A reminder that the roster is still not Rodriguez's
There have been numerous excellent diaries on the subject of recruiting prior to Rodriguez. I am not trying to replicate that work. However, I read a couple comments to the effect that, to paraphrase, "this is Rodriguez's team now, its year three and the Carr years should have little or no part in the discussion about how the team performs this year".
I agree that Rodriguez has to do the most with what he has. Also, I will stipulate that there have been some seriously questionable recruiting moves, like pursuing Demar Dorsey, that look terrible in hind sight.
That being said, I fear the reason we will go 7-5 this year is because of the defense. I was predicting 9-3 in the spring but I had Emelien, Woolfolk, Turner and Dorsey as our starting defensive backfield. Hell, last fall I expected us to be 10-2 or 11-1 in 2010 because I thought our starting backfied would be Turner, Woolfolk, Warren and Cissoko.
But I digress. The stat I wanted to highlight is starting 4th and 5th year players. The majority of excellent teams in the country are heavily weighted toward older starters. On defense, Michigan has four-Ezeh or Moundros, Mouton, VanBergen and Banks. (I expect Rogers to get beat out.). You can't blame the loss of Woolfolk or Warren on either Carr or Rodriguez, but I do blame Carr a little for not having any other 4th and 5th year guys to replace them.
Want to know what our competition looks like? On defense, 4th and 5th year players
OSU-7
PSU-8
Iowa-9
Wisconsin-8
MSU-5
ND-5
Purdue-5
Illinois-6
We are still at a competative disadvantage on defense due to a lot of things that are out of Rodriguez's control. As Brian has argued in the past, a coach should probably get 4 years at least to get his program together so you can see what his seniors can do. Also, don't forget that Rodriguez's 3rd year players are mostly Carr's. So far only Martin has proven to be an impact player from that class on defense.
August 31st, 2010 at 2:20 PM ^
When will the excuses stop. It's all Bush's fault, too.
August 31st, 2010 at 2:42 PM ^
When will the excuses stop. It's all Bush's fault, too.
I agree... This is all Reggie Bush's fault.
August 31st, 2010 at 2:20 PM ^
Everybody wants to assign blame. I don't blame Lloyd or RR it was the perfect storm, but no one wants to hear the facts.
I think a more telling stat for people who want to do the research is look at the 2 deeps of these teams and see how many 4thand 5th year guys are on them. It is not just the starters, but who are the back ups?? Do they have any competition? Can they substitute?? I would guess it is more glaring other than DL on O and D.
August 31st, 2010 at 2:22 PM ^
Precisely. That is why RR is a lock to be here next year.
August 31st, 2010 at 2:33 PM ^
But ESPN keeps telling me he has to take us to a bowl gam... win 7 game... wait is it up to 8 now? RR has to go 9-3 in order to keep his job. That's right 9-3. ESPN said so!
Edit: THIS JUST IN: Terry Foster believes we have to be a top 25 team in order for RR to remain coach.
August 31st, 2010 at 2:39 PM ^
August 31st, 2010 at 2:43 PM ^
They just may make us win the Big Ten championship game at the end of the season too.
August 31st, 2010 at 2:30 PM ^
Im 50/50 on this subject..i do agree with the "perfect storm" thing ...and most of the happenings were out of RR control ... but i also want to see these kids like Mouton,Ezeh,Stonum looking well coached .. this is year 3 and i dont want to see alot of bonehead mistakes ... i know it happens but it cant happen as often anymore
August 31st, 2010 at 2:44 PM ^
Its wrong to say that the current lack of upperclass talent has anything to do with RichRod but where is that talent going to be in 2 years at DB or LB? Who exactly will be that great junior or senior CB? This isn't anti-RichRod, Im just pointing out that I dont think we'll have any returning all-big-ten upperclassmen in our back 7 when RichRod is going on year 5.
