Did RichRod Deserve a 4th Season? DocSat Says "No"
In his latest missive, Matt Hinton (Dr Saturday) tackles RichRod's recent assertions that he was, oh so close to a breakthrough and if only he had been retained... Well you know the rest. Hinton's not buying it, not in the least.
Presumably, Rodriguez thinks Brady Hoke only has to crawl through the last few remaining yards of crap before he breaks into the clear, thanks to the previous administration's legwork. That makes some sense: Going forward, the Wolverines figure to be one of the most veteran teams in the country this fall, with nine offense starters returning around Robinson – including four-fifths of the offensive line – and a defense that should at least have a clue for a change, if not a sudden influx of talent. Hoke is obviously exaggerating for effect when he says anything short of a Big Ten championship is a "failure," but it's not an exaggeration to expect the 2011 edition to look closer to the Michigan that you (and Hoke) grew up with than any of the depressing teams that took the field under his predecessor.
And really, that would probably be the case if Rodriguez had been miraculously granted a fourth year. But some discernible return to form was the mandate for 2009, too, and again last year. Despite their fast starts, those teams ultimately delivered nothing of the sort. The 2011 team, the first legitimately veteran lineup at Michigan since Lloyd Carr's last go-round in 2007, may be the one to fulfill that promise, regardless of who's at the top; a lot of people who aren't dumb will probably spend the next six months predicting exactly that. But the natural optimism that comes with an experienced team is an inevitable matter of time, not of steady, coordinated progress. If a more seasoned outfit does manage a breakthrough this fall – minor or otherwise – does Rodriguez really think he's earned the right to lead it?
February 9th, 2011 at 10:10 PM ^
Also, just because Dave Brandon made a decision to fire the guy doesn't mean that the definitions of words (like "progress") suddenly change or that the job Rich Rodriguez did re-stocking this roster with talented players under adverse circumstances becomes less impressive.
February 9th, 2011 at 10:51 PM ^
You believe what Rich Rodriguez did at Michigan was impressive? That was the thought uppermost in your mind as you watched the last three games of the year?
I won't take issue with your review of the past and conclude that 3<5<7. However, Brandon had to make a judgment around the future. His judgment was that the number for the foreseeable future wasn't going to be much better (or any better) than 7. For various reasons, he felt a plateau had been reached and was not confident of reraching a championship level. While my crystal ball isn't any better than his or yours, I happen to agree with his assessment.
Seriously, you really believed better days were ahead for that defense, one that was led by Greg Robinson? You ascribe no credibility to the comments from the national media around the talent level being recruited?
February 9th, 2011 at 11:31 PM ^
Seriously....bringing back 20 starters and not starting a 1st year starter at QB for the first time in RR's tenure, you think the team would have gotten worse?
February 10th, 2011 at 7:18 AM ^
What gives you confidence that that unit wouldn't continue to be awful under RR/GERG's leadership?
February 10th, 2011 at 9:20 AM ^
We never recruited the SIZE required for the smash mouth Big Ten. RichRod was wrong to figure speed conquers all.
February 10th, 2011 at 1:28 PM ^
Why didn't RR recruit big guys like Will Campbell (6-5, 333), Richard Ash (6-3, 320), Taylor Lewan (6-8, 294) Quinton Washington (6-4, 315) or Patrick Omameh (6-4, 299)?
Oh. That's right. He did.
EDIT to note that Romeyjdogg's post below this isn't actually in response to this post. The Board has been misplacing posts recently.
February 10th, 2011 at 10:38 AM ^
was veteran last year, peroid. Experienced backs, experienced WRs, experienced OL, need I go on? Our "first year quarterback" wasn't the problem. In fact, he was the best player on the team, so mentioning him in your argument totally dilutes it.
February 10th, 2011 at 2:32 PM ^
Romey you obviously must have forgotten about the inexperienced quarterback turning the ball over at critical moments in the game. That is what first year starting quartbacks normally do. They make mistakes and those mistakes were critical. Robinson will improve his decision making as he enters his second year as starting quarterback.
Also, I wouldn't say we had a veteran offense when most of the players weren't even seniors. There is much room for improvement even on offense although the improvement on the team will be most apparent from the defense. Starting freshmen and sophomores throughout the defense was the biggest problem.
February 9th, 2011 at 11:06 PM ^
regarding restocking the roster with talented players: if you look at our recruiting the past three years, OSU has handed us our asses, and we have lost many recruiting battles to little bro. We have more 3* players than ever before. So, while he is stocking the roster after the epic amount of attrition during his 3 years (which is a whole separate topic of discussion), he isn't bringing in top talent. We are at a talent deficit compared to OSU and some of our rivals.
