Debating Rich Rodriguez
After the Illinois and Purdue losses, many of us (including myself more than I care to admit) have been idiots, particularly on the subject of Rich Rodriguez. There has been a lot of content generated to disparage Rodriguez, many of which have lacked any remotely logical or semi-legitimate reasons to back up their views. And in those instances that the criticism had a valid point, the author has often been disparaged for being negative. This is stupid because it should not matter in the slightest whether we are positive or not if we've got a point.
Is it so unreasonable to ask that we just debate the merits and demerits of Rodriguez? I personally feel that Rodriguez inherited an impossible situation in which he could not institute any of his schemes and win football games consistently because he inherited the wrong players and little depth, particularly at two of the most important positions on the field: QB and safety. At the same time, I do question his judgment with regard to picking assistants (Scott Shafer and Jay Hopson...) and game management (I was especially pissed throughout the Illinois and Purdue games because of this, particularly when we had Brown run on downs 1-3 against Illinois).
Having said all of this, I recognize that my views may not be wholly accurate (or logical) and remain amenable to changing them. At the same time, the only way to do this is to have a reasonable debate in which we don't just go off on highly emotional rants because we act like little girls when we lose football games.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:34 AM ^
Is Rich Rod a good coach overall? I think the answer is yes, he is.
Is Rich Rod still a human and will he make mistakes? I think the answer is yes, he will.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:39 AM ^
Purdue game? What did he do wrong?
Not going for the 4th down at our like 30?-I agree you ALWAYS punt here
Going for it on 4th and 10 when we haven't stopped them at all when a field goal gets us nothing (and our kicker had missed an earlier one and it was a long one)? -Is the right call.
Not expecting an onside kick after the turn-over?-Really?
His offense put up 36 points? What is their to question?
November 9th, 2009 at 12:44 AM ^
Not going for fourth down on the 30 is fine. Getting a delay of game because you can't make up your mind about whether or not to do so is not.
Also, we should not be having Tate Forcier be passing out of the pocket on a critical 2 pt. conversion. He should either be rolling out or throwing a quick screen.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:47 AM ^
if he just decided to kick the ball Zoltan probably punts that into the endzone and they get an extra 10ish yards.
This is just getting ridiculous though. You've pointed out 2 things that a coach did wrong in a game. It's like holding if you look hard enough at any coach you can second guess him all day long.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:50 AM ^
Dude, bouje, you and I have had disagreements in the past but didn't you know that Bo NEVER made mistakes?
/sarcasm
November 9th, 2009 at 12:56 AM ^
So I don't see how I could ever have an argument with anyone.
Seriously though you're not as big of a douche as I thought you were. You can be a douche when you want to be (like me) but we're on the same team man and we are fighting the same fight against these people who just listen to the MSM.
I hope we win.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:30 AM ^
Get a room, guys
November 9th, 2009 at 1:05 AM ^
Maybe the fact that I can name two mistakes off the top of my head suggests that Rodriguez makes a number of obvious mistakes during the course of the game. Here's two more:
There was no adjustment to Purdue's rollout play, which went for eight or so yards easily.
He had Tate run his first ever option (a play that will often result in turnovers when executed incorrectly) near our own 20.
I do not want to run through the whole game looking for mistakes in game management by the coaching staff (my physics homework is not compatible with the time commitment that would be involved). However, I think that it is clear that a number of poor coaching decisions were made in the Purdue game.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:10 AM ^
1. That "first ever option play" I'm not really sure exactly which one that you're talking about. If you're talking about the one in the first half that gained 5 yards at around mid-field... or the one later in the game where it caused the turn-over. I'm sure that you just mean to just talk about the negatives and just forgot about that gem of a play that went for positive yards.
The RR detractors don't look at the whole game, they only see what they want to see and forget about all of the great plays, how every play in this offense has a counter and how every play in the playbook plays off each other.
2. What do you want them to do on the roll-out play? Please enlighten us?
November 9th, 2009 at 1:20 AM ^
Still, do you honestly want that play being run near our 20 by a freshman QB with practically no gametime experience. If you answer yes, then you are being dumb.
As to point number 2, we needed to blitz someone on the outside (Roh or Brown), even at the risk of leaving a receiver open (because we did a great job of keeping them from catching the ball when we tried to cover them). That, or spread the line a bunch and use an ILB to watch out for the run up the middle, which Purdue didn't do much until they started playing more conservatively.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:52 AM ^
so our playbook is set? no more new plays allowed?
