Jesus tap dancing Christ.
To Be the Best, You Have to Beat the Best
... the internet.
How can you not find something positive? It's simple--you're trying to make an argument while presenting a subjective and inherently flawed case. You're an idiot if you think this will fly on a board of considerable intelligence. What if I listed all of the negative things about living in Ann Arbor, for example, and cited only the winter weather as "cold, harsh, and unforgiving". Would that be a clear assessment? No, and for this reason it represents an accurate analogy for the drivel I have just finished reading. You need to return to composition class and learn to craft an argument.
Ahahaha, they're analogus because you decree that both are wrong? You need to pick a new batch of insults to fire back with if you're going to make proclomations like that.
Where did I state that they are wrong? They merely function on selective information and propagate a misguided version of events. Just like winter isn't the only time of the year, Rich Rod's tenure has not been entirely bad. To complete the analogy, after winter comes summer. Please think before you type in my presence or I will decimate you and your E-semen.
"No, and for this reason it represents an accurate analogy for the drivel I have just finished reading. "
Right there actually. Your comparing the selection of a parameter of one situation (Winter) to the state of the other situation (That Rich Rod hasn't been completely terrible, which, not surprisingly, isn't relevant to this conversation), they're not related. Winter isn't the only time of the year, and therefore it's a poor parameter to choose. He however chose every single victory under Rich Rodriguez, and used it to show we're not beating many good teams. Your story is no analogy. Cute tag at the end though.
To hear that you find it a poor parameter to choose. You are presenting more fallacies, though. Are we discussing winter, or the perception of winter? And what is this sentence:
Winter isn't the only time of the year, and therefore it's a poor parameter to choose.
Fine, balance us out. Let's hear some of those good things that have occurred during RichRod's tenure. What specifically happened during the 2008, 2009 and 2010 seasons (and off the field as well) that have enhanced the stature of college football's winningest program?
That's a ridiculous argument. Why would he be compelled to find something positive to say? If my wife started sleeping with another dude, I would divorce her. Sure we had lots of good times, but none of that matters if she's cheating on me. You can certainly debate whether his criteria is sufficient to send Rodriguez on his way, but your douchey attack at his argument style is stupid.
Me? I support. I think with a little more time we're going to have a new kind of team that is going to beat everyone. But hey, I don't pretend to have the expertise that so many on this blog seem to assume that they have...
We aren't beating good teams because we don't have the horses. Look over our depth chart, especially the defense. Does that look like a team that should be expected to beat good veteran teams?
You have to evaluate a team's progress each year based on realistic expectations for that year, not based on where the program was a few years ago. When Brian did his season preview, he said that he expected continual improvement every year until Michigan is back to being Michigan. If you don't see the improvement, you're blind. The offense is shredding almost everyone we play, and the defense's problems are understandable.
with you about most things in your comment, sorry, not on the offense. Not in the least. We haven't "shreded" any ranked team this year. I don't care about yards gained, blah blah. What matters? Points scored. Points scored when you actually have a shot at staying close, not when you're down by 4 scores. The fact of the matter is that the defense is very vulnerable. The offense came out flat, AGAIN. You can't expect to win games against teams like Wisconsin if your supposed "amazing offense" plays like crap. The defense came out alright, actually, and had a few good stops. Then, when we had a chance to set the tone of the game by taking the lead, the offense didn't help them, plain and simple. I mean, how long did you really expect the defense to hold Wisconsin down? Especially given the fact that the offense didn't score a single point in the first half. Yeah, the defense played like crap, but I'm putting at least half of this on the offense.
There are multiple threads to put this on, just look at the board. No need to keep posting this type of stuff, they all lead to the same arguements from both the pro and anti-RR camps.
Let me get this right. You want to fire RR? Damn. Mind=blown. Where were you three years ago from making such an egregious mistake. You my friend, are a soothsayer. But I do enjoy the shit you unicorn riders spawn in the coming wave of hilarity that is MGoBoard.
For us here on Earth please watch the great philosopher that is Katt Williams:
how much do we have to donate to get an ignore feature?
You're the kid in the back seat of a long car ride asking, "are we there yet?"
How long are we going to hold the 2008 season (a year in which the aforementioned Jesus Tapdancing Christ couldn't have won 6 games) against RichRod?
Just looking at the complete and utter lack of quality wins over three years. Beating UConn was supposed to be a win over a BCS-caliber team; they're not that. Beating a top-10 Wisconsin turned out to be beating 7-6 Wisconsin. Beating two over-hyped ND teams turned out to be beating two thoroughly mediocre/bad Notre Dame teams.
I'm not being a hater, and I see the improvement on the offense and the excuses for defense. I just think we should be honest in recognizing that when RichRod says, "I'm not making excuses, but..." it's just as much excuse-making as when Charlie Weis said "I'm not blaming my kicker, but..." and then blamed the kicker.
When you boil it down, the difference between 2009 and 2010 are this: we didn't collapse against Illinois and we didn't bone ourselves out of the Purdue game. Everything else is the same (ND, Indiana) or worse (MSU, Iowa, Wisconsin).
Not winning two more games despite replacing EMU with an above-.500 UConn team?
Not scoring 34.3 ppg in the Big Ten, up from 22.1 ppg last year?
Not averaging 521.8 ypg this year, up from 384.5 ypg last year?
Not having a QB that just broke the all-time NCAA QB rushing record with TWO GAMES REMAINING?
Wouldn't a fairer statement be that the difference between this year and last year is the complete, unmitigated implosion of the defensive secondary, only part of which you can blame on RR or GERG (unless they took a baseball bat to JT Floyds ankle, Troy Woolfolk's ankle, and JT Turner's and Boubacar Cissoko's heads)?
All UM's defensive problems don't come down to 2 injured players.
