Musing on Turner, RR, and Blue Chip Maintenance

Submitted by Seth on

Caveat:

The following diary isn't a statement of belief, but a muse.

You and I have all read articles that pretend to be just asking questions when they are really making rhetorical questions, statements in the form of a question.

This is the opposite. I am writing this because I want it to be refuted. Be merciless. And more importantly, be merciless with solid reason. By the end of the week, I want this theory which is now solidifying in my head to be ripped apart, buried, and transferring to Division II. Got it?

Let's go.

The question I ask is a repeat from a diary I wrote last year after the Dong Punch:

[Can RR placate] egos of 21-year-olds with assured NFL futures[?]

I wondered this when it seemed that we had lost more than our fair share of blue chip prospects, and were getting few in return. To this, at the time, I answered

http://isportsweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/graham.jpg.

So far, obviously not a problem. Nuff said.

"Nuff said."

In Internetese, "Nuff said" actually means "I am probably wrong and know it so I am simply not going to argue this with you."

Enough was not said there. So I return. With a chart. Here's the blue chip (5.9 to 6.1 on Rivals) talents that Rich Rodriguez has had as his wards at Michigan. The guys who left early with a bad taste in their mouths are in italics.

Player RR Class Position Under RR
Stephen Schilling 6.1 2006 OL Kind of busty, but is Offensive captain in 2010
Brandon Graham 6.1 2006 DE Crowning achievement of the Barwis program.
Justin Boren 6.0 2006 OL Biggest F.U. ever issued to Michigan in history
Carlos Brown 6.0 2006 RB Played out injurious career as lightning option
Jonas Mouton 6.0 2006 LB Biggest + of "new" defense: he doesn't have to think.
Steve Brown 5.9 2006 S Ugh for a year, then + at box safety
Greg Matthews 5.9 2006 WR Useless with bad QB work, had a career moment v ND
Adam Patterson 5.9 2006 DT Total bust
Ryan Mallett 6.1 2007 QB Transferred the minute RR was hired
Donovan Warren 6.1 2007 CB Left early for NFL, wasn't drafted
Toney Clemons 5.9 2007 WR Transferred to Colorado, blaming system
Boubacar Cissoko 6.0 2008 CB Kicked off team after several incidents
Dann O'Neill 6.0 2008 OL Couldn't hack in RR regime, transferred to crappy school
Darryl Stonum 6.0 2008 WR KR and backup receiver -- head hasn't matched obvious talent
J.B. Fitzgerald 5.9 2008 LB Got playing time in '09, looked badly coached
Kevin Koger 5.9 2008 TE Could be "the guy who made RR trade in FB for TEs"
Brandon Smith 5.9 2008 S Hung around unhappy, then transferred
Michael Shaw 5.9 2008 RB Academic troubles put career in question
William Campbell 6.1 2009 DT Apparently is handsome
Justin Turner 6.0 2009 CB Redshirted away from worst DB unit in history, transferred
Tate Forcier 5.9 2009 QB Started 2009 brilliantly until injured, job now in jeopardy, called out
Jeremy Gallon 5.9 2009 SL Redshirted, could be KR this year
Craig Roh 5.9 2009 LB/DE Started 2009 though undersized. Dad is an outspoken RR defender
Je'Ron Stokes 5.9 2009 WR Likely to contribute this year
Cullen Christian 5.9 2010 CB Likely to contribute this year
Devin Gardner 5.9 2010 QB Competing for starting QB spot, likely to redshirt
Demar Dorsey 5.9 2010 CB Never made it to campus

I discounted the 2005 class because Bass and Zirbel were lost to RR for theirby injury,  Manningham left when Lloyd retired, and Slocum and McKinney were gone long before that, so basically you have Kevin Grady (an established bust by then), and Terrance Taylor sticking around to play out his senior season.

It gets uglier when it's just the 6.0 guys:

Player RR Class Position Under RR
Stephen Schilling 6.1 2006 OL Kind of busty, but is Offensive captain in 2010
Brandon Graham 6.1 2006 DE Crowning achievement of the Barwis program.
Justin Boren 6.0 2006 OL Biggest F.U. ever issued to Michigan in history
Carlos Brown 6.0 2006 RB Played out injurious career as lightning option
Jonas Mouton 6.0 2006 LB Biggest + of "new" defense: he doesn't have to think.
Ryan Mallett 6.1 2007 QB Transferred the minute RR was hired
Donovan Warren 6.1 2007 CB Left early for NFL, wasn't drafted
Boubacar Cissoko 6.0 2008 CB Kicked off team after several incidents
Dann O'Neill 6.0 2008 OL Couldn't hack in RR regime, transferred to crappy school
Darryl Stonum 6.0 2008 WR KR and backup receiver -- head hasn't matched obvious talent
William Campbell 6.1 2009 DT Apparently is handsome
Justin Turner 6.0 2009 CB Transferring

That's half of the true blue chip recruits that could have contributed to 2010 who are no longer with the program, for whatever reason. Among those who stayed, particularly among the younger players, there are academic concerns, commitment to the program concerns (if you don't have Tate on transfer watch you're an optimistic person), and what not.

What happened is platitude: RR has very exacting requirements for his players if they want to earn playing time, and those who signed to play for Uncle Lloyd found themselves in a foreign culture.

But that doesn't explain Turner, a 2009 recruit who signed on for Rich Rod. It doesn't explain why Tate Forcier went from (paraphrasing) "I'm gonna make sure we all work hard this offseason" to a guy we are getting hints about being a pariah. This is the kid who won Notre Dame, and ruined his shoulder using guts to beat Indiana for us.

I think this much is now obvious: Rich Rodriguez does not placate egos.

The Question:

Is this a problem for Michigan?

