I don't care
Hoke besting Rodriguez by 118 points
Yeah this will end well...
Hornet's nest, meet stick. Stick, meet hornet's nest.
about what i'd expect from an offense that returns 10 starters, and finally having a qb starting with a season of experience under his belt.
The OP asserts that the offense producitivity (using a limited measure) is approximately the same. Given the situation you describe, wouldn't you expect an uptick in offense?
A can of Raid and about a twenty foot head start. It's all you need.
Seriously, though, can we stop with the Hoke v. Rodriguez stuff? It doesn't help anything. The players on the team have been coached and influenced by both, and I doubt they're interested in pitting the two against each other. Both were Michigan coaches. We are Michigan fans. End of story.
Just so I get all the unwritten rules--so Its just Brian who is allowed to compare Rodriguez's offense with Borges's? I'm fine with that, I just didn't know. I could change the title to "2011 vs 2010" and I suppose fewer people would be offended...but we'd all still know what we're talking about.
To start, I didn't see Brian's latest post about the "grab-bag" offense to be a knock. Second, comparing the schemes/techniques is different than just posting numbers. I would be very interested in a post about the differences in scheme and technique between the Michigan defense of 2010 and the Michigan defense of 2011. You just posted numbers. You also framed it as Hoke besting Rodriguez, which is a very specific way of framing the issue. As others have noted below, there is a lot that goes into what makes a unit better or worse from one year to another. I don't doubt that coaching has a lot to do with the defense's improvement, but it's not just coaching. In any event, there is no point in pitting the two coaches against each other.
" You just posted numbers." ?
You do know what blog you're on, right? Tell me there wouldn't be 20 pages of front page rant and 2000 posts if these numbers were reversed. Then I'll call you a liar to your face.
Give me an advanced metric that means more than wins/losses and points for/points against and your argument will have merit.
Funny how an "apples and year old apples" comparison turns into an apples and oranges comparison when it doesn't agree with your stubborn beliefs and expectations.
Give me an advanced metric that means more than wins/losses and points for/points against and your argument will have merit.
A couple of points:
A. I'm not arguing that the 2010 defense was as good as the 2011 defense. I can't imagine anyone doing that.
B. Brian routinely breaks down what it is that Michigan is doing on plays (or a given play). I would be very interested to see examples of what Michigan is doing differently from this year to last when it comes to, say, defensive lineman technique.
C. I don't mind you posting just the numbers. That's been done several times. What I mind is turning it into "Hoke v. Rodriguez." That is my main point.
What about the following (small sampling from a much more extensive list, of course):
- Yards per carry
- Yards per attempt
- Total rushing
- Total passing
- 3rd down conversions
- Tackles (for loss, in particular)
- Yards given, rushing and passing.
- Et cetera
If you're going to use numbers, then use them.
People complain about Brian doing it too, but this is his blog. If you read it, you accept that. Otherwise, I think most of us are beyond the Rodriguez years at this point. Let's just focus on what the current staff can/will do.
I'm not trying to stir the pot, but how can you say we are beyond the Rodriguez years when the bulk of the players were recruited by Rodriguez? His stamp on the program will diminish but will still be in existence, for good or bad, for several more years.
As far as Brian goes, it is indeed his blog, but I have yet to see where someone has been throttled just because they disagree with Brian, assuming there is some logic to the different opinion.
Michigan's defense 2010/2011
Apples and oranges. It's time to move on
Apples and oranges is giving the post far too much credit. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Apples and gypsum mines.
I was originally going to say apples and carburators, but was worried about my spelling.
And mars...only if mars were square.
And mars...only if mars were square.
And mars...only if mars were square.
Stupid Droid. Sowwy
The cubed post would've been effective if you had said "only if Mars were cubed."
With good reason.
Obvious Improved Defense is Obvious.
I don't think you can just handwave away the Age. Last year we had quite a few 1st time starters, and now they'll all older. Someone a while ago posted about Florida's Defense 2007 vs 2008. In 2007 they were near the bottom I believe, and after all their young players had a year of experience they got better. It's why Alabama was never going to repeat last year and why Auburn had shot this year; you have a young team 90% of the time your going to struggle than if you have an older team
Coached by none other than G. Mattison.
Coaching a bunch of freshmen/sophomores in the secondary.
Who got torched in the 2008 Capital One bowl.
Amazing that people will spin coaches/schemes/player experience to fit their arguments...
