only difference is we are now going through a coaching change. this means new schemes and strategies for the players to learn. i expect in the years the defense will improve more than it will this year.
Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon
Blowout Loss Argument(this post is not about RR)
February 4th, 2011 at 5:16 PM
#302
only difference is we are now
February 4th, 2011 at 5:18 PM
#303
You should have stopped at
You should have stopped at this:
I'm done fighting about Rodriguez,
I would advise you to stop being irrationally attached to a man who posted the worst record in school history. He's gone.
February 4th, 2011 at 5:21 PM
#304
Yeah I agree, it's done, it's
Yeah I agree, it's done, it's over with, move on.
February 5th, 2011 at 3:54 AM
#305
I don't feel like I was
I don't feel like I was "irrationally attached" but it was hard for me to think about the first week or two. It's like a breakup...at first it's awkward with the new girl (or guy, whatever) and then you realize the world will be okay and not much different and you move on. Parts of it still sucks, but there are bright things ahead of us too.
February 4th, 2011 at 5:33 PM
#306
I didn't see it that way
I didn't see it as an attempted defense of Rodriguez (although Ziff may, for all I know, have some attachment to RR). But I thought that was a pretty good post.
There are so many unpredictable things over the course of a game or season, especially in college sports, that t's impossible to look at a team's results one year and determine exactly how good they can be the next year.
Another good example is Miami (NTM): This year, they became the first team in NCAA history to go from 10 losses one year to 10 wins the next.
That said, we do have some deficiences that aren't immediately going to go away. It's just a matter of whether new coaching and more experience -- along with (hopefully) on-field momentum -- can combine to overcome those.
February 4th, 2011 at 9:02 PM
#307
yes
This had nothing to do with RR. I was complaining about the posts. RR is done.
February 4th, 2011 at 6:21 PM
#308
I agree. Had RR been brought
I agree. Had RR been brought back I would have spent the next year arguing with you about him. He is gone people, it's time to let it go. I was a big supporter right along with a lot of you but much like when you find out there is no such thing as Santa, there is no turning back now. Time to wrap your head around the fact Brady Hoke is our coach.
February 4th, 2011 at 10:21 PM
#309
Please, please, please,
Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please.
Please.
Please, please.
Follow your own advice.
February 4th, 2011 at 5:25 PM
#310
Some comments
1. "I'm done fighting about Rodriguez"
Well, then why did you start an entire thread that will lead to just this.
2. I agree that the score of any one game or even 2 games is not a good predictor, and that the examples that you reference are good ones. HOWEVA:
Those of us that talk about the blowout losses do not point to a single loss or even few. We point out that EVERY SINGLE DECENT TEAM that we faced this year wiped the fucking floor with us. And, the magnitude of the losses increased throughout the season, culminating in the debacle against OSU and whatever is worse than a debacle in the Gator Bowl.
Now, if you don't like using the score as a metric, fine. Did you watch these games? You are usually one of the most rational, knowledgeable posters, so I know that the answer is yes. Can you honestly respond to this post and say that we were even remotely competitive with Wisco? If yes, OSU? If yes to that (which you cannot rationally answer), in the Gator? It's not just the score - we were so outclassed by the better competition that it was a joke.
3. Poor turnover ratio
The other major problem with the direction of the team was that from 2008 to 2009 to 2010, the turnover problems that plagued OUR OFFENSE (which was not playing 10 freshmen, like the D) were not improving. This is not a surprise, since when RR was at WVU, even when he had great teams, they were amongst the worst in the nation in turnovers. This is a trend that cannot be denied.
4. Lack of defensive improvement during the season
Again, if the scored don't do it for you, just look at the performance. By the time our D played Wisco, many of the players had 8 or 9 games under their belt. Still young, still thin, still lacking in some experience, but they should have gotten better throughout the season. They did not. Wisco ran 25 straight times. Think about that. And we didn;t get a single stop. So, when people reference the blowout losses, it is not just the score, it is how we lost.