The Theory:

Bo Schembechler

Rich Rodriguez is old school. Like Bear Bryant. Like Bo.

He has one philosophy he shared with Bo and Bo's ilk: "Nobody comes through your tunnel who isn't the toughest, hardest working summamabitch in the game."

This a program value.

I like these program values. I appreciated it when the Tigers, desperate for any kind of hitting, let Dmitri Young go because he was becoming a team distraction. That was a forgotten storyline from 2006. It was the final notice served that Leyland's team would not be what the Tigers had been before. It worked.

Punching yourself in the nose to spite your face is a good way to wake yourself up if you've been sleepwalking. I wouldn't, however, recommend doing it repeatedly.

I think RR might be a bit too hard on the guys.

(You may now gasp).

Take a Look Around: Egos = Wins

No, I'm not saying I want to be Pete Carroll's USC. I'm saying I'm starting to tire of being the official, absolute anti-USC: "Come here to play in the cold and gray, where you will be worked to your breaking point then rebuilt by a crazy man who tames wolves, where your performance in the classroom will be judged as harshly as your performance on the field, and whatever talents you were born with mean diddly because that walk-on is busting his ass and is going to beat you for your playing time."

This is our program. This is what we are all in for. And I, for one, have not asked this once yet: Where's the fucking fun in that?

When we hired Rich Rod, I figured 10/10 impossible things had to go wrong for this not to work out. We are now at like 8/10, and Year Three hasn't even started yet. Some of this was the transition pains between opposite regimes, atop of some glaring holes left by years of neglect and inbred coaching.

Some of it, however, we must attribute to RR not being a great defensive mind. More has been widely attributed to Rich Rod's hardass-ity running off good players. And the more times this happens, the harder it becomes for me to flatly deny it.

The defensive backfield has gone from 2007's "I'm getting nervous for the future but there's plenty of time," to 2008's "This shit scares me, but eh, he's new, let him recruit," to 2009's "This shit is in the worse shape I have ever seen," to 2010's "This is Indiana."

To lose a guy like Turner because, we are guessing, he gained 11 pounds while J.T. Floyd was busting his ass, that says a lot about Rodriguez's commitment to his program's core values, and also gives us some insight into the downside of having this be our program's core value.

I'd love for this not to be true: The programs that consistently remain on top today are those that placate egos. The Bo era is over, the (coaching, not literal) spawn of Bobby Bowden now reign supreme.

Bama, Florida, LSU, Texas, Ohio State, USC, Miami (Miami!) ..none of these championship teams were built with the Bo/Bear/Woody method of peeling down to the core then building back up again (no, Bama's method of cutting its 3-stars and busts doesn't count). They recruit the best talent, then keep that talent happy, and then when it comes Saturday, the fat and talented run roughshod over the meek and hungry.

I am, of course, speaking in extremes. USC players weren't just getting massages from the cheerleaders -- they did a good amount of ass-busting too. Also: highly coveted recruits went there and got playing time.

Maybe a sword doesn't lose to a knife just because a knife wants it more -- maybe that only happens in fairy tales.

We now have many more 4.5- and 5-stars who have left the program during RR's tenure (Boren, Mallett, Warren, O'Neill, Cissoko and Turner) as have have joined it (Campbell, Gardner). I don't blame RR for all of those guys (Cissoko undoubtedly would have been on a different page than Carr), but I am now officially at Very Concerned You Guys.

I'm not saying RR is anti-5-stars. Rather, I think he doesn't know how to treat a 5-star differently than a 3-star, and that doing this, unfortunately, is part of modern college football.

In fact, at this point I am pretty much sure that RR cannot build a program like Tressel, or Carroll, or Saban, or Urban Meyer, or Bob Stoops, or Bobby Bowden. At this point I am rather holding out hope that Rich Rod can change the paradigm, can swing the pendulum away from "We'll make you a star, kid," and back to "out of these tunnels come the meanest, toughest sonsofbitches who ever put on pads."

Comments

ituralde

August 11th, 2010 at 6:47 PM ^

They should expect to work up-front. 

I don't want failures on our team just because they are rated well if they don't want to put the work in. 

Those of us not in the football program don't have the choice not to put work in. We fail if we do that. On top of that, we have to make real money to stay in school at not-fun jobs, they get to play football. 

I have no sympathy.  To those not tough enough to play in this program, I don't want you on this team.  Raw talent that doesn't play with others is a liability anyways.

That all being said, it's a matter of building a team culture and player culture that encourages that level of hard work from a postitive perspective rather than a negative one.  In other words, you need to make sure that the driving force that pushes people to go that extra mile comes from the team's will to succeed and motivate each other rather than coaches or staff harping excessively upon mistakes and missteps.  You want people to have instilled in them the passion to succeed, not to feel hemmed in by strict rules. 

Now, I can't say one way or another the true nature of the football program.  I'm not close to it or involved in it, so how it really is out there isn't something I can comment on.

But let's look at the transfers and losses.

Justin Boren is a fuckup.  He wanted to play simple man blocking run-heavy o-line and didn't want to have to put real work in to meet conditioning requirements.  More than that, any fucking bitch who would even consider transferring to Ohio State from Michigan is someone I would never want on my team even if he was (according to the media) a magical combination of Lamarr Woodley, Denard Robinson, and Tom Brady. 

Mallet left because he had an odd combination of actually wanting to be closer to home and wanting a specific offense.  I think this was a poor choice on his part, as he could have been very Forcier-like with less speed and more arm.  If he stayed, you might had Manningham stay another year and run a pass-oriented spread midway between a pro and RichRod's run read/option attack. Rich Rodriguez is a smart offensive guy, I think he could have made it work.  Still, he made up his own mind and I'm not inclined to believe that any of RichRod's actions forced the issue there.