Who decided UM was going to run the 3-3-5, because I have never read a quote from robinson saying it was his idea or he wanted to make the switch
Who decided to hire Robinson to begin with? As I recall it was RR seeking robinson out at the coach's conference after he was fired from syracuse.
You guys all complained and moaned about Schafer(sp?) at the end of RR's first year and were excited at his firing. Now he is running a top 20ish defense (in the ncaa stats rankings) at syracuse. A school that doesn't recruit like UM does.
You can't blame Robinson alone for the defense, if you blame Robinson you blame RR, he made the decisions which got UM to where they are now.
Having zero healthy safeties in the junior/senior classes (classes Rodriguez had nothing to do with recruiting). Having one healthy corner in the junior/senior class (a mediocre player who had bounced around from offense to defense and never came close to seeing the field until this his fifth season on campus). Having only four scholarship linebackers in the junior/senior class (at least it is enough to field a defense, but your defense isn't going to be any good if Obi Ezeh has to play MLB by default).
I'll give you a dollar if you can find a more inexperienced defense anywhere in the country. That is why we aren't good at defense.
It isn't like these guys have raked in five consecutive top-10 recruiting classes and still can't stop the fucking fullback dive against Navy.
I have plenty of problems with what the defense has been doing. But SO much of the defense's strategy is based on having 4 healthy corners, three of whom were in high school 6 months ago. When you can't ever leave your corners on an island, and you're starting freshmen at free safety, your options are pretty limited.
Schafer had more talent to work with (Terrance Taylor, Brandon Graham, Tim Jamison, Donovan Warren, Morgan Trent, etc) and gave up nearly as many points per game as the current shell of a defense, despite not facing teams that felt the need to score on every drive because they faced a team with a napalm-rigged offense .
nearly as many points because he had an offense that had twice as many 3-and-outs as scoring drives.
If you combined our 2008 defense with our 2010 offense, you're looking at a Rose Bowl team, plain and simple.
I wasn't excited at his firing, I still wish he were given a fair shake.
wow this is very similar to what drove ND fans to be so vacal about firing Weis. Those wins really do put it in perspective. Wish ND wasn't on that list so much, so at least you have that
if we have an Irish fan saying that other Irish fans were using a similar rationale for running Weiss out of ND, why would this be something we want to emulate? Do we want to be ND, where the entitled, whiny fan base cuts the legs out from under every coach who comes into town and sends them packing after 4 years, resulting in decades of mediocrity?
I think everyone agrees that your scenario is what we'd all hope to avoid at Michigan, but do you really think ND would be off if Weis was still the coach?
Weis was given time to turn the program around. He had 5 years. He did not improve consistently as Rich Rod has been doing. Two different situations. Weis inherited a team who was arguably more talented than the teams he later put together.
Unfortunately a large segment of Michigan fans seem to be even worse than Notre Dame fans. RR is still building a team. Even in the Weis era he had 5 years to show what he could do. Now there are crazy Michigan fans wanting a coach fired before he even has a senior class.
Weis, a coach who had zero college coaching experience and teams got worse as he stayed, was given 5 years. Rich Rodriguez, a coach with a very, very successful college coaching background hasn't even had a senior class, has improved every year he has coached at Michigan and fans want to run him out of town. Do you not see how Michigan fans are actually sounding more ridiculous than Notre Dame fans at this point? Even Notre Dame AD's who make poor decisions realize you have to give coaching hires a chance to show what they can do with a full group of their own players.
and it is ridiculous. When things like Wisconsin and Penn State happen, people go straight for the pitchforks. We aren't used to losing, I guess. Perhaps ND wouldn't be better off with Weiss, but their pattern of coaching roulette should be exactly what we try to avoid
It wasn't just ND fans, not even close. It was sports casters, other fan basses, all saying the same thing when it came to bowl games and weis's record. It is the exact same reason UM posters said weis would be fired, I didn't buy much into it at the time but thats how it worked out in the end.
Unfortunately we cannot control what our opponents do and how many games they win. Is it our fault then, that all those wins saw that our oppnents went on to have mediocre seasons?
I realize we haven't had a "signature" win (barring Wisconsin 2008), but a season nor a team is built upon individual wins. You have to look at the big picture. Right now we are bowl eligible and have won more games than we have lost. We will get better, the sky has yet to fall my friend.
even Wisconsin 2008 isn't "signature" - that team ended up being mediocre, too.
But my point is, how can we control that? How can we control that our opponents NOT be "mediocre"?
What do you expect? That we make our schedule on a weekly basis? I realize that we haven't beaten teams with great records at the time of playing them, but many of the teams we played did have decent ones. Even Indiana was 3-0 this year when we played them. How can we control their records to ensure that they win more games? We can't.
That end up being good? How do you control that...? Well, beat more teams is the easiest. But beat some that are already good, or seem more likely to be good. Teams in November like Wisconsin and OSU you already know are good. Teams like Bowling Green, you can pretty much guess even in September aren't going to be good, no matter what you do against them.
I get that we have to practically go undefeated to satisfy all your needs as a Michigan fan, but that isn't going to happen every season. God I would love for it to -- don't get me wrong -- but we're not playing NCAA 11 here either.
Yes we have to beat teams that we "percieve" to be good, but wasn't it everyone and their mother who predicted preseason that UConn was going to be a seasoned team that won the Big East outright? Now they're middling at 5-4 and it's considered a weak victory.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have high expectations for this team, we wouldn't be true fans if we didn't, but we also need to have realistic expectations and everyone knew that going in this defense would be terrible and the weak link on this team, hence why many predicted this team to go 7-5.
We got the required number of wins needed for RichRod to keep his job, we shall live to fight another day. We will take some "good" teams down soon enough, or else there will be changes. Don't be afraid, they will be made if deemed necessary. As for now just remember that Rome wasn't built in a day, we will see the light again.
