If I said "he didn't get" the rivalries, you would have quoted me. But, I didn't. You're making things up and it's ridiculous. The fact that you continue to misquote me is tiring. Mods - Is there a way to give -100 to this guy?
CC: "Maybe he misspoke" - JH on Stanford AD
I will remember to use the active voice more, my grammar skills are awful. Not sure, you can say he stubbornly stuck to his system. As I pointed out, he thought he had a choice and maybe was wrong. There were very few returning starters on the O in the skill positions, so why not teach them something new. To me , it seemed logical. Maybe Sheriden and Threet would have been better in the pro style and his record better, but you just don't know. Now, if he had Henne and Mario and changed, then we can all agree that it was a mistake.
Could we please drop the "he blames everyone else for losing so it sets a bad example" crap. I have heard that numerous, numerous times and every time I do I just want to punch Santa Clause. It isn't true. He takes plenty of blame. PLENTY of it. If you actually listen to all of his pressers, he has said plenty of times that they didn't prepare the kids and that this one was on the coaches too. But I am guessing you hear him say "didn't execute well" right? Let me give you a hint, every coach in america says it. I don't care about Jim Harbaugh and I don't care what he thinks, but I guarantee he has said it before. What an asshole. I can't believe he blames kids like that.
Personally, I don't think it's a huge deal, but there is some truth to that assertion. He has tended to deflect blame away from himself. After the 2009 MSU game, RR said it was Mesko's call to keep the ball on that disastrous fake punt. (Even if true, wouldn't it still fall on the coaches for calling a play with a run/punt option there?) There have been a few other times like that. And of course, he gave the "Vince Lombardi couldn't help our defense" line earlier this season.
People can argue this both ways. I agree it's not that big of a deal. The people who support RR will say he is brutally honest. People who don't like RR will say he is throwing his kids under the bus. I have heard other coaches say when a kid doesn't play well, RR is not the first.
He has pulled in 2 classes that were ranked fairly well considering everything surronding the program. I wonder how good recruiting would be if his job wasn't constantly in question.
You can argue that since September, RR's job status has been a negative hindrance in his recruiting efforts, but not before then. He was in no jeopardy of losing his job in 2008 or 2009. We need to stop constantly lowering the bar for the guy. Charlie Weis recruited extremely well the entire time he was at ND, "distractions" or not. So did Bill Callahan at Nebraska. Honestly, if a coach's sales pitch is so weak that outside issues can outweigh it, maybe he's just not that good of a recruiter.
OK, maybe he wasn't in danger of losing his job, but he definitely didn't have everyone's support. I remember at the B1G meeting last year, someone asked him a question about negative recruiting and there was negative recruiting. Sure, this may have been rumors about losing his job or fed by the MSM, but it probably impacted recrutiing. All I was saying is that I wish we can see what he fully did and if he is a really good recruiter without the negativity surrounding, whether his fault or not. I know stupid wish.
I seem to remember that he pulled in Devine, a 5 star recruit at WVU. Also, his last class was top 10. That compares fairly well with past Michigan classes.
I am not sure what I said made you think that I am lowering the bar for him. I would love a top 5 class every year and expect him to start getting there now.
THis idea that if he comes, his recruits will come is a little asinine. Stanford is far superior to us academically and is located in amazing Palo Alto. I am sure many players will stay there, especially if an internal hire is made.
Completely agree. you don't know who would come and you can't make that assumption. That's like saying when they hired RR, that Devine would transfer. One thing I can say is that if RR was to be replaced by JH. It would have been nice for him to start right after OSU and start giving more time for recruits to visit and think about a change.
Have you ever been to Palo Alto? Sure, it's nice but the place is as sterile as Sarah Jessica Parker. Plus, they can't even sell out their 50,000-seat stadium while their team is 11-1.
Stanford is ranked higher than Michigan and Palo Alto definitely has better weather, but Michigan is no slouch as far as academics is concerned. Our grad programs are virtually all ranked in the top 10 and our med school is ranked several places above Stanford. I never heard of anyone embarrassed by a Michigan degree.