Excellent points about the difficulty of repeating...which is why the end of Cooper/beginning of Tressel (and continuation by Tressel) was so hard to watch...they were always slotting in sophomores and RS freshmen around experienced, capable juniors and seniors, blowing out inferior teams so the back-ups got meaningful reps, etc. Shouldn't be THAT hard to figure out how to use the roster to best advantage...not SEC (ess-eee-see) medical hardship/annual schollie reduction advantage, but just using strengths and depth to build the foundation for long-term success and excellence.
How on earth would you know if individual players got worse from looking at the overall defense? Are you suggesting playing Ohio State and Wisconsin is the same as playing Eastern and UConn?
Mike Martin with two functioning tree-trunk legs for games 1-6 in 2010, and broken broom sticks for games 7-12. The rush (such as it was) is diminished, the double-teams against him are gone, etc.
TWolf has been nearly as non-existent this season with the multiple injuries as he was last year. Although other players cutting their teeth in the defensive backfield last year provide a basis for the expectation of growth physically and mentally coming into this year.
The defense is for real, yo.
thats not the point really, we dont need to score massive amounts of points because we usually keep the other team out of the game with our better defense. The systems are still different and it doesent help denard is having an off throwing year. Were still winning be happy
This year's defense has put the offense in better position, and has even managed to score a significant chunk of those points. Therefore, I'd argue that your quick analysis undervalues the differences in both offense and defense year-over-year
Some have said the defense creates more "3 and outs" giving the offense better field position and more posessions, and there's likely something to that.
Some have said that the offense has gotten conservative or back up laden late in games this year when victory is in hand, and there's likely something to that.
Some have said that Robinson's tendency to force the ball into coverage could have been partially conditioned into him by 3 years of playing from behind, and there's likely something to that, too.
Many variables--too many to control for, I would agree. I would still argue that points for/against is the best(flawed) metric we have.
Or you could argue, that our horrible defense last year gave our offense the ball back more often by letting the other team score so quickly on big plays. Our offense may be at a disadvantage this year in terms of possessions because our defense is playing bend but don't break instead of broken.
I would seriously hope that RR '11 would be beating RR '10 if he were still our coach. Who really cares who is beating who through 8 games. What matters is that the team improves and we compete for the B1G Ten Championship this year and every year.
That's exactly what I was going to say. The comparison just isn't fair and doesn't make sense. If RR was working with this offense, who knows how many points/yards they would have put up by now. My guess is a lot more than what we have right now.
It's an exercise in futility though, because the reality is that the offense has been very good this year, and it means nothing to speculate about what RR could have done with this year's offensive personnel.
So, who's ready for some bird hunting this weekend?
That's exactly what I was going to say.
Exactly? Wow, you guys must be twins separated at birth.
The problem is that our offense was not getting better towards the end of last year, it was regressing. RR wasn't showing progress on offense at the end of the season so why would you guess it would be better now. Did the starters who returned somehow gain a year of experience after the Ohio State and bowl games?
Is that a serious question?
I think we can all agree that Hoke is doing well and we are all happy about that, but this is a poor way to compare coaches. 2010 team != 2011 team. Can we just stop comparing anyway? It's pointless. Hoke is doing well, let's hope he continues doing well and look forward to the future. Examining the past isn't a futile exercize but there's no way to effectively compare RR's performance to Hoke's, so can we stop trying to do that?
Just curious, when you say Hoke is doing well what are you using for the basis of comparison?
Common Sense. Any year where you are 7-1 and tied for the division lead is going to be a "good" year up to that point.
Whatever basis he's using, it's better than the one that was used by the OP.
Stuff like this should really only be pulled out if/when someone bitches about how "RR's would have had a better 4th year" or something of that nature. Use it defensive when someone goes anti-Hoke and pro-RR. Don't just drop it in its own thread and beg people to start a flamewar. I definitely use this kind of stuff when I find myself in a conversation with someone who is anti-Hoke, but I don't start those kind of conversations.
I find myself in similar discussions sometimes. I just pretend that people are saying they are anti-perch - it makes the whole thing a chucklefest for some reason.
In fairness to Rodriguez, the 2011 team is nearly the same team as last year with a year of experience. That's not to say expectations haven't been exceded, especially on defense, but any comparison is apples and oranges.
I genuinely thought I had an original thought when I posted. I guess I'm just not fast enough.
