 4 would have started in a normal year: Martin, Van Bergen, Kovacs and Roh. Almost every other person on the field is there because there is no one else to put there or because the FR or SO who had been there has proven so inadequate that another FR or SO was trotted off the bench. I think any opposing OC would be able to do a number on that sort of lineup. Have you ever noticed in NFL games how often the replacement DB who comes in when a starter is injured is lit up IMMEDIATELY? Once Warren opted for the draft and Woolfolk went down, we were doomed to be starting all replacement DBs. As to LBs, how often have people said Ezeh and Mouton are inadequate? Even on the line, for the last 2 games we didn't even have our one really good player, Martin. Did anyone think Banks was going to be the answer? Next year, GR will have the same team back plus some new recruits. Everyone will have a year of experience and, assuming we get to 6, the extra practice before the bowl game and spring practice. Then we may have an idea of whether he can do the job. To judge him on this group with its current level of experience is just plain unfair. And the judging going on makes almost everyone sound like a whiner.
November 3rd, 2010 at 2:07 PM ^
About the players that would normally start on defense, I would say Kovacs wouldn't. He is a former walk-on who is an undersized and slow safety. He is, however, a pretty good tackler, but I wouldn't say he would normally start for a Michigan defense. I do also think that maybe Jonas Mouton could be on that list, though.
November 1st, 2010 at 10:16 PM ^
November 2nd, 2010 at 10:39 AM ^
They sure are.
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:11 AM ^
We haven't just lost three games in a row. We've lost 16 of 20 Big Ten games. We've lost 12 conference games in a row to teams other than Indiana. Do not belittle fans' concern. We are not showing progress against good competition.
November 2nd, 2010 at 2:16 PM ^
Lots of moralizing from site regulars these days (maybe encouraged by MGoBrian's ridiculous post-loss lockdown policy, as if the liveblog wasn't full of emo whining from the mods--negbang here I come!). There are plenty of reasons to be angsty, but there's also plenty of room for hope--how are we "not showing progress against good competition" when the games are reasonably competitive near the end and the offense is putting up ridiculous yardage? We're definitely getting closer. The real question is whether we're getting close enough fast enough.
November 2nd, 2010 at 2:31 PM ^
People who simply state the obvious - that we continue to lose to every good team we face, usually handily, are being called "crazy" or "entitled." Fans have a right to be upset. And at this point, the crazy, entitled people are in the majority.
We've lost all three Big Ten games against non-Indiana teams by double-digits - and that was with second-half comebacks. If that somehow constitutes progress, we haven't just lowered the bar, we've dropped it to the ground.
November 1st, 2010 at 10:21 PM ^
November 1st, 2010 at 10:10 PM ^
STUNNED as well that 88% think UM will beat Purdue. Really? The same sorry ass Purdue team that has beaten UM the last two seasons by scoring at will (sound familiar) with shitty QB's? I want so badly to beat porn stache and make a bowl game, but my confidence is much lower than the rest of yours.
November 1st, 2010 at 10:25 PM ^
Those games were both pretty close. Purdue is genuninely poor this season. That game is still winnable.
November 2nd, 2010 at 8:22 PM ^
Purdue is genuninely poor this season. That game is still winnable.
Exactly what I thought about PennState.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:47 PM ^
I think 88% of us thought likewise...
November 2nd, 2010 at 10:37 PM ^
low expectations, yes, yes, I understand, but Jesus, Purdue's team is kind of like Michigan's with a) a decent FG kicker and b) no offense. At QB, the choices are between the third-string QB with a laceration on his throwing hand or the fourth-string QB who went 7 for 20 against Illinois in a game that was pretty much over in the first quarter. The only two players with more than 200 yards rushing this year are a gutty, gritty FB and the aforementioned QB with the laceration. The only receiver with more than 200 yards receiving got about one-third of his 255 on a pass that was deflected by a defender into his hands while he was running down the sideline. The kicker is 6 of 9 from inside 40 yards.