August 31st, 2010 at 2:56 PM ^
A pretty decent point if you look at star ratings, but we haven't seen many of these kids play and what we have seen they were thrown in there. Give them some time. To say you know Jones, Christian, Avery, Carvin, Marvin, Ryan, Talbott, Vlad, Gordon, Floyd etc....won't be All Big Ten in 2 years is based on some pretty shaky evidence. Let's give them some time. Carvin Johnson and Marvin Robinson already have a look at some playing time. Most All Big Ten players are 4th and 5th year guys.
August 31st, 2010 at 3:18 PM ^
I would just say two things.
One, you don't necessarily need to be a returning all big ten perfomer as a 4th or 5th year player to play well. Just being older/bigger/stronger, understanding the system better and being coached up for 4 years in a college program often make a player much better than a younger player.
Second, as the roster is right now, there will be 32 scholarship (ie not walk-on) 4th and 5th year players for Rodriguez's 5th year. If we look just at defense, there will be 12. I see a few as potential all-big ten types including Craig Roh, Cameron Gordon, Mike Jones, Kenny Demens, Will Campbell.
August 31st, 2010 at 3:26 PM ^
Both yours and Ziffs criticisms are fair. I guess my main frustration lies with RichRod's inability to strike it rich thus far at the positions that he was truly left in a lurch in on defense. I dont doubt that some of our current freshman or sophomores in the back 7 can become solid contributors. I just don't see a lot of people talking about any of them as being potentially an elite talent yet. That's my main concern. I'd be happy with an average defense this year for RichRod given his limitations but if we have the defense of a .500 team in two years I won't be because at that point we'll have no one to blame but the current regime. I truly, truly hope I'm being overly worrisome because I think in two years under RichRod our offense will be in another fucking universe.
August 31st, 2010 at 6:23 PM ^
You are absolutely right that we shouldn't ignore the fact that the three five star defensive backs that Rodriguez successfully recruited (Cissoko, Turner and Dorsey) have all failed to make it. That falls on the athlete but also on Rodriguez. I am hoping that if we manage to get above .500 and go to a bowl game, get some positive press about the direction of the program, that we will be able to get more "stud" defenders that actually make it into their 4th or 5th year.
September 1st, 2010 at 12:47 PM ^
Cissoko was a Carr recruit, not a Rodriguez recruit, and I have a hard time pinnng blame on Rich for him turning into a headcase upon arriving in Ann Arbor. You want to fault Rich for recruiting Dorsey, fine, but I still think Admissions could have waved us off on that one before it turned into a circus. Turner is the one that really sticks out as a high profile bust that you could reasonably pin the blame on the coaches, especially if he goes to WVU and tears it up.
A far as getting positive press, if we manage to finish just above .500 and make a mid-level bowl game, I'm sure the press will be mostly negative if only because Rich won't have us playing "Michigan Football". Unless the team can come out and really surprise people with a 9 - 10 win season while beating some high profile teams, I'm afraid we can look forward to another winter of frustrating media articles tearing into the Wolverines.
August 31st, 2010 at 3:07 PM ^
are on this topic. Sure the offense got hit hard by graduation the same year Lloyd quit, but that happens, and the cupboard was hardly bare. Not Lloyd's fault that Arrington left early. Ryan Mallet, an early Heisman candidate, was supposedly Michigan's highest rated recruit EVER. Not Lloyd's fault that he left...just didn't fit the system (not RR's fault either). Max Martin was highly touted at RB, but he couldn't HOTTDB. Donovan Warren left early. There are other examples of decent recruits that didn't pan out.
Either way, Rich gets 2010 and 2011 as far as I'm concerned. Besides, eight or nine wins are going to shut a lot of traps this year.
August 31st, 2010 at 3:14 PM ^
""Forget all of this hot-seat nonsense," says Michigan athletic director David Brandon, in his first year on the job. "All I want to see is a team that's on the move and improving. And that's what Rich needs to see and that's what our fans need to see, and that is what we are looking for this season."
August 31st, 2010 at 3:20 PM ^
That being said, I fear the reason we will go 7-5 this year is because of the defense.
