Can't wait to see what kind of flame wars come from this....
Peppers at 10, which seems low.
Can't wait to see what kind of flame wars come from this....
Jesus, this is going to get ugly.
This one deserves a "Sanctimonious" moderation tag.
This thread turned into a huge slapfight and it was ugly. Why are you so butthurt? Oh wait, it's because I didn't like your OT post about MSU that the mods took down because it was OT. Get over it.
I love how you condemn threads early and then sit on your moral high horse three hours later. If you actually read through the thread as it stands now, you would see some interesting debate--some of which I was involved in--in addition to the customary clutter and "flamebait" posts. In short, you are not a value-add poster in any way, shape, or form.
Says the guy that posted this "How many hours a day did philosophers spend in the gym to get abs like that?". I really have no idea what your deal is. I'm sorry you don't seem to like me. Can we both just move on now?
You obviously didn't read the whole thread, or you would have noticed my discussions on the Pac-12's defensive history, or on the nature of journalism and how the business model interferes with objectivity. But you just keep on keepin' on. I'll try to stay out of your way from now on.
I like Carr but I'm actually kind of tired of him lately.
Experience shows that the man speaks the truth.
I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that the players recently recruited at certain positions weren't smaller than in the past, or are you saying that they're small because they're young? Or none of the above?
"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."
So. According to bouje13, Carr somewhere in this statement says that it's RR's fault we had small players. Bouje13 makes sense...
Carr is not placing blame. He's stating what he believes to be a problem. He is well aware that many of the players RR had on the roster while head coach at UM were players he (Carr) recruited. But, go ahead, insult Carr. Really kind of you.
is insuating blame and should really probably shut his mouth......
Carr is not insinuating blame. Problem is, many people here think he is, because they've heard so many opponents of RR say that his players will be too small for the Big Ten. If anything, Carr is taking his share of the blame. Anyone with more than a 1/10th of a brain can figure out RR was playing with many of the players Carr recruited. Carr is aware of this, believe me. He's a pretty sharp guy.
trying to entertain a 1-year old while I type.
I'm not trying to say Carr isn't intelligent, I'm just sick of all of this crap coming out of Michigan players that I used to love and now feel like most of them are entitled and whiny little girls. I feel like Rodriguez got stuck in a disaster, then gets blamed and laughed at for it when really Carr left behind little talent, no depth and some serious entitlement problems.
I'm sorry RR failed. I really am. I loved RR, actually. And am pretty pissed off we didn't go all the way with him. That said, it's not Carr's fault he failed. Carr didn't exactly set him up nicely with a stacked cupboard, which all of us here know. But, other coaches have done more than 3-9, 5-7, 7-6 in similar situations. I just feel RR had injury problems, was attacked by the press, and got unlucky with D-Coordinators. But, Carr certainly is not out to get RR.
why hold onto this knowledge about fielding successful defenses in the Big Ten? Despite our issues on offense the last two years, we would've been much better the last two years, probably building off of two straight bowl seasons with a consistent 4-3 defense. I just feel like he could've been a huge asset. Maybe Shafer doesn't get fired and we keep the 4-3 around. I don't know. This is such a lose-lose topic.
I think you're right. I think Lloyd is smart enough and classy enough that if he was asked who shouldered the blame for some of these facts, he would take a lot of it. I think they both should take some of the blame. On one hand, RR did recruit a lot of guys that were tweeners in an attempt to be a faster defense. On the other hand, he was forced to play some guys early who probably weren't developed to where they needed to be. Perhaps, had he had some other guys around for a couple years, he would have had better development. In any case, some of the guys were probably a touch small, but I still don't think that was the majority of our defensive woes.
Let me preference what I am about to say by stating that I am not a Carr slappy, but I don't think that he said anything that wasn't obvious. RR was recruiting a different type of player to Michigan. He said it. He wanted his players to be leaner and play a faster pace than what they were accustom to...try to tire out the competition and by the fourth quarter run circles around them. That is why there was muchado about Barwis.. strength and conditioning and such...This is in direct contrast to the outgoing philoshophy that Carr had which he expounded upon in the ops post. There was a clash of styles...a changing of the guard that didn't work... but for Carr to say that doesn't make him a rebel rouser. He should be able to invoke his feelings as to what was/is needed to play big 10 ball. We/he/everybody saw how well Rich's philosophy worked. Which probably is much more a useful barometer than anything Carr said as to what it takes to win championships in the conference...But for him to say what he said is not a slap in the face, the past three years of having to live through it is.
(Closes eyes and braces for the onslaught)
preference what they are about to say? I mean...I usually prefer what I am saying in a conversation to that of the others who are taking part...but I have never heard the phrase before this.
I don't see why it is a big deal for Carr to mention something like this really, but I simply thought he was smarter than this.
How many times have we listened to the debate "the spread won't work in the big ten" and foolish topics like that and said they were complete bullshit. If the spread couldn't work in the big ten then why did spread teams always beat the hell out of big ten teams when they played (in most circumstances).
The "players are too small for the big ten" is equally as insane. The problem with RR and his teams had nothing to do with the fact that they were a spread team or that they were small and had everything to do with the fact that they were poorly coached. Even as a RR supporter I have to put that blame squarely at RR's feet.