The defense is bad. The secondary is worse than Michigan's in pretty much every respect except passing yards; this is probably only because the Boilers average nearly two more TFLs per game than anyone else in the Big Ten, which means QBs are getting whacked before they can throw the ball, which is probably why the run defense looks decent (because the sack yardage becomes negative rushing yardage).
The special teams are ass; if it weren't for the fact that Wiggs can actually hit from long range, they'd be atrocious.
This is not the same sorry-ass team that has beaten Michigan two years in a row. This is a Purdue team whose coach angered Angry Purdue ACL-Hating God until He wreaked His vengeance upon the Boilers and said "Yea, an thou shalt complaineth again, shalt I smiteth thy remaining skill players, so shutteth thy whiny face."
The only reason they have any Big Ten wins is because a) Northwestern apparently didn't realize that the QB can run the ball and b) Tim Brewster. In fact, the Purdue message boards sound suspiciously like the Michigan message boards, even though Hope has one less year of experience and much, much lower standards to meet. So no, it's not last year's team at all.
Michigan has lost to two very good teams (Iowa and Michigan State) and one WTF team (because Penn State's best win is against Michigan, which causes some really weird recursion problems). Purdue has lost to one very good team (OSU), one team that may or may not be very good (Illinois), one WTF team (because ND's best win is the 'Stache), and Toledo. At home. By 11. 378 yards, 9 of 15 on third-down conversions, that kind of defensive game.
No matter what Purdue manages to piece together on offense, they will not be able to outscore Michigan. Not possible.
November 1st, 2010 at 10:30 PM ^
Thanks for putting the poll together. It's really interesting. One thought though...
You say that only 1/5 of the board wants RR fired...but the way you framed the question, that isn't the right conclusion. It would seem that 1/5 of the board feels he must be fired without seeing any more evidence. While I believe RR will not show the required improvement to keep his job, I would have answered "wait until after the season". Combine that with the vast majority of the board expecting us to lose 3 of the last 4 and that would likely lead most all of those 41% (in the wait until the end of the season group) to switch to "fire RR".
In that manner, nearly 2/3 of the board might really want him to be fired even if they don't want to admit it yet. I do think that leads to some interesting follow-up questions though.
November 1st, 2010 at 10:48 PM ^
What I read from the poll is those that never wanted to see Rich Rod in Maize and Blue can't wait to see him leave and then there is the rest of us.
We can all sit back and argue that Michigan should at least be demonstrating an average Big Ten defense but as TennBlue suggests, I will let the season play out and defer the final judgment to those that have a much better view of reality.
IMHO we are a season away from that average defense and given our offence, an average D will yield one hell of a season.
November 2nd, 2010 at 2:11 AM ^
I think we are more like 2 years away from having an average big 10 defense. May be 4 or more years from having a very good defense, that is if we can recruit and develop better athletes on the defensive side of the ball?
November 1st, 2010 at 10:54 PM ^
Couple questions for those that want RR and GERG out:
1. If RR was hired for the University of Minnesota job after he was fired from U of M would you be worried?
2. After hearing all the rumors of RR's "medling" with the defensive schemes, not letting his DC's run the defense they are comfortable with and having a clear lack of talent how can we possibly blame the defensive fiasco on Greg Robinson?
My answer to #1- I would be extremely anxious if RR went to any school in the Big Ten.
Answer to #2- I don't think Greg Robinson is THE reason the Defense is bad; however, i'm not sold he is the answer either. He has way too much to overcome, lack of talent/depth and inability to run HIS defensive scheme to be judged fairly.....in my opinion.
Call me an apologist, but I really think RR needs another year to truly see if the program is moving in the right direction.
November 1st, 2010 at 11:31 PM ^
good post. He has 4 games to make that case and Saturday is a biggie. Every national guy I am reading think it will be a loss.
Offensively it seems like we are very close to becoming hell on teams all game.
