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 10th, 2011 at 12:44 AM ^
I think that would have been great too...I just don't know who has Mattison was going to be...sure wasn't going to be Mattison
February 10th, 2011 at 12:49 AM ^
.the truth of that statement SysMark. Good call.
February 10th, 2011 at 12:51 AM ^
If you love somebody....set them free.
February 10th, 2011 at 1:08 AM ^
Obviously the final straw was the bowl game. If that game was a win, or even close, I think RR is still here, but that wasn't going to happen, as that game was an unmitigated disaster and we were completely unprepared. That falls on the HC.
DB's decision was facilitated by the complete unwillingness of RR to look at the defense and do something dramatic. It ended up looking like, for whatever reason, that RR just didn't recognize the problem, and that translates into a total failure on the part of management, said management in this case being RR.
In hindsight he made the firing decision pretty easy
February 10th, 2011 at 1:30 AM ^
What dramatic course of action could/should he have taken? Dramatically alter personnel mid-season (did that before the PSU game)? Experiment with different defensive alignments (we ran a wide variety of base looks over a three year period)? Fire the defensive coordinator before the bowl game (sort of an unprecedented move)?
Also, did you have any reason to suspect before the season, after objectively looking at our defensive roster, that the unit as a whole would be anything but really bad? Personally, I saw a struggling unit from the prior season trying to replace four of its best players (Warren, Woolfolk, Brown, Graham) with a roster featuring just three quality, experienced upperclassmen (RVB, Martin, Mouton), a senior MLB the staff had tried to replace with a freshmen and/or a walk-on the year before, and four 5th year seniors who had rarely seen the field before (Banks, Sagesse, Patterson, Rogers). I certainly hoped it would be better like everyone else, but to me, this looks like just the recipe for disaster it turned out to be.
February 10th, 2011 at 1:59 AM ^
I'm not saying the defense wasn't a bad situation from the start. However in hindsight the defense was also poorly coached and managed as well. What I am saying is that RR didn't overtly recognize the problem. Like it or not he was in a political situation and had to treat it accordingly. Something had to be done if only for appearances. Yes, he probably should have relieved Greg Robinson in the latter part of the season, certainly before the bowl game. What was there to lose? Were we going to get worse on defense?
February 10th, 2011 at 2:28 AM ^
I've come to the realization that losing games put Rodriguez in a no-win situation with an enormous chunk of the fanbase right out of the gate. I was talking with someone else about the Shafer firing the other day and how that was probably a mistake in hindsight, only to realize that the results almost certainly would have been worse in 2009 (what with the big hole at safety, the youth on the d-line, and the "Ezeh problem" at MLB) and then Rodriguez is in an even bigger hole because he's retained a guy who, through no real fault of his own, has seen the defense continue to "regress" under his watch.
A similar problem popped up with respect to replacing Ezeh. Rodriguez tried to do it in 2009 only to find Leach/Demens/Fitzgerald weren't up to the task either and the staff was criticized for the sucky defensive performances. He starts Demens (still a sophomore) after the MSU loss this year, Demens plays okay against Iowa, and Rodriguez is villified for taking so long to realize Ezeh sucks and Demens is the truth when, unless playing Demens over Ezeh against State was worth an additional 17 points, the slight delay had zero impact on our actual record.
At the end of the day, even many of the "fierce pragmatists" among us are always going to blame the coach when the team struggles. As such, I don't think a little closer score or a few more wins here and there would have made a difference with respect to the guy keeping his job. The arguments adapt to the situation and any time you have a poor record over three years (a very short time when it comes to building a program but a very long time in human fan years) there are going to be loads of people to do the arguing at a place like Michigan. For too many people the question in 2008 was "What the fuck did you do?" rather than "How do we fix this obviously shitty situation we're all in?"
Everything would have had to have gone perfectly for Rodriguez to come back from that and keep his job going forward (say, find a true sophomore QB who finishes 6th in the Heisman race and a freshman DB or two who could play like all-Americans from day one). This being real life, that didn't happen.
February 10th, 2011 at 2:40 AM ^
i for one was probably one of RR's biggest supporters. he sold me his ability to coach a bunch of frosh and sophs to become a feared offensive unit. and 2011 looked very promising on offense given the returning starters and a more experienced denard.
however, like most know, the D was our curse. and like many, i would have loved to see RR stay and completely overhaul the D coaches. unfortuneately, none of us know what happened in the RR/DB meetings.
if RR was willing to let go all of the D coaches (and i do mean all; none showed me anything this past year) than shame on DB. however, if RR was being loyal to these guys, than shame on RR and i'm glad he's gone.
because i agree with bo, "no coach is bigger than the team".
no one can convince me that hoke is a better coach than RR. but hopefully, he hired top notch coordinators. i think most of like the mattison hire. but i'm skeptical of the O coaches and I'm worried that we do a 180; become solid on D and stagnant on O. why can't we have both?
