The "Offensive" Argument for Keeping Rich Rodriguez
I'm creating this diary to dispel some of the myths that people are trying to believe in hopes of keeping Coach Rodriguez around. If you support keeping him, that is fine, I respect your opinion, but after a careful viewing of the Penn State debacle, my personal opinion is that this team needs to head in a different direction if it can get the right coach.
The Offensive Argument
The theory holds that Rich Rodriguez has come into Michigan and in three years has built an offensive juggernaut that rivals the likes of Oregon or Boise State in terms of scoring offense. On defense he has had some bad luck with attrition and injuries, but that if we give him the necessary time and let him build a defense that is even remotely capable, he will have an unstoppable team given how great the offense is. There are two glaring flaws with this argument.
Flaw #1: The Offense is Not THAT Good
Our offensive production has been overhyped on this blog by an obsession with one statistic: Yards Per Game. Right now, I believe we are ranked #4 in the country in YPG. On this statistic alone rests the entire "offensive" argument. The vital fact that is being forgotten is that in any sport, you cannot gauge a team, or even its offense, on one statistic alone. Take for example, Michigan's ranking in the following statistical categories:
Points per game: 20th
Time of Possession: 92nd
Third Down Conversions: 61st
Red Zone Efficiency: 51st
These statistics were not cherry-picked from a group of low ranking stats. Instead, I chose four random stats that I feel are extremely important in terms of offensive performance. In light of these statistics, it is clear that our offense is not some unstoppable force. It is good. But it isn't the "we score like our hair is on fire every time we touch the ball" machine that some on this board make it out to be. Not even close.
Flaw #2: The Lack of Hope of Defensive Improvement
This one baffles me. The next part of the argument goes that if we give Rich Rodriguez time, he will build a competent defense to match our amazing offense (see Flaw #1 on that point). However, I wonder what gives people the inclination that he will do this. There seems to be no basis for believing that he is the type of coach that will do this. It is clear that he puts very little emphasis on defense, he has recruited bad apples time and time again on that side of the ball, either players who leave the program or don't end up being good anyway. They have not developed the talent that they have had and mediocre players have decided to try for the NFL instead of staying, even though there was a chance they'd go un-drafted) and did.
The track record says that there is no likely foreseeable scenario where Rich Rodriguez builds a suitable defense to match up in the Big Ten.
Conclusion
Perhaps you draw a different conclusion from these facts. My conclusion is that the University of Michigan football program needs to go in a different direction. After three years, a good offense and an atrocious defense just aren't good enough, especially with no expected improvement within the next two years. The record against almost all opponents is terrible and the program has literally become irrelevant.
Starting over and bringing in someone else (perhaps someone closer to the program) is the much better long term solution.
November 1st, 2010 at 1:15 PM ^
If you want to put Warren, Chambers, and Williams on Carr, fine, but at this point, RR has way more guys on this team that he has recruited that aren't showing improvement than those that were recruited by Carr.
<br>
<br>You are fucking mental. Carr has 2.8 classes of recruits that are upper classmen and RR has 2.2 classes that are underclassmen.
<br>
<br>How the fuck are underclassmen who are true fucking freshmen supposed to show improvement? Who the fuck are you talking about?
<br>
<br>You're an idiot.
November 1st, 2010 at 1:57 PM ^
So, it's not at all RR's fault that he is starting true freshmen instead of RS Freshmen, Sophomores, RS Sophomores, and Juniors? I think you are the one that is mental.
November 1st, 2010 at 12:52 PM ^
Technically he was in RR's first class but he made his first commitment very early to Carr and he was a 5* DB out of Ohio so RR did the wise thing and continued to recruit him.
But the failures of BooBoo and JT are not on RR. Neither player had the desire to put in the necessary work, JT on the field and BooBoo in the classroom and then in life. I think it is a credit to RR that in a possition of dire need he set ground rules and followed them... you know "zero tolerance" and all that.
So just for the record, which guys are you lookling at the RR recruited that you see no "improvement" from? the true freshmen? What about the second year guys? T Gordon? Is he better than he was on the practice squad last year? I would guess that he is based on his treading water this whole year in the "not the problem of this D" category. Does C Gordon look better at S this year than last year at WR? Again, kind of hard to judge.
