First anti-RR sentiments
I don't even know the final score. All I know is that M wasn't ready to play and I'm pissed. RR has a lot or rope and he is still my guy for real, but it's time for some real analysis.. from the squib kick on, there was some major problems, and not the "young players" type of problems. This is one die hard who has had RR's back no matter what until now. I'm not calling for a firing, but that was not a well prepared football team. And don't bullshit me about freshman this and freshman that, that was bad. BAD. Not "we are bulding" bad, but fucking bad period.... Bullshit!!! Bring it on blind RR supporters, it's time we have it out. I remember WV v. Pitt....
October 25th, 2009 at 12:28 AM ^
Well, judging by Denard's fumbling habits, I'm going to say that he's not really that great at running with a football. Also, when he isn't fumbling or completing passes to the other team his running is usually only effective for a drive or so. For example, today during his first drive or so he was getting decent yardage on the run. However, after that he started getting about 2 yards a carry, which forces him to throw on 3rd down, which equals disaster..
I think Denard should play slot. He doesn't have to throw, can use his speed, and he won't have to get tackled by d linemen and fumble.
October 24th, 2009 at 8:20 PM ^
"fun" fact: We have now been outgained by all five BCS+ND teams that we have faced this year. The last three have been by wide margins and we are way below zero on turnover margin too. The only "improvement" in this team over last year is that we can blow out MAC teams. Against the Big 10, Rodriguez is a godawful 3-9. Last year after four Big 10 games we were 1-3. This year after four Big 10 games we are 1-3.
Here's another "fun" fact: Penn State had to replace six starters on offense and six starters on defense coming into this year. You know that defensive backfield that completely shut down our receivers today? All four of them are new starters this year. You know those receivers that we can't cover worth a damn? All three of them new starters. Yeah, we're "young". Guess what. So is almost everyone else in the Big 10.
October 24th, 2009 at 8:29 PM ^
fun fact:.
tp is a soph and were calling him a bust...
we've regressed every game since nd
October 24th, 2009 at 8:58 PM ^
The excuse that we have a lot of young players--and so it's okay that we lose to Sparty two years in a row, and it's okay to get BLOWN OUT at home by PSU--is really wearing thin.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:05 PM ^
But I hate to say it - that is the reality. MSU is better than UM this year, and PSU is quite a bit better. Blame RR if you want, blame the team, etc. But this team is a young one that is going to lose games like this. It happens. We all expect UM to win 9-10 games a year until we die, but that isn't the reality any more. I still think RR was a good choice as coach, but these are the growing pains that will come with that decision.
October 24th, 2009 at 8:17 PM ^
why not bring play in a nickel, bring down the secondary, and just blitz one or two different guys every down? Barwis training should give them the stamina and if we can't get to the QB anyway, I don't think we are risking much by just blitzing away...
October 24th, 2009 at 8:31 PM ^
to play a nickle we'd have to bring someone in out of the student section.
but if it got stevie brown off the field, it would be worth a try. how bad did he look on those td's?
October 24th, 2009 at 8:40 PM ^
I'm not happy about this game, but games don't bring a referendum on coaching - seasons do. More than 2 seasons do.
No this is not 2008. I'm never going to advocate doing to RR what ND did to Willingham. Changing coaching, even talking about it doesn't do anything for Michigan.
RR is Michigan Football. 2009 > 2008. 2010 is probably going to be better than 2009.
First anti-RR sentiments - give me break (I realize that is a personal statement on the OP's part.) We've been a house divided to the detriment of Michigan. Let's circle the wagons here please.
This game was not lost by this coaching staff - players made turnovers. That's why we lost to Iowa as well (MSU is another issue but that is one game). Our season is not lost - hurt but not lost. Let's be constructive.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:11 PM ^
Has anyone, in any of these threads, really called for Rich Rod to be fired? Now, at the end of the year, or anytime in the near future? If someone wants to collect all those...
