Balance of Season & Gerg's tenure
After Penn State, many on the board snapped. The conclusion for a majority was that Rich Rod's job security was in jeopardy. Further, Gerg needed to go, probably as soon as the season was over.
Now, with the win over Illinois, and the strong probability of a win vs. Purdue, RR has some breathing room. The polls here, and the consensus, are that RR has won the right to coach at Michigan a minimum of another year.
Things are less clear for Gerg. I think that many still want to see him cut loose, either after OSU, or after the Bowl Game.
My question is whether the balance of the season will affect Gerg's tenure. Chait suggests that his slim hopes rest on the games against Wisconsin and Ohio State, and how the defense does in those games. (link: http://michigan.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1148722)
I personally think that Gerg should be given at least one more year, even with a 7 - 5 record. My reasoning is as follows.
- Gerg has only had two years to prove himself.
- It is not his fault what has happened in the secondary this year.
- Next year, with more defensive depth, and with more experience, we will have a much more accurate picture of the defense.
- A change to another defensive coordinator would not be good, in terms of continuity.
I believe that even though I predicted a 7 - 5 record, we will end up at 8 - 4. I actually have been completely befuddled by the koolaid, and actually believe that we will win in Columbus. Of course, if yet more injuries hit, especially to our key personnel, all bets are off. But I believe that we beat Purdue, finally get the monkey off our back with Ohio State, and do well in a bowl. This allows Gerg to stay, and to be judged, good or bad, in 2011.
What about you? Do you want him out of here, no matter our final record this year? Would you rather see us win out and Gerg stay, or lose just enough for him to be cut loose? I can never root against Michigan, under any circumstances, but then, I'm also not pining for a Gerg departure.
If the pollster here at Mgoblog could structure a Gerg specific poll, that would be great. I'd like to see what those on the board think.
November 9th, 2010 at 1:42 PM ^
He wants to run a 3-3-5 or let his DC determine the scheme.
<br>
<br>If 3-3-5 can gerg and hire Casteel
<br>If let DC run scheme let Gerg make personnel decisions or nuke the staff and let the new DC bring in his guys.
<br>
<br>Those are the options but keeping Gerg and making him run a 3-3-5 with RRs guys is not a viable option imo
November 9th, 2010 at 1:46 PM ^
In terms of personnel decisions, is Greg responsible for starting Ezeh over Demens for so long? If so, I question his personnel choices. (One could, could say the same about keeping Cam at free safety and Vinopal on the bench, but that's a pretty premature judgment.)
November 9th, 2010 at 2:37 PM ^
I am not sure he has gotten a really fair shake, as, if I am not mistaken, he was hired to replace Schafer as the DC, but was sadled with the rest of the staff. On top of that, I think he has been pressured to use certain formations that I don't think he would normally of run. Add injuries to that recipe and you get disaster. However, you can't play this poor of defense for two years and expect there not to be casualties. If Michigan decides that RR should be given another year or two to prove himself yay or nay, then GERG is the sacrificial lamb. Life isn't always fair.
November 9th, 2010 at 5:27 PM ^
For one, the free pass for Rodriguez has to stop somewhere. HE is the one who keeps hiring defensive coordinators that us message board guys think don't work out too well. If Gerg is canned, that's two in three years. The trending says: Rodriguez don't know defense, yet he's meddling and hurting his DC's and his defensive players.
I don't see why you want to keep bringing back a head coach who keeps fuddling up his defense that badly. Who is next year's wastoid?
OR, does Rich Rod all the sudden get it right with a new DC next year by finding someone desperate enough to coach Rod's 3-3-5, NOT hire his own staff, not worry about whether it would be the last chance for Rodriguez (in other words, live out of a hotel and a suitcase for an entire year), probably not recruit--
WOWIE! Where do I sign up for that incredible gig? Oh wait, maybe super duper DC's will beat down Rodriguez's office door to apply under those wonderful circumstances, eh?
November 9th, 2010 at 5:49 PM ^
You should start your own blog. This stuff is "must-see" entertainment.
November 10th, 2010 at 8:18 AM ^
Great. This Troll puts "well said" in a reply to me and I get negged.