Warren read too much of his own press and thought he'd be in the first two rounds of the draft.  That was simple stupidity, nothing about RichRod caused that, except perhaps Mike Barwis beating him into amazing shape out of nowhere the previous year.

Cissoko also made independently retarded choices and would have failed out of any program anywhere (except USC, where he'd be given a hotel room, celebrity exposure, and blowjobs from Agents until he was back into shape)

I personally think O'Neill was a bust and would have flamed out anywhere.

And it sounds like Turner lacked work ethic.  If this guy can't appreciate a scholarship to one of the best universities in the country and work for what he had the way the rest of us have to, then honestly I don't see him going on to be any sort of college star anyways. ( I heard rumors of him simply losing interest in the sport of Football too but I'm not sure if that's accurate at all)

Anyhow, I think other than the attrition at the beginning, the ongoing player loss only seems noteworthy because of the departures at the start and mr. fatass trash-talking the program once Rodriguez came in.

Garvie Craw

August 11th, 2010 at 7:02 PM ^

One thing I think we can never overlook is the fact that Rich Rodriguez was a walk-on. He just can't see giving a job to an underachieving 4-5 star guy when a less heralded player is busting his ass to win a job. He was shaped by his own experience as a player.

Siiiiingler

August 11th, 2010 at 7:37 PM ^

Very interesting.  If anyone's read Moneyball, the basic premise of the book is that Bily Beane crushes the age-old ideas of baseball scouting (based on a player's looks, potential, tools)  because he was indeed scouted by those premises and failed as a baseball player.  He instead purposefully distanced himself from any notions he may have conceived as a playerso that in his current position as GM he could make objective decisions.  And he basically changed the game in doing so.  I think this would be the best approach for any coach/manager who has played the game.

maizenbluedevil

August 11th, 2010 at 6:50 PM ^

That's a really thoughtful post and, I think a valid question to ask but I don't think there's sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion either way.

I really think the magnitude of the organizational shift that occured in the Lloyd to RR transition cannot possibly be overstated.

I mean, Lloyd and RR are pretty much as different as its possible for 2 football coaches to be, in just about every aspect.

- LC "Michigan Man"

- RR outside hire

- LC pro-style, traditional schemes

- RR spread, innovative

- LC old

- RR young

Plus a totally new S&C philosophy, change in the culture of the program, vast difference in temperment....  I could go on and on.

Michigan football has undergone a total metamorphosis over the past couple years.  That level of organizational change, happening that quickly, is just by its nature going to lead to significant turnover in personnel.

Everyone you cited, to me, falls into one of 3 categories:

- Didn't pan out due to injury (has nothing to do w/ RR)

- Didn't pan out due to academics (has nothing to do w/ RR)

- Didn't pan out b/c of a clash of values with the new regime.  (Would have happened with any new coach that was vastly different from LC - thus not specifically due to RR per se)

- And there are a couple regular old busts.  But this happens in every program.  Re. USC, which you mention specifically, see Mustain, Mitch.

Most of the transfers fall under these aforementioned categories.  Thus, are not *necessarily* due to any supposed lack of ability to deal w/ 5 stars by RR.  That's not to say it didn't factor in at all, but, they're explainable for other reasons.  And really, we'll likely never know the whole story on these.

And then there's JT Turner...  who we really don't know the story on why he's transferring, so it's too early to infer anything that might approach clues to answer this question.

As for Tate - I agree - transfer watch.  But this too, once again, has other explanations.  All along I've suspected that there's sort of a prima donna issue with him.  See, e.g., the website, him texting national media before the Iowa game, etc.  

So in the end there really isn't enough data to conclude either way.  I really don't see any reason to think this, because all of these situations have other explanations for why things went wrong than "RR can't handle stars."  But, if we're 2-3 years down the road and this is still happening on the regular, a case could be made for this.

My personal opinion though...  I really don't think so.  I really think this has been a shitstorm of unfortunate circumstances the past couple years.  Correlation does not imply causation.  Or maybe I'm just trying to rationalize my optimism, who knows.

Seth

August 11th, 2010 at 7:03 PM ^

It's a crime I can give you just one plus. Thank you.

On Mustain, it should be well to note that Mustain has, according to practice reports, vastly outplayed Matt Barkley in Spring and so far in fall practices, yet Barkley, Kiffin assured fans, is the starter and not in danger of losing his job.

That's a true sophomore who was good but iffy his freshman season who is not in danger of losing a job to a superior upperclassman.

Contrast that with Michigan, where Tate was everything we ever could have expected out of him last year, and is -- reading tealeaves - now behind Robinson, a guy his own age who can run but was not a passing threat at all last year.

The Man Down T…

August 11th, 2010 at 8:02 PM ^

Last year Denard could barely hit the side of a barn and that didn't work when the opponents stacked the line to stop him from running. I hope what hear about how much better he is this year is true.  But throwing passes against the second string defense in the spring game is a lot easier than against some Badger defender wanting to rip your head off and punt it out of the end zone.  I do hope it's true, as it can only help us.  Until then, I have to think that Tate will be the starter.  Even with painful shoulder problems he drug himself out there to fight for our team.  That, to me, shows a lot of character. And that will keep him ahead of the others this season.

Bronco Joe

August 17th, 2010 at 2:45 AM ^

DR excelled in the Spring game against the 2nd defense. These are the two deep players that are the back up to first defense that has been compared to Indiana's defense. Who is DR going to face this season with that level of talent? 

Note that while Forcier's performance in the Spring game was not as impressive, it was against the 1st defense, with the 2nd offense. 

Anyone else think it may be a two quarterback system, especially if things do not go well in one or both of the first two games? 