The returning players, Floyd.. marginally better IMO. Rogers.. ST player to bad CB.. I don't know, he looked OK at times, very bad others. He was never meant to be a contributor, but he was not a D killer early. Harldly and endorsement but hard to put his lack of progress over all of his 5yrs on the coaches (past or present) either. Wolfolk? you got me there.. damn the coaches!
And, here we are. Will the Fr and RSFr be better next year? I would bet a heck of a lot that they will.
November 1st, 2010 at 1:14 PM ^
It's RR's job to motivate BooBoo and JT. Just because they left the program doesn't mean that RR gets a pass on them.
In general the level of play in our back 7-8 has decreased. The fact that you have 8 freshmen getting significant playtime on defense in week 9 of his 3rd year isn't all LC's fault. Let's look at the players in the secondary that could have been this year.
Warren - Like I said, blame LC if you want
Cissoko - LC recruited him, but he never played under LC.
Dorsey - RR could have been working on Parker or another DB with grades to get in, but he didn't.
Denard's friend (can't remember his name off the top of my head) - same thing as Dorsey. Or, maybe he makes sure that he gives the kid the right requirements to get in.
Turner - LC has nothing to do with this.
Vlad - LC has nothing to do with this.
That's 5 guys in the last year that we lost that could be contributing or REDSHIRTING this year. You might even get Woolfolk to play FS instead of CB and you have at least a defense that isn't 120th in pass defense.
Look at our LBs. You can blame then on scheme changes or Hopson, but RR is still responsible for that. Our DL looks to be our only serviceable unit on Defense and it's not even that when Martin is out. In a 3rd year the HC is accountable for his team and players. At some point you have to stop passing the blame to LC.
November 1st, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^
Reread both posts, I never said any of this was Lloyds fault. I simply said he recruited them. That JT didn't have a love for the game, or BooBoo didn't like to go to class, but Kovacs does both... Well, I guess that's on God, and quite frankly, I am not going to bother him with that right now.
But just as the blame does not fall on LC for this type of thing it also does not fall on RR. If Carvin, Marvin, Ray, CC, Avery, Talbot, Gordon, Gordon all flake out, then yeah, I will put it all on RR. Until then, I will just hope that guys that are too young to play, play well.
November 1st, 2010 at 2:00 PM ^
But just as the blame does not fall on LC for this type of thing it also does not fall on RR.
Well, I disagree because I think you can blame LC for the lack of upperclassmen, and I think you can blame RR for the lack of non-true-freshmen that are starting and/or seeing playtime.
November 1st, 2010 at 2:11 PM ^
Sorry, that makes no sense. you can blame RR for the lack of non true freshmen (that would be redshirt Freshmen through 5th year senior) that are starting and or seeing playing time.
That is our whole starting D outside of Vinapol now. And most of the backups too. Its RR fault that there are no seniors but its also his fault that young guys are playing? Should he be recruiting JRs in college?
November 1st, 2010 at 12:17 PM ^
I think the offense IS that good. The most relevant statistic is points scored. Michigan is 20th, and that is with one of the worst FG kicking units in the country.
However, even allowing for attrition, I cannot comprehend fielding a defense that ranks close to 120th out of 120. That means Michigan is not only the worst in the Big Ten, but worse than almost all of the mid-Major and MAC-level schools, where typically their starters are roughly equivalent to a Big Ten or SEC 2nd-stringers. When you haven’t even mastered basic fundamentals after three years, something is wrong.
November 1st, 2010 at 12:22 PM ^
Another thing to consider is that our young players have thrown interceptions and fumbled in the redzone numerous times recently. That hurts our PPG and RZE (which we were #1 or #2 at before MSU). A big game against Illinois and/or Purdue could bring us back the front of the pack again in almost all those categories.
November 1st, 2010 at 12:17 PM ^
People love to blame Lloyd Carr for the defenses woes, and perhaps not without some merit. However, here's what people fail to see. Regardless of whether guys worked out or not (and let's not assume that they wouldn't have had they stayed here or had consistent coaching) Carr recruited far more defensive players than Rodriguez has in his first couple recruiting classes (or perhaps I should say than RR has managed to retain. Also this is on a per class basis). If you want to argue that the players were bad, fine. But the fact is that at least there was a decent number of players to hope you could find some guys there.
