2 articles criticizing RR for "passing the buck" on the defense

Submitted by michgoblue on

I came across two separate articles today regarding RR's statement in his Monday presser regarding his role in the defense.  For those unfamiliar with the comment, here it is:

"If I still aspire to call plays and be involved in the offensive planning or special-teams planning, there is only so many hours in the day. I want to know what we're doing defensively and have some input. I can give them two cents' worth. I hope it's worth more than that."

The two articles that I came across were (1) an article on MLive by Rob Otto, and (2) a Freep article by Drew Sharp.  (I have not linked either article, since I do not know the board's current mood on linking articles from the Freep or MLive, but if any commenter asks, I will do so.

Both articles criticized RR for basically passing the buck and making an attempt at humor (including his Vince Lombardi comment) on the state of our defense.  Sharp even compared his mentality to that of MSU, where losses to good teams were excused as somewhat expected.

Putting aside the fact that the articles were by Drew Sharp, who is an asshat, and a guy named Otto who calls his column The Ottoman Empire, I think that these two articles raise a fair criticism (as opposed to so many of the unfair criticisms that the MSM has raised about RR).  Our defense sucks.  This is not only the worst Michigan defense in decades (if not ever), but it is one of the worst in college football.  While RR does not coach the D - and that is fine, since he is an offensive expert - the buck stops with him.  He is the head coach. 

I found it awkward, if not uncomfortable, that our HC was basically saying, "I understand that this is a problem, but it's not really my fault or my area." 

All the usual caveats of I support RR and want him to win, etc.  Just curious as to what other people thing.

TennBlue

October 20th, 2010 at 3:51 PM ^

that journalists have found that bashing RR over anything and everything is good for pageviews and click-throughs.

The rest of the issue has been beaten to death ad nauseam for weeks.

michgoblue

October 20th, 2010 at 3:55 PM ^

I agree with you that the journalists are all over RR for nonsense for the pusposes of maximizing clicks. 

The point of my post is that in THIS case, I think that the criticism is fair.  Also, this has not been discussed for weeks - the comments were made less than 48 hours ago.

TennBlue

October 20th, 2010 at 4:02 PM ^

getting the exact same questions in 20 different ways after every one of our seven games thus far.  Our defense sucks - he knows it, the players know it, everyone knows it.  He's said repeatedly that it's largely a matter of experience, which is the same thing that's been beaten to death here.

There is nothing new or interesting to say on the issue.  He made some self-deprecating jokes to deflect the questions.  There is nothing to this whatever but muckraking.

michgoblue

October 20th, 2010 at 4:16 PM ^

Yes, but this is the first time that he came out and pretty much said that he is not spending much time with the defense (paraphrase).  Right now, our defense is our biggest liability.  Rich is the head coach.  The head coach has responsibility for offense.  And he has responsibility for defense.  He has an offensive coordinator to assist with the offense.  He has a defensive coordinator to assist with the defense.  He also has various position coaches to assist on both sides of the ball.  If Rich wants to just deal with the offense, then in my opinion, he would make an awesome offensive coordinator, but not an ideal head coach.  A head coach has to be responsible for the entire team, and needs to devote his personal attention to the areas that need it best. 

Michael

October 20th, 2010 at 6:21 PM ^

This argument presupposes that RR paying more attention would somehow improve the knowledge/technique of the inexperienced and/or undertalented athletes. At some point, no amount of coaching of any quality will improve a lack of talent and experience. Only recruiting and playing time will solve these issues.

So yes, RR obviously spends more time working with the offense - that is what he is best at. All head coaches pay more attention to the unit in which they have a comparative advantage. Nick Saban spends the majority of time on defense. Urban Meyer spends the majority of his time with the offense. Ohio State produces great defenses year in, year out and Tressel still spends his time as an offensive coordinator. And he isn't even doing a great job at that.

A head coach is responsible for setting a grand strategy for a team and relying on his subordinates to execute that strategy through recruitng and player development. That is his level of responsibility and, in that sense, the buck does stop with him. That doesn't mean that paying more attention to the defense on his part (whatever that means) will somehow make James Rogers good and our secondary experience-laden.

mGrowOld

October 20th, 2010 at 3:53 PM ^

I am shocked....SHOCKED I say...at two bastions of unbiased expert football reporting making such a claim. In the past they always treated RR so well.....

mgokev

October 20th, 2010 at 3:56 PM ^

People write these articles because it generates traffic and buzz about their work.  They know that the Michigan fan base is a large and passionate body of individuals, and if they write about something "controversial" then they get exposure.  That's all I see this article as.