The Man Down T…

August 11th, 2010 at 7:53 PM ^

is born of an abundance of good QB's.  It's a problem every coach would like to have.  Hmm, do I send in Tate, Denard or Devin?  Any one of those 3 could lead a top team to a title.  We have all 3.  Means one, maybe 2 excellent QB's are sitting and thinking that somewhere else may give more playing time.  I don't expect all 3 here after this season.  If DG redshirts, the backup of Tate/Denard will probably bail.

Seth9

August 11th, 2010 at 7:20 PM ^

The sample size of "true blue chip" recruits is 12. Of the 12, you flagged six. Of the six, two transferred as a result of the regime change, something that isn't exactly uncommon. Another left due to behavior issues and is now in prison. This leaves three guys who transferred or left early by choice after spending a year with Rodriguez, namely Warren (early NFL departure for a number of factors), O'Neill, and Turner.

Six of 12 guys is not much cause of concern because the sample size is very small. When you factor in surrounding circumstances, you can easily find alternative explanations for four (Warren, Cissoko, Mallett, and Boren), meaning that there is even less cause for concern. What is concerning is that we're losing useful players (or at least potentially useful players) going into a critical season.

beaker

August 11th, 2010 at 7:25 PM ^

I'd like to think that the better TEAM would still beat better individual talent. That is, the team with better teamwork - players who put the work in to be in superlative physical condition, know their assignments and reads, and trust that their teammates are doing the same  - would be competitive with/beat a team with better individual talent.

I'm actually excited by the "family" atmosphere and the reports of hard work, although I do admit to a non-gay crush on Barwis. I'd also be very disappointed (as I suspect many of the players might) if Turner was being pampered and "given" playing time.

Do any of the coaches think better teamwork would beat better talent? it's sort of a rephrasing of Misopogon's question.

P.S. I didn't go to the gym today b/c I was tired. And I should be studying for a test but instead I'm watching TV reruns and reading MGoBlog.

OSUMC Wolverine

August 11th, 2010 at 7:41 PM ^

Talented pussies have great career futures in pro wrestling and gay porn...I want football players at Michigan and if that is who stays, then so be it.  I am not saying JT is a puss, just that the possibility is there.  It is also possible that something else could be at work...lets not forget that he wasnt a scholar athlete in HS and maybe he sees the writing on the wall that eligibity at UM will not be feasible in the future.

RR and company appear to be a driven and passionate group.  This can be quite intimidating to kids who have had very little structure up to that point.  This type of attrition would have happened as much or even more under the likes of Bo and Woody if it was as acceptable then as it is now to be a whiny little b*tch.

bigbluemachine

August 11th, 2010 at 11:29 PM ^

To me it seems that RR holds his players to a very high standard and that may very well scare away many 5 star recruits that want to rely on their natural talent and coast through collage with the sole purpose of reaching the NFL.  I for one am willing to accept this because it is exactly this attitude that has turned 3 star recruits by West Virginia into five star talent.  And when you do come across a five star recruit that is up to the challenge, a la Brandon Graham, those five star talents will turn into absolute studs.  The more cases like Brandon Graham that occur the more recruits will realize that while it may be tough, Michigan may be the best school to prepare them for the next level.

Granted I would not be happy with records or recruiting classes that West Virginia put up under RR, but I believe that once RR gets things rolling, that combined with Michigan's tradition will lead to dominance.  Look at the recruiting classes he has put up after terrible losing seasons and he still is able to put together pretty good recruiting classes.

in summary I would rather have a group of lesser rated individuals who i knew were going to give it 100% effort than higher rated players who were more concerned about getting by with the lest amount of effort possible.

Long time reader fist time posting. I apologize if I seem to be all over the place.  I have been reading about how RR job is in question for a while now and believe that it will take time and the worst thing that can be done is to change coaches again and start all over.

J. Lichty

August 12th, 2010 at 10:47 AM ^

going in that they will pick a place because they can coast and get by ont their talents.

While that may occur once they realize how hard, hard work is, I think you will not find one kid who thinks going in that they will not work hard, whether they actually do work hard or not.

There are many reasons why a five star would not choose michigan at this time, most prominently - the losing.  That is why many players who are considering Michigan are taking a wait and see this year.

Certainly system can have a significant effect - Arnett not wanting to play in the run-centric spread comes to mind, but to suggest that a kid wont come to a school because he doesnt want to work hard I think is unlikely.

M-Wolverine

August 11th, 2010 at 8:03 PM ^

Teamwork can beat talent for a game, but not season after season. There's a reason all the teams you mention as being upset have dozens of National Chsmpionships between them, and the others have barely any. (And before you bring up App St winning...want to bet they have a lot more talent than people in their Division? There's a reason they would have been a top 50 Bowl Division level team). Unless you're hoping Michigan becomes a program that upsets people on occassion (and I'm sure you're not), hope for some talent, too.

Transatlantic Flight

August 11th, 2010 at 9:14 PM ^

Michigan vs. Ohio State, 1969. I really think that the idea that the Bo/Bear/Woody style of coaching being out of style is the biggest falsehood in this diary. Talent goes a long, long, long way to achieving success in any sport, but mental fortitude, straight up hard-assness from trainers and trainees, is something that will never lose value. It isn't always enough to overcome talent, but if you have a talent deficiency, it's the only way you are going to overcome it.

Surveillance Doe

August 11th, 2010 at 7:47 PM ^

During the summer of 2007, I was frequenting a bar in Ann Arbor where one of the receivers' girlfriends worked as a bartender (you would recognize her name from news reports, which is how I identified her in the first place--after correctly guessing who she was, we began talking football regularly).  I know this sounds like one of those two-many-degrees-removed stories.  If you want to disregard for that reason, that's fine, but I spent a lot of time chatting with this particular bartender about football during the course of that summer.  I posted this here when the departures occurred at the end of the 07 season, but there are obviously still questions out there, particularly about the receivers.