It was a different system, but there is no doubt in most reasonable peoples minds that it could have not only worked, but thrived in the big ten if they players had better coaching. Size was not the issue and frankly, as a guy who loved RR but also loved Lloyd as well, I am amazed that Lloyd doesn't see that.
Sure, but most of the players on the field WERE freshmen and sophomores. RR didn't choose to play many of the older players.
In that sense, I think the point stands.
I agree with the consistent defense that we never seemed to have. No arguing that...as far as bigger players and such. If he is speaking of Oline then we were right at the Big 10 average this year.
I still think the constant changing defense is what made the offense look bad. Look at virtually every elite team they dont go into games thinking they have to score every possession. Obviously they want too but not scoring every position wont affect them like it did us the last 3 yrs.
Whether hater or apologist I think we can all agree that the constant changing of defensive alignments and plans put way to much pressure on the O knowing they had to score almost every single time they touched the ball.
I agree with everything you have said here.
However, what really saddens me here is this, "Whether hater or apologist..." We as a fanbase, both alumni and casual fans, need to unite. Those who blame RR need to stop. Those who blame Carr need to stop. Everything does not always work out perfectly. We had some bad seasons, but we'll keep moving forward. It's too bad one of OUR coaches, RR, had to take the fall for those three seasons, but it is what it is. Let's everyone unite, and prepare for hopefully what turns out to be a spectacular 2011 season!
look, the people with power (ex players, regents, donors) are happy and united, they will give hoke the time he needs. The common fans and students, they don't really matter in the grand scheme of things, we should just let everybody complain about carr and RR for a few more years, its not going to hurt anything. Eventually time and winning will unite the fanbase no matter which faction they come from. within this university and fan base, successful coaches become legends ad the not so successful one fade into obscurity, so let people argue about this, it just show their passion fo this team
Somebody done hit a nerve!
I don't see what the problem is. The guys just speaking the truth. He had a birds eye view of the last 3 years and what the speedy little guy spread system is about. Hell, hrs probably been bubbling the past few years watching what The Blue was turning into. I have absolutely no issue with what he's been saying lately
Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't putting 5 defensive backs on the field in a 3-3-5 trend towards a smaller lineup as a whole? I realize the whole "smaller player" thing is a hot button issue here, but in total mass of player, I think we might have been smaller due to the scheme.
Edit: Also, unlike former players, I like how he used the word "we". It shows that he isn't disowning the team the last 3 years.
You're not wrong. When Rodriguez came in the mantra was speed, speed speed. The defenses of the later Carr years were thought to be big and slow, as evidenced by the Horror, Oregon, etc.
Think of John Thompson, the big linebacker who had the one great moment with the INT against Wisconsin. The following season his position (sort of) was played by Stevie Brown, last year by by either Thomas or Cam Gordon. That's at least 25 pounds lighter, and it was on purpose.
I'm not saying I agree with Carr that smaller is worse. I'm just saying Rodriguez's philosophy was to get smaller (and faster).
that TCU has shown that this is a matter of execution rather than philosophy, and i'd bet Carr would agree. if he could be blunt, he'd say "small and slow". "Small" is loaded with a lot of shit he can't say.
IMO, I feel Carr was saying we recruited smaller players in general to fit what RR was doing schematic wise and it wasn't going to work
See, that's what you "feel" Carr was saying. He bleeds blue. He supports the program no matter who was coach. If he feels smaller players are part of the problem we haven't been competing in the Big Ten, then he feels that he is partly to blame for that, which must be tough on the guy. What also was tough on the guy, was losing games to OSU that he probably should have won if OSU wasn't getting extra talent because of the shadiness going on down there. Please give him a break. He's not out to "get RR".
I love how you keep telling everyone to stop interpreting what Carr said negatively.....so you can interpret it positively. How do you know he wasn't talking about RR? He did say the past 3 years, didn't he? If he was blaming himself also, why didn't he, you know, say 4 years ago considering those were players he recruited and we weren't really competing for a championship then either? If you ask me, its pretty clearly a swipe at the type of player RR was bringing in.
Yeah! Fuck that coach that brought us a national championship and multiple big ten titles!
Let's just copy Ohio State's defense? The one where they tackle and hit hard?
Our defense can all drive 300's and our offense can drive Chargers while the coaches are giving recruits tattoos.
I just wish every former player and coach would shut up and stop looking so petty. I can't wait until we can play some damn football.
So you want Carr to shut up. That's spectacular of you. What a great Michigan fan you are.
you need to chill, it was a stupid thing for Carr to say on a sore subject. Quit trying to have a bunch of pissing contests.
It was not a stupid thing for Carr to say. That is his opinion of the program, and he knows he is partly to blame for it. Anyone here who remembers Carr, knows that he does not say stupid things.
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.
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...
and I think what you said is absolutely the right thing to say in the locker room and to the players. But from a strategist's perspective, when discussing building a successful program, I see nothing wrong with these comments if he thinks they are a missing ingredient.
In short, I don't think he should be worrying about hurting te players' feelings in this venue. I'm sure they're working like crazy to get bigger right now anyway.
Wise to be thinking from a players' perspective though...
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.
Especially when most of them are still on the team and going to be featured in the defense this year. IIRC, the only guys to leave are carr's guys obi and mouton.
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.
That's what I don't get. I understand supporting the head coach, but to attack anyone who might think that the last three years were not good seems very silly.