Are turn-arounds possible from one season to the next? Sure. Look at ND, for example. Based on how they progressed over the course of next season, I expect them to be a hell of a lot better next year. They improved. We, however, regressed, so any hope for automatic improvement is based on little other than hopes, wishes and misplaced faith.
Now, I am sure you will say, "but wait, next year, the players will have had a whole spring of practice, and they will be older." And that is valid. But, weren't you also one of the posters saying "I can't wait to see how awesome we will be in the Gator with those 15 extra practices and time to heal our injuries."
February 4th, 2011 at 5:37 PM
#311
tl;dr
tl;dr
February 4th, 2011 at 5:37 PM
#312
Fact check
I have just one issue with your post:
This is not a surprise, since when RR was at WVU, even when he had great teams, they were amongst the worst in the nation in turnovers.
This is wildly incorrect. In RR's last five years at West Virginia, his teams were 4th, 46th, 7th, 25th and 9th nationally in turnover margin. That's three top-10 finishes and an average finish of 18th.
February 4th, 2011 at 6:02 PM
#313
Not necessarily wrong
I haven't looked at the raw stats, so I don't know, but the stats you post don't necessarily prove his post wrong. Its possible the WVU defenses forced a lot of turnovers to bring the margins into the top in the country. The offenses still could have been amongst the nation's worst in TOs.
February 4th, 2011 at 6:45 PM
#314
yes
What I was talking about was raw turnovers, not turnover margin. Turnover margin is a product of offense and defense. RR, by his own statements, generally does not get involve in D too much. At WVU, the D was on Casteel. So, an aggressive D (or, you know, playing in the Big East) can result in many turnovers in WVU's favor, that would have nothing to do with RR. My point was that the offense - something that RR is primarily responsible for - at WVU turned the ball over a lot.
February 5th, 2011 at 12:01 AM
#315
I see
I see the difference, but it still doesn't hold up under statistical analysis. These are West Virginia's rankings in turnovers lost during those RichRod years:
34th, 11th, 14th, 56th, 31st
Not quite as good, but every year was above average nationally, and only once was West Virginia worse than 34th -- they were in the top quartile (roughly) every year but one in turnovers lost, so it's still incorrect to say that they turned the ball over a lot.
Unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that when RR was at Michigan, we turned the ball over a ton.
February 4th, 2011 at 6:39 PM
#316
posted from iPhone
Agreed the regression is what put the nail in the coffin for me. A turnaround would have been nice, but I just didn't see it in the cards.
February 5th, 2011 at 10:32 AM
#317
Rebuttal
To include the letters RR in the post were regrettable.
Did you not watch MSU in 09 or any of the other teams I pointed out? MSU is a great example.
Their defense was horrid in 09 they were torched by CMU, PSU, Texas Tech, Wisc and Minnesota. Every style, every quality of opponent. People howled for Narduzzi's head in East Lansing. They had 1 really good player in Jones and a bunch of up and comers and freshmen running around. This year they finished 11-1 and had a pretty good defense.
Will we have things go wrong and people get hurt next year? Sure, but let's look at what might reasonably get better for our defense.
1. Our best player and most critical position M. Martin was hurt during most of our poor perfromances. He is back next year.
2. Our most promising player C. Roh was not utilized very well. He'll be a Junior and back on the line.
3. RVB will be back and given less double teams hopefully getting him back more effective.
4. Demens was in his 1st year playing. He should be much better.
5. Woolfolk coming back for Rogers is a huge upgrade.
6. We have about 10-15 guys who have a year of weights and or experience under theri belt. While they may not individually be great whichever 3 or 4 emerge as starters will be serviceable.
7. Turnover margin most likely will improve.
8. Same for kicking game
We don't even play Wisconsin so let's consider Iowa as an example. They lose their QB, their dline, lb's etc... These teams will be completely different next year. I expected to kick their ass next year with new coaches. Who knows how we'll look by then, but last years result does not effect me in the least.
You make a good point about how individual games look and not the score. Let's look at it by units.