 

According to this bartender, Manningham and Arrington were gone at the end of 2007 no matter what.  Remember, this is what she told me the summer before that season.  Arrington and Hart were best friends and had already decided they were taking off at the same time.  Manningham was itching to go pro and had no intentions of sticking around another year.  Those guys leaving had nothing to do with RR.  That was the plan the summer before the season.

 

Mallett is a different story.  From the accounts I've received from guys on the squad, Lloyd presented Mallett with transfer papers multiple times throughout that season and really couldn't stand him.  Mallett was pissed about being in Ann Arbor, which was obvious to anyone who ever walked into Touchdown's on South University late on a weeknight.  In my personal opinion, that kid was gone either way as well, and the "new system" excuse was just a convenient way to justify it.

 

Like has been posted before, I don't think RR deserves blame for a lot of the departures that have occurred.  A conclusion like this needs a lot more data before it can be properly drawn, and, even if you can draw the conclusion, I'm not sure there's any way to prove the theory behind the conclusion. 

Surveillance Doe

August 12th, 2010 at 11:35 AM ^

Unfortunately, the handle is just an inside joke I had with a couple of my buddies.  One is now in Honduras, and the joke has consequently changed to "denguedengue." 

 

During the coaching search, when there were tons of hilarious and annoying handles flying around--before the updated system--and a few of my friends would be in the comment section at the same time, we would put jokes in our handles so we could identify each other and get a good laugh occasionally.  This one stuck.

 

I do appreciate the vote of confidence though.  I almost never post, so I have a very pathetic point number considering the number of years I've been religiously reading this blog.

MGoPony

August 11th, 2010 at 7:49 PM ^

Its been said before but I think winning changes all this. Its probably tough for the egos, after dominating all through college without having to really work at it, to come to Michigan, get beat up in practice every day, and still have a losing season. They expect national attention, and national titles. Losing probably makes it really easy to say "fuck it, I dont care anyway, its not my fault, rich rod sucks, hell never make it at Michigan, Its not worth the work just to lose, etc. etc."  But dont worry. WHEN we start winning, the recruits will flock to us and do whatever it takes to keep winning. WHEN we are back in the national title picture the blue chips will stay and do whatever RR asks so that he will lead them to the promised land. You think a 5 star recruit quits the season before a title run? Hell no. Stay Faithful, my friend. Wins are going to change everything.

M-Wolverine

August 11th, 2010 at 7:49 PM ^

Because I agree, and disagree. The problem with the sample is that SO many of the players are so young. They haven't made it or failed yet, really. I know it disagrees with your Graham meme (and popular board viewpoint) that Brandon the Beast was a Barwis-Frankenstein creation, but I still credit most of it from going from a freshman-sophomore to junior-senior. I think most of those gains would have been made Barwis or not. Likewise, I believe you'll see a lot of development still from 2008/2009 players; because that's what they do. While it's still very much up in the air, if Turner were to come back, for the right reasons, it wouldn't shock me for him to "get it" and come into his own as an upperclassman.

The part that may not make you warm at night is the recruiting. I'm not going to make any ultimate conclusions without more of a chance and sample size, but while all that cool offense, and discipline, and everything else that goes with it are important...but they all pale in important compared to recruiting. It's all about the talent. It hides a lot of flaws, and let's you obtain new heights. And the idea that we're becoming indoctrinated with in both our football and basketball programs, that we can coach them up with systems, doesn't really work on the highest level. It not any one 3* player, who may be "the one"; recruiting is a numbers game. It many, year after year, they build up. And while the reason always seems to be it's because we are losing, the reason we are losing always seems to be (as you have pointed out) because the talent level is so down. Which is a vicious circle. How does it stop? Rich either has to overachieve as a coach, and win more games than expected, or do so as a recruiter, and get talent to come in spite of our record. So far, he hasn't excelled at either.

But I don't believe he's that much tougher than a Saban, or a Meyer. (Saban Mr. Personality?!? Urban "I need a break" Meyer not intense?). What they have done, as has been pointed out, is recruit their brains out, laying waste on the trails. Florida doesn't run that much more a pro style than us. What they do is recruit hellaciously on DEFENSE (much like OSU, and their boring offense). It's no shock that those teams (throw in PSU last year too) with those best defenses win the most. That's how it's done. And if Rich is going to win the dozens of National Chsmpionships that are predicted on this board, he better worry less about Warp Speed quarterbacks and such, and get all the 4 and 5 star defensive players he can. Because football has evolved, but not so much that the defense cliche's don't hold true still. And talent will always matter most. Because you can wins games with a system. You win championships with talent.

flaproosta08

August 11th, 2010 at 7:50 PM ^

So where the hell did this Tate transfer bull come in again?

 

Give the man who gave US a glimmer of hope last year a chance to win his job before you sell him off to the doldrums of FCS.

Zone Left

August 11th, 2010 at 7:54 PM ^

Bama, Florida, LSU, Texas, Ohio State, USC, Miami (Miami!) ..none of these championship teams were built with the Bo/Bear/Woody method of peeling down to the core then building back up again...

First, great post, but I'm going to disagree a little with you here.  First, you mention Alabama and OSU as not following the methods of the program patriarchs, so I'm assuming you mean the programs present success--which in the tradition-laden atmosphere of college football are largely attributable to Bear Bryant and Woody Hayes.

My personal feeling is that those programs have built-in recruiting advantages that Michigan doesn't have, and won't have barring a mass migration north or a return to segregation.  OSU, USC, Texas, and Florida in particular are able to pick and choose from the very best blue-chip recruits out there.  Michigan is forced to fight a little harder for the top recruits because they typically don't grow up as Michigan fans.  We can talk all we want about having a great education and tradition, but the facts are that recruits are more likely to stay home.  Studies have show this to be true.