EDIT: That said, I think there is some truth to the criticism, but I'm in no position to judge the effectiveness of a coach that has proven himself wherever he's been.  It obviously works.

Yinka Double Dare

October 20th, 2010 at 3:58 PM ^

Rodriguez has also laid some of the blame for the defense the last couple weeks on the turnovers (i.e., the fault of his offense), and he's noted before that there are multiple guys in the secondary who normally would have been redshirting, the Vince Lombardi comment fits in with that.

Taking the one comment out of context and saying Rodriguez is not accepting any responsibility is to be expected out of Drew Sharp though. 

wolverine1987

October 20th, 2010 at 3:58 PM ^

I don't think any of the points they made were fair. HOWEVA, IF indeed this is RR's true feeling and practice, it is flatly wrong IMO. If you are the head coach, and you have to decide how to partition yourself given finite time and resources, which means you must delegate more than you would normally like to a coordinator, would you choose to delegate more to Calvin McGee or GERG? Which one could use more attention right now? The answer seems obvious. Maybe I'm missing something, but Calvin should have a bit more autonomy the next couple weeks, at the expense of RR's desire to call plays.

Wolverine96

October 20th, 2010 at 4:10 PM ^

Rich is the head coach, therefore the defense is his responsibility.  The buck has to stop with him and if more attention needs to be paid to the defense, then by god, spend more time on that side of the ball. 

What disturbs me about that comment is if he is not spending time on that side of the ball, how does he know what the true cause of the problems are?  Is it youth, like he is claiming, shemes that do not fit the personnel or is it poor coaching (Tony Gibson)?  Where is Rich getting his info to make decisions?  From Tony Gibson, GERG, or someone else? 

That is what troubles me and casts some doubt as to the future. 

steelymax

October 20th, 2010 at 4:56 PM ^

The comment doesn't bother me.

If you listen to what he's saying, it's that the defense is what it is because of personnel. No defense in college football with an underclassman two-deep is putting up better numbers than this one.

But fair enough. He's the head coach and needs to find ways to win. Strategically speaking, the best way to overcome a limited defense is with a great offense. Unlike the defense, the offense's potential isn't limited.

Bottom line: even if Rodriguez was a defensive-minded coach, he'd be best served making the best of his offense right now, because his defense is as good as it's gonna get (this year).

sum1valiant

October 21st, 2010 at 12:06 AM ^

Strategically speaking, the best way to overcome a limited defense is with a great offense. Unlike the defense, the offense's potential isn't limited.

Bingo!  I have to assume this is his strategy right now, and if it is, I can't blame him.  He knows no matter how much of his personal time is invested in the d, they're still likely to give up 28-30 points per game.  He's putting all of his eggs into the "score more than they do" basket.  Based on the talent/experience we're fielding on d, I think it's the right move.

Raoul

October 20th, 2010 at 4:11 PM ^

There was a thread from earlier today on Sharp's article that got sent into the memory hole--as this one might too--and at the risk of repeating what I had posted there, I don't consider the two articles you cite to be "fair critiques" but rather particular spins on what Rodriguez said. Other reporters at that same press conference had more positive takes. They also provided more context for the quote.

Here, for example, is an entirely different take from Chengelis in the Detroit News and note in particular the question Rodriguez was addressing:

Rodriguez, who is noted for his offensive coaching, was asked at his weekly news conference if he could take over more of the defensive coaching.

"I can give 'em my two-cents worth — I hope it's worth more than that — it's still … listen, Vince Lombardi could come, too, and not going to fix some of the problems we have on defense, so we've got to do what we've got to do."

Rodriguez said he trusts his defensive coaches to remedy Michigan's problems.

"If I'm not so heavily involved in offense and on the special teams part of it, I think you could spend more (time)," Rodriguez said. "But if I still aspire to call plays and be involved in the offensive planning and the special teams planning, there's only so many hours in the day.

"I certainly want to know what we're doing defensively and can always have some input, but those guys spend a lot more time watching that film and studying that and have got expertise."

JD_UofM_90

October 20th, 2010 at 4:55 PM ^

Folks complain about RR dictating the 3-3-5 defense to GERG.  Let GERG run the defense he wants to run, is the arguement.  So, on the flip side, when RR talks about "leaving" the defensive details up to GERG and the Def coaches, he gets lambasted for not being involved enough.  He is in a tough spot. 