November 9th, 2010 at 7:35 PM ^
If I was was high profile defensive Coordinator for a team with a mediocre offense I wouldn't mind a DC job for one of the most explosive Offenses in the country. I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin.
November 9th, 2010 at 2:58 PM ^
Either let Gerg coach the way Gerg wants to coach, or bring on someone else who fits with what RR wants to do in terms of schemes. Frankly, if RR insists on personnel and schemes that Gerg doesn't want to run or know how to run, I could see Gerg up and quitting, rather then continuing with the current bad situation.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:04 PM ^
other side of that one. Roh (supposedly) requesting to play on the line, RVB saying in the presser that is it better that Roh be on the line, BG saying that Gerg should run his scheme for B10 play, I just can't see how we would roll out a 3-3-5 next year with some new hire. If RR wants to come out and talk about Illinois being physical and wishing he could do the same, put some bigger guys out there. Don't roll out 5 DBs and expect them to hold the edge all the time.
On the flip side, I would not argue an actual secondary coach in addition to a LB coach.
November 9th, 2010 at 5:22 PM ^
"If RR wants to come out and talk about Illinois being physical and wishing he could do the same..." Then recruit different players. I'm a RichRod guy but really...
November 9th, 2010 at 6:37 PM ^
This is a fallacious argument. He recruited a lot of smaller offensive players but he has been recruiting a lot of big, tough guys for defense. Athletic 6 foot guys who can play strong safety or linebacker and athletic 6-3 guys who can linbacker or weakside defensive end are a good thing. The tweener label is overused as a means of bashing his recruiting philosophy imhe.
Defensive linemen should get a redshirt year, which means his first full class should be red shirt freshman. If Lloyd hadn't screwed the pooch on recruiting his last two years we could run a 4 man front. He didn't so we are somewhat forced to use 3 down linemen. We also don't have enough linebacker depth, due to previous recruting, so we end up with 15 tweener safeties playing spur and bandit. I don't think Rodriguez is as commited to the 3-3-5 as most on this board. I believe his staff other than Greg Robinson is more familiar with it but I think the real reason we are using it is our personell
Martin was retained by Rodriguez. He pulled in Roh. Sadly, DeQuinta Jones and Pearlie Graves bailed at the last second and Campbell turned out to be an offensive lineman. If it weren't for these three players being unavailable, we would have a 4 man front and a much "tougher" defense. Rodriguez pulled in 4 defensive linemen in this last class and one of them is already getting serious minutes (Black). There aren't any difference makers in this class yet, but I think we could get Jernigan if we finish strong and I am expecting another Rodriguez last minute miracle like we've had the first three years to add a top caliber defender.
We have recruited plenty of size and toughness on defense. They just aren't upper classmen yet and we have had some misses (see above with three defensive tackle misses which I don't blame on Rodriguez)
November 9th, 2010 at 5:08 PM ^
It's not just a matter of running a 3-3-5 or whatever. It also is a matter of how Greg has not been able to bring out the full potential in many if not all of the defensive players. I agree that both RR and whoever the DC is need to agree on what kind of defense to play but the DC also needs to be able bring out the potential of the players and create different schemes to the defense to hide the weaknesses.
November 9th, 2010 at 5:29 PM ^
I thought the defense was super young, freshies and sophs? Why does that excuse work for Rodriguez but no one elts?
November 9th, 2010 at 5:39 PM ^
Oh look, another King of Belch screenname. Did the first 7 bannings not get through to you?
November 9th, 2010 at 1:43 PM ^
I'm so on the fence on GERG. I think he should go yet I don't want to go thru another DC transition. I just dunno at this point.
November 9th, 2010 at 1:43 PM ^
My hope for the team has not waivered in weeks
1. Rich stays
2. Gerg goes
3. Jeff Casteel arrives (lose WVU...lose)
For some odd reason allowing a team to score 65 points on us did not cause me to reconsider replacing the DC.
November 9th, 2010 at 2:48 PM ^
At least it wasn't 67.
November 9th, 2010 at 1:51 PM ^
I have very little faith in Robinson at this point. I think the defense played well against Illinois, but they still gave up 45 in regulation. I'm glad they played as well as they did, but it's not the kind of performance that is going to change my mind about Robinson's abilities.
