Cook on WTKA now
January 13th, 2011 at 10:22 AM ^
While I agree with the general "hypocrisy" sentiment, calling Brian (or anyone here) an "asshole" is just falling into the same path plowed by the angry RR-supporters. You don't need to go down that road.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:53 AM ^
Webb says how can you overlook Ball State success for Hoke.
Cook says he won against Navy and that was his biggest win.
Says the last year at SDSU is his biggest positive says we need to win 9 games next year and every one will be all on Hokes jock.
Media will go nuts.
Michigan can plausably get back into OSU realm. Tressel gets old and we can be even with OSU in 5 years. Best case scenario from Brian.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:55 AM ^
Thanks for the play-by-play, much appreciated.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:13 AM ^
What was RR's biggest win here? Wisconsin, Uconn, ND? Hardly great teams.
Brian needs to give this a couple years. Looking back @ the 2010 season, games against UMASS, IND, ND, ILL could easily have went the other way. I was all in for RR, until the Wisconsin game. There wasn't enought improvement.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:14 AM ^
I'm not saying that Rodriguez had great wins, but each of those 3 teams you brought up won their respective bowl games this year. Just saying.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:19 AM ^
January 13th, 2011 at 10:26 AM ^
You're totally right. My bad. I got all caught up in the emotion of this thread. Again, my sincere apologies and thanks for setting me straight.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:27 AM ^
by the biggest
score
ever.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:52 AM ^
Get over it. Like everyone has said, Rodriguez's tenure is over and there's no reason to re-hash. The point is that there are a lot of people who feel burned from the events of the past 2 months and need time to get over that before we can throw all of our support Hoke's way. That's not to say we don't support him, but we're not yet "all in" like others may be.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:34 AM ^
Aren't you guys tired yet of dancing on his grave?
January 13th, 2011 at 10:27 AM ^
Hoke only lost to TCU by 5 in TX late in the season.
I know a loss is a loss...
Their other losses were against Utah by 4, Mizzou by 3 and BYU by 3. All very close games against competitive, ranked teams (BYU not ranked, but won bowl game).
What to make of it? I have no idea...
January 13th, 2011 at 10:53 AM ^
Navy is Hokes biggest win anywhere.
RR has beaten big time programs. Georgia is one that comes to mind.
Wisconsin was a pretty great team this year as well. ND is a bigger win than Navy... you would have to agree with that.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:08 AM ^
We lost to them by a ton. If you mean the year we beat them, 2008, they were 7-6. Not great by any means. But yes, Rich has had some bigger wins.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:28 AM ^
Yet his big wins came at WVU, so who really cares?
January 13th, 2011 at 11:12 AM ^
Why exactly is ND a better win than Navy? Because they lost to the middies this year at a neutral site and last year in south bend?
January 13th, 2011 at 11:46 AM ^
Notre Dame isn't a better win than Navy; that's ridiculous.
Navy at Notre Dame -- Navy blowout.
Navy at SDSU -- SDSU blowout.
Next.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:00 AM ^
Brian was just called "Drew Sharp" by a caller
LOL, DAMN!!!
I think Brian should detox before getting back on the radio...this coaching search has hurt him more than I expected
January 13th, 2011 at 10:00 AM ^
Says Hoke was fit for a mid-level B1G job.
Got a better one.
Says he IS NOT A TERRIBLE HIRE.
Says it is a critique of the things essentially holding michigan back the way we ran RR out of town.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:16 AM ^
15-22 GOT RICH RUN OUT OF TOWN. WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND????
January 13th, 2011 at 10:19 AM ^
January 13th, 2011 at 10:24 AM ^
Is Brian now setting up a travel agency to do the same?
January 13th, 2011 at 11:13 AM ^
January 13th, 2011 at 11:24 AM ^
You're right, you're not doing a good job of explaining the difference. Brian for 3 years has had Hoke as the coaching candidate devil, and now that it's come to be, he's not even taking any notion that he could be wrong, and could be a good fit. Rosenberg at least waited till Rich offended his oh so delicate sensibilities before he flip-flopped on him (his first article on Rich was one of high praise). I guess at least Brian is being consistent. But Rosenberg at least waited for something to happen before being completely turned off.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:01 PM ^
January 13th, 2011 at 1:39 PM ^
They were "saving" Michigan (even if they were horribly wrong). I'm not sure WHAT Brian is going for with this take. It's certainly not helping. But I'll happily agree/concede that Brian isn't rooting to be right like they were. He'd happily flip-flop if proven wrong, and will enjoy every victory. (However, I have some doubt for the first time the way he's clinging to his views from the past, and has ignored the negatives that he isn't waiting to say "I told you so", because he can't accept being wrong in the least).
