Carr: U-M will compete in B1G with consistent defense, bigger players
"The biggest thing (is) you can't be changing defenses every year," Carr said on the Sports Pen on ESPN 970-AM. "The players need to learn a system, and you can't learn a system if you're changing every year. (Defensive coordinator Greg Mattison's) brought in the 4-3 defense, and I think we've got to recruit some bigger players."
Rodriguez's offensive and defensive systems were predicated on smaller, quicker players. Many questioned the wisdom of using those players in the Big Ten, where tradition (and weather) generally dictates the use of bigger, stronger players.
"We've been a very, very small team for the last three years," Carr said. "In this conference, to play championship football, you need big people because you're gonna play against big people almost every single week. And when you're a much smaller team, you're gonna wear down, you're gonna get beat up, and you're not gonna be able to finish a season.
"In this conference, it's at the end of the season that you have to be strong if you're going to do the types of things and have the kind of seasons that we've always aspired to have here."
Click here to read the full article: http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2011/05/lloyd_carr_on_espn_97…
How can you say he knows he is partly to blame for it. I find this hard to believe for a number of reason, the biggest being that when adults feel they are to blame for something, they typically own up to it.
This debate is old and getting us nowhere, but people trying to make the assertion that Carr feels that he is partially to blame for the last three years is a bit of a joke, especially considering this article.
If he felt he held any degree of responsibility for what transpired over the past three years don't you think this would have been the perfect time to say that. You know...when he said how terrible the last three years were and mentioned it was mostly because of the defense and the players being to small for the big ten. Where, exactly, did he take any responsibility in those quotes?
I am not saying whether he shoulders any of the responsibility or not, but to claim that you know he does, when he has never said anything in the public to substantiate that, is a huge leap IMHE.
You are the one running thru the thread complaining, maybe you need to chill. Carr spoke his thoughts and appears to be spot on, and he did it in the plural, not singling out anyone for blame. The last three years were horrific, no need for you and others to get all defensive every time the subject is brought up. RR did his best, it just wasn't anywhere near good enough.
Love me some Lloyd Carr, but I think he should have stuck to saying things that players can actually improve. If he had said "we haven't been physical/smart/strong/whatever" enough over the last three years I think it would have been a better statement than to say size.
Doesn't mean that Carr is right or wrong, I just don't see this being a positive in the locker room. Whatever problems might be attributed to size, the athletes aren't to blame, and I think it should be all about getting them in a position to succeed.
Somewhere Brian just added Lloyd to his death list...
Rosenberg
Boren
Gerg
Desmond
Lloyd
...justingoblue...
I'd be honored to be on a list with Carr...not so much with an undrafted eating machine traitor and the worst "investigatory" journalist on the planet, but I'll have Lloyd and Desmond. Not to mention that shiny, silvery mane on Gerg. Just as long as it's not covered by a headset...
I'm sure this isn't the only thing the players are hearing from Carr, and I wouldn't be that concerned about hurting feelings per se, but this just seems to be dragging on in a way that isn't productive. Lloyd has every right to think that RR f'd up, he himself f'd up or any combination, but I just think as a program moving forward we would be better suited hearing this a few years down the road.
To use your phrase, in short, I would just toe the Hoke line if I were Carr, "we're going to get stronger, preach toughness and bring back ___ to Michigan." Hoke has done a good job of keeping it all about that (and I think Carr has too, barring this one statement) and I like it a lot.
had them eat pizza to work on their size. Or so I've heard. If only RR could have talked Alex Mitchell into coming back we would have been successful.
All in all bottom line yes we used a few smaller guys at the skill positions....basicly 2 things hurt RR greatly while he was here...
1. Not sticking to a D plan for 3 yrs. Whether it was 335, 43, 34 or anything else. You weren't consistent with it and your players suffered from having to play different roles what seemed to be week to week.
2. The total destruction of the secondary since he walked on campus was something I have never seen at this level of football. I mean whether it was injury, bad draft advice, quitting on the new coach, not making it into school, being a complete moron or anything else. The amount of lost guys from the secondary almost singlehandidly killed anything the D could do the last 2 yrs especially.