November 9th, 2009 at 2:23 AM ^
No using high risk plays with a freshman QB near our 20 when winning.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:04 AM ^
For all of the horrible and god awful things that RichRod called on offense (because you have pointed out 4 of them, so they must happen all the time), we still scored 36 points. In the game on Saturday, RichRod's offensive playcalling was not the problem.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:37 AM ^
I'm guessing you didn't notice that Purdue called a corner blitz on that option play. They just happened to have the perfect call or the option would have been successful.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:05 PM ^
Zounds! Outcoached by Danny Hope!
November 9th, 2009 at 1:19 PM ^
You cannot honestly think that "RR got out-coached by Danny Hope" because he RPS +1'd him on one play.
You don't like RR, you want him fired you want to bring in BK or some other guy. We get it. (Yes I know you'll spout back with "RR can do no wrong in your opinion).
November 9th, 2009 at 1:28 PM ^
I also understand the supporters of Rodriguez want their say and I don't want them to shut up or stop posting.
November 9th, 2009 at 6:43 PM ^
And it is irrelevant. The fact is that the option is a play on which a mistake is much more likely to result in a turnover because you have a freshman QB trying to pitch the ball with a defensive player in his face. The fact that there was a defender there meant that Tate was going to have to make a decision of whether to keep or pitch. He made the wrong one and it was costly. And he shouldn't be making that decision near our 20.
Also, I don't really give a damn whether an individual play (like a sweep for instance) is unsuccessful. I do give a damn when it results in a turnover.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:42 PM ^
The fact that this post is getting negged is a hilarious indictment of this board right now.
Would you have all enjoyed Nick Sheridan coming up passing at our 5 yard line last year?
November 9th, 2009 at 1:15 AM ^
All coaches make mistakes, except those damn cylon coaches.
I know you don't like Rich Rod, and that's fine, but picking out a few mistakes he has made is just plain unfair. Just like pooping, everyone makes mistakes.
There is a huge difference though between a good coach that makes mistakes and works to correct them and a awful coach that keeps making the same mistakes. Would you rather ditch Rich Rod for John L Smith?
November 9th, 2009 at 2:34 AM ^
Just because I said that he's been making mistakes that have led me to begin questioning whether he is as good as advertised does not mean that I don't support him. I think he should get a minimum three years and probably four to prove himself. At the same time, when you go on a 1-7 slide (with the 1 being Delaware State) to place you at the bottom of the Big Ten for the second year in a row, then there is no denying that he has, to an extent, screwed up.
EDIT: And if you really think that I dislike Rodriguez:
http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/king-belch
November 9th, 2009 at 2:40 AM ^
Those Wisconsin and OSU losses really snuck up on me there. I didn't realize we had already played those games.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:07 AM ^
Actually, RichRod has already been canned, Brian Kelly has been hired, and we are have already played UConn to open the new and improved Big House. Read the MGoBoard - it's all there.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:40 AM ^
Courtesy of doing this at 2 in the morning. It wasn't actually meant to forecast two losses. My apologies.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:38 AM ^
I said the same thing about him rolling out on the 2 pt conversion. Tate also waited to long waiting for something to happen. He shoulda took off up the middle as there was a slight hole. Either way Go blue beat wisconsin.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:49 AM ^
was the same until watching the replay from good angle. Tate had at least two receivers turn wide open and really should have made that play. That being said, I think the call is certainly subject to scrutiny as that style of pass is not in Michigan's scheme, really at all. It can be added to a list of coaching decisions that warrant concern. As to an above post, of course RR is not at fault for the on-side kick, that was just a really great call by a huge DB. I just want to see the same great call or something comparable from Michigan. Purdue hammered Michigan with the hook and latter (dd?) last year, went all on-side kick brilliance this year, and we responded with.... uh. I am looking for that call, that move, that series of moves from RR that supports the "guru" type label that he has been awarded. Maybe this week...
November 9th, 2009 at 12:55 AM ^
It's "What is there to question?". The word "their" is a possessive pronoun and would function similarly to an adjective in a sentence. Do I actually care much about this? No, but that's the kind of grammar that would get you negged if it was in a post criticizing RichRod.
Anyway, the OP's overall point, which is that criticizing RichRod is not inherently bad, is a good one. It's also quite possible and common for people to criticize RichRod and do so in a dumb, illogical way; they will lose points, and justly so.
Then there's those that defend RichRod and do so in a dumb, illogical way. They will get points, which is dumb, because this is a pro-RichRod board. Do I like this abuse of the point system, which decreases the signal/noise ratio on the board? No, but we're stuck with it.
Then there's those that criticize RichRod in an intelligent way. They will often lose points, which is dumb, because this is a pro-RichRod board. Do I like this abuse of the point system, which attempts to stifle dissent? No, but we're stuck with it.