January 13th, 2011 at 3:44 PM ^
C'mon dude...stick with me here...I never said anything about "Rosenberg". Here is what you wrote:
People were buying one-way tickets for RR before he ever coached a game.
"People" does not equal "Rosenberg". Further, since you used the plural, "tickets", you clearly meant multiple "people" (of which maybe you see "Rosenberg" as one). I'm just pointing out this wacky double-standard of the RR-folk who were angry about critiques of RR (before RR coached a game), who have no problem critiquing Hoke (before he ever coached a game). It kinda takes all the weight out of both their ealier complaints and present critiques.
January 13th, 2011 at 7:30 PM ^
January 13th, 2011 at 10:24 AM ^
if he won he would still be coach. it's that simple.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:31 AM ^
I think the argument is that all of the adversity and negativity from within the UM community made it more difficult for RR to win games. You may not agree with that view, but it requires more of a response than "but he didn't win"
January 13th, 2011 at 10:01 AM ^
Caller says Hoke gets it.
says Hoke is a GREAT hire
says Brian has some balls calling him out.
Brian says nothing to say to that.
(It was basicially a caller rah rah-ing to which yea LOL).
January 13th, 2011 at 10:03 AM ^
Dan Dierdorf said we sucked at recruiting the past 3 years as well. It's not a new theory.
I only believed this when I saw the pure size advantage of the Wisconsin team compared to ours.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:09 AM ^
at the bowl it looked like every player was 6 inches taller and 40 lbs heavier.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:30 AM ^
I didn't see Dierdorf's comments, but Spielman summed up our recruiting and current talent level very well during the Wisconsin game. It hurt to hear it, but I couldn't find fault with anything he said.
January 13th, 2011 at 2:07 PM ^
You have to be specific when you talk about recruiting, or at least should be.
<br>
<br>Some players are frosh/soph recruited by RR and most were leftovers from the Lloyd era.
<br>
<br>The freshmen and sophomores don't just get "better" as juniors and seniors, they will be bigger and stronger as well due to college weight training and physical maturity.
<br>
<br>The RR only wants small players meme is nonsense on par with the spread not working in the Big 10.
January 13th, 2011 at 3:14 PM ^
I wasn't trying to imply "rr recruited small players". I'm sure you heard Speilman's comments either in the game or rehashed here on the blog. He basically said nobody on our D would start on another Big 10 school - outside of Martin.
There was some additional comments, but the basic premise was that Michigan used to pump D talent into the NFL, and nobody currently playing on M's D was at that level.
Maybe some of the freshmen grow into that, maybe they don't, but our current talent/production was what he was speaking to, and that's what I was referencing in my post.
January 17th, 2011 at 2:39 AM ^
Chris Spielman is a homeless man's Matt Millen when it comes to evaluating football players and talent. He's clueless and stuck in a bygone era. He also doesn't like the 3-3-5 due to too many bubbles. I am very familiar with his comments.
Since you weren't implying RR recruited players that were too small, I guess you were implying that it was Lloyd's fault?
It's readily apparent that the defense was awful last year, but it didn't have anything to do with our coaching staff(s) recruiting players that were too small.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:13 AM ^
I really like writing on this blog, but it is turning into the freep. I do not want to support a guy who goes on the radio trashing our coach and our athletic director. His thought that Michigan will never be as good as elite schools if they don't have a schematic advantage is complete BS. How long has Brian been a Michigan fan again? He sounds like someone who has no history with our program.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:27 AM ^
by "turning into the freep" you mean this blog criticizes Michigan's coach? I think you're overstating your objection to Brian's response.
If Brian criticizes Hoke in a way that is (1) personal, and (2) unfair...then make the comparison.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:48 AM ^
The problem with the Free Press wasn't that it was "critical"! Are you freaking kidding me? The problem with the Free Press was that they made shit up, instigated an NCAA investigation, which in turn cost us a lot of national prestige, put Coach Rodriguez in a falsely bad light, distracted our staff from coaching and recruiting, hurt our national reputation with recruits, divided our fan base, cost us more money than Jeff Casteel makes in an entire contract, et cetera, et cetera.