To run an average weight analysis in an attempt to prove that our former head coach's opinion was not correct seems a little much.
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.
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)
God Bless All Michigan's Past Coaches
I can't wait to be in the Big House to watch UM beat OSU this year.
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
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.
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.
Let me summerize
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.
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.
It's quite possible I'm completely wrong about his teams. I know I've read many times that "size" wasn't everything for them. Speed, quickness, etc. was much more important. I want to say that when Barwis was brought in there was a lot of talk about getting away from the slow giant Olines under Carr and back to the trimmer, quicker Olines that Bo ran with. And similar stories about the Dlines/etc. And note, smaller doesn't mean weaker.
The main point is that if Carr is saying the team needs to just be "bigger" to win in the Big Ten, that he seems to be ignoring the past. But then again I wouldn't expect anything different from Carr and his group of players.
was the middle guard. He was 5'11 and weighed 200 - 224 pounds during his career.
Thank you, that's exactly who I was thinking of. The name was just escaping me.
[W]asn't Bo's first nose tackle the size of a safety now?
In fairness, that could probably be said for virtually every team in the NCAA. One of the starting OTs on Alabama's 1979 National Championship team weighed 238 lbs., which is barely big enough to play FB in today's game.
How many hours a day did philosophers spend in the gym to get abs like that?
I've heard that thoughtful debate is good for your core.
Average player weight on Lloyd Carr's stellar, All-Pro-filled 2006 4-3 defense = 244 lbs.
Average player weight on Rodriguez's 2011 Gator Bowl defense = 228 lbs. But if you make an injury substitution of Troy Woolfolk (195) for C. Avery (167), and make a positional substitution of somebody like Will Campbell (say modestly, 310) for Cam Gordon (207) on defense, the Rodriguez defense average weight is 240 lbs.
Number of Seniors and Redshirt Juniors starting on 2006 defense = Six.
Number of Seniors and Redshirt Juniors starting on 2010 defense = Three.
So at a starting point, is Lloyd Carr even right? Did Michigan become significantly smaller on defense, apart from injuries, youth and scheme?
Did Michigan become significantly smaller on defense, apart from injuries, youth and scheme?
I don't think this is what Carr was saying. I think he was factoring in injuries, youth and scheme and more stating size as a factor in the losing. He was commenting on the players that were on the field independent of those factors Maybe age was the reason for the lack of size like you say, but that doesn't make his statement incorrect.
Further, you show an end of season size difference of 16 lbs per starting player. Is that correct? If so, I think giving up 16 lbs to the man is substantial. I also don't think the WC for CG substitution makes sense. I think part of the point was that the scheme dictates smaller players being on the field.
So you're saying that if Rodriguez played the 310 lb Campbell (which he did not), the D would, on average, have been bigger.
What I said was that correcting for scheme, youth and injuries, a Rodriguez defense might have looked just about the same, weight-wise, as a Carr defense. And, I quanitifed it to a small degree.
The next time you try to misquote me, you might want to put more effort into it.
Why the hell would you correct for scheme? Isn't scheme sort of, you know, the coach's purview?
Correcting for speed, Marquise Walker was actually a better receiver than Braylon. True story.
He had control over scheme, right?
Look, I'm not even making a value judgement - Rodriguez was, in some ways, forced to play smaller guys (no Slocum, no Kates), but also chose to (RVB as a DT due to scheme, 5 DBs).
Beat me to it. But yeah, it seems weird that Carr would rail against size when his teams were not demonstrably larger.
There are many real factors to chastise RR's era about, but not fielding teams "big enough" to compete in the B1G is both incorrect and kind of dumb.
This thread is going to be an abortion. Why must we debate between two dudes who don't coach? Hoke is the coach. Move on.
Watching football is supposed to be fun. People should remember that.
This thread is going to be an abortion. Why must we debate between two dudes who don't coach? Hoke is the coach. Move on.
and somebody who doesn't start from a position of respect and admiration for Coach Carr like I do, might just say, Yeah! Lloyd Carr is not our coach anymore. So fuck Lloyd Carr!
It takes for someone to continuously peruse and then add to threads they rail against is something beyond me.
Do you need some kind of RR/LC discussion invervention?
Maybe we could set up a live blog to help you?
There is literally nothing preventing you from ignoring this topic.
Seeing the title should have been enough to stay away.
Look you could have went to
"OSU gives AD, Compliance Director, Superior Reviews"
"Pros and Cons of Attracting Early Commitments"
"Pac-12 has fans vote for championship game logo"
"Former Buckeye Harrison Till's Take, OSU Fans Play Victim"
,etc. and not had anything to do with something you say that you despise.
Deep down, you love it and you love your role as the guy whose supposedly so over these discussions.
No, on-topic would be a discussion of "does Carr have a point or not?", when did we start losing the size? (hint: probably under both Carr and RR), not a re-hash of "RR was a retard vs. Carr always secretly hated him".
And I do keep posting because I like this site, and, sometimes, would like to read/participate in the actual topic of a thread, not have it devolve into the precise same argument.
And part of the point ties in with the idea that our players were smaller because of Rodriguez.
And when Carr says something about "the last three years", to say that is not at least somewhat about Rodriguez has to be said with a smile and wink. So whether you like it or not, Rodriguez vs. Lloyd is going to come up.
