he could hardly grip the football; had off-season surgery.
Blame RR first
he was fumbling every time he touched the ball early in the season - there was no way he should have been playing at that point in time.
Of all of the mistakes that Rich Rod has made since he's been here, you chose the worst one to illustrate your point. McGuffie started because Minor and Brown and co were injured. Minor did play against Toledo, he had the lone touchdown and was taken out of the game and to the hosoital afterwards cause he took a really bad shot to the ribs.
If you want to criticize Rich Rod, fine, but at least get your facts straight.
Please inform Brandon of this fact next time you see him, then let us all know how he reacts.
You have officially crossed the line from "dumbass" to some word that probably hasn't been invented yet.
I am guilty of general statements. Minor was never seriously injured during the season prior to Toledo. Minor only had numerous carries in the second half of the season, missed one game and was still honorable all Big Ten.
Minor touched the ball in every game except NW.
Brandon Minor has touched the ball in most of our games this year. That doesn't mean that he's not injured.
The back has also done a better job of holding onto the football. Minor credits his improvement in ball security to a healthy right wrist. Though he declined to discuss the specifics of the injury, Minor said it forced him to carry the ball in his left hand only earlier in the year. With the wrist and an injured hamstring now healed, Minor said he's fine physically.
We can find others if you insist that Minor was never hurt during 2008 and in particular during the first part of the season.
from Minor himself
"It felt like I could have [done] more on a couple of plays because I couldn't carry the ball in my right hand last year,"
Or you can just keep believing he was 100% healthy
Thank you. You also wrote a diary stating your position on the issue. Thanks for that as well.
RR has not performed as well as expected. Neither have the players. He will get at least one, probably two more years to prove himself.
That's pretty much the whole story.
Um, you do know that Minor and Brown were injured and thats why McGuffie played so much at the beginning of last year right? So unless you're saying that RR injured them there is no way that not playing them was his fault.
You're asking why he didn't start injured Carlos Brown, injured Brandon Minor, or temporarily suspended Fullback(!) Kevin Grady over Sam McGuffie? Dig deeper and read more here. The adjust the offense to the personnel argument has been roundly debunked.
You're not impressed with the offensive improvement? The previous regime turned Henne, Hart, Long, and Manningham into 3 points versus OSU and couldn't break 40 points versus a FCS team. You can't really say that the Rodriguez isn't making huge progress on the offense.
Anyone who wants to fire RR now or after the next two games or even after next year, please humor me and at least put forward a credible strategy to move forward. I work in a corporate environment that encourages constructive criticism. However, it places responsibility on the person raising the issue to prepare a credible solution to the issue. I'd love to see that ethic here before there are any more "FIRE RR!!" posts. Use some of the critical thinking you learned (and paid $$) for at UM.
"Fire RR" is not a solution
"Fire RR and hire Pete Carroll" is not a credible solution
And before you propose some other big name coach who of course wants to come here "because we're Michigan", consider that 1) they'll have seen us can a successful BCS coach after only two years and 2) Michigan fans are the only ones who have been buying into the Michigan brand the last few years. It's not as plum of a job as we would like to think.
I couldn't agree more. I've yet to hear a good, plausible alternative to keeping RR and giving him time to build his machine.
I don't think it is that crazy to think that Rich Rodriguez is not going to be the guy to get it done at Michigan. I may be wrong in thinking this and if I am I will the first to admit it when the day comes. And I am going to continue to support Michigan whenever they play and hope that Rich Rodriguez ends up being the right guy at U of M.
With that said, I do not think you can keep him around for the sole reason that you are worried about the next guy that you bring in. Would you even want to hire a coach who has the mindset that he is afraid of getting fired from the day that he is hired. You are right that if we get rid of Rich Rodriguez, there is a good chance that we will not be able to get a big name.