November 2nd, 2010 at 2:03 AM ^
if RR is let go at the end of the season. I think he will end up back at WVU.
November 2nd, 2010 at 8:08 AM ^
For some weird unexplainable reason, I agree with you.
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:16 AM ^
1. If RR was hired for the University of Minnesota job after he was fired from U of M would you be worried?
Right now? No. Why would I worry about a school hiring a guy who failed miserably at his previous school? That's harsh, but it's the truth. Without Jeff Casteel, RR has looked awful as a HC.
2. After hearing all the rumors of RR's "medling" with the defensive schemes, not letting his DC's run the defense they are comfortable with and having a clear lack of talent how can we possibly blame the defensive fiasco on Greg Robinson?
It's not entirely his fault. I just know that, based on his past decade of futility, GERG is unlikely to be the solution to our problems, so I want a DC who can be.
November 2nd, 2010 at 2:48 PM ^
1. If RR was hired for the University of Minnesota job after he was fired from U of M would you be worried?
I would be worried. Minnesota is a sleeping giant who has floundered due to gross mismanagement by the Athletic Department. RR will go into Minnesota, establish a culture of accountability with the help of Barwis, bring his boys from Florida to augment the big ole linemen Minnesota produces. Minnesota will be a force under RR.
2. After hearing all the rumors of RR's "medling" with the defensive schemes, not letting his DC's run the defense they are comfortable with and having a clear lack of talent how can we possibly blame the defensive fiasco on Greg Robinson?
GERG is not at fault here. He has been put into a position he cannot succeed at.
November 2nd, 2010 at 2:00 AM ^
I agree that no decision on RR status should be made until after the season. I like the spread offense and it will only improve as our QBs become juniors and seniors. This will be one hell of an offense next year and as long as RR is our coach. Unfortunately, championships are won with good to great defenses. The question is when or if the Michigan defense will become very good or great? I could see it being another two to four years before the defense improves enough to become a BCS bowl caliber team. Are we patient enough to wait? We may have to miss out on another bowl game this year and maybe reaching 7-5 or 8-4 next season? I know our defense is young but the most disappointing part of the defense is not seeing improvement as the season progresses. If the defensive coaching was good you would see some improvement.
My predictions are that if RR can win 7 or more games he will get another season to coach here.
If he finishes 6-6 the AD may require him to make whole sale changes on the defensive side of the ball. That would mean letting some of his friends go.
If RR finishes 5-7 I doubt he will be here as coach next season. Most likely Jim Harbaugh.
November 2nd, 2010 at 2:44 AM ^
I think firing RR would be a big mistake and set the program back years. I agree with jackw8542 none of these kids would be playing for another 2 or 3 years but attrition has caused this problem. It's a baptism by fire for our defense. We maybe taking our beatings now but it will benefit us in the long run. If it seemed like the players were quitting during games then I would be concerned but they are playing hard until the clock hits zero.
We chose to overhaul the whole program when we went with RR. It takes time especially when you go from a pro-style to a spread offense. I think we as fans have been spoiled by the success michigan football has had over the years. Michigan hasn't experienced something like this in 40 or 50 years. Every major program in the last 30 years has had down times like were going through now. It's our turn but we'll get back to where we should be.
Alabama from 2000-2007 wasn't that great. Execept for 2002 & 2005 they had some pretty bad records. Georgia has it 's struggles now and in the 90's as well. LSU in the 90's was horrible. Miami went through some growing pains just as Randy Shannon took over and still does. Oklahoma in the mid to late 90's was horrible. We all know about ND's hard times. Nebraska during the Bill Callahan era was pretty bad. Penn State in the early 2000s had some horrible records. USC before Pete Carroll was horrible. Tennessee the last couple of years is just as bad as us if not worse. Texas in the early-mid 90's wasn't good. Florida State has had some mediocre teams in the 2000's. The new kids on the block like Oregon, Utah, BSU, TCU don't really count cause they've just started having major football success this decade. Exposure for college football has grown leaps and bounds the last decade which makes expectations for immediate success unrealistic.