But when it comes to the Saturday game time experience, the comparison palls into insignificance. At Michigan, your games are played at arguably the best stadium in college football and inarguably in front of the largest crowd in America week after week vs.a small, half filled stadium.
no one is saying that Michigan isn't a great academic school, and that at the graduate level, they are on a level playing field. All are truly valid; however we are talking about undergraduate education at this level. Stanford is one of the best-top 5.
And for Palo Alto, it is very beautiful and a safer bet for a comfort level to the west coast kids they typically recruit. Kids that go there truly take academics seriously in the recruiting process.
I agree that we probably won't see too many of Stanford's current recruits switching to Michigan, but going forward, I would expect Harbaugh to recruit better at Michigan than RR next year. Despite that great weather and everything, Stanford historically has recruited very poorly. The classes Harbaugh is bringing in there are far, far beyond what they usually get. I see no reason to believe he wouldn't recruit extremely well here, too.
I have no idea of RR or JH will be the better recruiter. I do have a question if JH is our coach. How will he explain to parents about his comments about Michigan's academics pushing athletes toward easier majors. Hoping that parents forget about it may not work.
What Harbaugh really said was "what's his problem?"
no, what's your deal?
So that's my own misqoute. Duh! Snarky FAIL for me!
Good thing this is the holidays and I have plenty of things to do other than stare at CC threads. We're in for an interesting ride in the next couple weeks I think!
Whether it is happening or not, Brandon and Harbaugh have done an amazing job of not saying or doing anything misleading publicly during this odd period. Harbaugh signing that extension would be an example (even though a lot of coaches would, and couldn't be blamed for doing so.)
All I want for Christmas is the Jim Harbaugh Stanford character and cruelty in Ann Arbor inflicting payback on Michigan's rivals for a few years. I won't lie. Give us our program back. This is the guy to make it happen.
if you think harbaugh coming into michigan and would instantly win against our rivals, your kidding yourself. If he beats any of them in the next few years it will be with RR players..
And how do you know that he could come in here and "be the guy to do it"?
Who has he beat that has been noteworthy in their 11-1 record this year that would make you think he could come in and be "the guy" to win right away at michigan?
Yes, if JH wins in his first year or two, it will largele be with RR's players. At least he will be winning. I think the issue for many that want to make the change is that RR is NOT winning (quality games) with those players. The issue seems not to be the players, but the coaching and team management.
My point is, Harbaugh is gonna inherit all of RR's Sophmores, clearly these kids are gonna continue to improve and get much better as junior's and seniors..
I think it's bullshit that we hired a coach and can't even give him 4 years to build up a team, given the mess of offensive players he inherited when he got here.
"Given the mess of offensive players he inherited when he got here."????? What about all the ones he inherited but chose not to re-recruit? A couple of NFL WR's. A future NFL QB. He had a ton of great parts but make the choice to put his system above the players available. That was his choice and his alone. He also had some nice ones stay. Imagine where we would have been without B. Graham during RR's first two years!
As for inheriting RR's players...do you mean that great defense RR has assembled, and are you thinking about all those defensive commits that left during the RR era? Will it be Harbaugh's fault that 32% of D commits left under RR? There are some solid players that the next coach will inherit, although I don't know that any of them were of the caliber that RR inherited.
I use to think the same thing. If he was such a great coach, he can modify his system to his players. Then, I remember that interview he did(I think it was CBS Sports), when he said that the starters were all new, so he decided to go with his system. It's not like the starters were use to another system, they were gone.
I can't say anything about the defense, that is another story.
Just curious as to what percentage of defensive players left before RichRod got here? If you need help, you might want to check the decimatedd defense. Also, which players did he chose not to re-recruit? See, this is why nothing you say can actually be taken seriously, because you use the same old tired shit all the time. "RichRod told Mallettt he didn't want him and then told Arrington and Manningham to go pro. Then he took over an offense FULL of talent (all of that talent has equaled zero offensive players drafted in the last 3 years) and looked horrible. Don't worry about our top 5 offensive players getting drafted the year before RichRod got here and returning 1 starter his first year, RichRod is UNACCEPTABLE at coach because he doesn't get the rivalries and he swears a lot."