"Exponentially" better, as [Rodriguez] put it. [Regarding expectations for the 2011 team.]
Then he was fired.
"We saw the light at the end of the tunnel," he said Tuesday in a 30-minute interview with The Associated Press. "Heck, we had 24 starters coming back, and the player of the year in the league—he's a sophomore and still learning. Recruiting, we thought it was going really well even with all the drama.
That's the frustrating part about it is we didn’t get a chance to finish the job."
There is so much more to talk about and belabor.
I love the job that Hoke and Co. is doing right now, and I think the short- and long-term picture is looking progressively prettier. But I have to be honest, I think Michigan football would have been pretty exciting this year if Rodriguez were still around...well, on offense at least.
May have been exciting on defense too, but not necessarily in a good way.
also didn't finish the year very well last year. There seemed to be a regression in the offense rather than an improvement.
Just because we had 24 starters returing doesn't mean the offense would have improved under Rick Rod
is losing by more than that. I remember at least 3 defensive TD's this year.
One of the biggest takeaways from the book for me is that the game cannot be boiled down to numbers much like baseball can. It's too interconnected and with small sample sizes, minor plays can be a huge difference in numbers.
The players and coaches believe in momentum in the book, which is something the numbers don't usually explain. It exists if only if the players believe in it and thus is an factor even if the numbers don't bear it out.
"Hold hard!" said I at this, 'tell your story as you ought, Senor Don Ojos Claros, for you know very well that all comparisons are odious, and there is no occasion to compare one person with another; the peerless Dulcinea del Tobos is what she is, and the lady Dona Delerma is what she is and has been, and that's enough.'
(Apologies to Cervantes.)
P.S. Your title is deliberately provocative and may deserve the scorn that it invites.
Hear me now
Oh thou bleak and unbearable world,
Thou art base and debauched as can be;
And a knight with his banners all bravely unfurled
Now hurls down his gauntlet to thee!
I am I, Don Quixote,
The Lord of La Mancha, þ
My destiny calls and I go,
And the wild winds of fortune
Will carry me onward,
Oh whithersoever they blow.
Whithersoever they blow,
Onward to glory I go!
actually revoked one of the points someone had given me for this. Show yourself, coward! You are lower than an ant's anus!
Why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth still?
Our main fear of the Hoke regime versus Rodriguez was that Borges = DeBord. That did not happen, will not happen, plain and simple.
Be at peace. Take yes for an answer.
This year, we are basically clock killing in the 4th quarter. Last year, we'd be down 3 TDs against good teams and tied against crappy teams. Either way, since our defense was so pathetic last year, we were gunning until the end.
1) Defense is playing better this year. (My theory is 4-3 > 3-3-5 and technique)
2) It's impossible to know what would happen in an alternate universe with different coaches absent a time machine.
3) We have reason to be very proud of our players, and I don't think they're worried about what this season would be like under anyone else.
4) Flame wars suck. Stop please.
Let me correct your first point 4-3 >>>>>>>>3-3-5.
Let me correct his first point and your point 4-3>>>>>>3-3-5 when 4-3 is coached by competent coordinator and 3-3-5 is being forced down someone's throat who has no idea how to run it.
I accept your correction, but I still think the 3-3-5 is inherently not that great of a defense, regardless of the co-ordinator.
TCU and West Virginia would like to have a word with you. If it is run correctly, it can be better than the 4-3 in the same way a 3-4 can be extremely effective.
If every offense ran primarily a spread, one could argue that the 3-3-5 would be superior because it gets lighter, faster players to the ball against smaller slot receivers, etc. In practice, I don't recall a 3-3-5 being successful in the B1G or a conference where offensive lines are large and there's a reliance on MANBALL. 3-3-5 also seems very good at getting better performance out of lesser talent, but not sure it brings out the best in large, athletic, talented defenders.
The 3-3-5 can be effective, but TCU runs a 4-2-5.
...that Hoke beats Rodriguez in terms of shoe size also.
You know what they say about big feet....
Won't even get into the specifics of this. Just hoping you don't do statistical analysis for a living, at least not where someone's well-being may be at stake.
Hoke Uber Ales? Is that kind of like a really great beer?
Hoke Premium Pils is better.
Points more than Rodriguez
in just to see how many down votes this would get...
Points more than Rodriguez
I'm having trouble figuring out what the last team was that won the national title without a Heisman winner on the team. My point is you need great players no matter what system you are using.