February 9th, 2011 at 11:18 PM ^
The rankings may not be as high as we like, but I think the eventual production of the guys currently on the roster will be just fine. We'll find out in a few years, but I think guys like Denard, Gardner, Roundtree, Odoms, Omameh, Lewan, Roh, Gordon, Avery, Black, and loads of young guys who haven't had a chance to shine just yet are going to be a part of some very successful Michigan teams over the next few years.
February 10th, 2011 at 9:42 AM ^
Yeah, I actually agree with you on that. I love the guys on this team, and in particular, I think that the ones that you singled out are probably our best "stars." But, I think that just about every team in the country can make the statement that " guys like [insert list of young players that are lower ranked coming out but fans are excited about", and loads of young guys who haven't had a chance to shine just yet are going to be a part of some very successful teams."
My only point is that yes, he got some guys in here, but that the recruiting was not up to the level that it needs to be to compete with OSU. It is like playing a game of school yard basketball - if one team gets the first 4 picks, they are going to have a much better chance of winning, just by having better, bigger, stronger, higher-ceiling players. Not to say that we can't overcome this, but I think that the original statement that RR restocked with talented players may be more positive than reality dictates. Otherwise, I agree with you.
February 10th, 2011 at 6:43 PM ^
We ended up ranked 21st in the country after losing 2 5* (Dee and Frost) and a couple of 4* in Fisher and Zettel (who I think would have signed if DB hadn't screwed up so badly). Realistically, RR would have had a top 15 class.
February 9th, 2011 at 9:53 PM ^
Why are we above this again? Why can we not actually sit around and argue it some more. Some people like to have a civil argument every once in awhile. People always feel the need to but into something they don't like and tell them to stop doing it.
No, I think the offense was great, but the defense was never going to improve. Rich Rod would never have gotten any better. The great offense would never overcome the terrible defense. Also if we gave him another year our team height average would drop to 5'8".
February 9th, 2011 at 9:54 PM ^
February 9th, 2011 at 10:42 PM ^
We would have had a veteran team in 2011 if the coach was Popeye the Sailor. People, you know, get older?
February 9th, 2011 at 11:33 PM ^
Which begs the question....where the fuck were the juniors and seniors the last couple years after Henne, Hart, and Long graduated?
February 10th, 2011 at 8:58 AM ^
The fact that we had to wait 4 years (07--->11) to have a somewhat veteran team is a poor reflection of the previous regime. I'll take it one step farther and say that just cause a freshmen or redshirt freshman played last year does not make the same player a veteran this year.
February 10th, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^
That was more of a joke than anything. I just thought it was funny that he suggested that RR was the reason why we have a bunch of multiple year starters on this year's roster
February 9th, 2011 at 9:54 PM ^
Start a new topic but Scott has a new job
http://www.owlified.net/2011/02/temple-football-has-offensive.html
Good for him.
February 9th, 2011 at 9:55 PM ^
February 9th, 2011 at 9:57 PM ^
February 9th, 2011 at 9:57 PM ^
RR may have divided the Michigan fan base but he succeeded in uniting the nation. 
February 9th, 2011 at 10:14 PM ^
I've never seen an ESPN poll where every state agreed. First time for everything.
February 10th, 2011 at 1:52 PM ^
people who are ignorant about Michigan Football agree that RR had a fair chance. I wonder how many of them read "The Decimated Defense?"
February 10th, 2011 at 2:49 PM ^
Most Michigan fans don't even understand the challenges that RR faced. How would fans of a terrible sports personality like Colin Cowherd understand? Not like they pay attention to the amount of underclassmen starting on defense. That poll looks about right to me in regards to how clueless most people who could stomach Cowherd probably are.
February 9th, 2011 at 9:59 PM ^
runs a prevent defense all game for an entire year does not deserve to be back. I'm sorry RR called it a 3-3-5, my bad.
February 9th, 2011 at 11:36 PM ^
So did Brady Hoke every year he ran it. I'm sorry, he is now our coach, my bad.
February 9th, 2011 at 10:05 PM ^
The fact that we brought a coach in to run an entirely different scheme and fired him after 3 years is fucked up on a number of levels. I believe with full conviction that whom ever was brought in to coach this team during RR's tenure was destined to struggle. Injuries and transfers didn't help an already talent deficient Michigan roster. In college football you don't know that a staff is succeeding or failing until a few years later. Carr's final class has already been given the label of being a bust fwiw.
All that being said Hoke will benefit from RR's dirty work but so does Michigan and that is what is all about anyway. I root for the helmet, not the coach.
February 9th, 2011 at 11:55 PM ^
"The fact that we brought a coach in to run an entirely different scheme"
I wouldn't call that a fact. I'd say that the fact is that RR was hired to win games. How he chose to do it was up to him. Nobody thought it would take so long to achieve acceptable results (not Martin, not Coleman, not RR, not Brandon....) but it did. It's hard to categorize his tenure as anything but a failure based upon on field results. That's why he got fired....because he earned it.