February 10th, 2011 at 9:31 AM ^
supportive comment about Rich Rodriguez or the direction of the program. Lukewarm at best. He never seemed excited by the offense -- only Denard Robinson. It is just a feeling, but I think Brandon never supported what he viewed as a gimmicky offense, and absent spectacular people-will-think-I-am-crazy-to-fire-this-guy results, RR was gone. Brandon wished he had a Michigan Man at the helm and couldn't wait to install one. He waited to fire RR because he thought he had Harbaugh in the fold, but I don't think anyone else was seriously considered other than Hoke after that.
There. I waited until RR thread 1,017 to post this, but wanted to jump in before the RR threads stopped. Just kidding. These threads are going to go on for years.
February 10th, 2011 at 10:59 AM ^
Was the "bad defensive roster" coached to take the wrong angles, make the wrong read consistently, be in the wrong places all the time. Conceed dude, the coaching staff did a horrible job with this defense.
Also, how well did Mouton play this year? Not with any consistency, that's for sure. Missing assignments and not playing gap sound defense???? Hmmmmm, geeeeeee, maybe that could be attributed to coaching? How about Demens playing 2 yards off the D line? Hmm, all interesting things that definitely had to do with the "bad roster RR was given".
I'm sorry, but this shit has got to end at some point. Sure, RR got us some good players, but even on offense, with a veteran unit last season (sans DR, who was the best player on the team) we were abysmal against good teams. Even in the bowl game when we had a plethora of practice time. Sorry, it just wasn't happening with RR.
February 10th, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^
How was this a "veteran" offense again? Both quarterbacks were true sophomores. The leading receiver was a sophomore. The leading rusher from the running back position was a true sophomore. 40% of the starting o-line were underclassmen. Only two seniors started and only one other senior made any contribution (67 receiving yards and some solid blocking from Martell Webb). "Veteran" doesn't mean "just not freshmen."
Jonas Mouton was named 2nd team all Big Ten by the conference media members. He will probably be a late round draft pick. He is basically Prescott Burgess (honorable mention all-conference and a 6th round pick) with Banks, Ezeh, and Rogers playing with him instead of three senior future pro bowlers (Woodley, Harris, Hall).
But I am sure all the defensive players were instructed to take poor angles and miss tackles just to make you unhappy. It had nothing to do with over half the defense being made up of underclassmen and guys who had never seen the field before.
February 10th, 2011 at 1:15 PM ^
Look at the depth chart on offense: http://michigan.rivals.com/cdepthtext.asp
Every single starter was in his third year in the system with the exception of Lewan, who displaced an older player, and Denard. That's plenty of time and experience to get to the point where the offense isn't incompetent for long stretches against every decent opponent and to stop leading the Big Ten in turnovers by a substantial margin.
February 10th, 2011 at 1:32 PM ^
Martin, Van Bergen, Banks, Patterson, Sagesse, Ezeh, Mounton, Fitzgerald and Rogers were all upperclassmen. Kovacs, Roh and Floyd all saw extensive action in 2009.
February 10th, 2011 at 2:38 PM ^
How many of the players you mention would see playing time on an average defense? 4? Maybe 5?
February 10th, 2011 at 3:19 PM ^
Sagesse, Patterson, Banks, Rogers and (to a lesser extent) Fitzgerald were all guys who had barely sniffed playing time in their first four years on campus.
Being "experienced" requires at some point experiencing the activity of playing college football on a regular basis. None of those guys had done so before this season.
The team had four upperclassmen who were returning starters. One of those guys (Ezeh) had been benched the year before and was benched again this year. Not exactly a recipe for a quality defense.
February 10th, 2011 at 8:18 PM ^
You're right, RR and co did a bang up job with this team.
Are you happy now?
February 10th, 2011 at 2:06 AM ^
are we still talking about rich rod.GO BLUE!!!
February 10th, 2011 at 3:26 AM ^
February 10th, 2011 at 9:29 AM ^
You do know the OP just linked to another writer's article, and did not provide any commentary either way on the substance, right?
February 10th, 2011 at 8:47 AM ^
Came across a pretty interesting article from John U Bacon's upcoming book "Third and Long: Three Years with Rich Rodriguez and the Michigan Wolverines".