The day that Brian Cook makes up a phony story based on anonymous sources who he won't identify, and falsely alleges that Brady Hoke and his staff are seriously violating NCAA rules, and that in turn leads to another NCAA investigation of the football program -- that is the day that you can compare Brian Cook to the fucking Detroit Free Press!
January 13th, 2011 at 8:07 PM ^
and disagree with whomever disagreed with you and negged you. so here's a +1.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:53 AM ^
Does OSU really have a schematic advantage when they step on the field? For the most part I don't think so, but they've won 6 straight Big Ten Titles, a NC, played in 3 BCS Title games and have gone 5-3 in BCS bowl games under Tressell.
January 15th, 2011 at 2:08 PM ^
They also cheat.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:23 AM ^
Listen, it's obvious a lot of people on this board have strong feelings about the way RR was treated, the way he coached and the way he was relieved of his duties. I definitely do. And a lot of people have strong feelings about Hoke, his qualifications, his staff, his schemes. Can we have those conversations in the appropriate threads instead of dissolving every thread into a rehash of the same arguments?
Yes, there is going to be a double standard when it comes to RR and Hoke. He is going to get advantages and patience and appreciation that RR never got, and yes, that sucks. BUT Hoke is our coach now and we have a really big couple weeks coming up for recruiting, then spring practices and the spring game. For those who want to still talk about RR, please start your own threads. I'll see you there.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:31 AM ^
I agree with all of this to some extent. It is important to acknowledge that there are a large number of fans that feel scorned and upset about the whole coaching change situation transpired and attempts to discredit them is only going to fan the flames of discontent. The most important thing is getting everyone on board this train because, no matter what, its leaving the station. That said, I think the time is not yet upon us that the ardent Rodriguez supporters (or at least sympathizers) are ready to buy into the new direction. Not that it is not coming, just that people who have already bought in should be a little more patient and try being a little more understanding. Kill us with kindness or else the harmful division will remain.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:23 AM ^
Why is there so much focus on "offensive schematic advantages". It seems like the loses in 2006/7 to OSU/USC, the loses to Oregon and Texas were just as much, if not more, defensive lapses.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:02 AM ^
Elaydin has no horse in this race (though if the tenor of this blog continues, he's going to be hurt on App ad hits...). Look back. How many of those big games was the problem that we just couldn't score points? We've been mostly an offensive machine since '99. It's been the defense that's been up and down, and determined the season. We didn't "not score enough" against Texas...we gave up too many points. We beat Alabama by outscoring them. OSU in '06 was the defense did a 180, not our offense. Florida, beat them twice outscoring them...but gave up a lot of points both times. And USC? They beat us with ridiculous talent on defense, not offense (though it was pretty awesome on offense too). Our problem was that their defense was so fast, ANY offense could have been stopped by them. We just couldn't hold them down too. We needed to have a game like Monday's National Championship Game...two good offenses, held down by well-prepared defenses. Ohio State hasn't been beating us with offensive pyrotechnics...it's usually by their defense. For all the talk that our offense was so "predictable to the USC players" (yes, they said it), it was also said about our offense by.....Mississippi State, 12 days ago. So apparently, even though to Brian it's all about turnovers with a young quarterback (funny, I don't think he was the only one turning the ball over...nice statistical work there), OTHER teams think our "decided schematic advantage" is pretty predictable. But what do MSU's defenders know...they only played the game against us.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:52 AM ^
A great, great, accurate post.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:37 AM ^
Brian's theory is nonsense, but even if it isn't: What's the point of "evening up" an inherent recruiting disadvantage with a particular offensive system if the cost of that is making the defense terrible? Everything Rod "gained" in offense he gave back a thousand times over in defense.
Net-net of the entire package: the worst three-year period in Michigan football in decades, perhaps ever.
It's also bizarre that Rod's defensive failures are seen as some kind of "accident," bordering on an act of God. Very bizarre. Rod's poor defensive superstructure, from recruiting to system to scheme once he hit the big time is every bit as "inherent" as Michigan's allegedly "inherent" recuriting disadvantage.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:59 AM ^
Not to be a RichRod apologist but you make it seem as though a better offense was linked to having a worse defense. The better offense did not cause the worst defense. It just so happens that our defense became much worse under RichRod while our offense became better.