Does Bill Callahan = Rich Rodriguez?
From Wikipedia:
Soon after being fired by the Raiders, Callahan was hired at Nebraska. This would mark the first time in 31 years (since the hiring of Tom Osborne in 1973) that the Cornhuskers would be led by a head coach with no direct ties to the university either as a player or an assistant coach.
In his first season at Nebraska (2004) he had introduced the West Coast offense to a program that had traditionally relied on a strong running attack.
While Nebraska's defense struggled during Callahan's tenure, numerous offensive school records were set.
| 2004 | Nebraska | 5–6 | 3–5 | 3rd (North) | |||
| 2005 | Nebraska | 8–4 | 4–4 | T–2nd (North) | W Alamo | 24 | 24 |
| 2006 | Nebraska | 9–5 | 6–2 | 1st (North) | L Cotton | ||
| 2007 | Nebraska | 5–7 | 2–6 | T–5th (North) |
Callahan was fired from Nebraska in 2007 after going 5-7, the program's worst record in more than 45 years.
My take? NO, this is not a valid comparison. The only similarity is a 10,000-foot-altitude view that both coaches brought record-setting, dynamic offenses to traditonal powerhouse programs but mitigated that success by having truly awful defenses that stayed broken too long. That is where the similarities end, though.
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:42 AM ^
You beat me to it.
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:03 PM ^
You're right. I knew he coached Oakland, but I kind of blanked there. He did inherit a very good team at Oakland and basically rode that to the SB loss agains thte Bucs. The point remains that he had never been a college coach, and frankly was barely a pro coach.
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:41 AM ^
Psst. Yes he did, as the Raiders' head coach from 2002-03.
I also disagree with the comparison, though, so I will support your claim in a different way. Bill Callahan had no history of building a program (at either the college or the professional level) before his arrival in Lincoln. He took over Jon Gruden's (and whomever the GM was) team after Gruden was traded to the Bucs. Meanwhile, Rich Rodriguez took over a mediocre West Virginia team from Don Nehlen (4-7 and 7-5 in the two seasons pre-Rich Rod), had a bad first year (3-8), and then turned the team into a Big East powerhouse (don't laugh at the slight oxymoron; you've got to work with the conference you're given). So, uh, their careers prior to being hired at Nebraska and Michigan are less than comparable.
It remains to be seen what will come of Rich Rod's career, but any direct comparisons to Bill Callahan's tenure at Nebraska seem tenuous. Even if they have identical records after four seasons on the job, I don't think that Callahan experienced the kind of player turnover that we had the last three years.* That further muddles the thought.
* I don't follow Nebraska football, so they may have.
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^
Dead On.
Bill Callahan inherited Gruden's team, rode them to a super bowl, and then watched the Raiders collapse around him. He had no experience building a program at Nebraska and the 2007 collapse was the last straw.
RR has been a winner at every level he has coached at: he always leaves things better off than they were before. He has built programs and will build ours.
Bill Callahan is a coach who took over a major program and did not have significant progress moving them forward. RR has yet to have that progress: this is the only way in which they are comparable. But if you do that, you need to throw in Mike Shula, Dennis Francione, and Larry Coker, which makes no sense at all.
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:06 PM ^
Thanks for the catch, and I agree. With Nebraska, the big thing was that he tried to implement a "West Coast"/pro offense with talent culled for the option attack. I remember watching those early Nebraska teams and saw a QB who couldn't throw the ball to WRs who couldn't catch it, and it was just sad. He also let the defense slip dramatically - that is the connection to RR's tenure that is most complete - but there were issues outside of his coaching style on that front. I am not sure if RR will work out at UM in the long run, but I do think he has a far better track record than Callahan.
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:52 AM ^
Chip Kelly @ Oregon had never been a head coach at any level yet that team will win the National Championship this year. Leadership and delegation is more important to success IMHO.
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:15 AM ^
Biggest difference is RR has a long proven history as a college head coach - Callahan did not. Also the W-L record pattern is completely different. Callahan had early success - obviously with talent on the roster - RR did not. RR's record is steadily improving, and I believe will continue to do so.
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:16 AM ^
That's it, RR wants to move the program to Sandusky.
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:20 AM ^
It was mentioned yesterday that Chip Kelly at Oregon has little or nothing to do with there Defense and His D Coordinator hires his own staff and runs everything. I think its something RR should do because obviously something is not right here. Robinson, Braithwaite, Gibson need to go. Clean house on the D...bring in someone who is proven year after year. What about Jim Hermann? just a thought
http://www.gridironchat.com/resources/herrmann_34_defense.pdf
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:26 AM ^
There was a story in TheWolverine magazine back in August about how close Rich Rod and Gibson are. I honestly believe he would quit if he was forced to fire him.