But were Pete Carroll, Bob Stoops, or Jim Tressel big names when they were hired by their respective schools? Michigan wouldn't be able to get anyone on the level of Carroll, Tressel, Meyer, etc. But guys on that level probably never leave the place where they are at. But there are plenty of good coaches/coordinators out there who would be willing to come to a school like Michigan. None of those guys would be a sure thing and I would be placing a lot of faith in the athletic director to pick the right guy. But if you think that Rich Rodriguez is not the guy at Michigan (a assertion that is subject to doubt and by no means certain), then that is a risk that you are willing to take.
I didn't say there weren't alternatives, I said I hadn't heard any good and plausible alternatives. At this point hiring a coordinator or non-bigname HC with potential is a substantially greater risk than letting RR have a few more years. And I'm not advocating merely keeping him on the basis of less risk either. Many factors have all culminated against him - some perhaps his fault, no coach is perfect, but most of them not (see Misopogon's defensive recruiting analysis, for example) - and as someone who has proven to be a winner every where else he has been I think he should be given more time in order to have a fair shot. But that's just me, I tend to be a reasonable and patient person.
Like you, I would probably say "You know, RR just isn't working out and we need to look for someone else" if after the 2011 season if the team is struggling to reach .500 and a bowl game and is continually getting their butts handed to them by inferior opponents. At this point, though I'm less certain than I was before, I'm willing to wager that we'll be just fine by then. We'll see.
for every carroll, tressell or meyer there are probably 10 john L smiths, bob davies, ty willinghams, etc.
RR and GERG will be successful at UM given time. they are damn good coaches. they increased their pts per game by 12 so far this year. it will only get better. ditto for the D.
Yeah, I'm more concerned with the defensive position coaches not being good enough more so than GERG.
Yeah, I'm with you. The D is my big concern unless they increase their scoring average by another 12 pts again next year. RR will be successful at UM or if we fire him prematurely, he'll be successful at his next gig while we're breaking in the next guy.
First, I'm ambivalent about RR at this point; I wouldn't be surprised/hurt/giddy if he was canned or kept on during this offseason.
That said, for pure speculation's sake, what are the chances that we could get Brian Kelly here during the offseason? Or another good coach. There are a lot of guys out there who run systems that wouldn't require "getting all their guys" in to be effective, and thus a change wouldn't necessarily mean another two years of misery. Your point about the institutional reputation that comes with firing a coach after two seasons is valid, I think, but I would also think that most college football coaches are egocentric enough (the profession selects for that) to think that they could do a lot better than two losing seasons in a row (if that comes to pass). And, really, I think had we hired a different good coach who didn't need to blow everything up to fit his system, we wouldn't have had losing records last year and this year.
RR is clearly a good coach, but the biggest problem at this point is culture. A losing culture takes on a life of its own, and sometimes the only antidote is a major change, often at head coach. You saw the culture change with Carroll, Saban, Tressel, Stoops, and Meyer. The guys who preceded them weren't bad football coaches, per se, but things were stale, and a shake-up was needed. This happens in pro sports all the time. Guys who have histories of success get canned after a couple years because they lose their players or because the culture turns sour. I don't know if we're at that point, culturally, after this season if we drop these last two games, but it's a real concern.
"And, really, I think had we hired a different good coach who didn't need to blow everything up to fit his system, we wouldn't have had losing records last year and this year."
This is exactly my point. Schiano, Ferentz and Miles all turned us down last time. You think the job looks more attractive now? What other different good coach are you getting?
You're an executive with two job offers...
1) A smaller company that hasn't had a lot of success but wants to get better. Exists in a small-ish media market and kinda flies below the radar. Pay is $300k/yr. If you make the company bigger and better, you're a legend in the business world.
2) A larger company that has had a long history of success but has been losing market share for 10 years. Exists near a Top10 media market that compares all teams and coaches to a ghost that existed almost 30 years ago in a different business climate. Pay is $300k/yr. If you make the company bigger and better again, the best you can expect is a marginally favorable but never equal comparison to said ghost.
