Blowout Loss Argument(this post is not about RR)

You haven't coached the University of Michigan.  As such, you could not given the AD a compelling reason to fire you.  I can think of one subject of conversation here who has.  

Basically, the argument put forward that "win/loss records don't matter because Brady Hoke is 47-50 and got hired" is just plain silly.  Hiring decisions are based on all kinds of intangibles, as well as win/loss records.  Firing decisions are almost always based on the coach not meeting certain benchmarks within an allotted time.  For example:

1. Not winning more than losing

2. Not beating archrivals enough times to satisfy alumni and boosters

3. Not perceived as making enough progress to justify salary

4. Not meeting established expectations for success

If Hoke performs similarly in the next 3 years, I expect him to get the boot too.  Since I'm a fan and alumnus of the University of Michigan, and not a coach or offensive philosophy, I really hope that doesn't happen.  

"1st off, RichRod delivered a defense much better than MAC defenses as we kicked the shit out of MAC teams."

Yeah!  Except when we lost to Toledo, the first time Michigan had ever lost to a MAC team.  I would have been terrified to play NIU or Miami last year.

"Please tell me how poor defensive talent in 2008 wouldn't translate to a poor defense in 2010?"

His point was the defense wasn't talent-poor in 2008.  It wasn't and it shouldn't have been this year.  Massive attrition on the defensive side of the ball coupled with an ability to recruit defensive players added to GERG meant 2010 awfulness.

Your argument about drafting might, maybe just have something to do with coaching.  Or our decision to go from a pro-set to a read option offense.  The painful transition had something to do with it, but we weren't exactly talent rich either.  That being said, many teams don't have ten players drafted in 4 years and still post better defensive showings than we did.

"Tell me of the amazing 7 guys drafted in 3 years, 1 of them being a punter."

Wait, so we were only three under the total you arbitrarily set, but that's a clear and definite example of our being talent poor?

"So will every NFL team, but what do they all know."

Usually very little about winning at the college level.  But yeah, using this metric, Michigan definitely was just the equivalent of Indiana the last three years.

How many of our most talented defensive players in 2009 and 2010 were recruited by Rich Rod, and not by Lloyd?

Martin?  Lloyd.

Graham? Lloyd.  

van Bergen? Lloyd?

Warren? Lloyd.

Woolfolk? Lloyd.

Perhaps some of Rich Rod's defensive recruits will end up shining with some more experience--I hope so.  But as of right now, I see two that are on the level of these 5: Demens and Roh.  Other than that I see a bunch of transfers, couldn't-meet-lowest-academic-stardards-es, washouts and mehs, who were put in a scheme insisted upon by the head coach that might not have been entirely appropriate for conference even if coached well, but wasn't even coached well by an inept defensive staff chosen by the head coach.    

As a result, our defense didn't improve, or even tread water.  It went from severely underperforming considering the talent level (2008), to terrible (2009) to historically bad (2010).  

Let me repeat that--historically bad.  As in, the University of Michigan has never fielded a defense as bad as the one in 2010.  I don't have the record books handy, but I imagine the 2009 defense is the only one that would give it a run for its money.  We sucked--flat out sucked.  In 13 seasons, Lloyd never fielded a defense that sucked.  Some that underachieved, yes.  Some that were disappointing, for sure.  But none that sucked.  

Yes, all the freshmen in the backfield contributed to that.  No doubt.  But the defense I saw wasn't just suffering from a talent deficit.  Poor tackling, missed assignments, blown coverages, lost contain, confused linebackers, etc.  These are all coaching errors.