I don't really know what to say here, except to not worry too much about the points, which I think is the case for most people.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:00 AM ^
I'm tired I just got home and yes that's no excuse but whatever.
I don't really see how what you said had anything to do with my post and I have no idea where you got your last paragraph about points about... I'm not talking about MGoBlog points (which are worthless) I'm talking about points that Michigan puts up on the scoreboard.
Attack my post for one mis-slip of their/there but yet you can't attack it for the substance. Pathetic grammar nazi.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:29 AM ^
"1. That "first ever option play" I'm not really sure exactly which one that you're talking about. If you're talking about the one in the first half that gained 5 yards at around mid-field... or the one later in the game where it caused the turn-over. I'm sure that you just mean to just talk about the negatives and just forgot about that gem of a play that went for positive yards.
The RR detractors don't look at the whole game, they only see what they want to see and forget about all of the great plays, how every play in this offense has a counter and how every play in the playbook plays off each other."
You attacked my post because Tate screwed up his second, not his first option play and treat a five yard gain and a turnover as being equal on some level. That is attacking a post for a minor slip-up rather than substance.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:13 AM ^
Would you rather he attacked the substance of your post? In this offense, a QB makes a lot of reads and a lot of split decisions. I am going to guess they didn't just whip that play up in the huddle - they probably practiced it quite a bit. It wasn't as though it was a bad call any more than running a read option with a freshman QB is. It was a fumble on a pitch. It wasn't a bad call, it was a play that wasn't executed correctly.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:46 AM ^
The option is a play in which a turnover can easily happen, especially when you have a freshman QB running it for the second time in an actual game. He might have practiced the play extensively, but running it in an area where a turnover would let Purdue back into the game is simply not smart.
Our offense was working fine without using the option in the first place. Therefore, it should only have been run when the potential damage resulting from a botched play was low.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:17 AM ^
Going for it on 4th and 10 when we haven't stopped them at all when a field goal gets us nothing
Actually, a field goal gets us three points. Which is not "nothing." If our defense stops Purdue on the next possession (which it did), and we score a touchdown on our next possesstion (which we did), then the game doesn't come down to a two-point conversion (which it did).
I understand that our defense hadn't been stopping them all game, but if the coaching staff honestly believes that the defense will NEVER be able to make a stop, then the decision is a moot point. At some point you have to have faith in your D.
I'm still all about Rich Rod at this point (if we don't miss an XP and a FG we win this game regardless; and in any event, 36 points should win us every Big Ten game we're in), but the decision to go for it on 4th and TEN with 5 minutes left in the game was beyond stupid.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:39 AM ^
I was about to write the same. I am NOT commenting on the overall RR situation or his coaching ability, but that was a poor call, period. It didn't cost the game, there were way too many things that contributed. But is is actually ok to say that he made a bad call without having to be Brian, which is the OP's point.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:47 AM ^
1. Go for it on 4th
A: Don't get it. People question the playcall
B: Get it. People question the play-calling anyways and are worried that now we left too much time on the clock for Purdue
2. Kick a field goal
A: Get it. We are still down 5 and now have to get a defensive stop. If we don't get that defensive stop they can run out the clock or score a TD and then it's REALLY game over. People question the play call
B: Miss it and they get great field position. People question the play call.
3. We punt it!
A: OMG RR is Lloyd Carr what is that Head-assplode! People question the play call.
No matter what Rich does there everyone and their mother is going to question him and say that "oh that was the incorrect call I would have done something different robble robble robble".
November 9th, 2009 at 10:50 AM ^
Our defense had done nothing to indicate that we could stop the Purdue offense.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:57 AM ^
Who think that that was a terrible call but wanted to go for it on 4th and 2 from in our territory (which I think is a terrible call).
November 9th, 2009 at 11:36 AM ^
we stopped them.
The point to me was that we needed 8 points, and 1- going for it with so many yards to go and losing would have still made us have to stop them, 2, if you assume, as you do, that the coaches had no reason to trust our ability to stop them, then they put the entire game on 2 improbable events: a- making a 4th down conversion of that great length, and B- subsequently scoring and making a 2 pt conversion. Conversely, going for the field goal had a higher chance of success than A, and getting the ball back and scoring without the need for an extra point of any type is also a higher probability of success than B.
November 9th, 2009 at 6:09 PM ^
If we kick the field goal and they score a touchdown, the game ends.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:58 AM ^
I agree with you regarding logical debate and would love to see more of it. Unfortunately, RR critics seldom raise logical points and well-reasoned arguments, and ignore key facts.