No, I never expected this team to be "practically undefeated". But you and your ilk keep throwing out these straw men that no one has even said. But yes, in an ideal world, a Great Michigan season means one or two losses, a good one is 3, maybe 4 depending on who you beat, and anything less is bad. 4 is bad if you lose to all your rivals. And undefeated is a dream season. (Though to hear people talk, we brought in Rich so we could do away with those awful 9-3 seasons).
And it has nothing to do with "perceive" to be good. We perceive in September. In November or later, you can make pretty logically assessments on who's good or not. What was done was see who is a good team or not, at the end, when we can really judge. I can say if we beat OSU next week, we beat a good team. It's not going to change in a bowl.
I don't know if we've hit the required number of wins or not. We've been told time and time again, there is no number. Frankly, if we end up 7-6 with two embarrassments to end the season, I'm not so sure. If we end up 8-5, I'd feel a lot surer.
But I'm not worried. I'm not going to get fired. I don't have to fire anyone. And anything I say isn't going to make any difference. I think it's the people who are a 100% sure he's back, and invested in being right one way or another that are whistling past the graveyard.
Well I understand what you are saying and I agree to a point -- by this time in the year, we should know who is good and who isn't. However, to penalize the team for a previous win just because the team they played ended up having a poor season is a metric that should not be used. Like I said, we have no control over how their season plays out, only our own.
We have to win the games that are on our plate, regardless of the opponent's record. I would love for all of Michigan's opponents to have 11-1 records so long as that one loss came against Michigan, but that is out of our scope of control. You're going to play teams that suck and play teams that are good. Should we win the ones against teams that are good? Yes of course. But if we lose the ones against the teams that suck, we would already have another head ball coach by now.
I guess I also have to agree with you in that we don't know whether the wins are enough. I misspoke and realize that like Dave Brandon said himself, we have to wait till the end of the season. I support RichRod only in the hopes that I want him to return Michigan football back to prominence. If he is not doing that, then he needs to go. If we don't see continued improvement next season, then he will be gone. That I am sure of.
You may be totally right, but you set yourself up by being too nice. Ended up being a easy target for all the young 20's dildos that think Madden football equals real life.
Just because you have numbers, doesn't make your argument sound. Leave the statistics analysis to those who don't start with an agenda -- like Mathlete -- and stick to calling into 97.1 to voice your frustration.
All indicators on offense point to improvement -- against good teams and against bad teams. On Defense, our team simply is poor. Average to good teams can take advantage of that. It's not rocket science. If we can solve the defense thing in the next couple years -- and by solve I mean be middle of the road -- we will be a contender year in and year out, for the big ten title always and occasionally for the national title.
When your reason for "contending year in and year out" is "If we can solve the defense thing in the next couple of years...". I mean, we could solve it. Though it is a pretty big thing to solve...it's not some tiny little problem. But if your argument is based on a mighty big IF, maybe you shouldn't be telling people to go call talk radio....
UM held the ball for 9 mins in the first half and scored no points, how is that improvement over last week or any other game this season? From the UM games I have seen, that is the worst first half for UM's offense this year.
... long time. Glad to see you posting again.
My argument wasn't at all about this game. Over the course of the RichRod era we have seen great improvement on offense. I'm not looking at one half, or one game, alone.
I guess I haven't seen enough UM football this year then to agree. The offense is better than last years but I haven't seen improvement through the year. Denard didn't get the respect from opponents till the later half of the year, or me for that matter, but teams are/have adjusted to the new personnel and are keeping UM out of the endzone.
The QBs, RBs and WRs seem to be getting the crap beat out of them in the 2nd half of the year. Not sure if its conditioning or just because they're relatively smaller than the opponents but UM isn't putting the same offense on the field that came to ND stadium in week 2
Your point about the offense is taken. The truth is, for all the yardage it puts up, it's very inconsistent when it comes to scoring. In fact, in all four games we've lost, our offense has struggled to score in the first half. Here are our first-half scoring totals:
MSU - 10 points
Íowa - 7 points
PSU - 10 points
Wisc - 0 points
In the latter three games we ended up scoring 28, 31 and 28 points, which is respectable, but every time we were playing from way behind in the second half. Why we can't seem to score against good teams when the game is close is hard to figure out.
We're better in all phases of the offense now than we were against ND except one that is pretty important:
I can't wait for this kid to get better and better and he will, but right now, the biggest thing that's slowing down our offense is the nerves jangling around inside of him.
Clearly opposing D's are better prepared to face him than they were when we played ND, but that doesn't change the fact that he regularly overthrows WR's who are wide open for TD's that he would have hit in stride earlier in the year. Missing Stonum on the 2nd drive is an example.
Denard has a ridiculous amount of talent... the only thing standing in his way is himself.
And finally, Irish and jmblue, in spite of the fact that he's a sophomore who makes a lot of mistakes while playing with a defense that loves to stay on the field, we're still not far from being the highest scoring UM offense of the last 100 years.
Nice analysis. Thanks. I'm in the give-RR-one-more-year camp right now (with an overhauled defensive staff), but I appreciate the post regardless. Interesting claim that a signature win offers evidence of what a system can do, if everything goes right. Despite the team's problems with youth, you would hope that everything would come together at least once and we would beat a good team. People on this site say it all the time, that we have a chance against good teams. A lot of the types who are harassing you for this post suggested that we had a good chance against UW, that we had a good chance, and that we were favorites against MSU. At some point, it'd be nice to make good on one of these chances. I'm hopeful before every game we play that we'll win; part of me really believes that we will. But it's just never the case that everything comes together for RR. I don't know why that is.
EVERY big game. Not with this team. But one would be nice. I mean, we've lost a few we had no business losing. And that happens. But Great coaches pull upsets too. And you can only pull a true upset when your team is worse. So to completely upset someone would balance the scales some.
The nice thing is he has another try next week.
the week after in a bowl. In a bowl. In a bowl. You have to repeat that for some.