Offense- We were never stopped by any team all year. Most of our problems were self inflicted. We had some poor starts (Iowa, Wisc) and some poor finishes (OSU, Miss St) but we were never overwhelmed. We moved the ball on every team we played. When you worry about your offense is when your line is being blown back or you can't execute like OSU in 07 most of 08 and some of 09. In some of those games we could not even hope to get a yard with our base plays. The bottom line was our offense was good enough to compete with any defense in the country.
Defense- We were humiliated by Wisconsin no doubt. We don't play them next year but they lose 4 OL and their QB and we have our whole Dline back and healthy. I'd like to see how that goes next year, maybe we'll see them in the BT Champ game. As for the rest of it, we played really well against OSU on defense. Pryor made some broken plays and they got wore down, but they gave a fight. Penn St Iowa and MSU they were terrible but showed some glimpses of life.
If you watched the Lions this year I think you see what a few key players can do to a defense. The defense was not great but because the line played better they raised the level of the whole defense. Deployed correctly this dline could be the best in the Big Ten. We'll see how it goes, but I still say we will be in the Top 50 in defense as a minimum.
We're going to the BT Champ game. Anything less I'll be disappointed.
February 4th, 2011 at 6:43 PM
#318
Damn
How'd the kids on our roster get so fast all of a sudden? I never knew Lloyd liked those fast kids.
February 4th, 2011 at 7:54 PM
#319
I like what you did here. Can
I like what you did here. Can I join the Rip VanMichigan club as well?
February 4th, 2011 at 7:54 PM
#320
I like what you did here. Can
I like what you did here. Can I join the Rip VanMichigan club as well?
February 4th, 2011 at 5:28 PM
#321
I saw us beat teams that we
I saw us beat teams that we were better than, and lose to teams that we were worse than (for the most part). That having been said,
"I'm done fighting about Rodriguez"
Also, no blockquotes? where did they go?
February 4th, 2011 at 5:30 PM
#322
Einsteins's definition of insanity
Einstein's definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".
It doesn't matter whether the DC is Scott Shafer or Greg Robinson, using a 3-3-5 defense in the Big Ten is insanity.
February 5th, 2011 at 11:14 AM
#323
Its a good thing we didn't
Its a good thing we didn't get Harbaugh then, Stanford ran a 3 man front quite a bit. So did/does TCU.
I'm pretty sure that we all saw on New Years day that "being good in the Big Ten" isn't necessarily the barometer for being good at a national level.
February 4th, 2011 at 5:32 PM
#324
Has the whole world gone crazy!
![[has+the+whole+world+gone+crazy.jpg]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7T6eQRr_0A8/SNp49Tbd9EI/AAAAAAAAB0g/wh3k78l10LA/s1600/has%2Bthe%2Bwhole%2Bworld%2Bgone%2Bcrazy.jpg)
February 5th, 2011 at 2:15 AM
#325
This Is Not 'Nam
It's a league game Schembo.
February 4th, 2011 at 5:34 PM
#326
Another day, another
Another day, another Rodriguez thread...
February 4th, 2011 at 5:42 PM
#327
blow out argument - VALID
bettors focus more on margin of victory rather than win loss records when betting (indirectly setting the line.) Games are often decided by flukie plays (hemingway reception vs Illini anyone?) and 10 observations or so on win vs loss does not contain enough data. The margin of victory unfortunately showed that Michigan was not a good team, offensively or defensively at the season end. The fact that the margin of victory was trending worse, much worse as the season wore on was the death blow to the RR era.
February 4th, 2011 at 5:44 PM
#328
(No subject)
February 4th, 2011 at 5:54 PM
#329
Tips for writing a
Tips for writing a post:
-If you're going to use "fucking" in the original post, you shouldn't write the post in the first place.
-Check your grammar and punctuation, especially if it's a long post.
-Don't contradict your own post within the first line.