The only way to be "constructive" after a performance is "constructive criticism". Because there wasn't anything positive to take from it. Doesn't mean people are calling for his head. Just that maybe they're coming to the realization that he doesn't walk on water.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:45 PM ^
You are dumb. Turnovers have everything to do with coaching. These michigan teams under RR have the worst fundamentals than any other michigan team. Our running backs always have the ball in the wrong hand and when our players get hit they dont hold the ball with 2 hands. Its all coaching my friend. Before RR was here we always had teams that had good ball security.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:55 PM ^
The RBs have not "always" had the ball in the wrong hand. You can't "always" wrap up with two hands.
Note RR retained Fred Jackson from the vaunted ball security days of Mich legend.
Mike Hart fumbled twice in the Capital One Bowl - fumbles happen even to the best. This D line and LB unit was better than Mich had seen this season. This is a wake up call know no doubt.
Turnovers have been an issue for Mich this season and last...it's true. That has to change.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:08 PM ^
BM should have recruited Lloyd's successor from this blog. There are clearly alot of top-quality football geniuses that, had they been at the helm today, would have led Michigan to a victory and been carried out on the players shoulders. Clearly, some folks on this blog know a hell of a lot more about football and how to caoch it then RR, LOL.
Get a grip. Step back and accept the rebuilding process. It is going to be ok. Just search the inner depths of your soul for that little thing called "patience" or at least try to get your mind around the concept of a 3-year point of view.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:19 PM ^
mgoposts critiquing our program in minute detail and offering a 10 point mgoprogram for improvement. Needless to say, I didn't get the job, which as everyone knows is because of the division between the old and new factions within the athletic department, and behind the scenes maneuvering by Carr. Fuckers.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:48 PM ^
But you said you sent a "resume," not an MGoResume on maize paper with blue print. Or the other way around? Either way.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:15 PM ^
I think our biggest problem is not coaching, but talent. Rich Rod is a fantastic coach - we all know his history, and we've seen what he's capable of. GERG is a sophisticated defensive coordinator who won two Super Bowls. And Barwis is exactly the kind of conditioning guy you need.
But none of that matters if those three don't have anybody to work with! Michigan desperately needs talent - and unfortunately, in college football, to get the best talent, you need to have a great deal of success. But to have success, you need to have talent. It's a vicious cycle, and it explains why rebuilding a team takes so long, and also why some teams never manage to get back to where they were. The keys here are consistency and patience - Rich Rod needs to be given time - and when I mean time, I mean at the very MINIMUM five seasons. GERG absolutely, positively must be kept at defensive coordinator. Consistency is the key - there's a reason why the teams with the lowest staff turnover win the most.
But like I said, we need more talent. All of GERG's schemes and Rich Rod's plays won't work if we have slow receivers who run generic routes and linebackers who can't make plays. That's why I think recruiting four and five-star talent is essential - there's no guarantee that they'll necessarily be better, and yes, 3-star recruits can become superstars. But it's a probability issue - you have a higher chance of success with higher-rated guys than you do with walk-ons.
I have faith in Rich Rod - I think that this program is turning around, but change is hard. It takes time. If we can get some good defensive recruits this year, I think we'll be improved next year.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:45 PM ^
No amount of talent dearth explains how awful the defense is. Even if you think that Cissoko, Mouton, etc were overrated coming out of high school, the defense shouldn't be as abysmal as it is and it should at least be showing some signs of progress. Michigan has the second worst defense in the conference (just ahead of Illinois). Northwestern, Purdue, and about half of the MAC have a better defense than Michigan. Syracuse gave Penn State a tougher game in Happy Valley than we gave them today at home (maybe Scott Shaffer wasn't the problem after all). Nobody with a modicum of reason or sanity could possibly think that it is becuase they have more talent. You could say that it is because they are young, but they sucked horribly last year too despite having lots of juniors and seniors (remember last year people excpected it to be a good defense that would carry the team until the offense found its feet). The defense sucks too bad for any amount of excuses to justify it and for the current head coach to escape blame.