Hobbes

October 20th, 2010 at 6:16 PM ^

I think what people are complaining about is the halfway implementation of it.  If you're going to say "I want this system" to someone who isn't familiar with the system (correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think GERG had any previous experience with the 3-3-5), when it comes down to the details of actually implementing the system I don't think you can't say "not my job, I don't do the details."

Now, I also think it's totally legitimate for a head coach like Rodriguez, an offensive guy, to have a vision of what he wants out of a defense even if he doesn't know the nuts and bolts of how to get there.  But in that case, as the head coach with control over his staff Rodriguez should've made sure his DC had some knowledge about the system the head coach wanted and knew how to implement it.  If Rodriguez always wanted the 3-3-5, it seems a little like he picked a square peg for that round hole.

Caveat, I don't know if that's what actually happened, but if it is then I think this might be a valid critique.  Either get involved with the details yourself to realize what you want, or make sure you pick someone to realize the vision who actually knows how to do it.

WolvinLA2

October 20th, 2010 at 4:13 PM ^

Here's my opinion - who do we want making decisions about our defense - Greg Robinson, a guy who has 20+ years experience in the NFL and the top levels of college football, or Rich Rodriguez, an offensive mastermind who has little if any experience coaching on the defensive side of the ball.  Sure, RR's the head coach, a position above GERG, but that doesn't mean he's better at running the defense.

Think about whatever company you work for.  Let's say the budget of his company isn't doing great.  Who should handle the books, your CFO who has years of financial experience, or the CEO who has worked his entire career in operations and has some but mostly limited financial experience?  Just because one guy is in charge of another doesn't mean he's better at doing the job.

UMdad

October 20th, 2010 at 7:03 PM ^

I think it is unfair to expect the head coach to try to be 100% in control of every aspect of the team.  That would be micromanaging to a fault.  RR obviously has an offensive focus and therefore spends more of his time on O.  I don't really having a problem with him leaning on his DC a little.  I DO, howeva, have a problem with him passing the buck in a press conference.  I would like my HC to say, something along the lines of, "This is my team, we need to play better D and we will."  I do get a little tired of him blaming the players, their inexperience, their lack of depth, the defensive coaching, etc.  He has yet to ever really say that he needs to do a better job.  As a leader, you need to take some fault, whether you feel you deserve it or not, if you don't want to lose the respect of your coaches and your players.  IMO

AdmiralAkbar

October 21st, 2010 at 11:21 AM ^

I think your CEO example is a good one, but only shows how terrible this is.

Think of it this way: A company is going through really tough times financially, and the CEO is talking to the press. Is he an expert on the numbers like a CFO or the accounting department is? Of course not! But what would happen if he gets up to the podium and says:

 

"Well you know, there are only so many hours in the day, so I've really been focused on things other than numbers except for sharing my two cents worth every once in a while... I hope they listen to me (chuckles). I mean, I don't even think Adam Smith could make ends meet in this company! (chuckles)"

 

How long do you think a CEO would continue to hold that position after a press conference like that?

Rasmus

October 20th, 2010 at 4:32 PM ^

Leave it to MLive and the Free Press to miss the news story in what Rich said -- perhaps this means Rodriguez is taking on a more active role with regard to the special teams? That could have a domino effect if it means Gibson is no longer spending as much time with them and returning to what he has the most experience with, the defensive backs.

I'd love to see someone do a study of Gibson's tenure as WVU's defensive backs coach, from 2001 to 2007. That's seven seasons of data. Were they generally decent, or a constant liability? Did players leave for no apparent reason? And so on...

dennisblundon

October 20th, 2010 at 4:26 PM ^

To all of you who want RR to spend more time on the defense I ask you what do you think it will accomplish? He is an offensive specialist period. At this point no matter how much time you spend on defense it pretty much is what it is. You can stare at a dollar bill all day long but it won't turn into $100 dollar bill. You can rest assured that the coaches aren't just spending the last 15 minutes of practice defense.

Also I imagine that had you not posted these articles on this board about 15 to 20 people may have actually read them.

dahblue

October 20th, 2010 at 4:47 PM ^

Many on this board has already reviewed the concerns with a head coach who doesn't spend time with his defense.  I believe it was after the UMass debacle that he said he would spend more time with the D, maybe "fifteen minutes".  That created a bit of an uproar with regard to people wondering how a coach could have been spending less time with his D.