Noteworthy quote from the author: ""Keep in mind that everyone has made some mistakes in the situation," Bacon said. "But I will tell you this: the support that they are showing (current Michigan football coach) Brady Hoke now well exceeds the support that Rich Rodriguez got."
Link to the article on Battle Creek Enquirer:
February 10th, 2011 at 9:18 AM ^
I look forward to that book. Regardless of what happened DB has everyone is on the same Train if not they got thrown on the tracks.
February 10th, 2011 at 1:49 PM ^
Bacon also talked about the debilitating effects of the NCAA rules violations regarding the practice time.
"That affected everything," Bacon said. "Whether or not he was guilty wasn't the issue. He was guilty in the court of opinion. The time and effort involved in that really hurt the program."
That part will be, or at least should be, not at all "divisive" to the Michigan community. Everybody -- David Brandon, Rich Rodriguez, Bill Martin, Mary Sue Coleman, Brian Cook, Bruce Madej, Je'Ron Stokes, Brandin Hawthorne, Mike Barwis, Greg Robinson, etc., etc. -- ought to be able to agree on that one. I can't imagine that anyone associated with Michigan would ever accept that the NCAA investigation as we know it arose from any sort of fair or reasoned application of the rules to established facts.
I sincerely hope that Brady Hoke has been instructed on the events leading up to the NCAA investigation and its aftermath. Oh wait. There's a newspaper involved, isn't there? With thousands of readers. Linking stories, via the internet, to hundreds of other news-aggregation sources, and in turn feeding millions of other readers. A newspaper with a couple of Michigan-alum reporters. And with apparent access to some, unnamed Michigan insiders.
I hope that instead of ink, John U. Bacon's new book is written in napalm.
February 10th, 2011 at 9:26 AM ^
What a perfect title for his book!! Hell me & my friends will forever refer to 3rd & 8+ as "3rd and Rod".
February 10th, 2011 at 9:27 AM ^
I usually like Doc Sat, but his argument here basically acknowledges RR inherritted a bad situation, suffered through the crap, then handed over a team that finally had some pieces in place to Hoke. I agree that hte losing streaks at the end of the season were definitely major reasons for the lack of optimism, but there were signs of growth by this team and, frankly, losing to a couple of top-10 teams and an MSU team that is definitely on the rise, even spectacularly bad losses, doesn't strike me as fire-able after 3 years (but then again, that is just me). See, I always thought the losing streaks at the end of the year were due to a combination of talent deficit (which is partially RR's fault but mostly on the last admin) and a lack of depth and the natural erosion of teams due to injuries (again, this team had zero depth at certain positions from the day RR stepped into the room). So now, after stocking the shelves somewhat and actually having some honest-to-goodness players returning next year, RR was let go and Hoke stepped into the desirable situation.
Whether or not you believe RR deserved more time is obviously a loaded question, but I these past few months doesn't seem fair to me. But then again, I'm getting worked up about this again, and I promised myself I would just let this go. Hoke is the new coach, and while I think RR got screwed, he isn't walking through that door.
February 10th, 2011 at 10:20 AM ^
Hinton is one of the better guys out there, but the more time you spend around the people who reply in Yahoo forums, the more you start to feel like you need to write for an audience three points lower than the intelligence quotient at which you need to be constantly reminded to unzip your pants before peeing. Years of this are making Hinton progressively more and more Duk-like (FTR: Duk is basically what people who don't read blogs think bloggers are.)
The following responses to anything written about Michigan are almost standard:
- Buckeye fan saying Michigan Sucks/Go Bucks
- Michigan fan claiming the spread is too sissy for the Big Ten
- RR defender who claims Lloydists were undermining the program
- "Reasonable" (for Yahoo) Buckeye fan saying he wishes Michigan would get good again because it's embarrassing just beating our pants off.
- Someone brings up Ryan Mallett
- Angry W.V. fan who calls Rich Rod a traitor/scumbag.
Once in awhile you'll see a State fan wander by to agree with aforementioned "spread is for sissies" commenter, but they usually stick to the Freep forums trying to convince each other they're the bigger program now.
9/10 responses to anything on Yahoo seem to come from the type of person who probably spends most of his time bashing his head into various objects then saying "whoa."
After years of writing to this audience, that has to take a toll on you, and I see that with Doc Sat to a degree, which is depressing because back when sports bloggers were all on a first name basis he was the college football person everyone respected most.
February 10th, 2011 at 12:44 PM ^
My only answer would be framed in the form of a question. How long was his contract period? We all know Michigan prides itself on doing the honorable thing and fulfilling its promises.
Of more pressing concern to me, is how long does DB deserve to be around?