This talent discussion reminds me of the discussion that Notre Dame fans had two years ago. Lots of fans blamed the horrific 3-9 season solely on Willingham's recruiting. It's true that Willingham recruited poorly, but Charlie Weis did a terrible job of coaching those players. It's plainly obvious that bad recruiting wasn't the only problem facing Notre Dame at the time. Likewise, Carr's recruiting is by far not the only cause of our bad defense.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:07 PM ^
By your reasoning of the vicious cycle, does that mean it was a bad idea to go 3-9 last year, even if it meant implementing the system faster, because it would hurt recruiting too much, which is (it sounds like from your post) more important?
I completely agree with you that GERG needs to stick around. But if it's DC changes causing all the defensive problems...who's changed DC twice in 2 years?
October 24th, 2009 at 10:21 PM ^
Recruiting is definitely important, but the system is what matters. For instance, if we had a bunch of 5* guys, but they were all pro-style guys, I still don't know if we would have been more effective last year. I agree with the decision to fully implement the spread last year - however I think it has had a bit of an impact on recruiting in terms of 3-9. Overall, with a completely different coach and philosophy, plus the loss of Long, Henne, Manningham, and the other standouts, I really don't think we had much of a choice last year. It was going to be bad, the only question was a matter of how bad.
I think the feedback loop that I mentioned does play a role, but since we've won a couple this year and we seem to be headed in the right direction, I may have overstated its impact.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:05 PM ^
I dont think you know what the fuck you are talking about. We have pretty solid talent. This michigan team has a number of players that will be playing on sundays. RR is awful coach. Its only gonna get worse from here. If carr coached today we would have won this game today. RR is fucking lucking bo is not around anymore. If he saw this game today i think he would have went down to the field and punch RR. RR is a clown and it is starting to be a joke. He has no fundamentals as a coach. He does not care about the defense at all.The defense is only going to get worse. RR still thinks he is in wvu. I cant stand how he yells at the players after they a mistake on the field. He looks like a big baby crying out there. I can clearly see that the michigan job is way to big for him. The panic is setting in for old RR. His system will not work in the B10. i hope to god we get an AD at michigan who knows what michigan football is all about.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:35 PM ^
They just happened to play well enough to have a chance against Iowa and MSU at the end of those contests. Everyone (minus BG) had a bad game. M is 5-3, and 2 plays away from being 3-5. Not yet an elite program, and that is reflected by today's output. It was real weak for sure, but 7-5 and a bowl game is in sight.
I once heard a quote attributed to Bo. "Sometimes you can see further on a cloudy day because you aren't blinded by the light of the sun."
October 24th, 2009 at 9:43 PM ^
I'm sorry, but this game was a total mismatch. There were a lot of problems because we were playing a team that played much better than we did and has an ass-load of talented players. IMO, no amount of coaching would have won us this game. We have to bridge the talent gap here.
Most people on this board thought this was going to be a rough year (ie. 6-6 or 7-5) and at 5-3, it's still going about how people expected.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:30 PM ^
We have a young team, and it had a meltdown performance. Young teams often do that. As for whether we've regressed as a team, we need more evidence. PSU is the best team we've faced all season (and I argued this before the game, too). Before that it was Iowa and I thought we played a very good game there, aside from the turnovers and a few blown assignments on defense.
People have made a lot of analogies between this team and last year's men's basketball team, and I think they're pretty apt. Everyone remembers that the hoops team beat Duke in December and made the NCAA tournament in March. What people forget is that it went through a rough midseason stretch. At one point we were 15-10, after being held to 42 points at home by MSU. Young teams go through lots of highs and lows. Let's see how the rest of the year plays out before we cast judgment.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:29 PM ^
...at the beginning of the season that this would be a young team. Young teams will drive you nuts if you let them. They look great one week and suck the next; that's just part of being a young team.
I'm going to wait until RR has a team with some of his own seniors on it before I start calling for his head on a stick. Besides, this team could still get hot and run the table.
