Hot for Harbaugh? Read this
Harbaugh's records at Stanford:
| 2007 | Jim Harbaugh | 4–8 | .333 |
| 2008 | 5–7 | .417 | |
| 2009 | 8–5 | .615 | |
| 2010 | 7–1 | .875 |
Hey guess what? If Michigan can find a way to beat Illinois and Purdue, and then win a bowl game, they'll be 8-5 in RR's 3rd year.
Mind=blown
November 4th, 2010 at 10:40 AM ^
I can't even play devil's advocate. They had a senior QB his first year and his starting secondary last year was sophomore, sophomore, junior, senior. Oh, and Scott Shafer was DC the for them in 2007 before he came here.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:23 AM ^
I think the point is that expecting Harbaugh to come in here and sprinkle his magic Harbaugh pixie dust and for all the issues which have plagued MIchigan for the past few seasons (including Lloyd's last few) to simply go away is extremely naive.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:28 AM ^
To think that anyone who makes a serious case for Harbaugh actually thinks these things is also extremely naive.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:34 AM ^
I don't see why I am naive because i think (mostly hope) that Harbaugh will be our next head coach. He has said that it is his dream job on more than one occasion; i mean the kid grew up on the Michigan practice field. I know it will be a tough transition back into a pro-style offense but I think he will be able to whip the defense into shape a lot quicker than people think. Not to say that they will be dominant by any means but our defenses under Rich Rod have been laughable at best. There were a lot of playmakers on the 2008 team, but they still played terribly as a unit. That is a coaching problem.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:44 AM ^
I dont think you understood how my statement related to the statement I replied to. I agree with all of your sentiments. But I think that any arguments for Harbaugh have to recognize that the transition will be difficult. We can't deny that, and, as you stated, no one thinking clearly does deny that. RR supporters make up fantasy arguments for our side (e.g., we think the transition will be absolutely easy) that they then argue against - which is what the poster I responded to did. However, I agree with you that the transition would be not anywhere near as difficult as the one we have been a party to, and that they outcome will be a vastly better product.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:59 AM ^
First of all, I did not make up a fantasy argument and then argue against it. I said if you expect Harbaugh to come in here and everything to suddenly change you are naive. If you don't think that, then fine. Before you put words in my mouth please re-read what I wrote.
That being said, would be curious about your logic on this one:
"However, I agree with you that the transition would be not anywhere near as difficult as the one we have been a party to, and that they outcome will be a vastly better product."
Why? What are you relying on to say that the transition will be easier? What are you relying on to say that the product will be "vastly better"?
November 4th, 2010 at 11:07 AM ^
Because Harbaugh will sprinkle magic pixie du--
D'oh!!!
Also Harbaugh not HICK he MICHIGAN MAN played for BO understands the RIVLArY.
Also, also, w/r/t the logic you're looking for, there is no logic. People who want Harbaugh hope he would be better and have faith he will be better. People who want to stick with RichRod hope he will be better and have faith he will be better. Although both sides have hope and faith, only one side can point to results on the field at Michigan.
Which is what makes this so thorny--RichRod has produced mind-boggling offensive results on the field, particularly in a tempo-free sense, and particularly given the number of returning starters on offense we will have next year. On the other hand, it is undeniable that the defensive product has sucked about as much as it is possible to suck. Regression to the mean suggests that the D will better next year, but there is no evidence right now that it will be.
So for me it comes down to whether you put your hope and faith in RichRod or in Harbaugh. I choose the former, but I can certainly understand the latter position.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:52 AM ^
I said this when they hired Rich Rod and I'll say it again. I hope that whoever ends up coaching the team next year doesn't try to shoehorn the offense into his scheme but rather shoehorns his scheme to fit the players he's got. Rich Rod didn't do it in his first couple years and look at the results. Now that he pretty much has the players that fit his system it is reaping divedends on the offensive side of the ball.