2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007
thinking back four years? LSU in its bitchslapping of Ohio State did not have a Heisman winner. Florida (Tebow), Alabama (Ingram) and Auburn (Newton) followed.
What if RR had a heisman-winning QB?
I also cannot wait to see the Class of 2012 redshirt.
We get a separate section for diaries that involve beating a dead horse and continually analyzing shit that doesn't matter to a lot of us.
actually morph into something quite entertaining.
small talk on a slow day, what's wrong with that? you people can be absurdly harsh at times. I find the information provided, interesting. Who cares which coach you prefer? Facts were stated, he shouldn't be negged for that.
My guess is that a lot of people, like me, just finished reading Three and Out and are particularly unhappy to see anything that stirs up internal division (even just among readers of the blog).
Gasp! Rich Rodriguez didn't do very well here!?
Hoke is also besting Rodriguez by 118 pounds, at least.
For so many reasons.
Yep, that stats only been on here 39 times this week.
What would have happened had RR brought whats his face from WV with him. This is a point I don't think we've considered enough. I run hypotheticals thru my mind at least 50 times a day, on what might have been had we got that dude. I also put on sad songs like Gilbert O'Sullivan's, alone again naturally, when I think about this.
You sir need a life.
I get, in one sense, that you can't completely compare 2010 to 2011. The only final comparison is on the field: that's why you play the game.
But what can you compare? For crying out loud, sports blogs are all about comparisons. How did this player compare to that player? This team to that team? Etc., etc. Generally, whoever ends up with the short end of the stick finds a way to rationalize away the comparison.
I do believe the big difference between 2010 and 2011 is in the defensive coordinator AND the defensive position coaching. Even with the year's experience, the skill level on our defense is lacking. I don't want to be disrespectful to our current team. In fact, I salute them, as they have maximized their performance and largely been able to mask their weaknesses. Having said that, the reality is that in raw speed and strength, they have limitations.
I don't agree with everything over at "Michigan Monday," (www.theozone.net) but I do largely agree with his assessment of the skill level on Michigan's defense (lacking.) Gerdeman wrote,
I'm of the opinion that from here on out any losses incurred this season will be simply because of lack of talent, and not lack of coaching. That might not seem like much, but it's significant. Coaches are finally giving this team an opportunity to win, even if they're outmanned.
Borges has largely held serve, and regressed only slightly on offense. He has certainly not been our worst Debordian nightmare. But the huge difference with the defensive performance has more than compensated for the small regression on offense. I actually think that the offense lost the MSU game. If Molk didn't tip the snap, if Fitz was running that game, if Denard wasn't passing so much in a trash tornado, if we had those two fourth quarter calls back, and if the officials didn't blow the backwards pass from MSU dead, we easily could have won that game. Gholston's antics did not lose us that game. (Yes, I know, you can't do woulda, shoulda, etc., but you have to.)
about the team, not Denard Robinson. The team averages more yards per carry on the ground. The team averages more yards per pass through the air. The team turns the ball over way, way less. The team showcases a much more diverse offense. I don't root for the University of Denard Robinsons. I root for the University of Michigan Wolverines. There's not a single guy in the top-5 on the team in rushing the ball that runs for less than six yards per carry (Robinson, Toussaint, Smith, Shaw, Rawls). There were two last year (Robinson and Toussaint, with Toussaint only getting eight carries). I don't care about scoring 65 points against Bowling Green to inflate the stats. Granted, Michigan is about to face the best defenses they'll see all year (other than Michigan State), but right now, the offense averages more points, more yards per play, less turnovers and already matched Rodriguez's best season in terms of win. Sorry if I prefer that to however Denard Robinson's numbers dropped off.
So many posts I want to respond to in here... Must.. Resist... Engaging.. in Flamewar...
But I gotta say I think it's kind of ridiculous how taboo the subject of Rodriguez has become. It's natural to compare last year's performance to this year's. People have become way too sensitive about it and can't differentiate between an actual shot at Rodriguez and and just an interesting comparison. Just because the guy went out on bad terms we can't talk about him? As if he's a the handicapped kid in class? Or the ugly girl on the cheerleading squad? I get that we've belabored just about every point about his regime on here, but as the season goes on more comparisons arise that get some people more excited about the Hoke era, like this one. I don't think it was a knock so much as a signal of progress. We don't need an automatic self-destruct mechanism every time the name RichRod comes up in a post.