You "fear" the reason we will go 7-5 is the defense? You shouldn't "fear" anything about the prospect of going 7-5. Going 7-5 would be a tremendous success. It's amazing how after the past two years people still have ridiculous expectations.
August 31st, 2010 at 4:19 PM ^
7-5 means we most likely still have a loosing Big Ten season. Beyond Brian's dire secondary and linebacking previews (2/3rds of the defense mind you), I don't see Indiana or Purdue being easier than last year, so where the three Big Ten wins come from are a question.
Rich's first full recruiting class was very thin on the defensivee side. He took a risk, one that further delayed the arrival of an experienced, deep defense by a year. He took a risk on recruiting marginal qualifiers for positions of critical need along they way as well.
So I'll grant him this year - begrudgingly - but the offense for damned sure better dazzle us in Big Ten play. By next year, there will still be youth, but it better be coached up youth with experience.
August 31st, 2010 at 4:32 PM ^
Do you mean 2009?
http://rivals.yahoo.com/michigan/football/recruiting/commitments/2009/m…
That doesn't appear to be too thin on defense.
August 31st, 2010 at 9:51 PM ^
I give them 5 fakes out of 5 with Tate and Denard being the same speed.
If D-Rob only runs a 4.5 then I'm Millard Filmore
August 31st, 2010 at 10:53 PM ^
Less than half when our defense was a smoking crater in 2008.
August 31st, 2010 at 6:35 PM ^
Going 7-5 would be OK in my book, but I'd hardly call it a "tremendous success." We were very close to posting that mark last year. I don't think it's unreasonable to hope for somewhat better than that.
September 1st, 2010 at 1:37 AM ^
August 31st, 2010 at 3:24 PM ^
Personally I'm very excited about the prospects of this team in the next 2,3,4 years.
If RR can make it to next season (which I think he should be allowed to regardless of record), this teams should be poised to compete for the Big Ten title in 2011 and 2012 at the very least.
After that who knows, but squashing the potential of these future teams by starting from scratch with a new coach/system is what keeps me up at night.
I know a lot of people would disagree with this statement, but the bottom line is that I would rather take a chance on RR for another season than get a head start on rebuilding.
August 31st, 2010 at 3:32 PM ^
It’s certainly true that it takes five full years before the roster is 100 percent the new coach’s responsibility. By the same token, plenty of coaches have taken over and made an immediate impact with talent they inherited. A guy named Schembechler went 8-2, 9-1, and 11-0 in his first three regular seasons. I’m sure we can give a hundred reasons why “that was different,” so go ahead and look at other coaches’ third years, right up to the present day.
By the third year there really are no excuses, and I’ll bet even Rodriguez himself would tell you so.
August 31st, 2010 at 4:50 PM ^
There shouldn't be any excuses. Rodriguez needs to show improvement or he is gone.
But early success requires a program that has returning talent. Most people on this site think Weiss was a disaster as a head coach, but he did have a good start didn't he. My guess is that most coaches who have a very successful start (including Bo) had a pretty good foundation of returning players. We had a decent returning defense, but a non-existent offense and then the defense graduated players or imploded in the secondary and this is what we are left with, a very young team still.
August 31st, 2010 at 7:23 PM ^
Pittsburgh is clearly kicking themselves for not firing Dave Wannstedt after going 5-6, 6-6, 5-7 in his first three years. Really set the program back.
August 31st, 2010 at 7:42 PM ^
And Pitt is ALL KINDS of Michigan's 100 years of tradition and 40 years of success since 1969 to build on!
Wow, to think that after sucking since Dan marino left, they didn't panic and fire Dave Wannstedt who got them all the way up to mediocre is astounding!
Pitt IS college football!
September 1st, 2010 at 1:42 AM ^
August 31st, 2010 at 3:38 PM ^
Also, I will stipulate that there have been some seriously questionable recruiting moves, like pursuing Demar Dorsey, that look terrible in hind sight.
Who would have signed instead. Parker bailed on signing day after a silent commitment. Grimes, the other option went to an all star game in the cold and hated it. Unless Dorsey took the place of another player, it was well worth the risk to try to get that talent on campus.