Just imagine this year with your back 4 being Warren, Woolfolk, Cissoko, and Turner. I think that alone could have made the D light yrs better.
It didn't happen like that and the right decision was made. If guys want to pile on so be it....lets just hope we can get through one season without having to start a 5th yr role player at a corner spot.
I think we've said about all that needs to be said about Carr and his feelings about the team. Good to know where he stands on the RR era and those players. Doesn't mean I don't think he is full of crock with his opinions, but at least he isn't hiding his feelings.
Couldn't agree more dahblue. I am really questioning some people on this board and their fanhood. It seems like there is a faction of people who are greater Rich Rod supporters than Michigan supporters.
I'm not really fond of questioning fandom. I think all are fans here, but some have lost their way a bit in having taken such an aggressive stance in support of a failed coach.
Clearly you're not familiar with Section 1 and his insanity.
Considering "average weight analysis" consists of "add five numbers and divide them", no it's not excessive. Lloyd's premise "we were bad because we were small" is unsupported by the actual weight of our players, which wasn't significantly smaller (at least not on say the O-line. The D was a black hole, but the size issue there is skewed by scheme (fewer linemen) and youth (guys playing who haven't bulked up)).
You can't really defend the results RR produced while here. That said, attacking him for the wrong reasons (small fast guys will never work!) doesn't make anyone smarter or help anybody, and it's entirely reasonable to debate the RR years on those terms.
Carr is an old-school football guy. And he was very good at it. That said, the results he produced demonstrate that his teams, at least in the last years of his tenure, were pretty lousy at a) finishing games (how many times did we see the team go into coast mode after half time and give up a lead in the 4th quarter?) and b) beating good, fast teams (as his record against OSU, USC, Oregon, and anyone with a mobile QB attests).
So anyway, he's a great coach, rightfully in the hall of fame, who gave a lot to the team. And he's spot on that our defensive schemes were a mess. But I think his focus on "bigger players" is shortsighted, and it demonstrably failed him with his own teams.
Black holes are extremely massive.
But they also "suck". Mass isn't everything. QED.
Massively suck.
is one of the most even-handed and fair thoughts on this topic, good work.
If people would just come to this bipartisan conclusion that pretty accurately sums up the RR era:
"Rich Rodriguez didn't have the most ideal situation when he came to Michigan and some of it can be traced back to the former coach, who is, yes, Hall of Famer Lloyd Carr, but he also didn't do himself any favors in handling the press, the NCAA violations - even if it was a mostly fraudulent news campaign - and especially with the defensive decisions he made. Perhaps people should have had a more lenient attitude given he was undertaking a major makeover of a traditional program, but at the same time, it can be said his results on the field did not deserve another year or two. Dave Brandon made the call to fire Rodriguez after Michigan's embarassing bowl loss to Mississippi State and went through a rather unpopular process to hire a new coach who did not have the most impressive resume. However, since his arrival Brady Hoke has done an excellent job in garnering faith in the program. He added a stellar defensive coordinator and has done a tremendous job of winning the in-state recruiting battle. The future looks bright for Michigan football"
Then everyone would be fine.
It's the attitudes that follow from posters that riles me up and I'm assuming others:
1. That Rodriguez failed because he didn't "get it".
2. That the spread "can't work" in the Big Ten.
3. That he walked into an ideal situation personnel-wise and blew it.
4. That none of the personnel problems can be traced back to before his arrival.
5. That his offense was not good (While conveniently not acknowledging that it takes more than a good offense to put up good offensive numbers)
6. That our players weren't "tough" enough.
7. That our players were "too small". (Meanwhile TCU's mighty mights beat Wisconsin's meatwagons in the Rose Bowl)
,etc.
God Bless All Michigan's Past Coaches
I can't wait to be in the Big House to watch UM beat OSU this year.
C'mon man...I try not to get all sweary, but who the fuck cares if RR walked into an ideal situation? He was a head football coach, paid millions of dollars to lead the program. Anything after that doesn't matter. Accountability matters; and thankfully, our current coach is aware of that.
So, there it is: You are unable to see anything outside of your narrow viewpoint and thus continue to fan the flames of this endless debate, even while I offer up a very compromising and civil post.
You wonder why this goes on?
It's because of you.