Face it, you're trying to be the "cool" kid whose "so over that" but in reality you like these arguments and need their existence because you relish the role.
It's fine, but it's obvious.
There are plenty of points in the this thread where the discussion was on topic in your mind -according to your post - yet your only contribution at all before today was this gem:
"So you're saying that if Rodriguez played the 310 lb Campbell (which he did not), the D would, on average, have been bigger.
To one of the parts about Rodriguez and Carr.
So, really, do you think you did your part to practice what you preach?
I was pointing out a non-sensical argument - Section 1 said that if RR chose to play larger players...he would have played larger players.
I supported Carr, I supported RR. I don't support every thread turning into this mess. If you want to keep making it about me, and not the 20 other people who said some facsimile of "here we go again", that's your perogative.
Look whose running wild with conspiracy theories now.
I don't even know what you're talking about.
I'm confused, how does the passage of mine that you quoted at all lend to a Carr/RR debate? I pointed out the fact that he chose not to play a larger player. I didn't evaluate or opine, other than to suggest Section 1's point was so blindingly obvious, it was useless.
That you never actively tried to participate on topic - in your mind - in the thread, instead choosing to respond to someone talking about RR and Carr, which you claim to despise.
No...although I think his point was stupid, Section1's post was on topic, ie, "is what Carr is saying even correct?". Neither his post nor my reply was about either coach's culpability in "ruining Michigan football."
This is now completely stupid - I'm complaining about off topic ad-hominem debates about our former coaches, and you've somehow turned it into a discussion of my presence on this board - which nobody wants to read.
Have a nice afternoon and Memorial Day.
Because I was intrigued, I looked at the average weights of Carr's last team (2007) and RR's (2010) to see how much weight difference we are talking about. Carr's last team averaged about 233 lbs, and the last RR team was 228 lbs. So about 5 lbs difference, which is certainly something but not the "very very small" players that Carr was talking about. And along both lines (DL/OL and also LBs), the differences are:
Now I know that these are one-year snapshots, but I don't see a major distinction between the weights of these players (and that LBs are a little skewed because, shockingly, Carr's last LB class was dominated by underclassmen while UM's had older players who were more developed/added weight). So yeah, when Carr talks about fielding small teams under RR, he should probably look in the mirror or pull out a freaking spreadsheet first.
I really could care less if Carr's defenses were bigger than RR's, all I want is this back:
To me, that defense was one filled with older, established players who all wound up in the NFL and developed throughout the years. We simply didn't have enough time with RR's players to really figure out if they could have grown into a similar role. Also, RR probably should have hired a DC who knew what he was doing/didn't allow the HC to undermine him so blatantly. That is totally on RR.
Who all wound up in the NFL? You mean, like, just Woodley and Burgess? Because everyone else is a free agent or hasn't seen any meaningful time in the NFL at all.
David Harris and Leon Hall vehemently disagree with this statement.
Good call. Though that still isn't everyone.
I think people tend to overvalue the '06 and '07 teams due to players making it to the league. While I love all of those guys, it doesn't mean they were the most talented teams in college football at the time, or even in Michigan football history.
To me, 4 guys on from those '06 and '07 defenses (including some high picks) is pretty stocked. UM isn't a pro factory like Miami or a couple of the SEC schools, but those defenses had their fair share of pros.
And I never thought those defenses were immensely talented, but they were still some of the better units under Carr and were championship-level.
RR preferred to have speed vs size.
to go from a 4-3 to a 3-3-5 you remove a defensive lineman and replace him with a defensive back.
...leave out the weights of the DBs, and I'd be willing to bet Carr's were bigger.
You also conveniently leave out the heights of the players, which can factor in, as well.
Most importantly, you forget that if you have a 4-3-4 (which is essentially a 5-2-4 when you're playing a lot of under front) vs. a 3-3-5, you're basically substituting out a 278 lb. DL for a 190 lb. DB, giving your defense much less size overall.
Were those DBs 10 lbs bigger than the ones RR had? I kind of doubt it. So yeah, maybe an extra pound or 2 difference for the DBs, but my point is that Carr saying they were "very very small" wasn't factually correct, at least compared to his earlier defenses.
And stop with the height argument - I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I seriously doubt that RR's players were significantly shorter than their Carr counterparts save some slot ninjas. It's not like RR fielded 6' OL or anything.
Finally, yes the formations have an impact, but if you looked at the numbers RR's teams weren't that much smaller than Carr's, but in the scenario proferred by Carr they should have been significantly smaller. My whole point isn't that Carr was right that UM needs to have a better defense, but dragging out the tired trope of "they need to be bigger to succeed in the B1G, like my old teams" doesn't jive with reality.
I never really considered the Pac 10 a traditional power conference, but maybe I need to re-examine that.
Yes, because we all know how much of Pac-10(12) tradition was built on stifling defense.
USC never seemed to have trouble slowing down UM, and Washington's defenses used to terrify me. Cal and Oregon have fielded decent defenses recently as well. Now, they are certainly not to the elite level of, oh, Minnesota, Purdue, or Indiana, but not everyone can play defense like the black-and-blue B1G.
I'm just looking forward to the day when your average Saturday Pac-12 game doesn't result in a 35-31 win.
I just look forward to a Pac 12 game ending sometime before 2 am on Sunday morning. Wishful thinking.