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:30 AM ^
I think RR should stay, but if he's not willing to fire Gibson, a move that would clearly be for the good of the program, simply because of a close personal relationship, Brandon should fire them both.
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:21 PM ^
is above the team. the team, the team, the team. a thorough house cleaning of the D coaches is a must.
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:29 AM ^
I think its something RR
should doshould be made to do because obviously something is not right here.
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^
Here's the problem with "making" RR fire Gibson. If RR is the head coach, then he has to be the one to make the decisions for the program. THat's what a head coach does. If RR believes that Gibson is in the best interest of the program, and Brandon does not, then Branson is basically saying that he does not trust RR's judgment. As we have already seen how RR's judgment works with respect to defensive coaching hires, this would be a valid concern for Brandon.
I guess my convoluted point is that if Brandon does not trust RR's judgment with respect to managing his staff, then Brandon should probably fire RR and bring in someone that he can trust.
* This is not a "Fire RR" post. This is more of an "if, then" post. If Brandon doesn't trust . . . then he should . . .
** Yes, I know that Illinois forced the Zooker to change up his staff and that this has had some success. First, just because Illinois does it, that doesn't make it a good idea. Hell, they hired the Zooker. Second, Illinois, after a decent run, is not looking so much better.
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^
not involved enough! We scored to bring the Wisconsin game to within 10 points. All the defense had to do was stop Wisconsin and we had them right where we wanted them. And Rich Rod was off in la la land instead of in the huddle getting our D pumped up. Wouldn't you think that if your job was on the line, in big part because of the bad play by the defense, that you'd be in the huddle trying to motivate any chance you got?
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:34 AM ^
I don't care if RR's head asploded trying to pump up our D. There was no way we could stop their run game. They passed ONE time the entire 2nd half!
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:51 AM ^
And Rich Rod was off in la la land instead of in the huddle getting our D pumped up.
Yeah, I heard he was just daydreaming the entire game. Thinking about his golf game or something. Guy needs to pay attention to what's going on on the field!!!1
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:05 PM ^
kids were pumped up, they just never had a chance
Wouldn't you think that if your job was on the line, in big part because of the bad play by the defense, that you'd be in the huddle trying to motivate any chance you got?
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:21 AM ^
We'll see. Sure hope not. I think no. We should never get uptight or draw comparisons to unsuccessful coaches based on the idea that they brought a new style to the school.
Everyone knew this was the style of Rich Rodriguez.
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:23 AM ^
Most annoying fan base ever.
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:24 AM ^
One of the top reasons I want us to beat Ohio State is so we don't have another summer of threads like this.
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:33 AM ^
Don't kid yourself, they'll happen anyway. Woo offseason delayed by ~30 days this year!
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:35 AM ^
but not this one. THESE THREADS ARE MAKING ME THiRSTY!!!! Or crazy....one or the other.
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:31 AM ^
because I'd love to get his autograph on "Sometimes I Wish We Were An Eagle."
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:43 AM ^
wtf? RR has a successful track record as a head coach in college and has won more than one BCS bowl game. Callahan had no track record as a successful college coach. The question you need to keep asking yourself is RR better than the alternative. not is RR vs perfection (or our ideal of perfection). Change coaches now and expect a slew of transferrers, poor recruiting classes and go back into the crapper for 3+ more years. Let this play out. btw I'm as pissed as anyone else but I don't think 3 years is enough time.
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:10 PM ^
whatsoever. Just look at his tenure. He hasn't had a single guy transfer out.
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:45 AM ^
is a very good offensive coach but it seems to end there. i really question his decision making at times (why try that fg saturday) and it is clear he has no impact of defense and special teams. not to be harsh, but IMO he is a glorified offensive coordinator. i honestly think he is in way over his head here and another year is not going to be the solution.
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:13 AM ^
I think that you have summed up the problem with RR very well. He is a good OC, but he has not shown anything approaching decent overall team management. His defensive hires have been terrible. His defensive recruiting has been terrible. The team's fundamentals have been terrible (although this is party on youth, but that youth is party back on his recruiting).
I like the way that this offense is going. I don't think that it is as amazing as some on this blog do (we have fared pretty poorly against all decent teams, until those teams get a comfortable lead), but I do like his offense and see the potential with an older, more experienced Denard.