August 31st, 2010 at 3:50 PM ^
Not that I necessarily agree with OP's premise, but Rashad Knight, I think, was the one most affected by the Dorsey recruitment.
August 31st, 2010 at 7:38 PM ^
that's true, and it would've helped to have gotten him, but he wasn't a world beater. he didn't have any more hype than christian and had only slightly more than the other freshmen CB options this year.
August 31st, 2010 at 7:40 PM ^
We got some Ray Vinopal!
August 31st, 2010 at 6:24 PM ^
My point was only that it looked bad (to some people) to pursue a kid who was marginal only to have him not make it. I think it was worth the gamble, but now that we know he didn't make it, it was a mistake. Sometimes you gamble and it pays off, sometimes it doesn't.
If we had gotten someone, anyone, who could play cornerback instead of Dorsey, it would be better than the way it worked out. It is fair to question that recruitment, but like I wrote above, it was probably worth the gamble. Then again, Rodriguez also expected Turner and Woolfolk to be here, so hindsight makes the move appear worse.
August 31st, 2010 at 4:36 PM ^
to reasonably expect that a top-flight coaching staff should be able to compensate at least somewhat for deficiencies in talent. Wisconsin and Iowa have been doing pretty well with recruiting classes ranked far below those of Michigan's for the last decade or so. I'm not saying that we should be 10-2 this season, but marked improvements have to be evident even if we're 7-5 or 6-6. It's one thing to play well and lose to Iowa or Wisconsin or Ohio State, but if we play poorly and lose to Indiana or Illinois or Purdue, David Brandon's offseason seat is going to be as hot as RR's.
August 31st, 2010 at 7:07 PM ^
August 31st, 2010 at 4:39 PM ^
I may have posted this before on another thread. Check out 2006:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/michigan/football/recruiting/commitments/2006/m…
No pure cornerbacks there. The only DBs were safety Mouton and mostly safety Brown.
- - -
For a better view of the upperclass CB situation in '08 and '09, take a look also at 2005:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/michigan/football/recruiting/commitments/2005/m…
I think Brandon Harrison was slated for safety. That left a single 3-star (Sears) and an "athlete" (Richards) as the CB haul for the year.
Just one more... 2004:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/michigan/football/recruiting/commitments/2004/m…
Only one there, too (Stewart, another 3-star). That mattered in '08.
- - -
Lloyd, like every other UMich football coach, gets his share of undeserved heat. I think it would be fair on this (CB) issue, though. That's a lousy haul for three years.
August 31st, 2010 at 11:26 PM ^
But it bares repeating. +1 (again)
Rodrigeuz needs to step up despite the talent level. I believe he will.
September 1st, 2010 at 1:47 AM ^
August 31st, 2010 at 4:47 PM ^
Yes, RR is definitely at a disadvantage with respect to the number of 4th and 5th year players. He is also in a difficult situation of taking a program through a major transformation for the first time in decades. Those are both mitigating factors for the past two seasons (and, in part, for the upcoming season), but RR came he with the billing of an elite D1 coach. He should not be expected to work miracles, but at the same time, if we cannot win 7 games this year, even with the depleted defense, than it is likely that he will not make it to 2011.
Also, when we look ahead 2-3 years, it is not as if RR is lighting it up on the recruiting trail. Sure, we have had a number of players that we are excited about, but would you really stack our recruiting classes up against OSU and Florida? I think not. Obviously, losing like we have makes it harder to recruit, as does all of the MSM's hot seat BS, but if we are going to look to the future as justification for keeping RR, I am afraid that many of us may be drinking a bit too much of the Kool-aid.
Note: please don't take this as an anti-RR post - I am not advocating for his firing - just bringing up some counterpoints.
August 31st, 2010 at 4:53 PM ^
To answer a question, though:
"Would (I) really stack our recruiting classes against OSU and Florida?"