How the hell were we playing with small players 3 years ago??? Those were all Carr recruits!
I took from this is the "you can't be changing defenses every year". I think Lloyd is spot on with that observation.
The biggest coup by Hoke so far was Mattison. It ensures that we will have quality stability on that side of the ball over his tenure.
He's proven. He hasn't regressed according to the stats. He's got the background to lure recruits in and from what we've heard so far, he's really putting an emphasis on improving the fundamentals, which is very important in any sport when dealing with youth.
I'm really hoping to see us beat Notre Dame on a last minute drive for the third year in a row, only this time with a 4th down stuffing by the defense.
I vividly remember USC offensive coordinator Lane Kiffin at the 2006 Rose Bowl, offhandedly mentioning that "Michigan's guys have on average, 2 inches and 20 pounds on ours.
"We focus on speed."
Talent does not. Equal. Size.
Where were all these manball purists when Drew Breezy was going H.A.M. on the Big Ten? Perhaps you folks remember Big Ten stars like Wisconsin's Jim Leonhard and OSU's Troy Smith? Mike Hart? Brandon Harrison? OSU LB Brian Rolle?
MIKE HART WAS A THREE STAR PEOPLE!
Hey now, I did some pretty good things with Scott Mitchell in Madden 64
Considering that your starting positions are "any disagreement with Lloyd/Hoke/former players constitutes "ripping on" Lloyd/Hoke/former players" and "any non-explicitly-negative statement regarding RR constitutes wishing for his return and considering him blameless in all respects", how do you hope to be credible when you start from a position of insanity?
Memorial Day weekend. I can see it now, he's blowing his sh*t and will breath fire upon Lloyd for these words.
Not meant to be a dig at anyone, but I find it strange that on this blog it almost seems like Brian's opinion on Michigan football is more valued than Carr's opinion on Michigan football. That just seems backwards to me.
You are getting at one of the fundamental issues of journalism: at what point do the opinions of he who owns the press supersede the opinions of the "real" newsmakers? Brian took a stand on RR and as things turned out, he was proven wrong. In the process, he established himself as an independent voice on Michigan sports, with an opinion of his own, for better or worse.
A lot of comments have been negged, flamebaited, banned, and so forth on this very topic. It's an ongoing issue without any easy answers. The best solution I can think of is that it's important for us all to formulate our own opinions and to share them rationally, on the blogosphere and off.
With respect to what Brian has built here, Ill take the coach in the hall of fame over Brian any day....
I would also take John Cooper's opinion about Michigan football very seriously as well. You talk of Cooper as if he was the worst coach ever. We beat him, but he had some really solid teams.
You know, when you are deciding it is unimportant that our head football coach being in the hall of freaking fame it unimportant, there is no helping you.
In case you missed it, Cooper regularly had teams in the top 10 when we ran into each other. Just because we beat his teams more than not doesn't mean he wasnt a terrific coach, just look at his record.
Brian Cook is a blog-author. I'm one of the people who largely agree with Brian and who value what he writes. It's easy for me explain why I log on to this site and why I look forward to reading Brian.
What's a lot harder to explain is why people who want to rip on Rich Rodriguez still come here.
I agree entirely with your post.
I had more to say, but I just cannot find a way to say it without metaphorically screaming the RR horde who feels the needs to defends what he hath wrought here even to the point of calling Llyoyd Carr an overrated member of the hall of fame.
Honestly I don't think there are many people who value Brian's opinion just because it's Brian's opinion. To the extent there are, they are offset by people who disregard Brian's opinion just because it's Brian's opinion.
A lot of people value Brian's opinion on the topic because it makes sense. When it comes to the "size beats all" argument, it actually makes more sense than Carr's.
I think the more illogical mindset is that "we have to believe everything Lloyd Carr says because he's Lloyd Carr, and if you question any of it, you must hate a demonstrably great man".
Lloyd is fallible. He won a lot of games, but he didn't win all of them. His big teams managed to lose some games as well. His big teams managed to get worn out late in games. So, great as Lloyd is, I think he overstates the case for size (but he's right about scheme changes).
On a related note, why is it assumed that big, heavy guys will get less tired during a game? I'd think exhaustion has a lot more to do with athleticism - the big guys may be stronger, but they also have more weight to haul. If any of it is bad weight, they'll get tired faster than a smaller guy who's more in shape.
I distinctly remember watching the Wisconsin game last year and thinking the players were finally in the right places a lot of the time. The problem was, they were too small to do anything about it when the big ol running back plowed them over. Even when out gamest players like Kovacs and Martin were there, they often weren't able to do more than get run over while the RB fell forward for 2-3 yards every play.
With depth and conditioning, fatigue is something a good staff can manage, and is often a serious strategic point in the game. How many times were we treated to discussions of how a massive O line was leaning on a smaller d line, and it would show in the 4th quarter when the d was too tired? Madden was huge for that during dallas cowboy games.
Carr is right on this. Maybe some of us put the cart before the horse. We wanted speed,speed, speed. Because we thought that was what is needed to beat the SEC, BIG 12 and PAC 10 and win a national title. The thing is, you cannot win a national title until you atleast win the conference first. And that's something the last coaching staff had no idea how to accomplish.