For me, the biggest reason that I would fire RR, however, is that the perception has become the reality. Whether it is true or not, RR has been perceived as being on the hot seat since he came to town. Barring a win against OSU (and even then, maybe not), this will be another season with the media, fans and coaches recruting against us saying that the upcoming season is "make or break for RR." It is hard to sustain a winning season, and even harder to recruit from the hot seat. It is also hard to coach in such a situation, where a large part of the fanbase (and outside of the MGOBlog community, I find that the majority of fans that I encounter - most in the 30 - 50 year old range and living outside of the state) strongly want RR gone.
Is this fair? No. Should these factors influence RR's success at Michigan? Again, no. But, the reality is that they do. Sometimes a coaches tenure starts off rocky, and just never gets back on the right track. It is not a denouncement of the coach's ability, but simply the reality of the situation.
As a sub-point to this post, I would be happy to be proven wrong. I like RR as an individual and see the potential. So, could anyone point to a coach at a major program in the past 20 years that has had such a terrible start to his tenure but who has righted the ship to go on to success? I cannot think of one, but my knowledge of teams other than Michigan is admittedly limited.
November 22nd, 2010 at 1:01 PM ^
This is the best summary of the situation I've seen here. Unfortunately, if we don't beat OSU on Saturday, we're headed for a very tense off-season.
The only coach I can think of, anywhere, who had a similar start and turned out OK is Kirk Ferentz. He went from one to three to seven wins, and then a BCS appearance in year four. But there are many more counter-examples.
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:50 AM ^
He must of been in way over his head when he won those BCS games too
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:34 PM ^
He had Jeff Casteel then. He does not now.
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:12 AM ^
Regardless of the vapidity of your argument, which has been dismissed by posters above, what the hell are those links to?
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^
related to Pat White. Take Pat White out of the equation and what do you have? Mediocrity!!
As of today, this is where the Michigan program is and will be as long as the present coaching staff remains. This is coming from a guy who was all for RR when he was hired. But after watching what has happened against the better teams in the Big Ten, it is clear to me he is clueless in recruiting to compete in the Big Ten and not very capable in game decisions.
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^
A serious question: When you say that he is clueless in recruiting to compete in the B10, do you mean that you disagree with his philosophy with regard to recruiting smaller, faster guys over traditional Wisconsin monster-sized guys?
If yes, I would have disagreed with this criticism a year ago, but I have come around to agree with this criticism. Look who is at the top of the B10 - OSU, Wisco and MSU (and even Iowa). Common thread? These teams have less electron-sized guys and more traditional bigger guys.
Now, this is not a "RR's offense cannot work in the B10" criticism. I think that it can. But, it needs to be modified to take into account the size that we will be going against.
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:49 AM ^
Is put more emphasis on getting big kids to play defense. He needs to get some DTs with size in here, not these 250-lb "projects."
He also needs a few more power backs, not have all tiny RBs. Remember how a big, strong runner like Brandon Minor transformed this offense into an unstoppable machine because RR's spread gets the defensive players running around and at that point an RB who can break arm tackles is KILLER.
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:42 AM ^
You're suggesting that White was a one hit wonder and Rodriguez got lucky and rode him to BCS wins and the Michigan job. It's possible, but I think Denard's transformation from last year to this year, and his record setting campaign directly contradicts your premise that Pat White made Rodriguez. If anything, Rodriguez molded White into the playmaker he was, and Denard into the player he is and will be.
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^
2 points:
First, the White point. I am not calling RR a one hit wonder, but before White came to WVU, RR was a decent coach, who ran an innovative offense in a crappy conference. White, combined with an equally lethal RB, was offensive gold. Not saying that RR didn't have a good deal to do with their development, but RR had some pretty great parts with which to build his offense. I would venture to say that many coaches, given those parts, could have built a comparable offense. (Not all coaches - Lloyd would not have maximized those types of players, for example). But, while everyone is quick to point out RR's success at WVU before he left, the real success was with White.
Second - RR has molder Denard into the player he is. Well, I don't think that we know whay kind of player Denard is yet. Certainly not a knock on Denard, but he has played 1 real year. We know that he is fast as all hell We know that he has a really strong arm. We know that he needs to work on touch. We know that his presence can keep other defenses over-compensating to the point where we can exploit them. But, will Denard be the type of player that learns how to beat a traditional B10 defense? That can perform for all 60 minutes? That can run up those gaudy numbers against quality competition? That still remains to be seen.