Mack Brown in particular is rumored to use a recruiting pitch akin to finding the best guys in-state and saying, "You want to come here?"  If yes, they commit, if no, he simply moves on to the next stud tackle/receiver/QB.  Michigan can't do that because the talent isn't local.

I think the staff at Michigan has to "reach" a little for the very top guys.  These might be guys with some level of character issues, a la Demar Dorsey and Latwan Anderson (I'm not saying he's a bad guy, but IIRC the in-state powers had shied away) or look at lesser athletes and try to find sleepers like Cam Gordon.  Unfortunately, the elite athletes seem to be the guys that really help programs make the just to become elite programs.

On the positive side, it seems like several of those guys had writing on the wall without the current staff's influence:

-Mallett was likely gone when Mustain showed up and was rumored to have serious issues under Carr.

-No coach would have kept Cissoko with his issues.  Maybe he would have gotten a few more games elsewhere or under the previous staff.

-Warren was gone anyways once he got a positive NFL review.

-IIRC, O'Neill isn't starting in the MAC.

Bottom line is that several  high profile guys have really flourished under Rodriguez and WVU's new staff.  Noel Devine was a major character issue kid in high school and he's succeeded.  Stevie Brown became a solid player.  Shilling is a co-captain.  Mouton is a starter.  Everyone knows about Brandon Graham.

Seth

August 11th, 2010 at 8:11 PM ^

My personal feeling is that those programs have built-in recruiting advantages that Michigan doesn't have, and won't have barring a mass migration north or a return to segregation.  OSU, USC, Texas, and Florida in particular are able to pick and choose from the very best blue-chip recruits out there.  Michigan is forced to fight a little harder for the top recruits because they typically don't grow up as Michigan fans.  We can talk all we want about having a great education and tradition, but the facts are that recruits are more likely to stay home.  Studies have show this to be true.

I don't doubt that the big football hotbed states have an advantage. But I bolded where you're wrong.

We have a major recruiting advantage because our brand is such that kids from all over the country have grown up Michigan fans. Michigan people live all over the country, and people who grew up watching Michigan instilled it in their kids. When I lived in Europe, I ran into more Michigan wag than any other U.S. team (Yankees were 2nd -- "Notre Dame" to them is a church).

Michigan, except when we go through two successive losing seasons, has had as much access to Ohio as Ohio State. When Lloyd had his best recruiting periods, he was yanking the best players (Henne, Marlin, et al.) out of Pennsylvania. Woodson and Desmond were Ohio products. Their legacies are the reason we get guys like Turner and Manningham today.

M-Wolverine

August 12th, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^

TV has equalized it out. Just look at ND; used to live on being a National team, now Northwestern is on as much as they are. I bet part of your observation is that Michigan stands out to you. Or we send more people to Europe. But I don't know how many recruits we're getting there. You are right; we have made hay in other states. But if you look more closely, you'll see we did our best when those programs were down. (And did a good job targeting them). Hitting Ohio when we were beating them, Penn. when PSU was down, and likewise with USC, Texas and LSU. Now they're all good. What are the states with down programs to hit? It's us.

Zone Left

August 11th, 2010 at 9:09 PM ^

To me, this is definitely an area where people can agree to disagree.  I've got no beef with what you said either in your diary or your reply.  I also agree that Michigan is able to get top recruits because of our past success.

However, I really believe that most top recruits tend to grow up wanting to go to major powers that will get them to the NFL and/or a relatively local school that will allow family and friends to travel easily.  Michigan has one of those.  Unfortunately, the top talent is concentrated in places like Texas, Florida, and Southern California.  The top schools there have both, and their success over the past 20 years probably means the average kid is going to have followed them more closely.  There are always going to be exceptions, like Sam McGuffie, but the majority are going to look local more often than not.

M-Wolverine

August 11th, 2010 at 8:12 PM ^

Made by people who know Michigan recruiting, as well as previous year's Hail to the Victors. Michigan is like Notre Dame, and Nebraska, to some extent, in that they can't live on in-state talent alone. And ND doesn't have an OSU in their neighbor target ground, Chicago, and the Cornhuskers like to raid the talent excessive Texas pipeline. We need to outcoach the next guy, because talent will suffer a little. (But could still be better than what we're getting now).

Lordfoul

August 11th, 2010 at 7:58 PM ^

I will reserve judgement until I see the product on the field this season.  IIRC, RR fielded teams at WV that were lacking in blue chips but upended at least one team listed at the end of your post (Stoops...) so I hold out hope that treating everyone equally can be a winning strategy given time to take hold.

Besides, if RR is like Bo, then I like RR regardless of the era in which he coaches.  

Hail-Storm

August 11th, 2010 at 7:58 PM ^

And especially loved the part where the trainer is looking for a horse that has a lot of heart and wants to compete. I know it's a stretch, but I like to think our team is like that. They may not have the highest rating, buff they will play as a team and will have to much pride to not succeed. For some reason I can't help but like rr and be optimistic for this season

tk47

August 11th, 2010 at 8:03 PM ^

is the chart expanded to go back 4-5 years before the Class of 2006, so we can see a comparison between blue-chips under Carr and Rodriguez.  I didn't really start following recruiting very closely until 2008, so I can't recall if there were similar busts with Carr at the helm. 

Kelly Baraka obviously comes to mind, but other than him, I don't really remember any...

chitownblue2

August 11th, 2010 at 8:08 PM ^

Misopogon,

I think there's a little bit of a false-choice here, in your description of the two polar opposites: "the fat and talented and the meek and hungry".