It might not be anyone all that impressive to be notable. This isn't probably, since most bowl matchups have us way overmatched (Missouri, Oklahoma), so it's likely he gets another shot. I was just going for the guaranteed thing.
but it is nice to see Michigan playing 13 games instead of just 12.
M-Wolverine, I agree completely. Right now we're a team that wins when we're supposed to, with the exception of Penn State, and loses when we're supposed to. And it's frustrating because we're used to magical things in Michigan Stadium. And over the last three years, the magic is mainly limited to (as the data presented by the OP shows) underwhelming wins.
But that said, winning when we're supposed to is progress, compared to when we couldn't outscore Toledo, couldn't stop Purdue (twice!), and imploded on the goal line against Illinois. And like you say, we've got one more week to truly pull an upset and win a game in conference that we're not supposed to.
Because next season, the expectations are high, and there are no reasons not to win.
Weren't we favored against MSU? Seemed like they struggled with Notre Dame just as much as we did. I remember they were deemed the favorite by many after the fact of getting outright embarrassed.
Exactly this man. I went to the M-MSU game this year and when Denard scored that 4th quarter TD I regained a small bit of hope for our team. I really thought we could win.
And this is the kid who sat with his head down eating the "buck o fries" through the 3rd and 4th.
After the apocalypse that was that game I just had given up on our team, I was in tears the whole way home. You know what I was saying to my dad? The guy who is always saying that all good programs have down years, to give them time and all this stuff.
"Dad there ain't no magic left in Michigan. We've just ran out. The Big House magic is just gone. There's no more Wangler to Carter, no more Braylon hail mary's or :01 wins over Penn State, none of that exists anymore. Hell we haven't returned a punt in god knows how long"
Imagine some kid in tears saying that. My weekends are influenced by these games. They influence my family because- like today- I was just in a terrible shitty mood that made everyone hate me. I spent all day in my room watching college football.
Fuck you David Brandon, Rich Rod, and Greg Robinson, I've tried too many times to be All In.
And never forget the effort and hard work that makes the magic possible
If we're "right there" or just "inconsistent," then we should be winning SOME of these, or at least, one? My challenge to the blind followers: what performance this year (complete performance) makes you think we can turn the corner with this group of coaches?
Denard is an amazing talent, but the record he broke today was an Air Force QB's record (which most of us didn't know existed until this year, if we're honest). Denard is also the first 1,500/2,000 QB, which is great, but really, he's also the first 1,500/1 QB. Denard being good at football is not reason enough to keep the coach. If so, you'll never make a change.
Many people on the blog have made the comment that "with this offense, we can beat anybody on any given day," and then those same people say, following a loss, "we were supposed to lose to that team." At some point, you'd hope that our prolific offense would beat a good team, even when we're not favored.
I'm not sure why this isn't happening, but it's worth talking about. And it's completely fair to raise criticism in a thoughtful way, as you're doing here.
the single strongest argument for those favoring his dismissal. I just think that with an offense this good, and this young, and a D this incredibly young--with the many blows it has suffered personnel-wise--an equable assessment sees plenty of reasons we're likely to be better. And that that buys him another year.
-Defense wins championships
-Champions are made not born
-Big time players make big time plays
-Only the strong survive
-Absence makes the heart grow fonder
All these are great platitudes that don't explain the issues we're having, just like yours doesn't. How about you actually try to provide some insight instead of listing who we've beaten. I think we all know that. There are good, well-reasoned arguments for why Rich Rod shouldn't be back. This, however, is not one of them.
I just did some research and discovered that in Rodriguez's entire coaching career, not just at Michigan, NOT ONCE has he beaten a team which finished the season undefeated.
Beating a team that only lost five times would be nice, though. Even vaunted I-AA UMass (who we were all claiming was one of the "better teams in FCS" just like App. St., or better than, earlier this year) is 6-5. Just read that sentence - a team took us to 42-37 in the Big House that is 6-5 in FBS. In year three. With our "unstoppable" offense.
Our unstoppable offense put up 10, 7 and 0 points in the first halves of each of the MSU, Iowa and Wisconsin games, too, BTW. Statistics don't tell any story completely (final score, tons of yards, etc.).
.....has said our offense was "unstoppable". They clearly are as they shoot themselves in the foot way too much. Against MSU our first drive ended in a bad pass that was picked, two drives ended by penalties putting us in 3rd and long. Against Iowa it was much of the same. Wisconsin is the only one I feel comfortable saying that they stopped us, but even then we had an overthrown pass(most likely for a td), and several dropped passes.
Neg away all you want on RR and the team, but the future looks very good for UM football IMO.
RABBLE RABBLE RODRIGUEZ RABBLE
If I was able to pos vote you I would. This comment and your picture made me crack up. Sarcasm like this helps lighten the blow of a 20 point home loss.
We fell off the cliff three years ago. We went 3 and freaking 9 and lost to freaking Toledo at home. You may argue that this happened because Rich Rodriguez is a bad head coach (though the fact that the team has improved every year since that point and his prior extensive track record of success would make it pretty definitive that the problem had more to do with the roster than with the guy in charge).
By the time Rodriguez coached his first game at Michigan, the wheels had completely fallen off the program (and teams with no wheels go 3-9). You can blame whoever you want to for that happening, but it was a done deal. Since then we've seen a team get markedly better two years in a row, a team poised to improve for a third straight season with 19 starters and virtually the entire two-deep returning next season. Not to mention the team now has some legitimate star players for the first time in Rodriguez's tenure (aside from Brandon Graham and the best punter ever).
Maybe the rebuild isn't going as fast as you'd like, but teams that go 3-9 and lose to Toledo do need to be completely rebuilt, whether you like it or not. We've finally got the wheels back on the car and the doubters need to just shut up and give Rodriguez one season to drive the damn thing.