Cmon, you still think RichRod's character is in question because he sang a Josh Groban song. You are actually starting to look like more of a troll than someone wanting to talk about football. First RichRod swears too much at his players and his language is UNACCEPTABLE dirty, then he sings Josh Groban and he is UNACCEPTABLE wimpy.
Step outside of the MGoBubble. Making things up doesn't mean I said them (even if you use quotation marks).
Never said he told anyone to go pro. Never said he told anyone he didn't like them. Never said the offense was "full" of talent. Never said he swears a lot. Never said he doesn't "get" the rivalries. Never said his character is in question.
He didn't successfully re-recruit his talent. I don't care if he swears. I think he "gets" the rivalries; the problem is losing the games. I think his character is fine. He's stubborn, but seems to be a good guy. He just hasn't gotten the job done at Michigan.
It's pathetic that you'd make up an entire reply of things I never said to counter anything I actually did say. That's a certain indication that you're in the MGoBubble.
So then which players that he inherited did he chose not to "re-recruit?"
He didn't sing.
His recruits are sophomores.
Who have we beaten that's noteworthy? We're not going 11-1 anytime soon with RR and this defense. I think we get a max of 8 wins next year, which is a huge shame with our offense.
max 8 wins when you don't even know how much players will improve next year..? ya right..
with Troy Woolfolk back and 4 sophomores instead of true freshman, our secondary should look a lot better.
What if a couple of our young defensive players make the quantum leap that Denard did?
At the same time, how do we know Denard stars healthy enough to get us there. The guys an amazing player but he missed time in pretty much every game we played this year. There are definitely some durability concerns and any scenario where we shock the world next year under RichRod is going to be extremely dependent on Denard.
How much did our offense falter as a whole without Denard? I think the dropoff from Denard to Tate on a pure production level is being extremely exaggerated.
Max 8 gamess????
Wow, when we won 7 this year? And all of the returning starters? And players coming back from injurries??
To be that negative, you gotta hate RR.
I could understand expecte 8 wins, max 9. I disagree with that. I think expected between 8 and 9 wins and max 10 or 11.
But 8 wins? Go get alcohol and chill out. Yeesch.
Yes it sounds weird to think we would only win 8 games max next year considering we just finished a 7-5 regular season... But then look to our five losses. We were much closer to being a 4-8 team (Notre Dame, Indiana, Illinois games) than we were to being an 8-4 team. Not one of our losses was close, so it's not that far-fetched to think 8 wins may be our ceiling for next year. Other teams players are going to get better this offseason too.
He turned a 1-11 standard team into 11-1 in 4 years with wins over everyone on their schedule except a team going to the mnc game. Plus a couple wins over reasonably dominant USC.
So you have no respect for JH.
To be fair to JH, was has RR done in 3 years? Taken a 9-3 team to 7-5 with a prolific offense that crumples against decent defenses and taken a decent defense and reverted it to one of the worst in college ball an the worst in program history.
I agree there are reasons which are not just excuses, but the truth is that there are reasons JH is an attractive replacement.
and you seem to be ignoring about three-quarters of them.
-Rich Rod and Harbaugh have had nearly identical records in their first three years at their current schools.
-Pac-10 sucks this year and I don't care what Sagarin says. USC hasn't been "reasonably dominant" in a couple of years. There's no such thing as "reasonably dominant."
-Everyone on that 9-4 (not 9-3) team in 2007 on offense left and the remaining contributors were constantly injured (Minor, Brown). People like dahblue assume that everyone who left was retainable, which isn't the case.
-Two of those four losses were THE HORROR and the Post-Apocalyptic Oregon game. Great.
-Apparently Harbaugh gets all of the credit for Luck and Gerhart, but Rod deserves none of the credit for Denard and Graham.
Merry fucking Christmas.
Amen and +1
Your "facts" aren't very facty.
Rich Rod and Harbaugh have had nearly identical records in their first three years at their current schools.
-But Stanford was 1-11 before JH and Michigan was 9-4 before RR. Michigan still isn't as good as they were before RR, while Stanford is 10 wins better. Our program is not three years old.
Pac-10 sucks this year and I don't care what Sagarin says. USC hasn't been "reasonably dominant" in a couple of years. There's no such thing as "reasonably dominant."