I'd venture that, given the overall talent level assembled at USC and Florida, those guys need to be hungry just to get on the field - any significant lack of effort, and there's probably someone talented enough to take their job. A quick look at dudes like Percy Harvin and Tim Tebow shows that these guys were not, in the literal sense, "fat". At a school like USC, that rotated four running backs in and out of the lineup two years ago, I'm sure that Carroll would have had no compunction slipping Gable, McKnight, or Johnson out of the rotation if they showed signs of slippage.

What I'm saying is that guys like Harvin and Joe McKnight seem to have something that a guy like Dan Oniell doesn't - it's possible that some guys just can't be motivated, and possible that RR isn't capable of reaching the blue-chippers he gets. But I'm not sure "being soft" is neccesary to placate these egos - if Carroll and Meyer were "soft" in what they demanded in order to start, they wouldn't have been successes.

A guy like Justin Boren is a good example perhaps. Boren was singled out by Rich Rodriguez and Mike Barwis for his intense conditioning work, and his tireless practice work ethic. I know we like to say he left because he was fat...but this staff's own words don't support it. One possible thing that DID drive Boren off wasn't the conditioning but:

a) the snowplow issue

b) not offering his brother

Now, neither of these relate to how much blood sweat and tears RR asked for - it has to do with how much he was willing to accomodate Boren's need to be happy. Perhaps guys like Carroll and Meyer are more willing to accomodate individual demands provided the recipient pay that accomodation back in spades at practice?

For whatever reason (and I'm not saying he was wrong), RR was unwilling to accomodate or bend.

In the end, what seperates a guy like Amari Speivey and Turner isn't talent, so much - both, apparently, are quite talented. But in order to excell at the NCAA level you need to be talented AND disciplined. High level sports are just too hard otherwise.

NateVolk

August 11th, 2010 at 10:21 PM ^

Carroll is big on competition by loading up on players at all positions.  He ran an up tempo fun practice at USC. He let the cream rise based on who performed.  He definitely has access to better players overall then we have had on a man for man basis.  Besides that access to elite talent, Rodriguez is very similar in his  approach.  Additionally, neither is likely to promise any spot or playing time to recruits just to bring in big talent guys.

I think you get a different Joe McKnight at USC then if he chose Michigan.  He comes in here as the big dog rather than one of the big dogs at USC.  That quest for playing time is a motivator for most kids and Carroll has options and McKnight as an example knows this.  But Rodriguez equalizes that with his program wide philosophy about effort and no superstars.

Turner's case defies logic at least on the surface.  He couldn't have thought he could waltz in and just play given Rodriguez's style and approach. Knowing the expectations, I think it is fair to conclude Turner is probably lazy. Still the post points out a deeper issue.

Rodriguez' way can work here but it is far from a given at this point. The other big question I have is whether the players enjoy playing for the man. They definitely did for Pete Carroll. It is such a simple almost grade school thing, but if they just aren't enjoying the guy, if he isn't personable enough, if they don't develop a love on some level for him, it can harm what he is trying to accomplish.

The players loved Bo despite the brutal work he put them through.  Do you get the feeling his past or present players feel that way about Rich? I don't. And will that ultimately be why it won't work at U of M like we hoped?

 

Zone Left

August 12th, 2010 at 12:09 AM ^

If Carroll and Meyer were "soft" in what they demanded in order to start, they wouldn't have been successes.

The talent machines they've created have allowed coaches like the above and Nick Saban to be harder than just about any coaches out there.  Hell, Saban is so confident (other words can be used) that he'll run off a blue-chip Junior if he hasn't started contributing to make room for the next big thing.  Rodriguez hasn't even begun to approach that level of "difficulty."

Seth

August 12th, 2010 at 8:54 AM ^

Boren's leaving wasn't just about the snow plow thing or his bro. In his own words, the big thing was RR's approach to coaching, and how much it differred from Lloyd's. Justin threw out words like "player's coach" and mentioned how he was upset that RR let go of Lloyd's staff. The "family values" thing -- which may just boil down to Justin not liking being yelled at -- was the primary reason he left.

The reason we had Boren in the first place was because his dad played for Bo, and Justin sat in a room with Bo while Bo said "you're not gonna let that kid play for Ohio State, are ya?" But that program where Justin Boren was Michigan's first true freshman starter at offensive line, was not Michigan '69: it was the program of Uncle Carr, where Grandpa Bo was a picture on the mantlepiece.

When I was a kid, I loved going over to my grandpa's house. It was relaxing there. I wasn't put to work like at home, where doing what every other 16-year-old was doing was grounds for "House Enhancement."* Grandpa would sit in his chair and make jokes that aren't really funny unless told by an old man in a chair. My father lived in that house 40 years before -- it wasn't so comfortable back then. Back then my father got much harsher "House Enhancement" than I ever did -- compare our callouses if you don't believe me.

Boren signed up to go to Grandpa's house. Then RR came in and suddenly it was 1969 again.

Mike Boren signed up for Bo's program in 1979. By then Michigan was a top program, and Bo had relaxed a bit after 10 years at Michigan. The '69 veterans were now either Bo's old soldiers, or captains of industry, etc. But it was still "Dad's" house:

Bo: "Look at your hair."

Boren: "I was born with it like this."

Bo: "Naw, you got it all pushed up. You weren't born with it like that. It wasn't even like that when I met you. Get a haircut."

Boren: "Bo, it's only a half-inch long."

Bo: "Get a haircut. How much do you weigh?"

Boren: "Oh, 218, but I've been sick."

Bo: "You were 218 and sick last time you were in here."

Boren: "I'm a sick person."

Bo: "Get unsick."

Mike wanted to go to Ohio State -- Ohio State was the Alabama/USC of his day -- but Mike wasn't offered, and Bo took him in.