Re. this:
"And in those instances that the criticism had a valid point, the author has often been disparaged for being negative"
I completely disagree. Could you cite some examples of this?
Re. his picking of assistants, I do think that's *possibly* a valid criticism. I kind of think that to an extent it's too early to tell. If we're going to adjust our expectations of RR to account for lack of inherited talent, for the sake of consistency, should we not also adjust expectations for the assistants as well?
Shafer was probably a bad hire. Few would disagree with that. It's probably too early to make a definitive pronouncement, but I tend to think GERG was a good hire.
I think Hopson and Gibson can legitimately be questioned. But man, the lack of inherited talent thing comes up again for me. If anyone can site specific examples of how they haven't done a good job, I'd love to hear it, but, until that is shown, the lack of talent still I think has to be taken into account.
One disappointment w/ Hopson I know is he was expected to bring in hauls of kids from the south, and so far he hasn't delivered on that. But, that's just one aspect of his job.
Gibson, I remember when he came over for WVU was known as someone that is a very good recruiter. I *think* his position on the team is DB coach and recruiting coordinator. If he's doing well in his recruiting capacity, maybe his position could be adapted and someone else could be brought in to coach the secondary. But once again, it's not like he has a lot of talent to work with as of now. Warren was highly rated coming to M, has lived up to expectations, and has been coached by Gibson the past 2 years. That should be taken into account.
So, re. his hiring of assistants, some of the current staff is questionable, and we can say shafer was a bust. So, not stellar, but also not awful, and to a large extent the jury's still out.
As a post-script, also, let's look at the whole story here. People love to bag on RR's hiring of assisstants and they site the defense and defensive coaches as their evidence. Yes, this is problematicv, but it's also only half the story. What about the offensive side of the ball? By all accounts there are no problems w/ our offensive assistants, and players seem to be being developed well on that side of the ball. The offense, really, is overachieving this year if you want to get right down to it. If we want to knock the defensive assistants and question RR's ability to select them, we also need to look at the offensive side of the ball where thngs are much better, to get the whole story. (And also Barwis!!!)
These things take time and RR is getting the right people on the bus. The only real question marks on the coaching staff are Hopson and Gibson, reasonably that's what they are at this point, question marks, not people who absolutely, without a doubt need to go.
Re. game management.... I dunno. I think some of it comes w/ having a young team, and being forced into making choices that are less than ideal b/c of personnel.
The Illinois goal line stand is an easy thing to single out. But, that's one series. Even if playcalling was bad on that one series, it doesn't mean RR is a bad playcaller. All coaches make mistakes and hindsight is of course 20/20.
That being said I don't think it was real egregious. Yeah, Brown isn't Minor, but he isn't Sam McGuffie either. Also, in the UFR, Brian pointed out errors that were made on those plays by the OL. Out of 4 tries from the 1, one of those should get in. That one is on the players, not the playcalling.
My only real beef is with how he's used Denard. I think he finally got some PT on Saturday where he was in for 1st and 2nd down, was faced w/ 3rd and long, and RR put Forcier in instead of letting Denard face 3rd and long. That is exactly the way Denard should be being used, and I don't know why he hasn't done more of this. I mean, still have Denard throw the ball, but, don't have him in situations (3d and long) where he *has* to throw it. FWIW, Forcier actually *ran* for a first down on that 3d and long, but he was able to do that b/c w/ him defenses are going to respect the pass.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:32 AM ^
a) I should not have bolded it. It wasn't important enough.
b) I was referring to the now redundant posts that are generally titled "Those who stay will be champions" or something like that, along with the occasional comment of "Can't you think of anything positive to say" (and other similar things). I would ask that you spare me from having to look up a bunch of examples, because it honestly is not worth the time.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:24 PM ^
You say detractors of Rodriguez seldom use logical arguments. That's bunk. The results speak for themselves, and that's what we're basing our arguments on. The supporters of Rodriguez mention "time" or an inherited lack of talent--and that is logical?
If just about all you can say is "Rich Rodriguez needs time"--how does that stand against the record thus far as a sound argument? There's no proof that time will enable him to build a winner here. As for a talent deficit--are you arguing that UM has worse talent than Toledo, Illinois, Purdue and some of the other teams he has lost to?
And what of the incessant "Rich Rod does less with more" bullshit? If he has less, he should be doing more with it according to that myth (a myth I've debunked numerous times).
As for asistants: That's on Rich. And I don't know if Shafer was such a bad hire (he WAS scapegoated, though)--and GERG isn't exactly tearing it up with a better offense to support him. But, GERG needs---more time??? How is that logical when stacked against Shafer's firing?