Change takes time and we as Michigan fans need to have patience. Fans of other programs had to go through tough times and unfortunately were not immune to a couple of bad years of football either. This was a 6-6 team at best but the quick start got peoples expectations to high once again. And as far as beating OSU...our time will come. Most major rivalries have periods of time where one teams beats another for 5-7 years. Like RR says when we're better then them we'll beat them.
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:57 AM ^
I couldnt agree more...I rememebr think ing in the mid-aughts that Michigan was on the "clock" for a down cycle. They were the only major program who hadn't missed a bowl game my entire life (I'm 32)...it seemed with parity it was inevitable that a dwon cycle was coming at some point...my hope is we have hit bottom and blue sky is ahead...
November 2nd, 2010 at 12:20 PM ^
The main problem with this logic as I see it is that in every case cited (I think) the down cycle occured becuase of poor coaches that were hired. Michigan avoided this because it had so few coaches, and those coaches were excellent to very good (perhaps in Carr's final few years just good). This allowed M to recruit and perform at a consistently high level.
If RR is a bad coach - jury still out but it's looking more and more doubtful - then it won't matter if he gets 3 years or 5 years.
I think it would be more instructive to compare programs that made a hire that started off poorly but were retained for years 4 and 5 and made the leap to good or great. I've seen multiple examples of coaches that took foundering programs and made them good to very good in 3 years - Saban (twice), Carrol, Meyer, Stoops, etc. I'm not sure how many I've seen that needed 5 years to make their mark - I'm guessing there are some, but I don't know. That would be more instructive. I actually think Dantonio might fall in this category. This year he has them playing well, but the last few didn't lend any support that he was any better than the previous slappys at MSU. I'm not sure he's a great coach, but I do think he's at least good and will keep MSU at a competitve level - something they haven't been since Saban.
I think RR inherited some issues and made some poor decisions of his own that make it unclear if he's right for the job or not. I'm willing to see how this year plays out and lean toward one more year. But it would be interesting to know if there are a lot of instances where paitence really paid off.
November 2nd, 2010 at 12:26 PM ^
come to mind immediately as coaches whose teams looked terrible for the first 3 or 4 years then suddenly took off.
New coaches can have big success right away under two conditions:
- The previous coach recruited good players who weren't playing up to potential, and
- The new coach uses an offensive system very similar to the previous coach's.
Rodriguez had neither of those conditions in his favor.
November 2nd, 2010 at 1:24 PM ^
You make it sound like RR replaced a fired coach. He didn't. I have a problem with this retroactive blaming of Carr. Carr's recruits never seemed to have a problem playing to their potential while he was there - and he coached here for many recruiting cycles.
November 2nd, 2010 at 1:33 PM ^
after the 2005 season, and Martin talked him into staying on. His heart wasn't in it any more and his last two recruiting classes showed it. His "retirement" at the end of the 2007 season wasn't exactly a firing, but it was pretty clear he wasn't wanted back for the 2008 season.
I love Lloyd to death, but he really fell off a cliff his last couple years. Despite how great the 2006 team was, App State watched the film from that season and knew they were going to beat us in April before The Horror because we had become completely predictable. They could see we didn't do anything particularly creative or clever and had the talent to counter our predictable playcalling. The program had ossified and was running on autopilot.
November 2nd, 2010 at 2:35 PM ^
So 11-2 and 9-4 is falling off a cliff? Hey, I fully agree that he wasn't the greatest gameday coach, but overall he had the program in vastly better shape than it is now. I don't think it's fair to blame him for what's gone on. Do you think he wanted all of his assistants (save Fred Jackson) to be fired?
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:48 PM ^
could have gone 9-4 with Nick Sheridan or Steven Threet or David Cone as his QB? When Henne/Hart/Manningham and the rest graduated, there was very little talent left. What record do you think the team would have had with Lloyd Carr in charge in 2008?