Justin was the opposite. He was a recruit who could go anywhere, but went to Michigan because in 2006, the only differences between Michigan and Ohio State were a helmet-to-helmet call against Crable, and the fact that Bo, not Woody, was the man who took Mike in.

Also in 2006, Bo died. And as with the passing of my grandfather the following year (we watched the Iowa game together, he told some jokes, then that was it), nobody remembered the hard-ass, the man who tore at his kids, broke them down, then built them back up with callouses. They remembered the baseball glove, and the jokes, and the kind old man who survived more of World War II than almost anyone in his generation, and thus appreciated everything after more than almost anyone in any generation since.

But had we gone back to 1969, to that house where the lessons of WWII were applied as parental techniques, perhaps we all would have felt differently. And if that happened to me, and this tyrant was not even my father, and there was a portal back to something more approximating Grandpa Bo's living room and Uncle Lloyd, maybe I would take that too.

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

* In 1996, I thought this was the shittiest idea ever. Today, I highly recommend this as a parental technique. When we did something wrong, e.g. take the car, get drunk, then sleep at a friend's because I couldn't drive the car obviously, we were assessed a debt in monetary value, which had to be worked off through indentured servitude. Most of the work was menial, but if I took the initiative to learn skills like drywall, I could be refinishing the basement during "House Enhancement" while my brother was digging out stumps and stuff. Now I know how to drywall, fix electrical, fix plumbing, carpet, landscape, fix a John Deere, etc., and my father lives in a house where all of the drywall, electrical, plumbing, carpet, landscape and John Deeres are fucked up due to being worked on by a seriously hung over teenager.

chitownblue2

August 12th, 2010 at 9:59 AM ^

Well there is also an undeniable difference in era between Bo and Rich Rodriguez, and in the players they coach. Rodriguez is coaching kids who are having thousands of college fans friend them on Facebook, holding press-conferences that many hang on the word of (see the Tony Posada thread from yesterday), and some bothering to know the nitty-gritty details of their lives (what their family situation is, whether they've had a school suspension, their academic performance, whether they've been kidnapped by an MSU booster).

I mean, do you think anybody knew who John Kolesar or Tony Boles were before they stepped on Michigan's field? Obviously some did, but they were not ready-made celebrities like Matt Barkley, Tim Tebow, or Terrelle Pryor are today. And this DOES matter.

Pryor was somewhat famous WITHOUT OSU. His fame was going to follow him to Michigan, West Virginia, or wherever he decided to go. Same with Barkley and Tebow. '60's era players weren't famous until they did something on the field - they NEEDED their coach's approval much more than a high-ranked recruit does now. What do you think would have happened if Maurice Clarrett was born 30 years earlier and played for Woody Hayes? Would he have EVER stepped on the field? No way in hell. Would Mario Manningham have ever gotten on the field here? Probably not.

We love talking about "What would Bo do?", but I don't think Bo would be a successful coach today with the same treatment of players. He would have taken their cellphones, twitter accounts, facebook pages, and never let them say a word to the press. You think Bo would have watched Tebow hold 2 press conferences a week? Older, crustier people probably lament this, and maybe they're right - but the fact that it worked for Bo is utterly meaningless in the context of modern college athletics.

The simple fact is that for many of these kids, accomodations NEED to be made, or you're just not going to have them playing for you. And I don't think the accomodation is "you can slack off" - I don't think USC or Florida players are as successful as they are by slacking off.

M-Wolverine

August 12th, 2010 at 11:50 AM ^

If maybe a very accurate personal one. The times have passed by JoePa, but along the way he was smart enough/told/convinced to hand over enough of the duties to assistants that the program has come back the last couple of years. And he's the figurehead/closer.  Actually Mo and Lloyd et al offered Bo the same deal back in the day. Just be the head man, don't leave, and they'd pick up more of the duties. But Bo would have nothing of it...he was either going to be all or nothing.

My example was a guy who was very old school, tough guy coach, of that era, who wouldn't change with the times and players (something even more necessary in basketball, because the players are much more coddled), and eventually stopped having really good teams. They were well coached, and could make some noise with the system he ran, but stopped going to Final Fours and such, because the really talented players didn't want to play in a system, or be treated like dogs. If he had still been winning big time, he could have been as big a dick to people on campus as they wanted, he never would have been forced out. And someone bigger than Texas Tech would have been willing to pick him up. He was an old school hard ass, during a time that started the evolution to the LeBron "Decision" era. He couldn't change. And stopped winning big time because of it.

Seth

August 12th, 2010 at 11:47 AM ^

That is exactly what I have been trying to say (about Bo, and what it takes to be a successful coach today).

My point, then, is that Rich Rod is treating the game like Bo, or at least has a reputation, fueled by the complaints of transferred players, and is thus struggling to compete for the top echelon of players.

caup

August 12th, 2010 at 1:15 PM ^

Justin left 100% because Zack wasn't offered.  The letter his parents penned for him that cited "a lack of family values" had ZERO to do with RR's coaching style (Mike and the Boren boys all swear like sailors).  It was an oblique reference to shafting Zack, who Mike felt deserved to be a part of the Michigan Football family. Because they couldn't write a letter that said "We pulled Justin over to OSU because our mediocre younger son wasn't given a full ride!"

Having said that, RR effed up. Give the mediocre younger kid a damn schollie so you can keep the prize bull, you idiot!  That's what Tressel did.

JTGoBlue

August 11th, 2010 at 8:05 PM ^

Justin Turner not panning out is a bit of a surprise, but 5 star busts happen all time...we'll find out the whole story I'm sure.  I would be more worried if these guys had been recruited by RR...Mallet, Boren and O'Neill didn't fit the system, one got bad draft information and the other has issues no head coach could fix...

'Stroking egos' to me translates to recruiting massive talent while bending the rules, favoritism towards star players and 'looking the other way'.