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:40 PM ^
I'm not sure why everyone is so focused on the offensive side of the ball. The big difference between RR's tenure at Michigan and his tenure at WVU is that there, he actually had a competent defense (coached by Jeff Casteel). Without Casteel, he seems completely lost on that side of the ball - and worse, seems determined to turn every DC he has into Casteel, without really understanding what Casteel was doing.
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:45 AM ^
RR modicum of success as a coach is directlyrelated to Pat White. Take Pat White out of the equation and what do you have? Mediocrity!!
LOL
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:09 PM ^
I thought this argument had already been put to rest. Let me guess...Rich Rod has absolutely no chance of being successful without both Pat White AND Steve Slaton?
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:18 PM ^
when you take Urban Meyer and take away Tim Tebow? A 4-4 SEC record!
...really? That's the best you've got? Your argument is "what happens if you take away the best player on a team? THE COACH DOESN'T LOOK GOOD!"?
Wow. Just, wow.
November 22nd, 2010 at 2:10 PM ^
won a NC when Chris Leak was his primary QB.
November 22nd, 2010 at 2:52 PM ^
Yes, he did win the NC with Leak as the main QB and Tebow as the "wildcat," though they didn't call it that. And he got his base offense from whom?
Rich Rodriguez.
November 22nd, 2010 at 3:01 PM ^
However, (a) that team still utilized Tim Tebow, AND (b) He was good for 13 TDs on the season, so hardly a benchwarmer.
That being said, you realize I was being facetious, right? Urban Meyer is obviously a great coach, and doesn't deserve drive-by "BUT IF "X" THEN HE'D BE A BAD COACH!" comments any more than Rodriguez does.
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:34 AM ^
I've been saying this since the RR hire. He's one of the top OCs in the country but doesn't belong as the head coach of a program like Michigan. And, yes, guys like Tressel and Paterno will tell you this privately. It's painfully obvious.
Told you that after 2010 he'd be done. We can only hope this is so.
The big change? My previous accounts all got negbombed into oblivion for stating this. Not anymore.
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:52 AM ^
WTF is wrong with you guys?! Are you all seriously going to bicker at each other with one game left in the regular season? Can't we focus on the positives? We're bowl eligible again people! We're guaranteed a winning record. This is improvement.
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:56 AM ^
I put a diary up after the PSU game that some commenters laughed at. I had said UM was not a tough football team. I think my comment was vindicated Saturday. UW laughed at us. It has come to this -- the Badgers were tossing UM around like a high school team. Even the fraking offense.
The four good teams we've played -- MSU, Iowa, PSU, UW -- have all gotten 20 point leads on us before we showed up to play. Our supposedly brilliant offense didn't seem to help.
Enough about all the youth on defense. That RR's fault. We have become so obsessed with SEC players, recruiting in the South, just get a bunch of MI and OH beefcakes like we used to and restock the damn DL. Where did UW and Iowa and PSU get all their players from? Why aren't we hitting those areas? Right, we're in Florida and NC recruiting. (Obviously I know we recruit everywhere. But the emphasis is WAY off the mark.)
And RR is to blame for the special teams sucking too. Spielman was right -- there's a 1000 kids who can hit a 30 yard field goal. Go to any lousy Division III team and find them. Yet we can't?
I look at Stanford, man those guys play TOUGH. With STANFORD admissions standards. Stanford can stand up to UW. We don't have those players and wno't for at least 2 years, until these children on the D grow up.
Well, if we have to wait... I prefer a proven commodity in Big Ten style football.
Stanford's last regular season game is Saturday. So is ours. Make the switch next Monday -- release RR and his staff, immediately call Stanford to get the AD's permisssion, then call Jim on his cell and tell him it's time to come home.
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:23 PM ^
I hate your post. Not sure why. something about it just makes me not like it. Seriously.
But, I hate to say this, but I agree with most (not all) of your points. We are not tough enough. Our "wacko ninja" offense hasn't gotten off the ground against good teams until the game is almost out of hand. Denard - while young and raw - is, for now, stoppable. It is unbelievable that RR cannot find a single guy who can hit a 30 yard FG from dead center. Same goes for the D recruiting - in year 3, the youth is largely on RR at this point.
My only disagreement is on the recrutiing focus. I don't think that we are ignoring the midwest in favor of Florida. We are just not having as much success with the "bug guys" because RR's offense is perceived as not being friendly to these types. Whether this is true or not, the perception exists.