Attrition

Submitted by jkwings on
Something I think most all of us can agree on: Anyone who doesn't recognize that the D has been eviscerated by attrition is a fool. What I haven't heard is much discussion about what/who is to blame for the incredibly high attrition rate. Some is expected when making a coaching change, especially when changing philosophy as much as we did moving from Carr to RichRod but I think what we've experienced is more than anyone expected. Could it be that one of the weaknesses of the spread is the narrow restrictions it puts on players in order to be successful? As long as RichRod is here we can kiss our 6' 6" slabs on the O-line. I'm not saying that you can't win with the spread but could this contribute? Other thoughts on this?

bronxblue

November 7th, 2009 at 5:43 PM ^

You say that the spread's nature limits who RR can recruit, but that logic applies to any system. If you want to run a pro-style offense, then you have to nab those hulking beasts because your expect to run the ball with conventional formations and need big men to pass protect your (usually) immobile QB. That limits what you can do with your offense, and people complained about Carr's predictability on offense. Every style has its pluses and minuses; this offense works. Just give it time.

bronxblue

November 7th, 2009 at 6:35 PM ^

Nah. Most of the top offenses in the country run some form of the spread, and many of them have top-notch defenses. Florida has the #2 ranked defense, PSU has the #5 (and they run the Spread HD), and Oregon is #20. Those teams are prominent national powers and don't seem to struggle recruiting solid defenses. Carr's recruiting those last few years strike me like a rotten apple - the outside looks fine, but push a little and the mushy insides show.

Magnus

November 7th, 2009 at 5:49 PM ^

Most of Michigan's attrition has been on the offensive side of the ball, unless I'm mistaken. You start off by talking about all the attrition on defense, but then you start talking about the spread forcing people away...

jkwings

November 7th, 2009 at 6:32 PM ^

If you read the "Decimated Defense" pt. 2 journal the conclusion is clear - we have had a higher attrition rate on the defensive side of the ball than Alabama, a team that has been purposefully recruiting more players than it can offer scholarships. Also, if you re-read my post you will see that I'm not claiming that the spread is forcing players away - I'm merely asking whether people think the offensive or defensive systems we are implementing are contributing to our struggles in keeping players around.

imablue

November 7th, 2009 at 6:04 PM ^

I agree. The spread offense is working, that doesn't have any thing to do with the D. Aside from PSU, the offense is putting points on the board. 36 points ought to be enough.

jkwings

November 7th, 2009 at 6:29 PM ^

The question is who/what is to blame for the high attrition rate we've seen in defensive recruits. Is it RichRod? Greg Robinson for recruiting guys who can't hack it in D1? We recognize that attrition is a problem but no one has suggested what the root cause of the attrition has been or how to fix it.

jkwings

November 7th, 2009 at 6:35 PM ^

Probably not very many. But just because Greg Robinson or RichRod or whoever on the current staff didn't recruit a player doesn't mean that they shouldn't sometimes be held responsible for a player leaving the program. It seems reasonable to me that if the players left under RichRod's tenure than you have to give him the majority of the fault for the departures.