Edit: LEAVE ME ALONE OMG SHIRTLESS
You titled your post, "You do not get IT". That's not so civil. By the way, my viewpoint is not narrow and its shared by about 99% of Michigan fans. You're just chilling in the tiny mgobubble.
1. I apologize for the title. I merely meant it as a joke because of the idea that Rodriguez did not get "it".
2. So you think that 99% of the Michigan fanbase would agree that everything that happened over the past 3 years was Rich Rodriguez's fault? If this is the case, they are simply misinformed. As I've said, plenty was, but there were other factors as well that need to be accounted for. In fact, it is these unusual factors that allow for continued support against your over the top blame of Rodriguez.
3. See gbdub for the rest.
Of course the situation he walked into matters. That's why we're okay with the fact that Hoke is 47-50 as a head coach - he coached at places that were not traditionally successful and were particularly bad when he got there.
But regardless of that, Coastal Blue (snarky title notwithstanding) made some excellent points and you've chosen to ignore all but one of them - which was really his meta-point.
RR was a failed experiment. But like all failed experiments, there are lessons that can be learned from it. Lloyd's statement, and many statements of fans, former players, etc., suggest that the wrong lessons (didn't "get it", was too small) are being learned. This is bad for Michigan football.
I object to #5. Our offense was awful against good defenses, and for that matter against most of the Big Ten. See MSU, Iowa, OSU, MSU.
sigh...
If you look at average defensive performance of the teams you mention, we were actually "above average" in offensive performance in those games (that is, we did better against those good defenses than most teams did - Mississippi State being a glaring exception). But the real point of #5 is that factors outside the offenses direct control do impact the performance of the offense. For example, the awful defense and inability to kick field goals forced the offense to go for touchdowns and nothing but touchdowns, very quickly. This certainly could have affected their mental state and playcalling. The magnitude of this effect is debatable, but I think it is real.
I'd love to see some actual statistics supporting that we were above average in those games. Not saying they're not out there, I'd just like to see them. Here's one related statistic that I was able to find: According to cfbstats.com, in games vs. ranked teams, U-M's scoring offense was no better than 6th best in the Big Ten, averaging 16.5 points per game.
I don't have the numbers in front of me, and you'll probably discount this because it's yards, but we did put up more rushing yards on Iowa than anyone since about 2005.
Edited to add that Iowa let up 195 on the ground, 124 through the air to M. They let up a total of 1242 yards rushing on the season, leaving M accountable for 15.7% of their rushing yards. Well above the "expected" 95 yards when you just divide 1242 / 13 games.
Yes, but you could say they gave up an average of 230 per game in the air, and we only got 124. They gave up 332 a game, and by your numbers, we gained 319. So actually, we were below average against their defense for the season overall, yardage-wise. We did score 28 to the average of 17 they usually gave up (but then gave up 38 to their usual 29).
It doesn't really negate your point, just that if you take any one stat in any one game your can make an argument one way or another, but it might not tell the whole picture.
I completely agree. Honestly, points don't tell the whole story, but if the points were there nobody would be arguing about yards. I'm not trying to be an apologist, but we did do better than pretty well in isolated stats last year.
While I appreciate your post, I don't put a lot of stock into these numbers, because, as you said, they're yards. They don't give out wins based on the number of yards you're able to amass against your opponent. It's all about the number of points you put up on the scoreboard. Move up and down the field all you want, but if you're not sticking it in the end zone (or kicking it between the uprights), you're not putting points on the board. It may be too simplistic on my part, but if you're not scoring points, it's tough to say you played better than average.
See my post right above yours here. The only reason I even replied to your first post is, IMO, we were good at some things last year. Obviously, like we've both now said, scoring was not the strongest suit. However (and the reason yardage gets tossed around so much here) yards do show some type of success, allowing you to look beyond just scoring and maybe get a different picture of what happened to get to that final number.
And to some extent, moving the ball but not scoring is exactly what you'd expect out of an otherwise good offense that a) couldn't kick field goals b) had a young, and therefore mistake-prone QB c) had lousy field position and d) was always down on the scoreboard.
It's worth noting that FEI, the stat kicked around last year that listed UofM as the #2 offense, is intnended to correct for strength of opponent.