So if the next coach is Harbaugh or whatever, I hope that he is smart enough to recognize that his system may not come immediately.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:24 PM ^
Well said.
The funny thing is I actually like Harbaugh. If at some point he's the UM Football Coach he will get my full support (even if I was not pleased about things he said previously and think that there are some issues with him coming in as a knight in shining armor to "fix" them... but that's off topic). And I think he'd succeeed here.
But here's my problem: Michigan's offense is good, not great. It is young and has the potential to be great. Michigan's defense is atrocious, not bad.
A head coaching change is going to take the offense from good to average the next few years and maybe the defense from atrocious to bad or below average. And honestly, I think that's being generous with the defense.
This is not something that is going to get fixed overnight (I don't think a new defensive coordinator is going to magically solve the issue next year either), it will take a few years. But next year with a more experience QB (and offense) and some defensive improvement (and experience) you can go from losing a few games to winning a few more games.
Bring in a new HC now and you don't have that. You have an offense that is not nearly as close to covering for the defense.
The issue is the defense. And it will be.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:30 PM ^
People keep saying this, but its not true.
There is the historical correlation between more age/experience and being more good at defense. That is enough evidence to expect defensive improvement next season.
November 4th, 2010 at 4:20 PM ^
an historically typical level of coaching. Our players seem lost. Not inexperienced. Lost.
November 4th, 2010 at 4:59 PM ^
They seem lost and inexperienced to me.
/trying to help but probably making things worse
November 4th, 2010 at 11:17 AM ^
Ok, I will use your same mode of argument to illustrate how ridiculous yours is. I said "To think that anyone who makes a serious case for Harbaugh actually thinks these things is also extremely naive." If you didn't think anyone actually makes a serious case that the transition will be easy, then fine, then you are not being naive. But if you do not think that anyone actually is naive in making that argument, then your post is nonsensical, referring to nothing. Obviously you think folks make that argument. I said that they do not, if making a serious case for Harbaugh. I am not sure why you cannot comprehend that line of argument.
As for the transition being easier, of course we cannot know for sure, but many think that the transition from a spread to a more pro-style is easier. Hiring a coach who can bridge the differences between the two offenses will make for an easier transition than the one RR implemented. And the simple fact of learning, especially here in the UM institution, from mistakes in transitioning will also make it easier.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:40 AM ^
So let me get this straight:
The transition will be difficult. Any Harbaugh supporter who doesn't acknowledge this is naive.
But the transition will be easier because Spread=>Pro Style, Habraugh "can bridge the differences" (?), we've had a transition before.
Yeah.... about our defense....
November 4th, 2010 at 1:59 PM ^
It's easier to transition to a pro-style offense using players recruited to run the spread than vice versa.
I agree that a coaching change won't magically cure everything overnight. But if it turns out at the end of the season that a coaching change is in the long term best interests of the program, then there's no one better than Harbaugh.
November 4th, 2010 at 4:46 PM ^
Speaking as a fan of Eastern Michigan (yes yes, they have fans...), they ran the spread offense forever and Mr. English is trying to transition them to the pro offense. They seem to run it fairly well but then again offense has never really been their problem.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:46 AM ^
What's different about hiring a new DC and position coaches with or without hiring a new HC that allows the defense to get into better shape faster? I mean, if you think that Stanford's DC is going to get us to be a top defense, why don't we just try to hire him away from Stanford? If you think that Harbaugh would bring in a different DC, why not just hire a new DC?