-Seriously, if you're going to use "fucking" in the original post, you shouldn't write the post in the first place. Swearing is typically a sign that someone has a bad argument; keep it to the comments, or better yet, don't use it at all.
February 4th, 2011 at 5:55 PM
#330
What's with the fucking bold?
What's with the fucking bold?
February 4th, 2011 at 6:48 PM
#331
It's a less irritating form
It's a less irritating form of emphasis than using "fucking" repeatedly. Apparently, you disagree.
For both of the responders, feel free to name how many good posts, as opposed to bad posts, use "fucking" right off the bat.
February 4th, 2011 at 6:37 PM
#332
You're fucking kidding me.
You're fucking kidding me. You're actually going to make the argument that the use of a "curse" word denotes a lack of intelligence or lack of reason?
February 4th, 2011 at 6:43 PM
#333
posted from iPhone
It does tend to be used to give an argument false e and is inflammatory. Both things to be avoided if you're trying to make an argument.
February 4th, 2011 at 6:45 PM
#334
posted from iPhone
False vehemence is what I meant to say stupid i- phone with no edit option.
February 4th, 2011 at 7:37 PM
#335
Yeah
Sure, I can accept that opinion, but I was commenting on the lamentable idea that a "curse" word somehow means one's argument or reasoning or whatever is flawed or unintelligent. I agree that people think the words are inflammatory but I also think that has more to do with social conditioning than anything else. The etymology of "curse" words is an interesting subject with a history that saw, at times, a ruling elite attempting to denegrate the speech and language of those "beneath" them. I say fuck em, and fuck anybody who tries to make it look like using a "curse" word should take away from what you're saying.
Also, "curse" words are incredibly adaptable and fun.
February 4th, 2011 at 8:40 PM
#336
This I guess all boils down
This I guess all boils down to parents and teachers raising kids with false movies portraying Isaac Newton getting hit on the head with an apple and saying
"Eureka! Gravity!"
As opposed to what contempories attest were his actual words:
"Ow, what the flaming fuck, where the fuck did that come from?!? Anybody? Fuck. It just fell from the fucking.....
holy. shit."
February 4th, 2011 at 8:36 PM
#337
What if you just had sex with
What if you just had sex with 2 or more girls at the same time and it was your first threesome freshmen year? Wouldn't the thread "OT-I just got done fucking 2 coeds at the same time" be appropriate? There is a time and a place for everything!
February 4th, 2011 at 5:54 PM
#338
The Penn State game killed it
The Penn State game killed it for me. A true chance to turn the corner, two weeks to prepare, and they get torched by Matty McFavre and looked clueless on the field. In a perfect world, GERG would've gotten fired, a capable replacement would be hired to fix the defense, and we're off and running in 2011. That didn't happen, and somebody had to pay the piper for making Michigan's defense a national embarassment. Rodriguez went down with the ship, as he should have. I'm thrilled we're returning to "MANBALL." (I find the whole clever "manball/footbaw" insult meme funny considering Wisconsin put up crazy points this year and we got our ass handed to us by every team running that "outdated" style)
February 4th, 2011 at 6:09 PM
#339
And then they lost to a
And then they lost to a smaller, more intelligent team in the bowl game.
February 4th, 2011 at 6:22 PM
#340
It's not like TCU's win was
It's not like TCU's win was some big revelation. Wisconsin woke up late (too late) and were a botched pass on a 2 point conversion from tying in the fourth. They were running at will once John Clay remembered his ankles still worked. TCU was much more motivated going into that game, and it showed. Credit to them, but it's not like their crazy schemes had Wisconsin banging into each other on the field like the Keystone Cops.
February 4th, 2011 at 9:17 PM
#341
No no no
You don't get to do this.
Wins and losses are all that matter.
Oh man, we were 5 plays away from going 8-4 in year two of the Rodriguez era.
The fact is, the Big Ten Champ got beat by TCU.
The fact is, the Big Ten Co-Champ got beat 49-7 by an Alabama team that should have had no motivation to play in the Capitol One Bowl.