Nice to see that our newly minted and overrated Hall of Fame coach couldn't find the time to lend that wisdom three years ago. It's not his fault that RR couldn't figure that stuff out himself, but Lloyd was right there all this time keeping to himself. Where was that HOF mouth back then before this experiement started?
1) if Carr told RR this, would RR have listened? Given what went on on the defensive side of the ball, its hard for me to believe RR was really open to suggestions
2) if Carr told the media this while RR was the coach, could you imagine the reaction to that on this blog?
I think it would have been gracious of him to give the advice in person and not go to the media if RR shuts him out. I know RR is stubborn about the 3-3-5, but Lloyd was the most credentialed person around the program. RR might have listened to him about sticking with the 4-3 and sticking to the Midwest recruiting ground.
"Carr...overrated?" Did you start drinking early?
We couldn't beat OSU with Tressel there. USC outclassed us in the Rose Bowl twice. We had winning streaks broken against NW, Purdue and Minnesota. We stopped blowing away MSU and were ecstatic with just scraping out wins against Little Brother. And Tennessee handed us what was our worst bowl loss in history before this year.
Does he deserve to be in the HOF? Only because people with average resumes (Alvarez and Gene Stallings) are in there. He was an excellent caretaker of the program in my opinion, which I think is what a lot of people here miss.
This post is absurd. First of all, with respect to OSU and USC, there is a good chance that at the end of the day, we will know that Carr lost to two teams that weren't following the rules. At least to me that means something.
Your other points aren't really valid. In college football with the scholarship limits of today, all winning streaks come to an end. I notice you didn't mention the absolute domination of Wisco and Penn State under Carr's watch. You also cite close victories against MSU as a reason he is overrated? Listen to yourself dude. Look at his b10 record. Not many coaching in conference history stack up.
Wow, what an idiotic statement. I think that RR should have been able to figure out how to win by himself. That's, you know, what we paid him for. Maybe Lloyd didn't feel that it was his place to tell RR how to do his job?
The disdain for former players and coaches on MGoblog is really disturbing. These are the same guys that you loved 4 years ago, and whenever anyone points out the obvious fact that RR didn't do something right you guys ridicule them for it.
"Overrated Hall of Fame coach"..... get your head out of your ass.
REALLY? Lloyd Carr overrated? THAT'S your defense of the coach who brought the most failure to michigan football in a 3 year span I am aware of?
Had he said these things before, those who defend RR would have screamed about how he was undercutting the current coach and should keep such opinions to himself.
I believe that when Lloyd Carr has words on the way to build a B1G football program, a wise person would shut the hell up and listen, especially when the alternative is to continue to try to defend 3 years of nearly abject failure.
Carr was not perfect, and there were clear reasons for him to stop being our coach, but none of those reason were a defense ranked below 100th in the country (and getting WORSE).
Lloyd Carr has MUCH firmer ground to stand on when speaking about how to run michigan's football program than RR or his supporters.
Incidentally, SIZE and WEIGHT in football terms are not the same thing. A 320 pound tub of lard is not the same as a man like Orlando Pace, otherwise, our best linemen would come from japanese sumo programs.
To read that last line and think "Hey...weight (haha!) a minute..."
You thought the hall of fame was overrated.
I respect Lloyd alot.
His legacy is cemented as a great coach.
Honestly I think he was grooming Brady Hoke to be his successor which is why he sent him to be the head coach at Ball State to get some experience.
Lloyd is someone who has a very respected opinion around Michigan football because of his tremendous track record.
I wanted RR to succeed as much as the next guy but ultimately my loyalties lie with the program not any one person. If RR was the coach I would be defending him tooth and nail. The fact is he is not and so I defend Hoke tooth and nail. I will root for RR led teams so long as they aren't among the few teams I can't root for,
OSU, MSU, Miami FL, USC, Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Any SEC team except GA and Vandy.
What I am tying to say is that lloyd is right. He won 77.8% of the big ten games he coached in.
while the program was crumbling. All this Michigan Man crap would've stopped on Day 1 and that's if he would've been okay with the hiring of RR.
Bo was never in the very awkward position of having to watch his entire staff fired (save one guy) and the program subsequently collapse. If he had taken a public stand, it probably wouldn't have been favorable toward RR.
Ah, another dude who wants to use Bo's corpse as a puppet so he can ventriloquize his own points from a place of seemingly greater authority, as if anyone knows what Bo would have said regarding a coach he didn't know, and a tenure he didn't witness.
I am not trying to pass off judgment on RR here, just stating some facts though...
Bo would not just have disapproved of RR's tenure as head coach, he would have never allowed that hire to happen in the first place. Bo's stance on how Big Ten football should be played was VERY clear. He hated gimmicky offensive and defensive schemes and believed that to win in the Big 10, the most important thing a coach could do was emphasize fundamentals like blocking and tackling to an extreme degree. How do I know this? Because he wrote it, explicitly, in Bacon's book...
You are probably right but Brady Hoke was the assistant head coach in 2002. It's not outside the realm of possibilities that Carr suggested to Hoke that he should take a head coaching position elsewhere to get him ready for the UM head coaching job he desperately desired.
At various points, Fred Jackson, Erik Campbell, Brady Hoke and I believe also Jim Herrmann held that "assistant head coach" spot. It didn't mean that much. Hoke was never a coordinator, which is the normal stepping stone before landing a head position. I'm not sure Carr was ready to dispatch him when he left.