No, but I wouldn't stack Carr's last two or three classes against them, either. And that is where RR's upperclassmen are coming from. That being said, I still see eight wins this year, and maybe nine if the bowl matches up well.
August 31st, 2010 at 5:20 PM ^
??? How can you possibly evaluate RR's recruiting efforts now for the classes of 2012 and 2013?
August 31st, 2010 at 6:21 PM ^
C'mon Don, he's obviously saying that he's not optimistic about 2-3 years from now under Rodriguez because his recruiting has been historically subpar. With that said, Rodriguez won big at WVU with lower rated recruits.
August 31st, 2010 at 7:38 PM ^
Then why can't he win at Michigan with lower-rated recruits or the so called lack of talent he inherited?
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:49 AM ^
Historically subpar at West Virginia. For that matter, subpar in relation to what? I doubt that RR's WVU recruiting was subpar in relation to Don Nehlen's. It's a bit naive to assume that any coach is going to garner top 5 recruiting classes to Morgantown anyhow.
It's ridiculous to make assertions about RR's recruiting at Michigan three years from now. If we have solid winning seasons and bowl victories this year and next, there's no reason to believe that RR won't bring in nationally competitive classes in 2012 and 2013. If we stink up the joint this year and next, 2012 and 2013 won't matter to RR since he'll be gone by then.
Regardless, I'll repeat what I said earlier in this thread: the time for justifiying lousy results on the field with references to the roster is rapidly running out, if it's not gone already. Top-flight coaching staffs don't struggle forever; virtually all of them have things turned around in year three, with some really nailing it in year four, like Ferentz and Alvarez did. Frank Beamer is the only coach I can think of who started out so unconvincingly yet was allowed to stay long enough to get a machine going. I doubt very much whether RR will get the amount of time Beamer got.
If RR fails here, it will be because of poor decisions on the defensive side of the ball, both in coach selection and recruiting. I still wonder why Jeff Casteel didn't come with him from WVU, and I think things might be very different if he had. It's not that I think Casteel is some defensive genius, but at least there would have been coaching cohesion in 2008 and 2009. I'm still not sold on Robinson as DC. The defensive clusterfuck we've had since RR arrived is somewhat ironic, since RR was a DB when he played.
September 2nd, 2010 at 11:18 AM ^
Michgoblue wasn't projecting what recruiting will be like in 2012 or 2013, he was projecting how the talent we've already recruited would fare.
To the extent you accept the relevance of Rivals/Scout Rodriguez's recruiting in the class of 2010 was historically poor by Michigan's standards. This year's class probably won't set the world on fire either. Those will be the senior and junior classes in 2013. He's saying that those classes probably won't be enough to put us on the same level as Florida or Ohio State even by 2013. I'm saying, we shouldn't rule out that Rodriguez will get to that level because he achieved great things at WVU with even lower rated talent.
August 31st, 2010 at 4:52 PM ^
The defense is in the process of being rebuilt. It will take a few years. I'm hoping it plays well enough to keep us competitive in most games and if our offense improves the way it should this year, may be we can beat MSU at home, IN, Purdue and may be an upset or two, like IA and WI at home? If so we will finish with 7 or more wins. If the defense implodes then we may see another 5 win season...but RR should be given one more year. I'm not sure he can survive a 4 or less win season. If it was up to me, I would give RR until 2011 to win at least 8 or more games.
August 31st, 2010 at 5:13 PM ^
I agree that RR is still suffering from forces beyond his control, but at the same time this defense has been pretty horrible for the past two years, and you can only blame the lack of players and the transition so far. RR has struggled to get the defense to "play up" a bit, and while I think GERG is a good DC who seems to making strides, he also hired Shafer and kept Hopson, and has made a couple of recruiting snafus that have hurt the defense. I agree that 7 wins seems likely, and there are rumblings (especially along the defensive line) of a good defense trying to break out, but I want to see real improvement on this defense at least in terms of competency, even if it gives up 25+ points. I can accept some talent deficiencies, but guys still need to be in position to make plays.
Comments