And then there was Ohio State, who hung on because of Pryor's legs, not Tresselball.
Do you watch what happens almost every single year?
The Big Ten gets crushed every bowl season. Hell, if it wasn't for Ohio State lucking into some good BCS match-ups our flag ship program would have a losing BCS record.
February 4th, 2011 at 10:39 PM
#342
I was just stating that TCU
I was just stating that TCU beat a sluggish looking Wisconsin team because they played better that day. They didn't expose and crush them because they're on the cutting edge in scheme against a dusty old Big Ten team. They're not some kind of proof that the stodgy Big Ten can't compete nationally or against teams running unconventional schemes. Alabama smashing MSU (and trust me, Saban was motivated for that one) goes to show that Manball is still very effective when you have better players, which Michigan should have in every instance other than the OSU game.
The Big Ten has been losing bowl games since long before basketball on grass was invented (take a look at Bo's bowl game record), and while I liked Rodriguez's offense to a point, getting gimmicky from the "bandit" and "spur" to the swinging gate extra point and rugby punt was too much to take. Last year, the Big Ten was the one doing the crushing in the bowl season, in case you missed it, and Ohio State's been losing BCS bowls they don't deserve because we haven't been doing the nation a favor by kicking their ass and balancing the scales.
We may have been losing BCS bowl games in the 2000s under Carr, but at least we were getting there. Take the talent he had and add better assistant coaches (and the slightest notion of what good safeties look like) and you've got Big Ten champions with a shot at the natty ever few years, kinda like how OSU is and how Michigan should be. I'll take that over an unrealistic broken dream of what might have been if Rich hadn't hired an overmatched Furry-fetishist as his DC.
February 5th, 2011 at 1:48 AM
#343
More logic needed plz
Wisc went 11-2, and lost to TCU because they had one of the best defenses in FBS, and because they were motivated to get respect. They lost by how much? 2pts?
Alabama doesn't run a spread-n-shred, but rather an offense and defense that looks infinitely more Tressel than Rodriguez. This was hardly 21st century vs. 20th, it was a better team beating a worse team. MSU can thank not playing OSU for even getting this far.
OSU won with a pro style, conservative offense and predictably good defense.
Meanwhile, we couldn't even compete with any of these teams. Not even close. And, you know, competing with Big 10 teams is a prerequisite for competing nationally.
What is my point? Well, I'm just sick of these "scheme loyalist" posts. Scheme can help you win, but it's no guarantee of anything. And there are many different kinds that are effective. Just look at the offensive diversity in the SEC. Or among the top teams over the past decade. Spread good, pro style good...dependent, of course, on how they are implemented.
February 4th, 2011 at 6:44 PM
#344
You sir
Are beyond brilliant.
And I truly mean that.
February 4th, 2011 at 6:50 PM
#345
For me...
In college ball, it's necessary to play new kids every last year, by virtue of roster turnover. That being said, the team should improve on both sides of the ball as each year goes on.
For me, in none of the past few seasons could you truly say that the team got better and looked better as the season wore on.
February 4th, 2011 at 6:05 PM
#346
posted from iPhone
Your argument might have some validity if those blowout losses happened once in a while not every time UM played a good team. When you get blown out three years running against your biggest rival, show regression every year on defense and get embarrassed on national tv in your bowl game, I'd call that pretty damning evidence...
February 4th, 2011 at 6:45 PM
#347
Yeah
Because 21-10 in a game in which we threw a pick in the endzone, allowed two offensive tds missed a field goal and had our freshman qb throw 4 picks after not throwing any more than one is definitely an uncompetitive blowout and makes your statement 100% true.
February 4th, 2011 at 6:52 PM
#348
posted from iPhone
Cherry picking one contradictory example is neither proof nor an argent. I'd also argue that game was only competitive because of Brandon Graham.