Anyway, the train of excuses is beyond tiring.  The season needs to play out so Dave Brandon can make the most informed decision of whether or not to keep the coach.  Let us hear no more, "How could he be expected to win without his players on offense?", "The cupboard was bare", "The press has it out for him", "He isn't getting support from the University", or the latest and most predictable (even if accurate) "He's got no talent on D, even Vince Lombardi couldn't win with them".  

In the end, the head coach is responsible for his decisions, his players and his record.  This team needs to win; being "fun to watch" doesn't cut it.

dahblue

October 20th, 2010 at 5:09 PM ^

Yes.  I'm very familiar with our defensive depth being poor...nearly unimaginable.  That doesn't change my point that at some point the excuses run out and the coach gets judged based on the results on the field.  At the end of last season I noted that the 2010 excuse would likely be "no one can win with this young, inexperienced defense"; and then we lost a bunch of those young, inexperienced guys.  In the long run, we don't get an asterisk for bad luck.

El Jeffe

October 20th, 2010 at 6:55 PM ^

I'm confused by this logic, though. What, if anything, other than the team's record ought an AD use to decide upon the fate of a coach? By that logic, Kirk Ferentz should be gone from Iowa.

Are you suggesting that Brandon should say, in effect, "well, the team has a top-5 offense that will almost certainly get better next year, and the defense suffered a host of nearly unprecedented and largely unforeseeable problems, and will likely get better next year if only due to regression to the mean. But fuck it. RichRod didn't win X number of games, so he's out, to be replaced by...?"

I don't get that. I'm assuming that David Brandon is intelligent and understands complexity. So he won't just boil it down to wins.

dahblue

October 20th, 2010 at 7:04 PM ^

I'm not sure what you're saying?  That record is what matters?  Or that record doesn't matter?

In any event, it's clear that wins alone are not the deciding factor.  NCAA violations will come into play, recruiting concerns will come into play, trends (whether the team is getting better or not) will come into play, etc.  I don't believe, however, that Brandon will buy the excuse that RR has nothing to do with the defensive struggles of his team.  The coach needs to take ownership for his team - for better or for worse - just as the AD did to cover for the coach.

jmblue

October 20th, 2010 at 8:14 PM ^

NCAA violations will come into play,

What is your fixation with the practice crap?  You constantly drop it in your anti-RR posts.  Are you seriously bothered by the fact that we neglected to count time spent stretching? 

dahblue

October 20th, 2010 at 10:35 PM ^

1.  Take off the blinders; these aren't anti-RR posts.  They are even keeled looks at the team.

2.  I don't think the violations were major.  I realize that "all schools do it".  But...the NCAA calls them major violations...creating a black eye for our University whether we think the violations to be "minor" in reality or even "a nothing".  I do have an issue with NCAA sanctions though, as should every Michigan alum.  A fireable offense?  Maybe not.  They are, without doubt, a factor in Brandon's eventual decision.

El Jeffe

October 20th, 2010 at 8:22 PM ^

My post was not nearly as clear as it could have been. What I mean is that on the one hand you say: let's finish the season so that Brandon can make a decision about RR. But on the other you say, let's not hear any more about a decimated defense or injuries or etc. But wouldn't Brandon use those things in his decision? If not, what else would he use besides Ws and Ls?

I see you're bringing up the issue of stretch gate. I don't know David Brandon at all. But judging from his public statements, he thinks stretch gate is a pile of horse poo. So I don't think he'll be using that.

dahblue

October 20th, 2010 at 10:34 PM ^

It might be that I also was not clear.  I do believe that Brandon should wait for the season to play out before making a final decision (unless we enter upon an epic losing streak and get smacked with bigger than expected NCAA penalties).  At the same time, I also feel that we (including the coach) need to stop the excuse talk.  Brandon can certainly factor in a decimated, young defense but the parade of excuses is a bit unseemly.

As to the NCAA violations, as I note below...we might all think them to be "minor" in actual effect, but they're still violations.  They should and will factor into the decision - along with win/loss record, direction of the program, etc.  If Brandon wants to fire RR, he'll certainly use the violations as they can void the contract.  Public statements are posturing.  Brandon seems 100% on top of the entire situation. 

Section 1

October 20th, 2010 at 4:55 PM ^

He's a columnist.  He doesn't produce meaningful content, for "articles."

The only reason I mention that is because Sharp exists in a content-free world.