Weren't many saying basically the same thing around here when Mel Pearson decided to leave U-M for Michigan Tech?
We also have cats.
So, let me get this straight...the guy who's best defense was the 96 team has an opinion on what he saw on the field the last few years....
And the guy whose best defense (at michigan) was with Lloyd's players in 08, which was still lousy by michigan standards has MORE supporters? What kind of bizarro world is this?
LC should be free to express his own opinions. I disagree with LC that size was the problem the last three years. There are several smaller quick teams like TCU and Oregon who can take on and beat big teams.
RR problems all revolved around staffing. He failed to hire a top notch DC to run the defense. My thoughts are that RR was planning on Casteel to follow him to Michigan. He did not have a good plan B and kept many of the defensive coaches while trying to make them mesh with Schafer! Greg was just a horrible hire. The defensive fiasco was the reason I supported Brandon letting RR go, even though I was big fan of RR and his spread offense. I wish RR the best in his next coaching gig...but I definitely will not be following the next team he ends up coaching. The only team I will be following and supporting 100 percent is Michigan!!!
So far LC is my 2nd favorite Michigan Coach right behind Bo. '97 was a magic season with a great defense! If Osborne didn't announce his retirement after his bowl game, then Michigan would not have split the national championship that season. LC was just a couple plays away from going undefeated in '99.
I can't wait for the start of the BH era at Michigan. I have feeling BH will be a great coach here and we will see Michigan return to dominate the B1G in 3 to 4 years from now!!!!
My favorite coaches since becoming a big Michigan fan at the age of 8 in 1971:
TCU and Oregon don't have to play week after week of big bruisers like we do. It's one thing to scheme well for one bowl game when your team is healthy and unknown to the opponent, another to slog through the mud of a Big 10 season. All those encounters take their toll over the course of a year, and we haven't had depth to begin with.
But yeah, it's not just about having bigger guys, it's also about having better depth.
So it's everything
Which is exactly what Carr meant when he 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."
Sure, TCU was impressive in beating Wisconsin. But you cannot discount the fact that they had over a month to not only gameplan for the Badgers, but to get healthy. Let's also not forget that the game was played in near-perfect conditions.
Would the outcome have been the same for TCU were the game being played in the slop and muck of mid-November, coming off a stretch where they had just played the likes of Penn State, Iowa, and Michigan State?
Or, what if in the weeks immediately following a matchup vs. Wisconsin, TCU had to play the likes of Michigan, Ohio State, and Nebraska?
Is that fast but small defense really going to hold up over the course of a Big Ten season without wearing down or being hit by major injury? That is the big question. Based on his comments, I think Lloyd Carr would say no, and, FWIW, I tend to agree.
No offense, but I went to every Michigan home game this year and never had to wear a sweatshirt. Moreover, you are every bit as likely to get "slog and mud" in the Pac since Northern California, Oregon, and Washington are the rainiest areas in the country. In regards to cold, they play a ton of night games out there in the low 40s. I'll take the 55 degree sunny noon games in the big house any day. Sure, maybe there is a bad game of weather here and there when a cold front hits the midwest, but let's not pretend that they play college football in February / March where midwest weather would actually favor a big / downhill running team.
Our Big 10 schedule last year......
Indiana (cupcake, but due to our defensive futility, it seemed like a war)
Michigan State (good team....unless you're in the SEC)
Iowa (ended up being pretty mediocre. See Indiana)
Penn State (With two weeks rest, we got dominated by a very weak Penn State team)
Illinois (See Indiana)
Purdue (See Indiana)
Wisconsin (good team)
Ohio State (good team)
My point is that the Big 10 "gauntlet" has 2-3 challenges each year if you're a top flight team. Let's not pretend that it's harder than it really is. The Pac has it's share of powerhouses, mids, and cupcakes just like the Big 10.....we just don't see them as much, except for when they grind us up in the major bowl games.
I don't believe Lloyd was speaking to the quality of the opponents as much as he was speaking to their size and how teams that employ schemes with smaller players will eventually get worn down over the course of the Big Ten season.
Not a literal description of weather conditions. Besides, "slog" is not weather related. It means:
"A spell of difficult, tiring work or traveling."
This was a comment on the physical, bruising nature of Big 10 football, particularly in comparison to Pac-10 football.
Really wish I could plus you for this....my thoughts almost exactly.
Amazing how a group of what I'm assuming are mostly adults can't disagree agreeably.
Rich Rod's speed strategy could have worked but when half of your four and five star recruits bolt after one year and pretty much every secondary player you've ever recruited leaves you're going to be left with some gaping holes in your team.
The effect of this could be diminished with solid coaching and schemes but since RR was an offensive guy it wasn't coming from him and his defensive coordinators were flat out bad. You get left with a bunch of raw players and what that turns into is the abomination of a defense like we had last year.
It's unfair and invalid to argue that Shafer and Robinson are awful Defensive Coordinators based on their time in Ann Arbor as the following facts confound the analysis:
(1) their head coach strong-armed them into running defense's with which they were unfamiliar and apparently unconfident and of which they couldn't then be good teachers (blah something something blah round hole square peg Rich's idea blah), and
(2) a confluence of horrors led to such a legendary bolus of attrition that the Michigan Roster of Scholarship Defensive Players contracted to a range between the high-twenties and thirty-seven, far less than the mathophilic 85/2=42.5.