Seriously, which one would you choose? Job1 is a lot of other schools. Job2 is UM. No matter how egocentric you are, Job2 doesn't look so hot.
I think you could add location to the equation, too. Brady Hoke split to SDSU for reasons other than the depth chart, I'm sure. I'm just speculating, but it seems like there a lot of coaches--and I would include Brian Kelly here--who have almost reached their ceilings at their current positions and may want to see just how high they can go (and not live in Cincinnati). But, sure I see your point that it's not the most attractive position.
Wolverine Nation needs a wakeup call. The "because we're Michigan" mentality has to stop. I never realized this until I moved away but we sound so stupid everytime someone says it.
... Brian Kelly. Is a young up-and-comer in the Big East - two-time Big East coach of the year so far! - who has has tremendous success at every level using the spread offense and inferior recruits.
Hmmmm. Remind you of anyone?
Get your shit straight before you vomit out this trash.
Brian: Why no chaos mitigation this week? I generally just don't go online after games like this one, I should probably stick to that.
You're not a heretic. However, since it seems that your entire argument is based on the McGuffie/Minor issue you're clearly misinformed. So, since that theory has clearly hit the crapper, what else is the "sole doing" of RR that has lead us to a 5-5 record so far?
It certainly hasn't been the 1 and 1/4 recruiting class he has to work with, and inheriting the most sieve-like defense in the modern era.
I love how people eschew the facts right in front of them; offer us something tangible, please.
You do if your team isn't any good. Bad talent/depth/experience on the roster equals bad team no matter who the freaking coach is.
Add this to the list of dumbass grievances spouted off by Rodriguez's critics who ignore the actual make-up of the team (by far the most important factor in determining on-field success in football) and instead just bitch about losses that they deem "unacceptable."
Lloyd Carr got us into this mess by not recruiting well as he prepared for retirement. A team with the following characteristics:
FIVE walk-ons on the 2-deep on defense;
a qb depth chart of freshman, freshman, noodle-armed walk-on, Coner;
a conversation about the teams best player includes the punter;
only 11 players with expiring eligibility after this season.
For comparison, all eleven starters at OSU are juniors and seniors.
We have some talented freshmen and sophomores, all over the offensive skill positions, plus a few here and there on the defense. Those are the players that Rodriguez brought in. What we don't have are the solid role-player seniors to fill in the gaps. Those are the players that LC brought (or didn't bring) in. If you want to blame RR, do it in 2011.
At the same time you can look at other coaches who inherited much worse situations that Rich Rodriguez and have managed to do much better by their second year. No one is asking Rich Rodriguez to take Michigan to the national championship or anything but there is at least the expectation that there be some signs of improvement.
As for the young team argument, a young team should be improving as the season goes on. Young players are supposed to get better and all I have seen from this team is massive regression.
You can also look at the players we currently have on defense and look at recruiting rankings and I'm pretty sure that Michigan would be higher than any team in the big ten not named Ohio state or Penn State. I am not looking for the 85 Bears defense out there, but I would like to see be able to slow down teams like Purdue or Illinois.
Rich Rodriguez is constantly talking about the situation that he inherited and nothing angers me more than to hear him say this. He inherited one of the best programs in college football which was coming off a victory against Florida in a bowl game. And maybe there was a lack of depth, but there have been plenty of coaches who have faced similar problems and still figured out a way to get it done.
It would be foolish to not have expected some growing pains. And I think that by growing pains people were thinking like 7-5 or something like that.
Point out one situation where a coach inherited a worse situation than Rodriguez and did more with it. We're talking about the actual team he inherited, not the results on the field in the Capital One Bowl with all the players that left immediately after that game. Show me a more depleted roster that a coach inherited or a younger team that won more games and I will believe you. Until then all you are doing is uttering platitudes about how "teams should improve" and "mistakes fall on the coaches."