I think there are much more serious issues that can't be white washed by a single (relatively) good performance (questionable personnel decisions, players having to explain to the coaches where they should be playing, pretty terrible fundamentals, etc). Unless the defense shows up and shuts down Wisconsin and/or OSU, I don't see a reason to keep him on board (even then, it should only lead to a discussion, Robinson can not do anything, in my opinion, to secure his position by the end of the season).
Last game notwithstanding, look at how quickly Illinois turned around their defense with a new and competent DC. I don't see any reason why that can't happen at Michigan, provided they hire someone who knows what their doing (either with the 3-3-5 or their own scheme).
November 9th, 2010 at 2:04 PM ^
As long as the new DC can bring in their own assistants I completely agree with you. My desire for Casteel is more due to the fact that:
1. He basically hired all of the current assistants at WVU
2. He showed Rich how to effectively run the 3-3-5
3. Little, if anything, would change other than the results hopefully.
But if we cannot get Casteel then Plan B must involve getting rid of everyone, and i mean everyone, on the D staff - not just Gerg.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:10 PM ^
RR seems a bit unmotivated in searching for defensive coaches as evidenced two years ago when the board was alight with DC candidates during the offseason meetings and we walked away with nothing. A while later we end up with a guy that pursued RR for the job, not someone we really sought out due to their excellent track record. I would not mind some scrutiny in evaluating and selecting a crew of talented position coaches that will be attracted by our program instead of holdovers.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:35 PM ^
The defense didn't play well against Illinois; they took forward steps from a horrible performance against PSU. They were still a significantly below average unit against Illinois but didn't play like the bottom five unit we saw against PSU.
November 9th, 2010 at 1:55 PM ^
Historically, what is the effect of changing defensive coaching/personnel on transfers in the defense? Less severe than offense, I'm betting.
Should we make drastic changes during the offseason, do we risk a plague of transfers and another year of a colander defense?
November 9th, 2010 at 1:56 PM ^
The DC should stay another year so he can turn around this defense. It is detrimental to keep changing coordinators. Players need continuity in staff for them to improve. The defense is just real young and that is more than anything why they aren't an excellent D yet.
November 9th, 2010 at 1:57 PM ^
Gergs gotta go
November 9th, 2010 at 6:15 PM ^
Continuity on defense is not the same as on offense, schemes are not as hard to learn. He has had two years, was terrible before this, and has not shown us anything. As one of the highest paid state employees in Michigan I think he should have to produce results - crazy.
November 9th, 2010 at 1:58 PM ^
I'm willing to let a former wolverine defensive end and former CEO, Athletic Director David Brandon work with his head coach to come up with the solution after the season.
November 9th, 2010 at 2:56 PM ^
Also, I do believe that DB will prob. give Gerg another year. If DB had been the AD the last several years, things might be different. But with this being his first year as AD, and the improvement over 2009, and also potentially, with an 8 - 4 record, I don't see him cutting Gerg loose.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:51 PM ^
It's not the AD's job to hire and fire assistant coaches. That's on RR. The only time you see an AD get involved in something like that is when he is close to firing the HC and the HC responds by promising to clean house, à la Zook last year.
November 9th, 2010 at 1:59 PM ^
is that the only reason we've seen "improvement" is because RR has gotten more involved in the D. Thats scary. Couple that with RR having a coranary on the side line against PSU with the D during a timeout while Gerg stood and watched...Gerg has to go. Period.
I dont want to take a chance with this DC and staff when we have so much hope on offense next year. With a good defense in 2011 the sky is the limit.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:43 PM ^
I don't know if this is true but we may never know who is responsible for pushing changes on the defense. For example, it has been accepted as part of Michigan lore that Rodriguez pushed the 3-3-5 on Shafer before the 2008 game resulting in The Justin Siller Event. This year, many claim that Rodriguez pushed for off-week changes prior to the debacle at PSU.