Who did we beat this year of any note? Have we, under RR, ever beaten a BigTen team with a winning conference record?
Everyone on that 9-4 (not 9-3) team in 2007 on offense left and the remaining contributors were constantly injured (Minor, Brown). People like dahblue assume that everyone who left was retainable, which isn't the case.
You baited me into it!!! So, here it is again...a new coach MUST re-recruit his top talent. If he doesn't, then it's no ones fault but his own if they leave. Most of those players might have stayed, but RR feels that his "system" is what matters. He chose to lose multiple NFL caliber players for the sake of his system. Don't believe me? Take a look at, frankly, a smarter coach in Beilein. He re-hired coach Jackson and re-recruited Manny and DeShawn because doing anything else would have been (3-9 style) suicide. The players don't need to fit the system; they need to give the team the best chance of winning. RR took a risk and lost.
Your last couple points mean nothing. We lost to Oregon and App St under Carr...we lost to everyone under RR (Toledo anyone?). And drop the "Rod gets no credit" whine. He gets plenty of credit for Denard. He's created a system where an amazing athlete like Denard can thrive (against many opponents), but not sure what he did for Graham. RR only recently began to spend "more time" (aka 15 minutes) with the D.
A Festivus for the restofus! ...and maybe you should drop the "no excuses", as you've got nothing but for RR.
Come on, see my post above about installing his system. For the experts out there to confirm, but weren't most of the guys on offense leaving anyway. I heard Mallett was going to transfer before RR got the job. And Mario was leaving as well.
That's what you heard...and not what others heard.
Bottom line is that coaches can change the future plans of players by re-recruiting them. Manny and DeShawn were gone but Beilein fought to bring them back because he needed them. RR didn't feel that he needed anything but his system, and he lost too much talent as a result.
Fair enough. That's why I left it out there for people with more knowledge to confirm. How do you know RR didn't fight to keep those guys. Where did you HEAR that from.
While I have some friends in the program who deal with such matters, RR admitted the same in repeatedly saying things like, "I'm only interesting in players who want to play for Michigan." It's no secret that he didn't re-recruit players that didn't fit his system.
"I'm only interested in players who want to play for Michigan" means he didn't want players who weren't "All In." What's wrong with that? I'm starting to buy the idea that Rich Rod is much more uptight with attitude adjustments than Lloyd Carr was, great coach though he was.
Coaches can change the future plans of SOME players by re-recruitment. Players aren't commodities. They aren't robots that can be reprogrammed. They are human beings with their own goals and plans.
"All in". The worst two words since RR came to A2. Frankly, I think it means "all in" for RR, not Michigan. Even Ryan Mallet still speaks well of Michigan. The guys that left were "all in", they just didn't want to play in a scheme that wasn't going to work with the tools available.
You have friends inside the program who deal with such matters? Yeah, you and every other wanna-be insider. Sorry but I call bullshit.
Good for you. You could always check back to notice that my recruiting insight has been pretty damn accurate, but then again...I must be full of shit. No worries. No one is obligated to believe a word. Tis the internets after all.
Could we please stop using "Stanford was 1-11 so that is the end all of the discussion on what teams they took over" as a line of reasoning. Let's look at this reasonably. Walt Harris was fired at Stanford for going 1-11. He got fired because:
-the team had way more talent than going 1-11 and probably should have won 5 or 6 games
-the team was supposed to go 1-11 and they fired him because they didn't like him
Guess which one is true. Harbaugh inherited plenty of talent, which is the exact reason Harris was fired....because he didn't get enough out of them. If you want to argue Harbaugh is a better coach than Harris, then yes, I agree. Jim Harbaugh has less of a track record than RichRod did before Michigan, so what makes you think he can come in here and win games? I guess coaches should be fired before their players become juniors though. Good call.
Walt Harris was fired because he went 1-11, which is unacceptable at Stanford. In fact, dropping off from 5-6 to 1-11 is probably going to get you fired at any school if it's not your first year. As such, it is irrelevant whether or not they expected a 1-11 season before it began because whether it is expected or not, a 1-11 season is cause to be fired at Stanford.