November 9th, 2009 at 6:36 PM ^
...go through the talent that Rodriguez inherited and state how the players are underperforming. To head you off, the linebackers undoubtedly are, which I count as a strike against Rodriguez. As for Greg Robinson, I do not think that he has done all that badly considering that he is currently working with two competent corners, no competent safeties, and is trying to clean up the mess that Hopson created out of the linebacker position. Meanwhile, he has at least found ways to utilize previous safety disaster Stevie Brown and true freshman Craig Roh at a high level of effectiveness.
I'd give Robinson a year or two. Shafer didn't deserve another year because he spectacularly failed when it came to instituting his schemes, which culminated in the Purdue game last year. The schemes specific to Robinson seem to have been effective. Unfortunately, considering the mess he inherited, he has not been able to compensate for the huge holes on the depth chart that opponents have now noticed and are exploiting at will.
As for Rodriguez doing more with less, that is a misleading argument. When Rodriguez was at West Virginia, he recruited a lot of players who did not fit the mold of a typical future NFL player, favoring a different skill set (generally speed and shiftiness) that was more effective against the weaker competition in the collegiate game. These recruits were not as highly sought as others, but when used in his system, their skills were brought to the forefront. This isn't so much about doing more with less, it is more about favoring a different skill set than the conventional one.
Now, as to the talent deficit, the problem isn't so much the overall amount of talented players that Rodriguez inherited (I'd equate the total number of talented players he inherited to the level of a subpar Lloyd Carr season). Instead, it is about severe deficiencies at key positions. Rodriguez inherited no serviceable QBs, no serviceable safeties, a weak group of cornerbacks (particularly in terms of depth), a below average group of receivers, and the offensive line was at a lower level of talent than in years past. The big problems here, obviously, come at QB and safety. Without a QB in 08, our offense did not function. It has also sputtered at times this year when starting a freshman QB. On defense, the utter lack of safeties and the relative lack of cornerbacks meant two things. First of all, any team capable of running 4-5 WR sets with any level of competency would kill us. Second, we would turn a number of 5-6 yard gains into 20 yard gains and some 15 yard passes into touchdowns. Without safeties, we are highly susceptible to big plays on the run and the pass.
Overall, I think that Rodriguez has performed at an acceptable level. I have been upset about his choices of assistant coaches, as well as the regression at linebacker. At the same time, I think that he inherited a mess and deserves time to see if he can fix it. He might not, but given his favorable track record, it seems probable that he will.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:59 AM ^
I'm just glad the threads flaunting how well certain "Michigan Man®" coaches are doing, even when they were busy losing, have stopped. I was half hoping to see someone parody them with NFL coaches today. Perhaps tomorrow night.
EDIT: And the open letters to Les Miles to return, or for Brian Kelly to come here, or to have a second chance at Greg Schiano.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:08 AM ^
I hope he comes here. I'm sure he can miraculously turn walk-on safeties into All-Americans. After all, he turned water into wine once. Wait, no.... I'm thinking of Tebow. Maybe he'll come coach M after he graduates in May.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:11 AM ^
(Who also started with 2 losing seasons at Iowa and I guess that turned out pretty okay)
November 9th, 2009 at 7:55 AM ^
For me, this was the first loss where i felt like we werent out coached horribly. Offense played well for once. Defense didnt look terrible the entire game either. I thought Fitzgerald had a nice game minus some screw ups but i thought he played better than what Ezeh has been playing.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:15 AM ^
This loss...to me was not due to RR. The offense was clicking well...it was the defense that let us down. We made no adjustments to Purdue's offense. I agree that the 2-point conversion call was questionable. Let's give him time. Why is it that Charlie Weiss can get time and we are ready to get rid of RR after only 2 seasons. It has been the worst 2 years for me as a Mich fan...but I think that RR will get us to where we want to be...competing for Big 10 titles and national titles on a regular basis. It's hard...but give him some time!
November 9th, 2009 at 11:45 AM ^
The question isn't whether RR should be fired because of game management. If game management were decisive, then we'd be on our 25th coach in the last 40 years, not our 4th coach. But, there may be legitimate questions -- I'm agnostic at this point -- about whether RR and Michigan is a good fit (or at least the best fit). I'd like to see a serious discussion, not filled with ad hominem attacks, about the pros and cons of RR at Michigan. FWIW, I think he's here through 2011 -- unless the NCAA comes up with something as a result of the FREEP story or unless RR gets tired of the sniping and decides to leave on his own accord.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:46 PM ^
I think you hit exactly on the point the OP was going for. Well said.