Also, look at the actual depth chart on defense that Misopogon again put up in a diary, and tell me with a straight face that this defense is talented (instead of citing recruiting rankings that don't take attrition or actual roster construction into account).
How about Jeff Tedford. In the three previous year prior to his arrival Cal won a combined 4 games. In year one he won 7 games and in year two he won 8 games. Or how about Bob Stoops in the previous 5 years his arrival Oklahoma won 6, 5, 3, 4, and 5 games. In year one he won 7 games and in year two he won 13 games. Or how about Pete Carroll. In the previous 5 years before he came to to USC, they won 6, 6, 8, 6, and 5 games. In year two they went 11-2 and did not look back. Or even Mark Dantonio. John L Smith left no defense at State and the previous 5 years to Dantonio they won 4, 8, 5, 5, and 4 games. In year two they won 9 games. The list goes on and on. The only kind of places where a coach has failed to get in done by year 2 (but does so later) are schools like Rutgers and Kansas.
I said the actual roster that they inherited. Not how many games the team won the year before.
Pete Carroll inherited Carson Palmer, Troy Polamalu, and tons of other guys playing in the NFL right now. Everyone agrees that John Blake did an excellent job recruiting at OU before he got fired (and Stoops' only national title came with Blake's players). State is still mediocre under Dantonio (they had a blip because they eeked out wins against bad teams in a year where they still got destroyed by any team with a pulse). I don't know enough about Cal's roster to comment on the Tedford transition, but my guess is he had more than one scholarship safety on the roster (Mike Williams is the extent of the safety depth chart inherited by Rodriguez).
Try again, with actual facts this time about the roster that these imaginary coaches who succeed with no depth/talent/experience inherited.
I think that is the point that he is trying to make is that one of the qualities of good coaches is that develop the people they have on the roster. Troy P. wasn't an NFL all-pro on day one when he got to USC. Pete Carroll and his staff made him the player he was if I remember my USC history correctly. Christ - Lloyd Carr won the Big Ten title with John Navarre at Quarterback as a senior. Bob Stoops developed the players which were gotten by previous coaches.
It isn't like Lloyd took kids off the fuckin street for a team. They showed something to get a scholarship to Michigan and had other offers. I want to see Rich Rod develop players on defense. I don't think that I am being unrealistic about this expectation.
Maybe alot of those USC guys are playing in the NFL because of what a great coach Pete Carroll (and Norm Chow) is. Before Pete Carroll came to USC Carson Palmer was a not a good quarterback and was not going anywhere. The talk in Southern California at the time Pete Carroll took over was that USC had lost it and all the good players were going to places like Oregon and Washington. It it easy to say that a guy like Pete Carroll inherited a better situation but he had something to do with those players thriving and going to the NFL. As for Stoops, while Blake had recruited alright its hard to go back at this point and find levels of attrition on a lot of those recruiting classes. And that national championship team was probably one of Stoops least talented teams.
I don't disagree that Dantonio was lucky to be 9-4 in his second year. But you cannot seriously argue that he had way more defensive depth that Rich Rodriguez did coming in. John L Smith did not really leave much on the defensive side of the ball and both State and Michigan play pretty similar schedules. Michigan manages to lose to both teams with a pulse and teams that also
As for Cal there is no argument to be made that Rodriguez walked into a worse situation then Tedford. When you are winning 1 game a year, there is a serious lack of talent on your team.
I ask you to find me an example of coach who had a similar start to Rich Rodriguez and eventually managed to get the job done. The four examples that I could think of were Ferentz, Mangino, Schiano, and Gary Pinkel. And of those three only Ferentz has had the kind of success that would be acceptable at a place like Michigan. I am truly not familar with Ferentz's situation when he took over Iowa except that their record was not very good to talk about the attrition and its effect on his team.
5 wins his first two seasons, never won more than six games until year seven.