The OP makes a point about Rodriguez's teams not raising up to beat a supposedly superior team once in almost three seasons. You respond with the company line response that everyone has heard a millions times that speaks in generalities instead of specifically addressing what he says.
We aren't a good team yet. 3-9 teams don't beat anybody, much less good teams. 5-7 teams don't do much better. We've just gotten to "competent" and the OP is complaining that the results aren't better. That isn't being specific in your complaint, it is just whining.
Would anybody really be happier if we'd lost by 20 to Illinois but beaten Wisconsin in triple OT? No, they wouldn't. The same people would want Rodriguez fired and the same people would want him to stay.
I have to disagree. I would definitely prefer losing to Illinois and beating Wisconsin. That would show a young and inconsistent team, but one that had the guns to compete with the better teams occasionally and offer a glint of hope.
"the wheels coming off" was not a "done deal." Michigan had just completed their previous campaign by defeating a Heisman Trophy-winning Tim Tebow's Florida in the Capital One Bowl when RichRod took over. In nine months, he had us losing to Toledo.
I'd even mind it less if the Defense had improved from 2008; they got worse in 2009, and (shockingly, due to the history of the whole thing) even worse now in 2010. Blame coordinator changes, but RichRod hired the first guy, fired him, hired the 2nd guy, and has made both work with his assistants from WVA. Blame recruiting, but this is RichRod's 3rd year, meaning even starting from scratch we should have at least ONE sophomore contributing (let alone a junior?) - so that's on him, too. Injuries aren't preventable, but he's not the only coach to deal with those. Obi Ezeh hasn't improved since his 2007 campaign. Who on defense has? This is ultimately the head coach's job - it was forgivable in 2008, questionable in 2009 and unexplainable (other than responsibility by him) in 2010.
And not like losing Long, Hart, Henne, Adams, Arrington, Manningham, Crable, Kraus had anything to do with 2008.
But the fact remains that in December 2007, no one would have ever imagined that the last three years would go as they have. You can look at the archives of this site and see the comments. Entering the 2008 season, Brian predicted a 7-5 record. The general consensus going into that year was that it would be a rebuilding season by traditional U-M standards - not a horrific abyss from which we wouldn't emerge for years.
Winning the Capital One Bowl with a roster full of NFL players has nothing to do with what happened in 2008. Like I said, you can blame Rodriguez for what happened in that offseason if you want to (though those subjects have all been beaten to death here and largely decided in Rodriguez's favor) but by the time the season actually rolled around we were a 3-9 team.
Craig Roh has started basically every game since he's been year. Jordan Kovacs is also a two year starter. Courtney Avery is starting as a freshman. Cam Gordon is starting as a RS freshman. Carvin Johnson started the season opener as a true freshman. Thomas Gordon has played extensively and started games as a RS freshman. Jibreel Black has seen significant playing time as a true freshman.
Do I need to keep going in my quest to find one underclassman/RR recruit who is contributing on defense? Brandon Grahma, Stevie Brown, Mike Martin, JT Floyd, and loads of other players have improved under Rodriguez as well. Jonas Mouton has doubled his TFL's from a season ago and has made 36 more tackles in the same number of games.
Just because Obi Ezeh isn't terribly good at playing football doesn't mean the staff is screwing up.
God forbid our team of mostly freshmen and sophomores isn't challenging for the Big Ten title. Yes, our defense needs to get better, and that likely means that GERG gets shown the door at the end of the season. Realistically though, how many teams with our lack of experience at so many positions would be expected to be any better than Michigan is this year. OP, you need to sit back and have a little patience. Let our young guys grow into their roles on the team. If we haven't made progress next season, then that would be the time to bring up this subject again.
"If we haven't made progress next season, then that would be the time to bring up this
Thats what RR supporters said last year.
I think you could agree with that
And they went from 5-7 and losing 7 straight to being 7-4 with an elite offense and a chance to win 8 or even 9 games despite fielding one of the youngest and least-experienced defenses in the country. To me, that is progress. 7 wins won't cut it next year, but 7 this year isn't that bad.
This is Michigan football. We have built-in advantages over every team in the Big Ten except maybe OSU. We're expected to beat average and poor teams. We're judged against how we perform against the good teams. How have we fared against good teams?
Lets see, Michigan's football facilities, tradition, alumni base, academics, national TV exposure... It's these types of things that should be allowing you to go head to head with the Buckeyes for recruits and future NFL talent. Instead, we're butting heads with the Cincy Bearcats and WVU's of the world.
You just woke up from a coma? Right? Because that argument died about two years ago.
Dude, if you really have 7000+ Mgo points, then you're the one thats been in a coma. Run over to chuck-e-cheese, see if you can exchange them for tickets, and then buy your sweetie something nice.
What built-in advantages?
Talent? The state of Michigan is not a hotbed of football talent, and UM shares it with another B10 team.
Facilities? They are very good, but I'm sure OSU, PSU, Wiscy, etc. all have similar-enough facilities.
Location? Madison is a fun college town, Happy Valley seems like a cool place, Champaign has its charms, Northwestern is near Chicago, etc. Ann Arbor is great, but Michigan is cold in the winter, doesn't have the best track record for employment opportunities, lacks that "cool" big city, etc. I love the state and the city, but it is not a slam-dunk.
Academics? Top notch, and that might be the only ace in the hole because really only NW has a higher profile academically, and even that can be debated in certain fields.
Tradition? Yeah, that exists, but I don't think that resonates with recruits like it used to. Even if it does, every school has its die-in-the-wool fans and recruits that will sign with them.
So while there are some intangible advantages for UM, the overwhelming schematical advantages that you claim UM possess don't jump to mind.
"Tradition? Yeah, that exists, but I don't think that resonates with recruits like it used to."