BTW, the terrible plays were made by the secondary. Scott Shafer was in charge of CBs that year. The previous year, he was DC at Stanford under Harbaugh. So, either you think the players had problems, or you think that Harbaugh makes just as bad choices about coaches as RR does.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^
I think hiring a new DC is a move of desperation, more so than moving on to a new head coach. I know that seems counterintuitive, prima facie preposterous, but I think hiring a new DC is more a move to save this head coach and his potent offense than a move to save the program itself. We would be hiring our 3rd DC in 4 years. That itself speaks to institutional-level mismanagement. Couple that to all the other issues, and we see that the transition has been mismanaged terribly. I do not think this is all RR's fault, rather I think the fault lies between RR and the Michigan institutions, culture, establishment. The relationships have been mismanaged, perhaps on both sides, but most saliently, most obviously to us, on RR's side. An example is perhaps the most obvious answer to the Shafer question - that he was mismanaged here at UM, not at Stanford or at Syracuse. Hiring a new DC and staff would be a band aid for much broader, much more systemic problems. It is a band aid for the surface-level manifestations, but the more systemic, underlying issues will still be there.
But we can move from the issues with the transition to the more stable years to come under RR, thinking in terms of how the transition impacts years to come. We know that in most organizations and institutions, transitions set the stage for subsequent performance due to positive feedback cycles (think recruiting as the most obvious feedback cycle). There is a reason that if you look to successful transitions at other programs, none look like what we have seen here at UM. There is a reason that if you look at unsuccessful transitions at other programs, they do look like what we have seen here at UM, or actually they do not look as bad.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^
We would be hiring our 3rd DC in 4 years.
We'll be doing that either way.
An example is perhaps the most obvious answer to the Shafer question - that he was mismanaged here at UM, not at Stanford or at Syracuse.
Maybe he was mismanaged because we didn't get immediate results for RR and someone's head had to roll. What's to say that wouldn't happen when Harbaugh comes in and we get 5-6 wins his first year?
There is a reason that if you look to successful transitions at other programs, none look like what we have seen here at UM.
Hypothetical. Let's say that Harbaugh came to coach for us in 2008 and he brought Scott Shafer with him. How would anything have played out any differently? The only thing that I see is that Threet is our starting QB this year instead of Denard. Scott Shafer inherits the same defense and likely gets fired. There is no way that that team gets 6 wins in 2008.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:36 AM ^
To be fair, Mallett probably would have stayed had Harbaugh became Michigan's coach in 2008. Or maybe not, since Harbaugh had no definitive HC record at that point... at least not one to get any 5-star QB excited.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:01 PM ^
Why can't people fucking understand this.
<br>
<br>Order of events:
<br>Mallett comes to Michigan
<br>Hes a douche his teammates hate him Lloyd throws transfer papers at him
<br>Mitch mustain transfers to USC from Arkansas (his #2 school).
<br>It's cold in Michigan he doesn't like cold and is homesick
<br>New head coach gets hired.
<br>
<br>He was gone no matter who was the coach. Period end of story.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:06 PM ^
Your argument is just as bad as those who say he definitely would have stayed. The only thing we can be certain of is that we cannot be certain. Your argument using your timeline is mostly teleological, and, thus, less than convincing.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
Nothing can be said with 100% certainty, but I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that Mallet was likely gone whoever was coming in. Maybe Harbaugh comes in and talks him out of it. Who knows, that'a a giant hypothetical. But i have been told by a few people either on the team at the time and on the staff/assistants that Mallet didn't fit in here. Most of them didn't use as kind of words.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:01 PM ^
Well, when defending RR, everyone said that Mallett was on his way out no matter what because he was homesick. I think there's a reason he's at Arkansas and not another school.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:21 PM ^
Okay, that's certainly possible. I don't know all of the particulars about how Mallett felt when Carr was HC. All I knew is he transferred after Rodriguez was hired.
To me, Mallett transferring isn't an indictment on RR, anyway. Clearly, both are better in the systems they're comfortable with.
November 4th, 2010 at 4:41 PM ^
Harbaugh was able to get Luck, the top pro style QB in the country excited to play for him.....