There, that is one more example than you could give me. I might mention Bear Bryant's one win team in his first year at Texas A&M (which more closely parallels the Rodriguez situation because Bryant already had a track record of unprecedented program success at Kentucky), but that would just be showing off.
I disagree with you on both USC and Oklahoma. All those players from USC are in the NFL because of Pete Carroll. Prior to him the general talk around the USC program was about their general lack of talent. But how can you deny that Cal and Michigan State were both trainwrecks that got completely turned around. Michigan State had one of the worst secondaries I have ever seen with John L Smith. I seem to remember a number of midget corners hopelessly trying to cover Braylon Edwards. Cal was a team that could barely win one game a year, you cannot argue that they had more talent than U of M.
As for the examples of Bear Bryant and Frank Beamer neither of those is very relevant as Beamer took over his program 22 years ago and Bear Bryant even longer than that. Both in times that were different eras for college football. And Beamer was at a school in Virginia Tech which is nowhere near the stature of Michigan. Bryant even won 7 games in his second year at Texas A&M
Since 1995 (the year Carr took over at UM), Virginia Tech has been to five major bowl games and won two of them. Since 1995, Michigan has been to five major bowl games and won two of them. Seems like pretty similar stature to me.
The rest of your ridiculous arguments have already been proven wrong.
Ara Parseghian went .500 his first year and then won no games his second year at Northwestern, as soon as he was able to coach some talent at Notre Dame, he won some National Championships.
Some dude named Schembechler was on his staff at Northwestern, too.
i would say graham, warren, brown, van bergen, roh and woolfolk have all improved since RR's arrival.
now the sieves that are at inside LB and safety have yet to show similar improvement; but the talent isn't there at those spots either.
inherited 7 starters on offense: ); 9 of the projected starters were upper classmen (2 soph); including SR Kyle Boller at QB (an NFL starter) vs a walk-on QB and a redshirt tranfer frosh.
inherited 9 starters on defense: 10 of the projected starters were upper classmen (one soph). UM has 3 walk ons getting starts or significant playing time on D.
i think tedford landed in a perfect job opportunity. he inherited decent talent; especially on offense, on a team that underachieved.
Tedford took over a team that in their previous 5 years won 3, 5, 3, 0, and 1 game. Returning starters for a team that in their previous two years had won one game does not count for much. Being a starter on a bad team counts for nothing. Even someone like Kyle Boller, it is a testment to Tedford that he was able to get drafted in the first round. He is a bad NFL qb who has done nothing in the league
So Tedford gets credit for Kyle Boller getting into the NFL for the 1 season, his senior season, that he played under Tedford? That is interesting logic....or lack thereof.
So what does it say about Stoops that he could finish 5-7 this year?
it ain't so easy to win with frosh QBs now is it? and he's working with a studly defense.
I think RR has done a good job this year with the O. When was the last time this team could score this many points consistently during the season. Not only is this team scoring tons of points, but they're doing it with a FRESHMAN qb. And the supporting cast around him is very young too.
The problem isn't the O its the D. Some of it may have to do with the coaching, but a lot of it is the talent. Brian or Tim posted a chart about the D recruiting since 2005 I believe and you can see it right there. Most of those recruits have been busts even after they transferred. The ones that have stayed haven't been good either. Stevie Brown only became good after being moved from his saftey position. Even look at some that graduated. Morgan Trent was pretty bad most of the time. The recruiting from LC was pretty atrocious in his last few years, and I liked LC.
You gotta give the man some time to recruit his guys, get some better recruits on D, and I can see this thing being a well oiled machine.
Unfortunately, RR didn't inherit the team that beat Florida. If he had, this whole transition would have gone a lot more swimmingly.
Regarding recruiting rankings on defense, look at the positions the players were actually recruited for. None of the four starting linebackers were actually recruited to play their positions. Woolfolk wasn't recruited to play cornerback, and Kovacs and Leach weren't recruited at all. And these are the first-stringers!