These are two examples of Rodriguez's purported defensive adjustments with disastarous results. I'm not trying to absolve GERG of guilt. He is responsible for starting Ezeh over Demens and for Mouton's mediocrity. I think the best solution is to give Robinson complete control over the defense including the ability to hire position coaches of his choosing or bring in a new defensive coordinator who has the same freedom. In either case Rodriguez should butt out.
November 9th, 2010 at 2:02 PM ^
I think he deserves to show what he can do without having to piece together a defense made up of barely out of high school kids... NTM the injuries.
Firing him would probably do more harm than good at this point (recruiting and cohesion) IMO. I agree he deserves another year at least.
Regardless, I think the defense improves next year. The question is whether or not Robinson or some new DC gets the credit.
November 9th, 2010 at 2:02 PM ^
Ihave to agree getting 65 hung on ya Gregs got to go.
November 9th, 2010 at 6:03 PM ^
Can we please get off the score. The defense was way better than the score. You have all the OT points as well as 4 offensive turnovers and Illinois started with really good field positions multiple times.
November 9th, 2010 at 6:58 PM ^
Why would we get off the score? Not like the defense only gave up 20 points in regulation. The offense didn't help the defense, but it's not like the defense looked like anything more than a couple of particularly shiny traffic cones on the vast majority of drives.
November 9th, 2010 at 7:33 PM ^
The score is the ultimate determinant of success. However, when you focus only on the score, then everyone on the defensive staff should be fired right after the game. Not counting all the reasons everyone knows for the defense being bad, the defense made several stops and actually improved.
If you think the score was reflective of how the defense played, then maybe we should get a new HC, just not a DC. I am not arguing for us to keep GERG for next year, but I would like to see how these last 2 games go.
November 9th, 2010 at 7:47 PM ^
Firing a coach after only one game wouldn't make any sense. That isn't really what I said either. Firing a coach after repeated, obvious examples of incompetence, while the rest of the country uses the coach's name as an analogy for poor play...that was more what I was saying.
You literally cannot say the defense improved after we gave up 45 in regulation. That's more than the previous three losses. What got better was the offense and what appeared (finally) was the young players finally putting it all together for a win. The defense showed flashes of competence (Vinopal, Demens, Roh, and Gordon especially), but that doesn't mean that those players are going to be used to their full potential under GERG.
You say you want to see the last err, 3, games go. Other than the defense not giving up more than 20 per game (and that ain't happening, even against Purdue), what would they have to do to keep GERG's job?
November 9th, 2010 at 8:12 PM ^
You are absolutely right, I would not normally advocate firing a coach after one game. But if the team let up 65 points without any turnovers or bad field positions or overtime play, I think I might make an exception.
You are right, you didn't call for anyone to get fired and I don't think I claimed you did. I was emphasizing my points, maybe overemphasis. As for your point about the rest of the country using his name as an analogy for poor play that frustrates me. Has the defensive performance been bad this year, absolutely. Is GERG at fault, sure he is, but IMHO it's not completely his fault. I hate hearing the analysis from these so called analyst on the defense for this game. Many analyst just laugh and mock our defense in their analysis because they only mention the score. They make no reference to the turnovers and poor field positions. I may be wrong, but I think all 5 turnovers were on our side.
IMHO, I think Sat's defensive performance was better than PSU, Iowa or MSU. The performance also was without Floyd and an injured Martin.
I am not going to dispute your points on GERG working these guys to their full potential. I have lost a lot of faith in GERG. Was I frustrated with the defense on Sat, absolutely, but I also felt some hope that these guys are playing better.
What would GERG have to do to keep his job. I am not sure. I just want to say that I do not think we are good on defense, but we are not as bad as the 65 points we allowed.
November 9th, 2010 at 2:32 PM ^
This is not a question of being fair to Gerg. It is a question of having the best possible defense at UM.
Dave Brandon needs to sit RR down at the end of the regular season and walk him through the defensive stats from a purely objective standpoint. He needs to convince RR to let go of some of the control of the defense and together they should hire a new DC. The new DC should be given the authority to decide who (if anyone) on the current defensive staff should be retained and he should be allowed to bring in his own people as replacements for anyone he does not keep. RR insisted on the same authority when he agreed to take the job as HC -- he totally cleaned house, if you recall -- and any DC worth his salt will want the same w.r.t. his defensive staff.