Shafer would have been a very good DC. However, the coach and defensive coaches would not let him run the defense. It may have been a different story if RR would have hired Shafer right away and let him hire his own coaches, and let Shafer run the defense. I'm not saying we would have finished .500 with the awful offense in '08 but the defense would have played much better and Shafer would know the defense was in need of players after the '08 season.
"You can only win in this league with stretch left runs on 1st and 2nd down, and prevent defense when protecting a lead in the 4th quarter against good teams that are moving the ball on you," then I think we could question his sanity.
But he's just said something that should be painfully, depressingly obvious at this point: you're not going to stop Wisconsin or OSU with little guys who don't really know where they should be, and can't really make a tackle when they are. Like it or not, that's the defense we ran the last two years.
No offense intended to Martin, van Bergen and the other guys who put a lot of effort in over the past couple years, but those defenses were beyond awful, beyond incompetent and beyond embarrassing. Carr is just stating the obvious: we need more size, more strength and a better, more consistent scheme on defense, if we want to compete for the Big 10 championship.
if you were ONLY talking about the defense. However, if you listen to Carr speak, he wasn't just referring to the defense. He started talking about changing defenses, and then went on to BROADLY, GENERALLY talk about the lack of size.
No one really is going to argue about the defense, but the problem is an offense that did work at times, and probably would have worked even better if there hadn't been enormous pressure to be perfect because they knew the defense would give up 30+ points every game. Are you now going to remove that offense and replace it with zone left plays and other predictable playcalling with an immobile QB and an O-Line that can't block elite D-Lines? Cuz that's exactly what we had under the last 5 (or more years) under Carr. Or, are we going to see a hybrid system like the one we saw in Carr's final game?
It would have been a lot better if Carr was only talking about the defense, but I don't think that's the case.
The offense didn't really work in the conference either, at least, not as well as we'd like to think. Now, I'm not one of those "it can't" types, but I think we have to admit to ourselves that it didn't really. In 2009, it did the trick against Indiana, and did okay against MSU and Iowa, but was a disaster down the stretch. In 2010, Indiana and Illinois, but that's it. Even games that look close-ish on paper, like Iowa, MSU and PSU, weren't, and our offense's inability to keep pace early was a major part of that. Then it collapsed completely down the stretch. As much as I loved seeing Denard shred ND and Illinois--and I did--this was a serious problem: all the good defenses in the league shut us down. Sure, a better defense would have changed things, and Oregon's d bailed them out of a few hairy situations, but our offense just wasn't dominant in the Big 10. And we looked brittle by the end.
Why? Well, Lloyd's theory that we lacked the size and strength to run the gauntlet shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Don't think that necessarily means playing Wisconsin ball, though. Maybe a heavier version of the spread (Meyer's, perhaps) would have been more effective.
**Gittleson turns on pizza ovens**
While I ADORE your avatar, it seems like a lot of the things you post lately are references to inside jokes Im not a part of. That makes me jealous.
Who is renowned for shoveling pizza into ols as a nutrutional plan.
Carr's statements can be interpreted in two ways IMO. Either he was itching to make these comments during the last three years but held back in deferance to the current regime, in which case he should be commended for his restraint, or he was actively involved from within to try to undermine the program, which is obviously negative. No one will really know for sure unless someone high up (like Martin) releases a tell all memoir about what actually happened.
What really disturbs me about his comments, though, were all the assumptions he made. When he left, the B10 was moving towards spread QBs (Troy Smith, Michael Robinson, Pryor). He talks about smaller players wearing down when it was his teams that couldn't finish games in the fourth quarter. The one image that still stands out from the 2007 season was not the first game, or Oregon, or Florida (where they completely ditched the offense they'd been running for a pass spread), but the last offensive series against OSU, where we saw a hopeless, tired, and beaten up offense wince onto the field with no chance of scoring. He talks about a consistent defense when it was he who change defenses when Hermann "left" and then saw that defense implode against the spread and better pro-style teams like USC.
Completely changing systems probably wasn't the best idea, but having more speed at the skill positions and a somewhat mobile QB is probably better than completely going back to what didn't work.
I really hope Hoke can take some positive lessons here. We really can't see him fail.
And now we finally know the secret to success.
2 slot receivers and 2 speed backs are smaller than 2 TE's and a Fullback or an HBack. 1 interior defensive lineman is smaller than 2 NTs like Watson and Branch with a 3rd DT posing as an end. If 2 of your LB's are converted DB's and you run 5 more DB's behind them you have a small backfield. If you have hybrid LB/DE's with 4 DB's behind them and your safety is Cato June you have a large backfield.
In some ways he's accurate, in other ways this seems to just be a rip on RR. To play the traditional style of play, yeah, you need big players near the end of the year to be successful. However, teams have been successful with smaller pplayers than Carr demands so not completely accurate.
And I still don't buy this whole Carr ruined Michigan with his poor recruiting classes, etc. Granted, they weren't the best in the nation and we had some players that didn't quite do what was expected, but if I remember, almost all the best players we've had over the last several years were still players from Carr's recruiting, so I just can't believe that argument.
and RR was correct too. Give me a team with both size AND speed.
I think people should let Brady run his offense before assuming it's going to be "Carr 2.0" in A2.