Like everybody else, I was curious to see what Year 4 would bring. The last string of losses by 20, 30 and 38 (plus all six losses were by double digits) pretty much left DB without on option. RR had to go.
February 10th, 2011 at 1:11 AM ^
It really isn't hard to categorize his tenure as anything but a failure. He improved on the field by winning 2 more games every year he was here. We were bringing back 20 starters. His players were actually going to become Juniors.
But you are right. RichRod was brought in to win games. The problem is, no one would be winning a ton of games losing 10 starters on just the offensive side of the ball. This team was set up to be mediocre until the roster was built back up and RR was the guy who has unfairly taken all the blame. The NFL will find talent no matter the team or the coaching and since RR took over, we have had fewer than 10 picks, only 1 of them being before the 3rd round....and 1 of them was the punter. That is not a full cupboard. Shit, Lloyd did better than that on the offensive side of the ball alone in his last 2 years.
February 10th, 2011 at 8:35 AM ^
We live in a black and white world. I think that you're really stretching it in the gray areas if you consider improvement from 3-9 to 5-7 to be a "success".
The reality is that Michigan just had the worst defense in 100+ years of football in 2010. That followed the 2nd worst defense in 2009 and the third worst defense in 2008. Basically, RR owned the three statistically worst defenses (points and yards allowed) in the history of Michigan football. It's hard to find success in there.
3-9, 5-7 and 7-6 are three of the worst four team records in 40+ years. Again, I'm not seeing the "success" that you talk about.
Look, I don't want to pile on the guy. He had some things stacked against him. Personally, I think that the "bare cupboard theory" is a bit overblown. Michigan faced a similar situation in 2001 after losing Henson, A-Train, Hutchinson, Terrell....and they still managed to play in a New Year's Day bowl with John Navarre at QB.
The original question was "Did RR Deserve A 4th Year" and to me the answer was pretty clear.
February 10th, 2011 at 9:55 AM ^
Where did we stand the last few years?
February 10th, 2011 at 2:12 PM ^
And for 2011, the best question might have been, "Where did West Virginia rate on that matrix?"
Good-middling Player Quality, and truly great Coaching Quality...
February 10th, 2011 at 2:02 PM ^
BigBlue02 said "He improved on the field by winning 2 more games every year." He didn't label that as "success."
It would be nice if people would address the arguments that are actually made instead of setting up straw men.
February 9th, 2011 at 10:12 PM ^
sure why people are criticizing shoe for posting this article. if this was a freep hack i would join the mob, but hinton is very respected around these parts, and may be the best college blogger out there (that includes brian, IMO).
February 9th, 2011 at 10:19 PM ^
February 9th, 2011 at 10:40 PM ^
First - Shake and Bake
Second - I agree with your assesment: the majority of the comments are more in fear of a repeat of the same discussions that have taken place for the past month. However, to accept this to be true creates an interesting dilema. Are those who make this board what it is in fear of what it has become???
February 9th, 2011 at 10:55 PM ^
...IS the point of the thread. I'm sick of the arguing. It's time to unite the clans by eliminating the clans.
Gotta draw out the venom from the wound before it festers and rots.
February 9th, 2011 at 11:02 PM ^
I'm not sure it works in anonymous internet blogging environments.
Just saying.
February 9th, 2011 at 11:21 PM ^
I see where you're coming from.
Hopefully you're successful
February 10th, 2011 at 1:00 AM ^
if you are going to issue a Fatwa on All Things Rodriguez...
February 10th, 2011 at 3:29 AM ^
February 10th, 2011 at 2:57 PM ^
This is a Michigan Football Blog. Not a Rich Rod Blog (though at times I can understand the confusion).
That explains all your posts! You think you're on a Rich Rod Blog! You've been in the wrong place all this time....ah... Well, I'm sure a google search can help you find the current Rich Rod Blog. I'm sure it's out there...somewhere... Good luck there!
February 9th, 2011 at 10:13 PM ^
MEANS NO.
February 9th, 2011 at 11:02 PM ^
This isn't an MSU basketball thread.
February 9th, 2011 at 11:11 PM ^
argument. It is fun to engage any argument but I have had enough. I get the the idea that it is fun to comment on this but I don't care anymore.
OK good luck RRod, his future success or lack thereof doesn't effect the merits of the decision at the time. I think he is a good guy and I say good luck. This is not a zero sum game, it is ok if both guys win.
February 9th, 2011 at 11:13 PM ^
really get by the mods for the 389th time?
February 9th, 2011 at 11:57 PM ^
Maybe he did maybe he didn't. What I wanted to see was rich rods offense with mattison as dc