You're kidding me, right? There are about a dozen schools in the nation that have the college football "it" factor based on tradition alone. I promise you the schools who possess it consider it to be golden and priceless. Almost any bowl would love a matchup between any two based on ratings alone. USC, Texas, Nebraska, Michigan, Alabama, OSU, Oklahoma, ND, to name a few. These names alone will make a recruit's ears perk up. Yes, even in 2010.
that "IT'S MICHIGAN FOOTBALL DAMNIT!!!" doesn't take anything realistic into account. RR is recruiting top-notch talent, and the offense is already torching people...but they're still sophomores and freshman. Unfortunately, talent doesn't instantly translate to wins. Remeber 2005? Hart and Henne were sophomores (like most of our offense right now), and that team ended up 7-5.
The recruiting is fine, but you have to allow it to fully develop. Next year, RR will start to have some upper classmen on his roster, as well as more experience on defense to make it average, and we adjust expectations accordingly.
And one more thing, "IT'S MICHIGAN FOOTBALL!!!" isn't an argument.
"that "IT'S MICHIGAN FOOTBALL DAMNIT!!!" doesn't take anything realistic into account.|"
So I guess not having a losing record even once from 1969 through 2007 wasn't "real"? See, I'm comparing 2010 to the very "real" seasons of Michigan football BEFORE rr arrived. Comparing 2010 to '08 & '09 and deeming it progress is fine, if you're happy with mediocrity.
What built-in advantages?
Oh, give me a break. We're the winningest program in history. We've won 11 national titles and 42 conference titles. We've led the nation in attendance 36 of the past 37 seasons. We have arguably the most popular fight song in the country. We have perhaps the most popular uniforms and helmets in the country. We have one of the best combinations of academics and athletics in the country.
If you want to defend RR and argue that the future is bright, fine. But stop trying to act like we're just another program. This is a special place. Don Nehlen said as much to RR when RR asked him for advice. It really bothers me that it seems like in order to defend our current staff, you basically have to trash our school and its tradition.
And they went from 5-7 and losing 7 straight to being 7-4
Just how great is the difference between five and wins, anyway? Consider this: in each of the last two seasons we've played an overtime game. I think you can agree that OT is pretty much a crapshoot, with the team that wins the coinflip having an edge. Last year we lost our OT game. This year we won. If simply the results of those two overtimes were reversed, then we'd have won six games last year . . . and six games this year. And just like last year, we've lost four conference games by double-digit margins.
If we can knock off OSU, then we will have indisputably seen progress made. Right now, I feel like we're just taking halting steps.
.....hold water if RR was coming to a team that suited his offense better his first year. Or if he was coming to a team that didn't have a serious lack of overall talent on D.
I have serious reservations about firing a coach after only 3 seasons, or even 4, particularly when the team has shown progress towards something special happening soon. Anyone who cannot see the potential for greatness in our offense, or realize that our D is severely hamstrung by the lack of experience, probably never liked the hire in the first place.
And for those thinking it, people like me are not happy, or even content with, a seven win regular season. We do, however, see the promise in this team, and we can place our expectations on the side of realism based on the team's shortcomings.
RR should be fired if and when it becomes clear the program is 1) not at the level of expectations and 2) unlikely to improve beyond the current level with the current players. It's unreasonable not to expect the team will improve next year. Complaining about the quality of wins to date is akin to the economic fallacy of focusing on sunk costs. In order to beat a far superior team they obviously have to play worse than they usually do, and a collateral of being Michigan is that nobody's going to overlook you on the schedule. You can't hope for someone to bring their B game like you could if you were rebuilding at Minnesota.
we have been piss poor on ST (except punting) 3 years in a row. What is taking so long for this team to figure out how catch a kick, how to kick a FG longer than 20 yards out, etc? This is the part that is most baffling to me.
When can we expect improvement in ST?
This is exactly the way I've been thinking about it and you've said it quite succinctly. Looking at how we've been losing in the past at using it as justification for a decision is idiotic. It's like looking at a startup company that has been in the red for 3 years and deciding to shut it down without regard to whether it is reaching its benchmarks and get into the black. The same can be said here. You have to look at where we are now, see whether we are progressing or regressing and then decide. The fact is we are winning more games each year. Those "signature wins" will come.
but I feel like the expectations are being adjusted (read: lowered) every year. Be honest, what were your expectations for our record in 2010 when RR was hired in 2007? Answer honestly.
I fear we're getting into the habit as a fanbase of a mythical great season being either one or two years away.
Of course, I thought we'd be better. But I also thought that if Steven Threet were a reasonably enough talented quarterback he'd probably do just fine in RR's offense. It's not a readjustment of expectations so much as a readjustment of our perception of what was true in the past.
I just really disagree with you. It's not all Steven Threet's fault that we haven't beat a good team in three years. As for what was "true" in the past, maybe RR didn't insert enough I-form packages into the offense to accommodate his personnel in 2008. Maybe he made bad hires that didn't develop his talent. There are a lot of variables that come in to explaining why we are going to the Insight Bowl (thanks to two last-minute heroic drives by a quarterback that is more insanely naturally gifted than anyone could have imagined) in year three instead of sitting at 9-3 or 10-2 or 11-1 like most people would have expected upon RR's hire. We can readjust our perception of what was true in the past until our faces turn blue, but when you evaluate something, you set target outcomes at the beginning and then you evaluated those outcomes at the end.
RR has not done a good job as the head football coach at U-M. That doesn't mean that he's a bad guy or that he's a cheater or that he deserves the ridiculously unfair shake he's gotten from the local press. He just hasn't done a good job and that will bear out in his evaluation. I want him back for one more year but at this point it's only for the reason that it would be arduous to rebuild in a new direction, which is a bad reason.
That's not to be taken as "it's Steven Threet's fault", it's to be taken as an example of what we thought was true, wasn't true at all.