November 4th, 2010 at 11:45 AM ^
Saying we'd still be hiring the 3rd DC in 4 years a bit of sophistry. Yes we would, but to leave a new head coach out of that equation is ignoring the fact of the interrelationship between the HC and the DC. Which is a big issue here now. Its easy to pretend things exist in isolation, but its only pretend - the DC doesn't exist in isolation of the HC, and the HC doesn't exist in isolation of the DC. Yes, we would change DCs no matter what, but the change is nothing, nowhere near the same thing as just changing the DC. We can not know what the difference would be given we have no idea how it would play out, but we can be certain the two are not the same.
The argument that Harbaugh might also be mismanaged is logical, but I would hope that parties on both sides learned something about managing transitions. My argument is based on a simple fact that people learn, but that is an assumption in this case. I can only hope.
As for the hypothetical, Harbaugh and Shafer would have had 2 years together. I dont see his getting fired as very likely - you have to take out the interference with his defense he saw from RR, and add in the working relationships Shafer and Harbaugh developed, and would continue to develop. We have to just agree to disagree - I think it is very likely that Harbaugh gets at least 6 wins in that scenario.
November 4th, 2010 at 12:07 PM ^
Choices:
Hire the 3rd DC in 4 years
or
Hire the 3rd HC in 5 years which comes with the 3rd DC in 4 years and a completely new staff across the board.
No need to fix what ain't broke.
November 4th, 2010 at 4:44 PM ^
So who hires the DC? The same guy who screwed up the first two DC hires?
And why do you assume that a new HC would fire every one of RR's assistants? Just because RR did that when he came here doesn't mean that every other coach would. In fact, I'd hope that the disastrous experience we've gone through might prompt the next coach, if there is one, to retain RR's offensive guys.
November 4th, 2010 at 1:23 PM ^
I blame Martin -- where's my pitchfork?
There are many reasons the transition has been less than ideal. One of them, however, has to laid at the feet of our former AD. Based on some accounts, including RR's interview with Album (one of the few freep pieces I've read in the past year), it appears little was done after the RR hire to bring him up to speed on Michigan's culture, traditions, etc., which inevitably caused some of the bumps along the way. I'm not saying that all our tales of woe in the past three years can be traced back to Martin, but given what a high profile hire it was, you'd think the department would have done everything and more to make sure the transition went smoothly. I know, coulda shoulda woulda.
November 4th, 2010 at 1:28 PM ^
I think where UofM did a bad job was failing to prep RR for media exposure; but not educating him on the culture/traditions? That's a reach. I imagine he would have either researched a bit about the place he was interviewing (as do most job candidates) or maybe heard a thing or two about the winningest program in history.
I can't believe RR complained about that. Do you have a link?
November 4th, 2010 at 11:35 AM ^
go back and take a look at the stats...it took Harbaugh until this year (3 full years) before he put together an even "competent" defense. RR has beaten his defense every year until this year on most statistics.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:33 AM ^
November 4th, 2010 at 10:56 AM ^
bingo
November 4th, 2010 at 11:11 AM ^
SMASHMOUTH!
We need to teach RichRod how to use it.
That's a valuable idea in the Midwest. Look at how much mileage Dantonio has gotten out of it. His little BSDM partner Drew Sharp truly believes that Dantonio's defense wants to HIT YOU IN THE MOUTH.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:54 AM ^
Rich Rod = offensive super genius
Harbaugh = defensive super genius
I vote Harbaugh for new DC!
...only in a fantasy world
November 4th, 2010 at 2:20 PM ^
...does a huge number of people around here insist there were program damaging issues in Lloyd's last few years? The man AVERAGED 10 wins in his last two seasons (I would hate to have that kind of program) and left future NFL players such as Mallett, Manningham, Boren, Brown, Graham, Mesko, Trent for the next guy. Not to mention excellent college players like Arrington, Taylor, Warren, etc.