How many people here thought UM would beat PSU at the beginning of the season? I had this game pencilled in as one of three losses, so I won't cry in my beer over it. I'm guessing that if they take care of business against Purdue and Illinois, people will be breathing a little easier again and looking forward to next year.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:48 PM ^
You make a great point: It's easy to forget that Rich Rod hasn't even started his own juniors or seniors from his first recruiting class yet. The best players in college football are typically upperclassman, because they've had the most experience.
Vince Young wasn't very good in his first two seasons, but he turned out OK as far as college is concerned. Let's see how Rich Rod's seniors work out before we pass any judgment. The team still has several of Carr's players on it and Rich Rod hasn't fully customized it to his liking. He's still using a lot of what he inherited right now, which isn't a shot at Lloyd, but merely an observation that Rich Rod's system is completely different.
Plus, there are a lot of unknowns left. What happens if Gardner comes in and performs like an absolute beast and wins the starting job? What if Will Campbell improves dramatically over the offseason and anchors a vicious D-Line? There are a lot of potential superstars on this team, but they need a little time to reach their potential.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:54 PM ^
I'm not a huge recruiting junkie, so I'm not really able to identify which members of the 2008 class were recruited by Carr and which ones were recruited by RichRod (other than Roundtree, who was SnakeOiled™ away from Purdue). But I don't think it's a reach to say that 2009 was the first - and so far only - class recruited more or less exclusively by RichRod and staff.
Call me what you will, but I generally don't think it's fair to be too harsh on a coach until they've been able to bring in a couple of classes' worth of players suited to their specific system, give them time to learn the playbook, develop their talents physically, and perhaps even find exactly where on the field they are going to excel, sometimes relying on trial and error.
That goes double after there's been a dramatic change in the system, such as the shift from Carr's offense to the spread.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:45 PM ^
expectations change.
at the start of the year our offense looked incedible (not worried about the O) and our defense looked like it would suprise people.
even the 2 losses werent terrible since we looked on par.
todays the first day i really feel differently about this team since game 1.
you can say we're where we're supposed to be, but thats loser talk to me.
RR can get alot back by finding an 8th win, especially vs osu.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:03 PM ^
When did our defense ever look like it would surprise people this season? When WMU threw an 80-yard TD on us? When ND rolled up 490 yards and 34 points? When EMU rushed for over 100 yards on us? When Indiana racked up 467 yards and 33 points?
If anything, I'd argue that we looked better today defensively than we did against ND or Indiana. And that's not out of praise for today's performance.
October 25th, 2009 at 1:06 AM ^
well, wmu was viewed as an underrated O with a pro qb that we blanked during real game time. ND was the most explosive offense we'd play. indiana was due to turnovers. etc, etc.
point taken. but the silver liners (just me?) thought this D had atleast some respectability. atleast, until today, that is.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:42 AM ^
game, I saw a defense that tackled well, took good angles and pursued the ball carrier with abandon. That disappeared by game 2.
October 25th, 2009 at 7:38 PM ^
That was a game against a lousy MAC team. When has our defense looked good against a BCS-conference team?
October 25th, 2009 at 1:15 AM ^
the majority of people predicted a win today. now that we lost people are trying to justify it. I know there are those who claim that people questioning rr are being myopic, but people who are Justifying this loss are just being naive.
October 25th, 2009 at 1:26 AM ^
after the first drive, we were outscored 35-3, on our home field. psu seemed to grab 20, 30 yards on a whim.
we werent just beat today...
i dont know if people are just staying positive, or hopelessly naive (someone used the phrase 'sitting at the cool kids' table'... christ) but i feel like i just looked at the clock at work and its 45 min earlier than i thought it was.
October 25th, 2009 at 2:57 AM ^
i feel like i just looked at the clock at work and its 45 min earlier than i thought it was.Being unemployed and all, I thought I'd forgotten this feeling. But no, I haven't. And this is now my new favorite analogy for everything I don't like.
October 25th, 2009 at 12:00 PM ^
Rodriguez had West Fucking Virginia a perennial top-10 team when he was there and you cherry pick his results to one particular loss when Pat White was injured. Get a grip.