If you can point to things that RR has done or hasn't done and you think that means he's a bad coach, well, that's your opinion. But comparing the record now to our 2007 opinion of what it should've been is way oversimplifying the matter. In January 2008 I thought we'd be "back", sure. In January 1998 I thought we'd repeat as national champions; that wasn't a good reason to fire Lloyd Carr when it didn't happen.
If you want him back for one more year, surely that means you think next year will be better than this one. If you think next year will be worse, there's no logic at all in wanting him back. And if you think next year will be better than this one, that's not a bad reason to want him back.
RR should be fired if and when it becomes clear the program is 1) not at the level of expectations
If that's the criterion, do you think he should be fired then? Surely, three years ago, no one expected this. Two years ago, no one would have expected us to win only one more conference game than 2008. Even last year, I'm not sure people would have been happy if you'd told them we'd have seven wins this year. The "Rodriguez leap" has never really happened. It always used to in year 2.
Well, c'mon, man. There's a reason why I said "and", not "or."
Because that's what I mean about readjustment of perceptions of the past. As long as the program is on a noticeable upward slope, and you can reasonably expect that to continue, it doesn't mean that the problem is that Rodriguez can't fulfill expectations. It means that the problem was that the difficulties in doing so were greater than we thought they were before. If you're taking steps every year, why throw everything back into chaos? As punishment for losing to Toledo? If next year is 7-5 or 6-6 and the defense sucks equally and it looks like it'll still suck in 2012, by all means pull the trigger. If next year is better than this year the same way this year is better than last year, what do you gain by firing the coach? But at this point, any reasonable person would see we've improved from year to year and any reasonable person would see a lot of potential for that to continue.
Well, as you anticipated, there have been a rash of "FU you are an idiot for having an opinion that we don't like" posts.
You are entitled to your opinion. And, I for one, agree. WE are 7-3 and have not beaten a single winning team. We have scraped by terrible teams like Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, ND and UMass, and have been thoroughly outclassed by EVERY good team we have played.
Yes, our offense can put up points. However, when we play good teams, those points are traditionally when we are already down by a ton and the other team is going into prevent mode. Sorry, I don't call losing to every decent team on our schedule progress.
As for the argument that we have a lot of youth on defense, this is a valid point. But, what does that have to do with being shut out in the first half on defense, having numerous fumbles on offense or not being able to HOLD ON TO THE DAMN BALL on special teams?
So, while your opinion will be VERY unpopular, I agree with you.
Well, not to add to the misery, but the team is technically 7-4.
I agree that everyone can take his or her own stance on the progress of the team, but I disagree that Wiscy was going prevent to start the second half, or that they did much to stop UM on the drive that ended in the missed FG. Good defenses can slow down this offense in spurts, but where you say you see defenses easing up at halftime, I see an offense that makes some adjustments and begins to move the ball. I saw nothing out there in the 3rd quarter that showed Wiscy playing significantly differently on defense.
Last year we lost to Purdue at home and got blown out by a terrible Illinois team. Beating those teams may not impress you, but it is the definition of progress (just like not losing to crappy MAC teams last year was progress after 3-9).
No one is happy about the results the last few years, but acting like we aren't on an upward trajectory is just an excuse to bellyache.
Last year we took MSU to the wire on their field and blew out FCS Delaware St. This year we got trounced by MSU on our field and had to scramble to barely beat FCS UMASS.
Plus we had a chance to beat Iowa on the road last year. They toyed with us at our place.
The offense is more potent against average and below average teams. No one is disputing that. That is definitely encouraging too. But our ability to dominate quality opponents with out offense is a future hope, not a present reality.
I agree with you that we are improved and likely on an upward trajectory, but reasonable minds can differ on that point if you look at our play against good Big Ten teams. People who aren't confident about where this ends up are justified.
MSU won 6 games last year. They were not a good team. This year they are 10-1. Comparing the outcomes as if we played the same team both seasons is silly. UMass is a perennial playoff team in FCS. Delaware St. is one of the very worst HBCU's playing football. Again, the comparison really doesn't make any sense.
The only good team we played close against last year was Iowa and the game this year would have gone exactly the same if say Stanzi had given us another free 7 points or if Courtney Avery makes that open field tackle late in the game.
Anyone saying our offense is dominating good teams at the moment is not telling the truth. Anyone who is excited that we are certainly going to dominate good teams next year is just seeing the reality of the situation when a team this young puts up these kinds of numbers and returns a starting player at 10 of 11 spots on the offense next year.
Fans must give the man a fair shot before he is judged. A fair shot is not picking apart every loss as if assuming we have equal talent and experience to the teams that have beaten us. A fair shot is not nitpicking at the wins and claiming that they are not good wins simply because they did not come against the good teams. Realistically speaking, given the state of the program at the end of Carr's tenure, I would have expected only slightly more wins than what RR was able to accomplish even if Carr had stayed or the new coach put in a more adaptable offense to the personnel.
If the improvement isn't there next year, then I'd say RR has had his fair shot. But then again, I expect next year to be a better offense and avg. defense which should translate into 10 or so wins.
This is the fundamental point. I have written off the defense for the year. We've learned it's futile to hope they'll be anything other than horrible.
But Rodriguez is supposedly an excellent offensive coach and many claim that this offense is great. But this purportedly great offense has been shut down in the first half of every game against teams in the top half of the Big Ten. I didn't expect them to beat many of these teams but in games against MSU, Iowa, PSU, and Wisconsin, one good, competitive first half from the offense would be heartening. But we haven't seen that. This is what really worries me. Even if the offense improves they will, at best, be able to compete with top half teams in the Big Ten.
And returning to the defense, the best we can hope for is mediocrity next year.
I really don't get this line of reasoning. So our offense doesn't do good against better B10 teams in the first half but comes out and makes it a game in the second half. Then we say "RichRod stinks and is a bad coach because the offense sputters in the first half" without giving him any credit at all for making adjustments and getting the offense up and running and back in the game. I guess we are doing well in the second half of games because the coaches don't make adjustments and suck, right?