February 4th, 2011 at 6:06 PM
#349
Incorrect
Ziff72: "RR went for it on 4th downs trying to come back that back fired and gave MSU great field position"
Michigan was 0 for 5 on 4th down conversionss that game (gator bowl):
1st: MSST 33 in the 2nd quarter; score 24-14 MSST
2nd: MSST 12 in the 3rd quarter; score 38-14 MSST
3rd-5th: Score was 45 to 14 MSST before the third attemp. They scored their final TD after the 3rd failed attempt.
As you can see your statement is incorrect.
February 5th, 2011 at 10:38 AM
#350
Um
How am I incorrect? We went 0-5 on 4th downs. We gave then the ball on our side of the field that lead to a direct td and we failed deep in their territory. If we convert 2 of 4 and punt on the one in our territory The score is 45-28. If we made our fg it is 45-31.
We lose by 14.
February 4th, 2011 at 6:15 PM
#351
It's not worth the effort
It's not worth the effort dude. It's just not. There's just zero point to arguing anymore even if you're right.
There's nothing to argue and nothing intelligent to say about the coming year because we don't have any meaningful data. There's no reason to rehash the Rodriguez era for all it could have been or should have been or whatever. Buckle your seat belt and see what this staff does.
February 4th, 2011 at 6:16 PM
#352
I'm sorry OP
I flat out disagree with you. Flat out. It's not simply the 5 losses were blowouts (and they weren't all blowouts anyway), it's that they were all bad. Really bad. As in, the team got down early in the 1st half, and either tried it's best to salvage the game but come up short because LOL at our defense -or- just flat out caved in for the rest (looking at the last 3 games there). When you combine that with the numerous close calls against mediocre teams, and well, it's a very legitimate argument. At least in my mind.
If it wasn't a legitimate argument, RR might still have a job right now.
Regarding your point about the defense, how do you know it would have improved drastically next year? You don't. A year of experience SHOULD help, but if teh issues run deeper than that (and I most certainly believe they did...), then would it have really improved to the point where Michigan was a legit B1G title contender? Or even a legit good team? '
February 4th, 2011 at 6:17 PM
#353
Rich Rodriguez got fired
Rich Rodriguez got fired because the atmosphere surrounding the program had become absolutely poisonous. End of. This argument about how much margin of victory/loss matters or whatever else as it affects the future of the team is silly and oh god forget it.
February 4th, 2011 at 6:23 PM
#354
'oh god forget it'
Truer words were never spoken. +1 to you for that. I'm done with this now (I regret the post I just made, in fact)
February 4th, 2011 at 6:50 PM
#355
Rich Rodriguez got fired because
he failed to field a winning team, if you define winning as beating your rivals and being in contention for Big 10 and national championships. And that is how most Michigan fans would define winning pre-RR.
The whole poisonous atmosphere stuff is more of a internet focused issue. It disappears pretty quickly once you log off. Sitting in your seats and watching your team fall out of contention by half time in all the meaningful games, that lingers and causes coaches to get fired...deservedly.
February 4th, 2011 at 10:17 PM
#356
Agreed. Winning is all that
Agreed. Winning is all that matters to U of M. That is why we went out and hired a coach with a 47-50 record. The idea that wins and losses and margin of victory are the driving factor in firing RichRod just don't compute when you go out and hire a head coach with a track record like Hoke has.
February 4th, 2011 at 11:27 PM
#357
There are so many factors
There are so many factors that play into a coaches' overall record at mid-major or small schools that make it dangerous to judge their ability on W-L. You have to look beyond the numbers.
Go look up the guys like Mack Brown, Don James, Ara Parsegian, Gary Moeller, Gene Stallings, and Gene Chizik. Study their records at previous small school stops. It meant nothing when they moved up to a big program. The analysis coach to coach runs a lot deeper.
Thankfully Brandon looked beyond the numbers with Rich and saw that the 7-6 from 5-7, from 3-9 was also specious evidence of pending greatness. My cousin likes to throw perfectly good McDonald's cheeseburger into his back seat in the wrapping to eat later when he is really hungry. It is then a lousy cheeseburger (which he made lousy) but I guess it is way better than nothing when you are hungry.