RR created the mess he's in by running good players out of town and scrambling to replace them instead of focus on true needs. This catastrophe did not need to happen. Smart football coaches like Urban Meyer don't run first round draft picks out of town just because they aren't identical to their last QBs. The great ones adapt and win. Like going with Chris Leak and playing a passing spread, even with a Heisman Trophy winning QB perfect for his system sitting on the bench learning the offense. Transitions do not have to be this difficult. What would have been wrong with playing a Kelly-style passing spread for three years with a red-shirt sophomore Denard winning a Heisman in 2011, a la Tebow?
November 4th, 2010 at 3:45 PM ^
Because there were?
2007: 9-4
2006: 11-2
2005: 7-5
Recruiting had declined Rodriguez was not the only one with player retention issues. There were issues recruiting the defensive side of the ball.
I'm a bit blown away by people looking back on the later Carr years like they were this amazing time. People were calling for his head after 2005. Take a look at the start of 2007 and you could see MIchigan was having issues. Defensive issues even, which would become more apparent in the future years.
You can choose to believe Mallet was going to stay at Michigan and that RichRod "ran him off" you want. I don't believe that's the case from everything I've been told.
Frankly, Carr was a solid coach but not without his flaws. I think its a bit of revisionist history to think that there weren't issues in the later Carr years, especially in recruiting.
November 4th, 2010 at 4:04 PM ^
I'm a bit blown away by people looking back on the later Carr years like they were this amazing time. People were calling for his head after 2005.
In comparison to the current era, the Carr days were magical. Can you imagine someone saying in 2005, "I think we'll be good as long as we can go 6-6 and get bowl eligible"?
As for your complaints about Carr's recruiting...let's look at facts:
2005 - #6 nationally
2006 - #13 nationally
2007 - #12 nationally
While 2006 and 2007 weren't great (I think we should always be top 10), they're a hell of a lot better than RR's 2010 class (#20 nationally without even adjusting for the players who couldn't qualify). If you're going to complain about Carr, consistency would demand that you should want RR banned from the State.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:33 PM ^
Here's the problem with just looking at national rankings: you don't get the entire picture.
If you want to assert that Carr didn't have recruiting issues in the later part you can't simply do that by looking at national rankings.
Take a look at the classes:
2005:
- Bass got injured. Not Carr's fault, but that's a 4* gone.
- Jason Forcier transferred
- Kevin Grady 5* did not live up to the hype
- Also filled with a bunch of non-contributors/players departed, etc:
- 4* James McKinney
- 4* Justin Schifano
- 4* Marques Slocum
- 4* Corey Zirbel
- 4* Eugene Germany
- 3* Chris McLaurin
- 3* Chris Richards
- This class is also notable for it's lack of secondary depth (see: 2008, 2009, 2010 when they would be Jr to RS-Sr)
2006:
- Boren left. Blame that in RichRod I suppose....
- Again a serve lack of depth at DB, take a look at the DB recruits for that year: Steve Brown (solid), Jonas Mouton (obviously moved to LB). That's it.
- The depth at LB is also almost nonexistant: Graham (DL), Cobrani Mixon (transfer). Ezeh moves to LB.
- Also no contribution/transfer/etc from:
- 4* Cobrani MIxon
- 4* Jason Kates
- 3* Quintin Patilla
- 3* Quintin Woods
2005 and 2006 are notable because the QBs who came in are Jason Forcier and David Cone. You need to get a contributing QB in one of these classes.
Of course, 2005 and 2006 are notable for their lack of LB recruitment/retention.
2005 and 2006 are also notable for a significant number of departures.
2007 has been gone over a lot, but, there's a few things you notice:
- Plethora of DB recruits. At this point its obvious that they are trying to fill holes that had been created the past few years.
- Michigan also does this for LBs, Herron was an athletic freak (who has yet to live up to his athletic ability, but I don't mind him), but Michigan was so suffering for LBs that they had 2* Marrell Evans and JUCO (a rarity for Michigan, if that's not evidence enough) 4* Panter.