2007
total commits-20
total defensive commits-11 (4 DB's)
2008
total commits-16
total defensive commits-7 (3 DB's)
That's 18 of 36 commits. Half of the recruits in Carr's last class and 2/3's were on the defensive side of the ball. 7 of those were defensive backs. Now let's look at Rod.
2008
toal commits-8
total defensive commits-1 (no longer with the team, so basically 0 defensive commits from his first 1/3 of a class)
2009 (currently on defensive side of the ball)
total commits-22
total defensive commits-11 (however, 1 didn't qualify and 3 have transferred, so 7)
So from the first class and a third, guys that would be anywhere from true juniors to redshirt freshmen, we have 7 defensive guys still with the team out of 30 guys. If we take 2010 into account, in which we have a total of 13 defensive players still with the team, RR has pulled a total of 20 defensive players out of 57 total commits in 2 1/3 years. That's not even a two deep. When Carr's guys are gone, there won't be much in the way of upperclass defensive players to take their place.
This is not to blame Rod completely for the current state of the defense. This is simply to show that Rod really hasn't done anything to fix the defense, and that the defensive experience and depth is likely going to get worse before it gets better, this defense is going to take a long time to get better, and it likely will not be getting noticeably better in 2011 or 2012, when people seem to think it will.
November 1st, 2010 at 12:55 PM ^
But I count
<br>
<br>2007
<br>Chambers db (gone)
<br>Evans lb (gone)
<br>Herron lb
<br>Panter lb (juco and burned redshirt gone)
<br>Sagesse Dt
<br>RVB de
<br>Warren db (draft)
<br>Williams (hurt)
<br>Woolfolk (hurt)
<br>
<br>I count 9 players that were RECRUITED to play defense. Rogers was an athlete but was recruited as a wr (yes he was) and Watson was recruited as a TE.
<br>
<br>And of those defensive players there were:
<br>1 5*
<br>3 4* (maybe 2.5 if you count Panter)
<br>Rest were 3 stars
<br>
<br>Our defense was fucked and carr knew it. It's not exactly a stretch to say he knew that we were screwed when he recruited Panter our first juco in forever.
<br>
November 1st, 2010 at 3:52 PM ^
Reading helps. Again, I'm not even talking about why the defense is bad this year. Clearly Carr shares some blame for that, and maybe even most of it. I said that above. The point is that the lack of recruiting and defensive retention among Rod's own recruits isn't helping the situation, this defense is going to be short of upperclassmen for years, and it's not going to see any kind of great leap forward any time soon with the lack of defensive recruiting retention in Rod's first class and a third. Carr started it, but Rod has done very little to address it.
And As I said, this is guys that either play defense now, or ended up playing defense. If you want to look at star rankings.
2007-as you said one 5 star, three 4 stars, seven 3 stars (average rating 5.7, so high 3 star)
2008-six 4 stars, one 3 star (average rating 5.8, so low 4 star)
Rod didn't get a guy that stuck in 2008 so:
2009-three 4 stars, four 3 stars (average rating 5.7, high 3 star)
November 1st, 2010 at 12:27 PM ^
My concern with the offense is that it seems to come up short when you need it most. For large parts of the PSU game, the offense was able to move the ball well and score. However, there were three important points where the offense was not able to do anything.
1) First drive of the game -- a couple of first downs might have really helped in setting a different tone.
2) Gallon fumble/muff out of bounds. A first down or to might have really helped with better field position and giving the D a break
3) End of the game
The counter point, would of course be that the O put up 31 and kept the PSU game from getting totally out of hand.
November 1st, 2010 at 12:28 PM ^
Actually those statistics were cherry picked.
The offense is not the issue. It's still young and yet pretty productive. I don't understand why people try to make this about the offense.
You have to either want RichRod gone or be completely naive to think that the offense is the issue.
Frankly from the "someone closer to the program" comment I'm pretty sure I know where you fit in.