Drew Sharp doesn't ever really have to write about substantive stuff, because he has no credentials for any substance to begin with, at  least as it relates to college sports.  Sharp was never a player, a coach, or anything else of consequence.  He's not only a nobody in terms of having any credentials to judge something like college football; he's not even a writer of any consequence.

You'll never see Sharp try to explain a two-deep zone, or scrape-reads, because he can't.  He ridicules websites like MGoBlog as havens for obsessed fanboys.  But the fact is, Brian Cook does more "work" of the kind that one might presume that Drew Sharp gets paid for, in an average week, than Drew Sharp has done in a decade.

Drew Sharp specializes in what you see in his column today; commentary, on commentary.  Drew Sharp describes press conferences, not real games.  He's derivative, of the derivative.  And of course he's not even good at that lazy assignment; witness his flub in libeling Rush Limbaugh nationally.  (Not that the most blatant and embarassing errors ever slowed down a Free Press columnist.  See, e.g., "Mitch Albom and Mateen Cleaves," or "Michael Rosenberg and unnamed players.")

It is always good every couple of months, to remind people who might not know it, that Drew Sharp's complete biography (!?) on his WDFN radio bio-page is this:

ABOUT DREW

Believe it or not, but I grew up a huge Michigan fan. The 1969 upset over Ohio State was the reason why I decided to go to Michigan. Whenever the Wolverines played the Buckeyes after that, my parents were under strict orders "Leave Drew alone for the next three hours" because I would take defeat very, very hard. People ask me all the time that if I grew up such a big Michigan fan, what happened to me in later years and why I turned so cynical. And I tell them "I grew up."

Of course, there is no point in exacerbating any Sharp-caused controversy.  That is his job; to spew sport-related controversy.  He is a controversialist.  And, a complete waste of time.

mGrowOld

October 20th, 2010 at 5:27 PM ^

Wow....that's front page worthy IMO.  Great, great post!

I have always maintained that media in general, be they sports, entertainment, political, whatever, are by nature negative due to the very nature of their job.  They accomplish nothing, they achieve nothing and their respective life's work is spent telling people about the work of others - not their own.

markusr2007

October 20th, 2010 at 4:54 PM ^

coach the Michigan defense?

I mean, he's  officially "in charge". The football program is ultimately his responsibility.  Can't believe he'd just stand there with folded arms and not take ownership while the ship burns into the water, can you?

I'm in the camp that supports Rodriguez because offensively he is a genius, shares 90% of what he knows with everyone who will listen, and still lines up offenses that punch you in the mouth on Saturday afternoons.   At the same time, I believe he regrets his failure to bring  Jeff Casteel with him.  Rodriguez has had some great assistant coaches, Butch Jones, Todd Graham, Calvin Magee, Rod Smith, Greg Frey and many others, but Casteel was aguably the best in terms of building something out of nothing and by fielding simple, competent rushing defenses.

I mean, Christ,  just look at them -after 6 games West Virginia is ranked 4th in total defense and has surrendered only 1 rushing touchdown YTD.

 

Section 1

October 20th, 2010 at 5:00 PM ^

It was a huge loss that we were not able to get Casteel here along with RR. 

Having seen WVU's defense play a couple of times this year, I think we have missed out terribly, when Casteel declined to move to Ann Arbor.

I actually count it in RR's favor that he wanted Casteel, and wanted him badly.  RR was right.

dahblue

October 20th, 2010 at 5:20 PM ^

The first thing Brandon did when he came in was to accept responsibility for the violations which occurred prior to his involvement with the program.  Because the football program is ultimately his responsibility, he'll be making a decision at the end of the season as to RichRod's future.  He will make that decision and accept responsibility for the outcome - good or bad.  He won't blame it on anyone.

As to Casteel, isn't WVU is in a terrible conference?  Even we held UConn (the preseason favorite) to 10 points.

readyourguard

October 20th, 2010 at 6:05 PM ^

Rob Otto's credibility regarding sports is as legitimate as mine is regarding molecular biology. 

Drew Sharp?  That's just a bitter guy with a chip on his shoulder.

Giant grain of salt required.

Tha Stunna

October 20th, 2010 at 6:45 PM ^

I really wish you hadn't mentioned your sources here.  The thread has been half wasted on bashing of these two sources.  Said bashing is justified, but it detracts from a reasonable discussion about how much a coach should delegate responsibllity for an area where he is non-expert.