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 12:28 PM ^
You do realize that spread offenses are a proven commodity too, right? For example, STANFORD is on the outside looking in at the moment, in large part because it was thumped by a "teeny track stars covered in butter" offense run by Oregon-- a spread offense. Also, they stand behind Auburn, a team featuring spread guru Guz Malzahan and mobile QB Cam Newton.
In fact, when was the last time that a 3-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust team won the national championship? I'm not saying they're obsolete, I'm just saying it's ludicrous to say that they're the only "proven commodity" in terms of successful football offenses.
Incidentally, have you seen how Michigan has fared against spread teams over the years? Oregon? McNabb while at 'Cuse? Florida Gators? (we won, but they played us hard. Also, notice that we switched to a shotgun-spread for that game... about as far from UW as you can get.) They seemed to play pretty TOUGH too.
You can blame RR for youth until you're blue in the face, but the fact remains that older defenses are better defenses.
Sit back and enjoy this next season. If RR wins, you can claim you were "all in from the beginning" and enjoy a resurgence and offensive renaissance in Michigan football. If he doesn't I ASSURE you that he'll be fired post haste, and you can say "I knew his brand of football would never work." After all, that's what you plan on doing anyways, isn't it?
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:37 PM ^
In fact, when was the last time that a 3-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust team won the national championship?
Last season.
But I'd still take a spread team every time if I had to choose a style.
November 22nd, 2010 at 1:06 PM ^
2010 = Alabama (yes, good point) def. spread team (Texas)
2009 = Florida (spread) def. Oklahoma (spread)
2008 = LSU (I guess pro-style) v. OSU (pro-style)
2007 = Florida (spread) def. OSU (hybrid)
2006 = Texas (hybrid/spread) def. USC (pro)
Definitely last year, but let's say 3 out of the last 5 were won by spread teams? Not a bad showing. Again, point wasn't to discount 3YACOD, but to say spreads are proven commodity.
November 22nd, 2010 at 1:13 PM ^
Totally agree. Which is why I said I'd take spread over pro-style.
November 22nd, 2010 at 2:07 PM ^
They might be catagorized as a 'spread' team, but I put them more in the realm of passing spread teams.
Leaked carried the ball 77 times. Over the course of 14 games that's roughly 5.5 carries/game. He gained 238 yards but lost 230 yds for a total rushing yardage of 30 yds on the season. A decent amount of his carries were sacks and/or scrambles.
November 22nd, 2010 at 3:13 PM ^
I think that's a bit literal-minded. You're positing that, because "old" Michigan got smoked by spread teams, the spread offense is necessarily better than pro-style. I disagree. The problem with Michigan wasn't that it ran a pro; it was that it was slow. And slow to adapt on defense.
You can't conclude that the spread is superior just because Oregon and Auburn are 1 and 2 this season. Ten months ago, OSU flattened Oregon; next week, Alabama will flatten Auburn. Plenty of generally pro-style teams are thriving. (I say "generally" only because so many teams, though defined as either pro or spread, are hybrids.) USC? Alabama? OSU? Stanford? Wisconsin? LSU (sorta). Iowa. And I wouldn't describe USC or Stanford as cloud-of-dust teams. Michigan, under Lloyd, wasn't one, either. It just needed more speed and fresh blood.
November 22nd, 2010 at 1:12 PM ^
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:43 PM ^
This post the week of The Game? WGAF about Callahan! Focus on the !@#$eyes. Stay the course. Get behind this team. They are more than capable of winning this game.
November 22nd, 2010 at 1:05 PM ^
Hey all, I'm a huge Michigan fan and have come across a place to get 2 tickets to the ohio state game for far under face value. There are 2 tickets in Section 10C row 33. Go to iticketbid.com to at least check it out. Sale ends around 6! You might be able to get them for free if you use the promo code "rivalryweek" it will give you 5 free bids. Go wolverines!
November 22nd, 2010 at 1:48 PM ^
Meh... The West Coast offense isn't as record-setting or dominant as spread attacks. For example, the teams ranked No. 1 through No. 5 all have a spread attack. Oregon (the No. 1 team in the nation) actually came to Rodriguez to pick his brain and better their offense.
So, the comparison is, on a broad level, valid -- but in finer detail I'm not sure if it would hold up.
November 22nd, 2010 at 2:00 PM ^
Richrod is a better coach than Callahan. He'll succeed somewhere.
But, yes.
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:46 PM ^
all this drivel about spread vs pro style vs cloud of dust. are we back here again. it's obvious the spread offense works anywhere. but the problem isn't the offense. it's the D.
adding 10lbs and about 100 practices to all the returnees before Sept 1 will make this young D much better; no matter who coaches it. but i do want a D coaching overhaul for sure.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:15 AM ^
I would never post this topic myself on this board, out of respect and good manners. No two programs are the same, and it's not a non-Michigan fan's place to say what's going on or should happen with Michigan football. That said......
The similarities as I see it:
Many cherished and long term records/streaks lost or broken---for the worse--- by one of CFB's all time programs
"Rebuilding" after replacing a legendary coach followed by a coach that ranked very high all time for the program
Divided fan base--many of the posts here are déjà vu for Husker boards back then--verbatim
Perception of going from dominating power style team to "soft" finesse team
Great offense, lousy defense
Non competitive within the conference
PS--my own opinion, winners win right away, they don't need "time to introduce their system". Bob Devaney, Ara Parseghian, Pete Caroll, Bob Stoops, Jim Tressel, Nick Sabin, Bo Pellini. Name me the big time programs that successfully "rebuilt" over several years and returned to glory. No, when they found the right guy the improvement was immediate.
If I've offended Michigan fans with this post, I apologize. Will be an honor to take the field against your team as division rivals and look forward to interacting with Wolverine fans.
Whether it's RR or someone else--Michigan will be back