I don't disagree with your points. It's just that when a thread is titled "Hoke besting Rodriguez..." and then uses the bluntest possible and least useful measuring stick to say that Hoke is better than Rodriguez, then the things you suggest in your very sensible post are not being done.
The futility of this kind of argument is that the only thing that makes sense is to compare actual Hoke/Borges and actual Hoke/Mattison with hypothetical 4th-year Rodriguez/Magee and hypothetical Rodriguez/GERG (or his replacement). In the NFL when you have a team of 3 to 15 year veterans, it makes sense to compare from year to year. But when you have a team of 18-22 year olds it does not make any sense at all.
Two other points: the B1G was good last year. It sucks ass this year. So there's that.
Second, and this always makes me completely insane, several people have pointed out that M's defense got worse last year as the year went on. But our schedule got tougher as the year went on. If M has trouble with Nebraska and Braxton Miller's legs, will that mean our defense is getting worse? No, it will mean that Nebraska's offense and Braxton Miller's legs are good.
You critisize the orignal posters metrics, but then suggest using metrics that don't exist. If he used the worst possible, could you suggest real ones that would be better?
No. It is futile. There are too many moving parts.
I think you can compare recruiting and locker room vibe and the way practices are run. Those don't rely on the development of bodies and cerebral cortices of young men and on the quality of the opposition and on the weather and on other hypotheticals like Dee Hart and Kris Frost.
So no, I can't suggest better metrics.
Obviously Mattison is better than GERG. However, isn't there also something to Hoke's idea of the offense trying to control the game also contributing to it? Instead of spinning our wheels and quickly scoring TDs we're giving our D time for adjustments, etc.
How many times can this be said: job of the offense is to score points. Job of the defense is to stop the other team from scoring points. If the defense wants to be better, they should stop the opposition in 3 plays instead of 10. I guarantee you will never hear a coach complaining about the offense being good enough to score a lot of points quickly.
There doesn't exist a good argument anywhere regarding whether a team should score using longer drives than shorter drives. The prevailing argument from Brian is this:
When a game is still in question, the long-term goal of any offense is to score more points than the opposing team. The amount of points an offense can score on any given drive is 6 (plus the 1-or-2 point attempt). This amount does not change whether the team takes 3 plays or 30 plays to reach this total. Thus, if an offense CAN score TDs on every play, it will. If the offense cannot accomplish this feat, the offense will strive to accomplish its short-term goal, which is to get a first down. Never will an offense actively prevent itself from achieving its long-term goal just because it can achieve its short-term goal many times.
On the other hand, the defense has only one goal: to get off the field ASAP.
There is no argument anyone has made so far (regarding giving the defense rest, clock management, etc) that refute the basic premise behind having an offense and defense.
Now of course there is nothing wrong with scoring as many points as quickly as possible, but sometimes the best way to ensure you score more than the other team is to keep the other team's offense off the field. I don't think just slowing down all game long is usually a sound strategy, but if you're up against an offense that's far superior to your defense, why not use the last 3 minutes before the half to score and not let the other team have a chance to score instead of trying to score in 30 seconds and giving the other team 21/2 minutes to score?
imagine that, a bunch of sophomores juniors and seniors turning in better numbers than a bunch of freshman sophomores and juniors. THAT NEVER HAPPENS
It is often suggestedbthat with another years improvement, we would have seen even more improvement from RR's offense, so staying the same is really falling back. While I get the theory, shouldn't you also be able to see that effect within a season? Shouldn't The offense at the end of the season have been better than the offense at the begining of the season?
Mississippi State gave up 19.8 points and 356.8 yards a game last year. We scored 14 and had 342 yards of offense. If we were on a trajectory for offensive greatness under RR, shouldn't we have done better?
Oh my god I hate this argument. Why should Michigan be the only team getting better? You know there's another team out there, right? They're getting better too. So maybe the other team is getting better at a faster rate than our team is getting better, but that doesn't mean it's not happening for our team.
The truth is that Michigan's defense sucked last year, but it was only exposed against the better teams we played against at the end of the year. If M's defense against OSU had hypothetically played against UConn, we would have kicked UConn's ass even harder. And, had we played Wisconsin's week 1 offense with our week 11 defense, we probably wouldn't have given up 42 points.
You partake in this argument everyday, I would have to say you love it. FYI, to you and about 20 others who argue these very points everyday, we already know your position 1000 fold.