Sorry, but Lloyd did not leave the program in very good shape when he left. It was rotting from within, and the performance on the field was about to collapse regardless of who was in charge.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:20 PM ^
I guess you're forgetting Ryan Mallett would have been the QB throwing to Adrian Arrington and Mario Manningham (who left early) with Justin Boren on the line. I think he wins 8/9 games...no problem.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:28 PM ^
He wanted to go to Arkansas in the first place. He only went to Michigan because he didn't want to sit behind Mitch Mustain for three years. When Mustain blew up at the end of the 2007 season and decided to transfer, Mallet was gone.
Rodriguez had little to do with it. Mallet would not have been at Michigan in 2008 no matter what.
Reality be damned, indeed.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:34 PM ^
So, he was gone...but he was still there. Very interesting. Even more interesting that you continue to say "Rodriguez had little to do with it". If Mallet were already done, how could RR have anything to do with it???
November 3rd, 2010 at 2:20 PM ^
Steven Threet was actually a fairly decent pro style QB.
November 2nd, 2010 at 1:35 PM ^
JM- No sarcasm in the question, but were you not once a strident RR supporter? I really don't recall, but if that's true, what was your breaking point?
November 2nd, 2010 at 2:46 PM ^
(Although I was never comfortable with people blaming Carr for RR's problems.) I still like the guy, but my faith in him began to waiver after MSU (at which point I gave up on GERG for good) and is now badly shaken. I really thought we'd come out against PSU and make a statement. Instead we looked as badly-coached as ever. At that point, I realized I couldn't rationalize this stuff anymore.
I'm generally a pretty optimistic person, and I'll give any coach a chance. But the horrible Big Ten record has just been too much. I'd love for RR to turn in around and make me a believer again, but I can't see it happening. There's too much negative momentum at this point.
November 2nd, 2010 at 2:58 PM ^
Sounds about right. I reached that point after Illinois last year, but decided to cross my fingers this season. I'm still waiting a bit longer before declaring "fire him" again, but I'm getting close.
November 2nd, 2010 at 3:00 PM ^
You bring up some good points.
I agree Alvarez is a good comparison as he went 1-10, 5-6, 5-6 then jumped in year 4 to 10-1-1. The lack of "improvement" in year 3 seems similar
Ferentz took 4 years to blossom, but shows improvement every year going 1-10, 3-9, 7-5 then 11-2. If RR pulls out 7 wins it would be very similar although in his 7-5 year Ferentz tied for 7th in the Big 10 with 4 wins (and a bowl victory) whereas we'd be looking at 3 Big 10 wins.
I don't think Carr is totally to blame as some mention below. Rather I think had he stayed he would have had 1-2 years of meh before Mallett and co took off. Programs often have these mini-lulls when a very strong class leaves (like Texas now).
Unfortunately the switch to RR blew up the offense at the same time we had had down years recruiting defense. Coupled with the fact that RR is more an offensive coach, made poor coordinator choices, and didn't recruit well and we have D-disaster this year.
I lean toward giving him one more year. With an explosive offense and a much more seasoned defense he will sink or swim and maybe match Alvarez and Ferentz if he's actually a good coach. If he's not, as I stated it won't matter as we won't improve.
I'm worried it may be too late though. If GERG stays I think we are screwed. If we bring in a new coordinator, unless they are amazing and RR stays out of the way and lets them operate, we probably are screwed barring multiple players making huge leaps and several Freshmen being instant impact players.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:01 PM ^
RR is a good coach...his track record at WV speaks for itself. I don't want to hear that the Big East isn't as good as the Big Ten. Right now that might be the case but the Big East was pretty competative when he was there (I might be wrong). What other program in recent history trying to rebuild has had as much negative media as Michigan? All though RR has made some mistakes he wasn't fully welcomed from the beginning by some. None of those programs had a culture in place that was totally uprooted. Another interesting thought I had is Saban, Carroll, Meyer, and Stoops took over in places where high school talent is abundant in ridiculous amounts compared to Michigan. Meyer doesn't count because Zook had some pretty good recruiting years and they were never really bad when he was there just under preformed to Florida's standards.