There is no genius involved with making good into worse then improving from lousy, if it doesn't give you better than the original. There is, however, a monster buy out and a gig doing signing day analysis on the internet.
February 5th, 2011 at 12:29 AM
#358
Your last paragraph is funny
Your last paragraph is funny considering Hoke took 5 years to get Ball State better than the original. They were 6-6 the year before he came in and then proceeded to win 10 games the next 3 years. Apparently he should have been fired then.
Also, Mack Brown coached at North Carolina before Texas....that isn't quite Ball State or San Diego State.
February 5th, 2011 at 6:09 AM
#359
How many of Hoke's 50 losses
Came while he was the head coach at the University of Michigan?
February 5th, 2011 at 3:11 PM
#360
I have lost 0 games at Michigan
Does that mean Hoke is as good a football coach as me?
February 6th, 2011 at 2:23 AM
#361
It also means
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.
February 4th, 2011 at 7:19 PM
#362
"If it wasn't a legitimate
"If it wasn't a legitimate argument, RR might still have a job right now. "
Looking at the "closeness" of wins or losses isn't the right metric - for example, MSU won a couple of really close games on the way to 11-2, but were shellacked in the two games they lost. They could have easily been 7-6. What you need to to look at is, on whole, was the team improving, and I think it was given realistic expectations. It was an incredibly raw defense that played basically the last half of the year without their best defender - Martin - anywhere close to 100%, and with true freshmen across the board. Now this year, with so much experience coming back, I expect the defense to take a step up and Mattison/Hoke will be deified even though some improvement is just natural. But this offense put up historically great numbers with a first-year starter at QB, no real RB depth, and good-but-not-great WRs. To me, given how bad this defense was going to be, that qualifies as improvement to me. The fact some of those losses were not close doesn't mean that much to me.
RR was fired because the environment surrounding the program was toxic and Brandon thought Harbaugh was available - when that changed, I think the wheels had been set in motion and Brandon figured it was a good enough time as any to change the coaching staff.
February 5th, 2011 at 10:45 AM
#363
Reading Comprehension
I gave 7 examples from the last few years of similar circumstances. Yet you don't give any of them even a mention or a thought. You are not a glass half empty guy you are a man I bet that little bit of water is probably poisoned guy. Everyone acts like we were 3-9 last year and have 5 remaining starters.
Again.... 7-6 22 returning starters including Heisman contender. Think if we were Iowa, wouldn't we all be thinking big sleeper next year? Man we don't want to play them.
February 4th, 2011 at 6:29 PM
#364
excellent argument. while i
excellent argument. while i can't see us improving as dramatically, a better year is sure to come. hopefully 2012 will be the breakout year especially with that schedule. cheers
February 4th, 2011 at 7:52 PM
#365
Did I read a different post?
I saw a post about those who say we will suck THIS year because we were blown out so much last year.
I saw very little defending RR - more about the potential for next
February 4th, 2011 at 8:17 PM
#366
Our football team had never
Our football team had never been beaten by a wide margin consistently until Richrod got here. Your argument is now null and void.
February 4th, 2011 at 10:24 PM
#367
Our football team has also
Our football team has also never had the lack of talent this team was dealing with.
February 4th, 2011 at 11:55 PM
#368
Sure, but that doesn't
Sure, but that doesn't explain the defense getting worse every year he was here
February 5th, 2011 at 12:35 AM
#369
Sure, but now your point is
Sure, but now your point is different so you look like you have no point.
You say we started to get beaten badly on a regular basis under RichRod. I pointed out that we have never had only 7 draft pics in a three year span like we have the last 3 years. You make an entirely different point about the defense.
Also, I would think the lack of upperclassmen who are talented (you know, the basis of my entire point) has something to do with the defense getting worse.
February 5th, 2011 at 2:03 AM
#370
Are you fucking kidding me?