Wat? I have never made this point on this blog. I have made the "proper comparison" of hypothetical 2011 RR to actual 2011 Borges point.
But I have never talked about how fucking idiotic it is to observe that your team doesn't blow out the good teams at the end of the schedule as much as they blew out the shitty teams at the beginning of the schedule and conclude that your team is regressing.
Until now, that is.
Many people on this board tout how good the offense was last year and how even though it is good this year, there is no way it wouldn't have been better this year with RR. I am just musing about whether that is an actual fact. Lots of facts are trotted out about how good the offense was last year with a first year quarterback. I am merely pointing out that with a full season under his belt, we scored less and had less yards than other teams averaged against Mississippi State. I am wondering why this should lead me to believe that we would have gotten so much better this year
How good the offense would be under RR is impossible to know without discovering an alternate universe or a time machine, and even then it's only one alternate universe out of a nearly infinite number of them. Even with stats, all one can find is correlations, not necessarily causation. Maybe if the players knew RR would be around this year, they would have played better against MissSt, or worse, or with pink jerseys and bonnets with wings. Each of those is a possibility. Even the statistics are not one-for-one correlations. There are probability fields, not absolutes. If we played [insert hypothetical lesser team] 100 times, we'd beat them 98 times. A betting person takes us to win, but has to realize that there's always the 2% possibility, which collapses into 100% in reality if we lose to [lesser team]. In other words, in a mathematical alternate universe where RR coaches this year, we would win between 0 and 12 games. How many exactly--that's not only impossible to say, it's a non-question. There's X% chance of 0 wins, Y% of 1 wins, etc., and we don't even know what those percentages are. In other words, comparing RR and Hoke is not only a waste of time, but it's absurd (in the philosophical, metaphysical and existential, not to mention comical, sense).
Sorry for going off, but c'mon people, let's move on.
BTW: Nothing in particular you said in your thoughtful post, blue in dc, set me off--just a convenient starting point for my pointless rant.
In other words, comparing RR and Hoke is not only a waste of time, but it's absurd (in the philosophical, metaphysical and existential, not to mention comical, sense).
Maybe its because this coahing staff wisely realized they have more players suited for the spread and play to their strengths. They want to run a pro style eventually, but if they went exclusively to that, we'd be terrible. There was this coach once that ran the spread no matter what players he had and that worked out just dandy. Oh, and this staff tends to work and teach this defense thing that seemed to slip the last staffs mind. Good to see we can handle Purdue once again by the way. That shit was getting old the past 3 years.
RichRod ran the spread early and exclusively hoping it would pay dividends later.
Jesus Tap dancing Christ. If you seriously think that inheriting the offensive talent of Threet/Sheridan, injured Minor, the 2008 OL. Matthews and freshman Odoms is equiavant to inheriting Denard, Touissant, the 2011 OL, Roundtree and Hemmingway, then I don't think we can have a rational discussion.
You knew damn well before you clicked on this thread that a rational discussion was out of the question.
In comparing last year and this, you also have to factor in the relative success of the defense. That has meant the offense is on the field a little more and also has had significantly better field position. When you factor in the lost quarter and the fact that in most games there hasn't been a need to score in the fourth quarter, I'd say the offensive productivity is very close. The question that we'll never definitively know the answer to is whether using last year's offense with all the returning starters would have produced a significant offensive improvement.
Instead of facts. I don't have the stats either, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that we have had more offensive possessions this year. It could be the opposite, as last year we were in shootouts more often and the defense returned us the ball quickly by allowing the other team to score. Not to mention the all-the-time no huddle, quick possession. I would guess the offense last year had more possessions to score. Our defense has returned the ball this year, but many times not with great field position. I don't know whether we've had better or worse field position.
Rich Rod's offense was prolific. He was fired for his abyssmal defenses, which showed no sign of improvement whatsoever in 3 years. The new coaching staff, which includes two defensive coaches from the 90s glory days, has so far taken a 100-something ranked scoring defense and transformed it into the #7 scoring defense as of 10/30. Time will tell if this trend continues.
Exactly what are you comparing? Hoke, Rodriguez, Borges, Mattison, Magee, GERG??? I can't tell because you use Rodriguez to represent all aspects of last years team, even though there was a full coaching staff working, and yet single out Borges instead of Hoke for this year. What is this post trying to say?
Hoke Uber Ales
Perhaps. But what about porters or stouts?
What a lazy post.