On a completely different note...when Carr was here we always complained how conservative we were and how soft our D was. I loved Carr but we should have played for a few more titles during his tenure. Too much talent during his time that underachieved on the field but I think it had to do more with coaching. Hmmm...isn't that the argument so many people are having now with the D but this time a lack of talent can be included in the argument.
Here's my final thought for now. We as Michigan fans always talk about how Notre Dame shouldn't think of themselves as high and mighty as they do.....maybe the same could be said of us. We are still Michigan but were not an exception to down times or problems even though sometimes we think we are. Let's be honest no one not even I is satisfied unless we're competing for National Titles. We as fans are always gonna complain unless we're winning because when we lose we (the common fan) think we have all the answers to fix the problems.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:50 AM ^
Seems to me that in todays information world potential recruits are probably well tuned to what is being said about a coach and a program. The contant second guesing has taken a toll on recruiting and the program. I think that the Free Press stories have also had their effect.
The transition to everything new in a program has taken time more time than the fans expected. RichRod has also made some mistakes along the way but I remember the constant bickering about lack of a runnning game and soft defense under Carr. Seems like this fan base is just never satified. I think the smart play is to let his contract play out and see where we are because a new coach will have most of the same if not all of the problems.
Sit back, relax and enjoy the show. The offense is fun to watch and the D will get there.
November 2nd, 2010 at 8:07 AM ^
It would be pretty damn funny to see a player's commitment speach where he calls out a message board poster by name as to why he didn't go to a particular school.
For instance:
"I'm taking my talents to South Beach. I would have gone to Michigan, but that Tom Hagan guy is a whack job. I honestly think he'd call my mother in the middle of the night and threaten her life if I miss a tackle."
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:14 AM ^
"If a coaching change is made, should it be done before or after the bowl game? *" is one i'm struggling with. For me, the only way a change is made is if there is no bowl game. So do I answer before or after?
November 2nd, 2010 at 4:03 PM ^
For the 41% who voted "let's wait until after the season to decide", I'm curious as to why this choice was so popular.
Isn't Coach Rodriguez the same guy regardless of whether we're 5-7 or 7-5?
That said, if people chose this option because of wanting to avoid distractions mid-season, I understand. But it's my hunch that people who chose this option are taking a wait-and-see approach, and I'm genuinely curious how a couple of wins either way could change someone's mind on the guy.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:25 PM ^
I dont see how it doesn't change opinions. Not in terms of RR's character, but in whether he can continue to coach this team. If he rights the ship a bit and gets a couple wins to get us to a bowl game how is that not different than if we finish out 5-7?
November 4th, 2010 at 12:24 AM ^
I agree. If he fixes things up a bit and gets a win or two at the end, I would consider things on the upswing. If the team loses out, then the final results show no improvement over last year. That's the reason I said they should evaluate at the end of the season.
Thanks again to whoever put together the survey.
November 9th, 2010 at 11:21 AM ^
Fair point. I can somewhat understand your response if you take losing the last few games as being a sign that RR has lost control of his program ala John L Smith or Bobby Williams.
My comment was directed more toward the people who week-in, week-out seem to suggest that each game is the "make or break" game for RR, as if he's not trying to win each and every game to the best of his ability.
My point was that rather than looking at his record in a few games that just happen to fall at the end of the season, one should evaluate RR based on whether his system is going to win games (and hopefully national titles) for us down the road. Personally, I look at whether I believe his system is going to be succesful in the B10, and whether he's getting the players he needs for the system to work.
(OT: Apologies if this wasn't stated clearly before-- it looks like I may have been downvoted once the diary made the front page.)
Comments