Bottom line: there is nothing uniquely talented about the current defensive staff. Say what you want about lack of experience or insufficient depth or too many injuries, but great coaches achieve above average results with the players they have. This defensive staff has not come even close to doing that.
November 9th, 2010 at 2:44 PM ^
Say what you want about lack of experience or insufficient depth or too many injuries, but great coaches achieve above average results with the players they have.
Does that apply to all the coaches (including RR) or just the defensive coaches? If just the defensive coaches...why?
November 9th, 2010 at 2:49 PM ^
We get it we get it, you hate RR. Now can you stop posting this response on every thread discussing firing or not firing the defensive coaches? On a side note, I disagree with the block quoted section. The Jimmys and Joes are far more important than Xs and Os, especially on the college level.
November 9th, 2010 at 2:58 PM ^
You don't get it. You clearly don't get it.
I don't "hate RR". I think we might not end up being the guy for us, but I don't hate him in the least. I do think that scapegoating the DC failed the first time and I worry that it will fail again. As for my posting my thoughts...ummm...yeah...message board...a place full of people's thoughts. Should folks who continue to call for GERG's head stop posting where relevant to the subject as well? C'mon now...
November 9th, 2010 at 5:21 PM ^
I'm sorry, I was imprecise with my language. I didn't mean you personally "hate" RR, just that you don't believe in him as the head coach. As to why GERG gets the fall and RR doesn't, it's because this offense is the most explosive in the country outside of Oregon. You have the entire team basically coming back next year that has demonstrated an ability to move the ball on anyone THIS year. Now if you want to argue that Gerg should get another year because of all those issues, I wouldn't have a problem with ti, provided there is some house cleaning done with other members of the staff. As it is, I think that most people think it would be easier to get Casteel here for the staff to mesh(I personally don't but that's the argument) than for us to fire everyone and let either GERG or a new DC pick out his assistants.
November 9th, 2010 at 5:44 PM ^
That's fair. I don't believe in RR as the head coach, but I remain willing to give him the rest of the season (unless we lose to Purdue) before demanding he be fired. I also reserve judgment on GERG, but think of RR and GERG as a package deal since RR has now failed with two separate DC's. To talk about hiring a new DC while placing restrictions on the head coach's involvement with that side of the ball (as some have suggested) indicates a lack of confidence in the head coach. If that's the case, he shouldn't have the job.
I agree completely that RR has built an explosive offense. I just feel that a number of other coaches might be able to bring us the total package while RR is limited to success on one side of the ball. That's why I presented the stats above about TCU. Consider their success on both sides of the ball with lesser players. I'd give up 40 yards/game in offense for a top-ranked defense. Anyway, the season needs to play out. PSU was not RR's end nor was Illinois his salvation.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:57 PM ^
Does that apply to all the coaches (including RR) or just the defensive coaches?
Yes. And thank you for helping me make my point.
Unlike the defense, RR's offense clearly is unique and special. To toss out the offense because the defense stinks would be stupid. Specifically, this is what you would be losing:
| UM OFFENSE | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 YTD | |
| Rushing (ypg) | 147.58 | 186.17 | 273.44 | |
| National Rank | 59 | 25 | 9 | |
| Passing (ypg) | 143.17 | 198.33 | 262.44 | |
| National Rank | 108 | 81 | 26 | |
| Total (ypg) | 290.75 | 384.50 | 535.89 | |
| National Rank | 109 | 59 | 5 | |
| Scoring (pts) | 20.3 | 29.5 | 38.9 | |
| National Rank | 99 | 41 | 12 | |
Compare that what we would "risk" losing if we replace the defensive staff and give the new DC authority to hire who he wants:
| UM DEFENSE | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 YTD | |
| Rushing (ypg) | 136.92 | 171.92 | 168.11 | |
| National Rank | 50 | 91 | 84 | |
| Passing (ypg) | 230.00 | 221.42 | 285.56 | |
| National Rank | 87 | 67 | 115 | |
| Total (ypg) | 366.92 | 393.33 | 453.67 | |
| National Rank | 67 | 82 | 114 | |
| Scoring (pts) | 28.9 | 27.5 | 33.9 | |
| National Rank | 84 | 77 | 104 | |
November 9th, 2010 at 4:56 PM ^
RR is the head coach. It is his offense (as you say). It is also his defense. You said, "great coaches achieve above average results with the players they have" and verified you believe that standard applies to all coaches (even RR). So, by your standards...RR is not a great coach. He's a great offensive coordinator; but your standard means we should look elsewhere.