Are you fucking kidding me? If we had a lack of talent in 2008 (which we didn't, on the defensive side of the ball) RR's job would have been to coach the current guys and recruit more talent to that side of the ball. He didn't. And that's largely why he's gone.
Get over it, RR is gone because of BAD coaching decisions, not the least of which was completely neglecting the defensive side of the ball.
EDIT: And the notion that a lack of talent in 2008 translates to a close to last place D in 2010 is ludicrous. My original point was that RichRod lost more games by a wide margin than ANY other previous M coach, and he managed to do that in 3 years. You don't think he did anything wrong in that stretch? You can't just hide behind your "but there was no talent" bullshit. Richrod did NOT deliver a D that was even MAC worthy in his 3 years here. That is pathetic in its own right, and on top of that, the trajectory was downward. There is no excuse for that.
February 5th, 2011 at 6:21 AM
#371
Feel better? Just so you
Feel better? Just so you know, you sound like an asshole.
1st off, RichRod delivered a defense much better than MAC defenses as we kicked the shit out of MAC teams. Unless you want to say Lloyd couldn't deliver a D that was DII worthy. Second, you didn't say a single thing that could be considered a counterpopint. Please tell me how poor defensive talent in 2008 wouldn't translate to a poor defense in 2010? You realize those are the young talent that should be starting in 2010, right? Instead, we had 1 senior contributor to the defense and 1 injured DB that would have started. You tell me if the talent was up to par?
You also didn't even mention the fact that since RichRod took over, we have had an unusually low number of players drafted. That would be the guys Lloyd left him with. Name the last time Michigan had less than 10 players drafted in 4 years (which it is looking more and more like that will be the case after Schilling is drafted this year).
You also realize that RichRod's first full class of recruits are true sophomores and redshirt freshmen, right? I guess if you want to tell me he didn't recruit any talent, go for it. You just sound bitter. Especially when you say I can't hide behind my "there was no talent" bullshit and then stop the argument. Please, tell me of all the talent. Tell me of the amazing 7 guys drafted in 3 years, 1 of them being a punter. Please tell me how that means we were talent heavy. You realize that Lloyd had more players drafted in his last 2 classes than will be drafted in the following 4 classes combined, right? No, you're probably right. We had a bunch of studs. Considering we have had 1 guy drafted above the 3rd round, I am going to disagree. So will every NFL team, but what do they all know.
February 5th, 2011 at 3:50 PM
#372
"1st off, RichRod delivered a
"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.
February 6th, 2011 at 9:51 PM
#373
I'd like to ask you
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.
February 5th, 2011 at 4:41 AM
#374
What? If you agree with him
What? If you agree with him that we had a lack of talent, how does that not at least help explain why the defense got worse?
February 4th, 2011 at 9:28 PM
#375
It's called defense
I remember all of us on here before this season, we all pretty much agreed that the defense would be bad, but by no means should it have been THAT bad. I mean honestly, all the defense was good for was delaying the other team's offense from scoring for a little bit. We were POUNDED in the first half by Iowa, Penn St, Wisky, tsio, and MSU.
He should have focused on defense first and foremost, but he didn't. He hired a guy, but that guy couldn't do his own thing, he had to do what Rich thought was best, even though he said multiple times "I don't know everything that goes on with the defense." Well, you should have got that figured out first Rich and let the offensive coaches do their thing, they could have handled it.
Now that I look back at it, all of us on mgoblog did a real good job at disguising the crap that was unfolding these past few years. We did a lot of RR defending, and hey, it was the right thing to do at the time, but shit just hit the fan this season.
February 6th, 2011 at 12:48 PM
#376
this post has 100% to do with RR, how could it no?
I agree in general that blowouts from a year ago don't carry over in college football, but the reason UM got blown out was mainly on the coaching staff who are gone. The team lacked resiliency when they got down, didn't convert red zone oppys into TDs, could not control the LOS on the defensive side of the ball with six guys in the box etc..
The coaching change is the #1 reason the blowouts won't repeat, followed by maturation of players and some injured players coming back.