Yeah, "we're Michigan." But we were Michigan in the 1950s and '60s, too. We were Michigan in 1984 when we went 6-6. Having the name Michigan doesn't make us immune to the effects of having 69 scholarship players, a true freshman QB, porous OL and very little talent at LB and S.
"Unfortunately, RR didn't inherit the team that beat Florida. If he had, this whole transition would have gone a lot more swimmingly."
Having that defense would have been nice.
Watching Chad Henne trying to run a run option offense may very well cause me to defecate from laughing so hard.
It would have been interesting to see how RR could have coached a pure pocket guy like Henne. We probably wouldn't have seen too much option, but he may have called some QB draws. Henne had decent straight-line speed.
or as the BTN calls it:
Chad henne running the option can't have been much worse than Steven Threet, and at least henne had the passing skills to make up for it.
I had to register because I need get this off my chest. Talent isn't the only thing that makes a successful coach. It certainly helps, but it isn't the only thing. I think I have been around the block long enough to figure out you need to have an equal contribution between talent, strategy, flexibility to adapt to your teams strength, and the ability develop and get the best out of your players. I thought that Rich Rod was great and taking crappy players verses the big boy BCS schools and beat them. If the only hope is that Pat White and NFL caliber defenders walk though that door to be successful, we are pretty fucked.
My biggest concern about Rich Rod to date is that he has only demonstrated the strategy part well and seems pretty inflexible about adapting to the strength of his team. I love the O and want him to be successful more than anyone, but where is the ability the coach up people, especially on defense. Good coaches take bad players and make them better and take good players and make them great. I mean teams win superbowls with undrafted free agents playing. You can say a lot about Lloyd, and lord knows that I did, but Lloyd and his staff developed a lot of players in his tenure and it isn't like every single one was a five star out of high school. Most great players were developed a lot in college. It seems like everyone thinks that we are going to get All-Americans from day one out of high-school. Really doubt that is going to happen and these guys need to be developed, especially on defense.
Also, most successful coaches adapt to the talent of their teams and try to seamlessly integrate their systems as warranted. For Christ sake, Mike Tomlin was a 4-3 guy his whole life. When he got to Pittsburg, he saw that he had one of the best 3-4 on the planet and adapted to use the strengths of his team. Urban Meyer slowly switched Florida to the spread. Parcells threw 50 times a game in New England. Tressel ran the spread with Troy Smith. I can keep going if people want
Rich really needs to show the other successful qualities before I am certain that this will end well. Otherwise, we better have 11 all-American defenders show up with the next recruiting class or it will not be pretty for the foreseeable future. I hope he can do this, but too use the corporate analogy, I really haven’t seen any results that give me confidence this will be the case.
Neg-bang away if you wish.
Regarding "coaching up" players, Leach and Kovacs are walk-ons who are now starting. Do they count?
No. Don't keep going. You don't know what you're talking about. How do you "adapt" your scheme to a team that lacks enough talent, depth, and fundamentals?
Just to pick one of your lousy examples: At Florida, Urban Meyer had Chris Leak, a talented mulit-year starter QB, protected by an experienced offensive line and supported by a ton of depth on both sides of the ball from excellent recruiting by Zook. And there was that Tebow kid, too.
One of my good friends went to UF during that time and no one thought the Zook left the program in good shape. Just lost to John Navarre and Michigan with Rex Grossman. He had recruits in name only and hardly developed talent on the field with results (Kind of like the same stuff I hear in Chicago about the illini) Meyer won with those kids and slowly adapted his offense to reflect the one today run with Tebow.
I am always looking to make my arguments better - Help me understand how my other examples are crappy.
Help me understand the game of football better.