Where? How about TCU...They have the #8 offense in the nation (we're #5) and #1 defense in the country (we're #114). That's an overall statistical average of 6.5 (for simplicity) for TCU and we're 59.5. Those are stats...let's see what type of players they had....
In 2008, TCU didn't even break the top 50 in recruiting, while we were #10. In 2009, they had the #46 recruiting class to our #8. In 2010, they had the #46 class (again) to our #20. This year, they don't even have a single 4* recruit. So, clearly, we have the better talent, but TCU has the better team. Which coach would you rather have?
Where else? How about Stanford...They have the #13 offense in the nation and #37 defense (an overall average of 23.5). In 2008, they had the #50 class nationally, #20 in 2009 and #26 in 2010.
In both cases, these teams with "lesser" players have statistically outperformed us on the field. So, would I "risk" losing our defense and trade down just a few spots, statistically, on offense? Yes.
November 9th, 2010 at 7:11 PM ^
So, would I "risk" losing our defense and trade down just a few spots, statistically, on offense? Yes.
You certainly are entitled to your opinion, but then again so am I. RR's hire should be more than enough proof that you cannot just go out and hire a coach and "poof" instantly get his current team's offense and defense.
UM took a big risk in hiring a "spread" coach and we now have a top 5 offense with a relatively young squad. Moreover, every statistic and trend suggests that our offense is more likely to get better under RR over the next year or two than it is to get worse. The problem is that the defense is a disaster and needs to be fixed. Tossing out the offense because the defense sucks makes no sense. Keeping the offense and fixing the defense makes total sense and that is what I think we should do.
November 9th, 2010 at 8:08 PM ^
We actually agree on more than it seems. I think where we differ is that I think RR is the reason for the problems with the defense, and I don't see our defense improving enough while we have a head coach to whom defense is an afterthought (especially in the Big Ten). I know that might ruffle some feathers, but his interest is in the offense and the result is apparent.
We certainly have our own opinions, which is perfectly cool, but I think RR used Shaffer as a scapegoat and the fanbase (at least here) seems content to do the same for GERG.
November 9th, 2010 at 2:20 PM ^
Look, we have one of the worst defenses IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. Our defense is a national laughing stock. That's the plain, onsugar-coated truth. Not an insult to the players, because they seem like great kids, but there is something really broken on defense.
Is it GERG? Is it the assistants? Is it RR related? Who knows (although GERG would be the second DC to flame out since RR got here, so there is a possibility that the issue is with RR and his assistants, but we will never know). At the end of the day, what top defensive player would come here to play on a joke of a defense where players seem to get worse, not better. Even if just for the appearance of change for recruiting purposes, GERG and/or the entire D staff need to go.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:09 PM ^
November 9th, 2010 at 4:27 PM ^
Sure, some have gotten better. Largely because they are a full year older and have, you know, hit puberty. But, that imcrimental improvement aside, I have not seen a single player make a huge step forward. And some have regressed. But that is not the point that I was making (although I don't think I was clear). My point was that over the course of this season, I expected to see these kids improve - at the beginning of the season, after either UConn or ND, RR even made the statement that with this much youth, we can expect improvement over the season. To my untrained eye, this improvement has not happened. Our defensive fundamentals (i.e. tackling, angles, assignments, overall "smart play") has regressed.
Now that said, I do think that the recent game represented an improvement for this defense, and not because of the result. Even when we were losing, my wife and I both commented that the defense was tackling better and harder, taking better angles, making stops and sealing up lanes. If this holds, then it sort of disproves what I was saying above, and I hope that it does. On the other hand, the improvement that we saw seemed more the result of new players (Demens was a beast!!), position switches and new alignments, so who knows.