Anyway, the main point is that, while we weren't as good against ranked opponents, we weren't as bad as we looked.
For what it's worth, FEI is not a "stat", but a system of rating or ranking teams, similar to how Billingsley, Massey, and Sagarin have systems to rate or rank teams. And just as it is with the computer rankings where there always seems to be some sort of fluky outliers, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect or assume that FEI has it's own occasional flukes as well. As a smart man on this website once said:
Any statistical ranking that had Michigan's offense ranked 13 places higher than Oregon (among others) is very flawed. You don't have to understand FEI to realize that; just understand football. You're comparing offenses that did the same thing, and didn't just have better results due to other factors, but actually did those things better (due to experience, talent, whatever). To think otherwise is just believing in a measure because you like what the outcome says; and that's bad statistics.
I honestly don't think anyone is "supporting" Rich Rodriguez. Nobody is advocating that he should have been kept on for another year.
But continued statements like these are unproductive and borderline unfair to the current players. The message here is basically "yeah, sorry, we're never going to be successful with kids your size. That didn't really work out for us, so we're going to go in a different direction because, you know, we want to win and stuff."
Carr has every right to state his opinion; I just wish he would be more forward-focused rather than feel the need to put distance between the old regime. Hoke's doing a fine job of that himself, and he doesn't need help from comments like these.
Those of us in the "In Rod We Trusted" clan recognize that he walked into a disaster and improved his record every year. He made some mistakes with defense and special teams, but after turning around the offense, he finally had time to focus on the other areas. He should have been given enough time to turn around the program. So, yeah, he should have been kept until the end of his contract.
IT'S NOT ABOUT RODRIGUEZ!
How many times do you "you're more of an RR fan than Michigan fan!" idiots need to be told this? It is about LOGIC and FAIRNESS.
RR did a shitty job during his three years here. Undeniable. Lloyd Carr did a shitty job in his last few years of keeping the program's mojo and setting the table for his predecessor. Put those two shitty jobs together and you get SHIT. Simple enough equation.
When things are said to throw one coach under the bus while absolving the other, it offends people's intelligence.
Let me summerize
Shit+Shit=SHIT
Lloyd Carr can't really hear what you're saying, because he has his Big Ten and National Championship rings plugging his ears.
is how he relieves himself with your nose plugging his ass.
Escaping intellectual argument in favor of cliches and simplicity. Very common tactic among dogmatic Carr lovers. I'd expect nothing more from you.
Isn't Michigan a school that reveres a former coach whose teams usually were built on being smaller and quicker? I wasn't around for the Bo era, but weren't his offensive lines small guys that were set-up to be quicker/have better technique than the other side? The name is escaping me, but wasn't Bo's first nose tackle the size of a safety now?
On top of that, this was back when there wasn't the passing spreads. Option football was still rampant. If at any point in football history, having giant guys to power the other team over would have made sense then, right?
Part of me is glad(don't jump on this here until you read the whole point) Bo isn't around anymore. The last 4+ years would have probably done him in anyway. I'm glad he didn't have to see a large chunk of the former players in the program completely turn their back on the school, then jump in to pile on after Rodriguez was finally let go.
On the fip side, there's pretty much no way he'd let any of that crap fly if he had still been around. So who knows how it would have turned out. But I do find it intersting that this whole thing has been about Carr and his style/ideas while nearly completely ignoring everything Bo did.
My dad lived on a hall in South Quad with most of the offensive and defensive lines of the football team. The quarterback lived next door. This was 1970-2.
Those guys carried a Volkswagen into the freight elevator for fun.
Dierdorf wasn't tiny. Neither was Reggie McKenzie. Or Jim Brandstatter.
Bo's players were huge for their time. And I think you'd find across the board that football players these days are a lot bigger in general than they were in 1970, who were similarly a lot bigger in general than football players in 1930. Were they Jake Long? Nope. But they were still huge and strong, and had the Big 10 rings to prove it. Bo never had a graduating class who failed to win a Big 10 championship and go to a Rose Bowl at some point in their 4 years.
And are you really using Bo's heart condition to argue that these last few years "would have done him in anyway?" Stay classy, my friend.