When we beat Ball State 34-26 in 2006, did we give them credit for great halftime adjustments? Not so much. The consensus was that we built a big lead, took our eyes off the ball a bit, and let them back in it. Fans of Iowa, PSU and Wisconsin could argue much the same. In all four of our losses, we've trailed by 20+ points in the second half. They haven't been very competitive games. That's the problem. When the score has actually been close (like in the first half), we've struggled to score. And even with our second-half comebacks, all four losses have been by 10 points or more.
The poster isn't saying, "There hasn't been a single good thing about RR's time here." He's saying the sum result has been failure. He offers empirical evidence.
Others see mitigating factors. Fine. It's really unbelievable how few people here tolerate contrarian arguments and go with the our-country-right-or-wrong bs. Okay, now cue up the "We don't hate contrarian arguments; we hate idiotic arguments, you asshole." That's called ducking the subject.
This board is still miles better than some others where if you aren't on the "FireRR" bandwagon you are in a very small minority. This board, more than any others I read, is the most realistic in expectations and temperment which is why I joined it instead of the others.
Out of the teams we have lost to this year so far, 3 of them are ranked, all four have been ranked at one time, 2 are one-loss teams and likely to end up that way, and if, please god forbid it, we lose to tOSU, 2 of the 5 teams will have made BCS games.
The OP only looked at the wins to determine, in his mind, that RR is a failure.
If one was to look at the losses, it tells a different story altogether.
In 2008, UM had 9 losses. Out of those, 4 were to teams without a winning record. The other losses were to an unbeaten, a one-loss, a two-loss and two that ended the regular season with 9-3 records.
In 2009, UM had 7 losses. Out of those, 3 were to teams without a winning record. The others were 3 10-2 teams and one 9-3 team.
This year, UM has 4 losses to date. Out of those, 0, thats right, I SAID ZERO, were to teams without winning records. Out of the losses, two are against teams that will most likely end the regular season at 11-1, another at 8-4, and one probably at 7-5.
Improvement? I say it is. I also say RR is on the right track and that at least one more year is required before making a judgement.
Is it improvement, or just good fortune? This year, we're 4-0 in games decided by single-digit margins. Phil Steele considers that a sign of being lucky, since those games are theoretically tossups. When Iowa won a ton of close games last year, many of us assumed that they couldn't keep it up this year (and they haven't), and likewise, many of us assume that MSU won't be as fortunate in 2011. So it is wise to assume that we'll be just as fortunate in close games next year? If not, how will we improve our record? This year all our Big Ten games have been either tight wins or lopsided losses.
When RR is STILL the head football coach at the University of Michigan
I don't agree with your conclusion, because I think the team is improving and that the ability to create an offense like this one comes very rarely. Which leads me to think that RR can potentially be the kind of coach that delivers championships. I mean, I know that it's easier said than done, and it's stupid to play "what if" games, but "what if" we can get a defense together that is the 50th best defense in the nation> Combined with this offense? How about the 75th best defense? (I'll bet someone has already memorized the stats that would predict our record with this offense and the 75th best defense...)
That said, I hate to say it because I disagree with you, but you make a good point here. Still doesn't make me agree with your conclusion for the reasons stated above, but this is a good point. I hope the coaches are thinking about how to change these results about 20 hours every day. Assuming the NCAA allows that kind of thinking, that is.
but i still think he should get another year. i think he gives michigan the best chance to win in 2011. beyond that...who knows
You raise an important point, and no mature poster should shoot it down. Why haven't we recorded any signature wins? The 2008 team played over its head to win those Wisconsin and Minnesota games. Those games gave us hope for the future. But what since then? Even with two more years of games, those are still probably our two best wins of RR's tenure. This year we've had four opportunities to record a better win than those, and we've lost by 17, 10, 10 and 20 points. It's sobering. How much progress have we really made if we still can't compete with good teams three years in, and how realistic is it to expect that we'll be able to do so next year?
Even RR seems to acknowledge that we should be farther along than we are. His claims about us getting better every week just don't ring anywhere near as frequent or heartfelt as they once did. He seems increasingly deflated, rather than defiant. And he does indeed keep making excuses. The coach most people here have deified (Bo) would never do that. He'd say, "you wanna blame someone, blame me. We don't make excuses at Michigan. We win or we get someone who can, period."
Michigan has not beaten a single ranked opponent under RichRod. But as someone famous once said: "It's in the past".
What it's all about now is trajectory. What direction are we heading?
Finally having a winning season and going to a bowl game is a very positive thing . . . but only as a means to an ends. It's only a milestone on the way to becoming a championship calibre team.
If we are still struggling to merely have winning seasons and make December bowl games when RichRod's recruits are seniors, then it's time to close the operation down. That's not why RichRod was brought here.
So what is our trajectory? Are we headed toward championship calibre teams?
We're clearly headed in the right direction on the O. Even when it plays poorly, it scores enough points to compete.
The big concern is on D and on kicking. Without major changes, I don't see a line of sight where they are ever championship calibre.
UM isn't that good yet.
We had 2 losing seasons so wow - shocker - we didn't beat anyone good.
I expected 7-5 and it looks like that is where we're headed.
Next season - 7-5 would be a huge disappointment.
only 5-6 contributing Srs
The offense ...
17-19 returning starters next year
Decimated Defense is not all on RR
3-9, 5-7, to 7-6 or 8-5
there probably isn't a better offensive coach
there probably isn't a worse defensive coach
Decimated Defense is partially on RR
We never beat good teams
the D will still be very bad next year
... w/o Mike Martin
Special Teams are "special"
How much defensive talent do we really have? By 2012 we lose every current DL contributor except Roh
did i miss anything?