You keep saying that good coaches develop their players, and infer that Rich Rod isn't a good coach because he doesn't develop his players. What the hell do you think he's trying to do? Have you seen the roster? Our #1 and #2 QB's are TRUE freshmen, and the rest of the offense is loaded with freshmen and sophomores. The defense is also very young, playing lot's of freshmen and sophomores - not to mention a student body walk-on that made the team only this past spring.
I would say that RR is indeed developing his players, he just can't do it overnight. You can't expect TRUE freshmen to develop into All Americans in a matter of months, it takes time.
Florida not in good shape? a top 5 QB in his class and a returning starter (leak), two top 5 WR in his class (caldwell and jackson), a top 10 RB in deshaun wynn; all of whom were upper classmen.
they returned 7 starters on offense and 8 on defense. they avg 32 pts per game on O and gave up 21 pts on D in 2004 (zooks final year).
What, exactly, is the strength of our defense as you see it? I'd submit the D-Line. Should one of the defensive linemen be moved to the secondary?
I'll even take the knock that RR was too stubborn last year in implementing the offensive system whole hog. But, all of those players were inexperienced and had to learn a new system...why not have it be his? Also, the results this year on offense support that decision.
The discussion on Zook is a relevant one. He's a bad coach but a good to great recruiter. Meyer was fortunate to be a hot commodity back then. He didn't need to do a whole lot of rebuilding. That's the issue we're talking about here. If you believe MIchigan needed to be rebuilt, what's a reasonable amount of time for that? If you don't, then why don't you believe the data that has been presented to you?
As for rebuilding I'll aggressively assume that a good head coach can do it in two recruiting cycles: one offense heavy class, and one defense heavy class. Next season's team should not get blown out by anyone, beat the teams that are not as good as them (Illinois and Purdue), and go to a bowl game. If those things do not happen next season, it will be hard to defend Rodriguez.
uh, i believe RR preferred a 3-3-5 defense at WV. he's not running that here; except for last year's purdue debocle. our d-line is our strength, so he's maximizing those players on the field, as was also done last year.
I am not sure because you haven't said so yet, are you concerned with RichRod coaching up defensive players?
"Elite coaches win the games they are supposed to win and most of the games that are tossups."
Nick Saban - lost to Louisiana-Monroe in his first season at Bama
Pete Caroll - lost to 41-point underdog Stanford AT HOME in 2007
Lloyd Carr - The Horror
This is college football. Shit happens.
but "shit" usually doesn't mean breaking every record you've held. Or going 3-9 last year. The post was correct in many ways.
We'll get the ship righted. I mean, I'm still sure we'll finish 7-5 this year . . .
We will just have to agree to disagree and let the results on the field speak for themselves going forward next year and in the future.
I will root like hell for them the win the next two games and will never question Rich Rod’s or anyone's desire to win for Michigan.
The reason I haven't negged you on any of your posts is because you're a nOOb, and because you seem like a true Michigan fan, just a frustrated Michigan fan. I'm frustrated too, but I see the talent on the field, and the youth on the field, and I know that given time, Rich Rod and this team will be great. Keep cheering for the Maize and Blue, and have some patience - good things are coming.
I've been an outspoken supporter of Rich Rod so far - on this board and at the games. I'm willing to give him 4 years. By 2011, Rich Rod will have "His" players in their 3rd or 4th year. If Michigan isn't competing for the Big Ten title by then, we might have to start re-thinking things. Until then, keep the faith... I still have confidence that this team will pull out at least one upset in the next two weeks.
God I hope we win a game so that this shit can stop.
I'm fine with questioning RR, I question his decisions at times too. But clearly there's a big problem when guys can't hang onto the ball, can't tackle, can't stay with their man, etc. The coaching staff will either address this, or they'll be coaching somewhere else in a few years. Outside of that, the rest is just finding guys that can come in and raise the level of play up to big ten standards (at least). Given the number of recruit names I've heard bandied about, I'm guessing that one way or another we're getting more defensive recruits once the chips start falling. Till then, rest well and dream of large women.