November 1st, 2010 at 12:29 PM ^
This offense is 8th in the nation in total yards!! #8!!!!!!!! At last check Denard was the second leading rusher in the nation. What more do you want?? It's obvious the defense is horrible (worst I've even seen at Michigan). But that's an entirely different conversation. For the life of me I don't understand why we hired Greg Robinson. He couldn't coach at UCLA, he couldn't coach for the Kansas City Chiefs and he couldn't coach at Syracuse. But somehow he's supposed to be the answer for us?? I don't think so. The decision to bring in Robinson is entirely on RRod and on that I'm sure we agree. Question: Do we even blitz anymore? Question: Where is Greg Roh?? This is by no means a talented defense but I believe our problems have to do with scheme more than anything else...
November 1st, 2010 at 12:46 PM ^
That is a good question. Where is Greg Roh? Can he play defense? Is he as good as Craig Roh? Does he know how to blitz? Let's sign him up!
November 1st, 2010 at 12:47 PM ^
When Ezeh just can't play MLB, Rodgers can't cover anyone because he's a WR, and the safety is either a freshman 2* or a sophomore walk-on, you have problems with any scheme.
Blame GERG for not teaching how to tackle, but the scheme isn't the issue.
November 1st, 2010 at 1:06 PM ^
We are 4th in total offense, not 8th.
November 1st, 2010 at 12:30 PM ^
is that they include our non-conference games. When you look at just B10 games it has to be worse. What's our best win this year ... ? ND ? we don't have a win vs. a good team ... yet !
Big10 stats:
Red Zone U of M 69% Opp. 89%
Turnovers U of M 8 Opp. 1
TOP (less a factor) U of M 23:57 Opp. 36:03
Total yards are equal and the Iowa game is the only game where TOP was close (31 - 29). and although TOP may be overrated there is no denying it would be better if the D could get just 2 more stops per game.
There is very little to be happy with in our B10 stats. Yes great offense but RZ % of 69% ? FG's - we are 50% (2 for 4).
There really isn't any question that offense is exciting to watch ... but the old axiom that defense wins championships may still be the rule. Trying hard to keep the faith !!!
Go Blue !
November 1st, 2010 at 1:30 PM ^
First off I'd like to say I appreciate the reasonable tone of the post. That seems to be a sadly rare trait after a few losses. That being said, I happen to subscribe to the philosophy this diary attempts to debunk and it has not successfully changed my mind. Here's why:
Point #1 - "The Offense is Not THAT Good"
I will concede our offense is not the efficient killing machine of Oregon. Initial impressions of it were a bit overblown based on playing competition much weaker than we thought they were. However, we are solidly good offensively and have been gaining more yards on our Big10 opponents than they typically give up. Were that combined with better special teams and decent starting field position it would likely translate into points. Even as it stands though, we put up 28 points on Iowa and 31 points on Penn State, which for an average defensive team would make those games very winnable.
Also keep in mind that we are doing this with a true sophomore in his first season as starter at quarterback, the most important position in this style offense. This indicates a potential for an Oregon-esque death machine to develop over the next two years.
Point #2 - "The Lack of Hope of Defensive Improvement"
As others have stated, freshmen typically get better as they become sophomores and gain experience. Looking at the 2-deep, there are either true or RS freshmen at virtually every position, and are many of the starters in the secondary. Therefore, almost every position will be better next year than it is currently. How much better? Probably still not good, but perhaps mediocre.
Also, I find the assertion that Rodriguez is incapable of building a competent defense unfounded. There are a number of West Virginia teams he coached that were not ranked last in I-A. He hasn't proven an ability to build a dominant '97 or '06 level defense, but there's no reason to doubt his ability to build at least an average unit.
The attrition on the defensive side of the ball does raise valid questions. One of the key ones being 'have we had epically bad luck the past couple years or is the coaching staff doing something horribly wrong?' Unfortunately the most likely answer is a combination of both, and I have no idea in what proportion.
I seriously didn't mean to write a thesis about all this, but it seems like a valid discussion to have. My general opinion is that we are going to have a better team next year, that this is not Rodriguez's peak. For that reason I'm in favor of keeping him, even after 3 disappointing seasons, for the potential of what his peak could look like. If I thought this was as good as the team can get under Rodriguez then I would be on the bandwagon to fire him, so I can certainly understand where that side is coming from.
Comments