- Of course, because of stuffing their class they barely get any DT/DE depth (2 total) or OL depth (2 total). You are skating on THIN ICE if anything goes wrong.
I tried to do this quickly, so I'm sure I missed some. Carr can't be blamed for guys like Zirbel, Bass, etc. suffering injuries, but you do have to recruit to set yourself up in case something like that does happen. You need a backup plan.
Again, I don't think Carr was awful in recruiting, but I think there were serious holes in his last few years recruiting (I don't think I'm the only one).
And yes, it's no appropriate here, but there have been MAJOR gaffes in RichRod's recruiting as well. Just wasn't really the topic of discussion.
November 4th, 2010 at 4:08 PM ^
Wait, it's revisionist history to suggest that the program was in decent shape in December 2007? Literally no one would have predicted then that the next three years would be as disastrous as they've been. The general consensus was that 2008 would be a rebuilding year (by traditional Michigan standards) and then we'd be fine.
I have a hard time faulting Carr given that 1) he coached here for many recruiting cycles and never had a serious downturn and 2) his entire staff (save Jackson) was shown the door when RR arrived. I don't think anyone can plausibly argue that our defensive coaching, in particular, since then has been anywhere near as competent as what we had under Carr.
November 4th, 2010 at 7:32 PM ^
I remember Lloyd coaching 7 different freshmen and sophomores in the defenisive backfield two deep. I also remember him coaching 4 (maybe 5) walkons on the defensive two deep like RichRod did last year. I know, RichRod ran off all of the amazing defensive talent.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:24 AM ^
Please stop using logic, reasoning, and facts.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:32 AM ^
I'm somewhat confused. Are you suggesting that "logic, reasoning, and facts" indicate that the job that Rich Rod has done at Michigan is equivalent to what Harbaugh has done at Stanford? Because while I suppose the records indicate that, I'm not really seeing the "logic" or "reasoning" to support that contention.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:41 AM ^
I think RR had just as big a challange when you consider what he walked into. Lets be honest, looked what RR inherited when he took over at UM. He completely changed the system from what it was previously and did it with very little talent that fit that system at his disposal. Couple that with the state of the defense and you get those records.
I am not saying what Harbaugh has done isn't impressive, nor am I saying I am particulalry thrilled at the fact that my favorite sports team is where it currently is. I am not saying I think that RR hasn't made a few blunders since he took over either. What I am saying is I don't think Harbaugh had any more difficult a task than RR has had given the circumstances.
This is just my e-pinion and many won't agree, but those are my thoughts on it.
November 4th, 2010 at 4:14 PM ^
He completely changed the system from what it was previously and did it with very little talent that fit that system at his disposal.
But of course, that was his choice. He did not have to do that. Nor did he have to fire all of Carr's assistants other than Jackson. He basically set out to reconstruct the program from the ground up, when it may not have needed that. In doing so, he probably made his job more difficult than it needed to be.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:25 AM ^
These stats are incredibly relevant, because when it comes to football programs, Stanford and Michigan are the exact same thing.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:46 AM ^
Pretty bad when we start comparing Michigan football to Stanford and the fact that some people on this board are ok with the fact that we should lose to Illinois. I mean seriously how bad is it when we do not know if we can beat a Zook coached team for 3 years. My mind will be officially blown if we lose to Purdue. Although a 6-6 record is still terrible after being 5-0.
I expect a lot more no matter how young the players are.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:47 AM ^
is the term that best describes our collective mindset.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:24 AM ^
I have been lurking on this blog for three years and never felt the need to post. Stockholm Syndrome hits the nail right on the head. I was using that term last night to describe how I thought the serious RichRod supporters still find strength to come up with such passionate arguments supporting him as HC. I understand both sides of the argument and probably find myself supporting RichRod....unless you can gaurantee me Harbaugh. I can't, however, understand how serious RR supporters can't have SERIOUS doubts at this point. Stockholm Syndrome is the answer!