Logic from Maisel
Another RR job security piece:
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/tag/_/name/3-point-stance
While many of us are sick of this subject, I found the logic in this comment more than a little compelling:
Why Rodriguez is considered on the edge of endangered remains mystifying. Michigan has improved and 18 starters return next season. Michigan will be favored in three of its final five games. Regardless of the outcome down the stretch, would it really be better to start over again?
October 28th, 2010 at 6:11 PM ^
2011 sets up great by comparison.
October 28th, 2010 at 1:21 PM ^
Returning starters in 2011:
QB - Robinson/Forcier
RB - Smith/Shaw
FB - McColgan
LT - Lewan/Huyge
C - Molk
RG - Omameh
WR - Odoms/Hemingway/Stonum
SR - Roundtree
DE - Van Bergen
NT - Martin
LB - Roh
LB - Demens
LB - Johnson/Thomas Gordon
CB - Floyd/Woolfolk*
S - Cam Gordon
S - Kovacs
Not all of these guys are full-time starters, but they've had significant starting experience (or, in the case of Demens, will likely have had such by the end of the season).
October 28th, 2010 at 1:39 PM ^
returning starter since he was one when he got injured.
btw, Magnus, wanted your take on the Demens hype and the Woolfolk hype.
October 28th, 2010 at 1:59 PM ^
I think Demens looked good on Saturday. He's a step up from Ezeh, although I don't think he's a world beater just yet. If nothing else, Demens is a better hitter than Ezeh. Barring injury or a regression, he should probably be the starter for the remainder of the season.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Woolfolk hype," though. I'm just going to guess you're talking about what position he'll play next year. Correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, I'd really like to see Woolfolk play free safety next year. A lot of the big plays this year have been the result of Cam Gordon's poor recognition and lack of speed. I'd rather Woolfolk patrol the middle of the field with Floyd at one corner and some other guy (whether it's Avery/Talbott/Christian/a freshman) playing the other corner. The non-Floyd cornerback will probably be about equal to James Rogers, but the FS backing them up would be better, assuming Woolfolk recovers from injury.
Of course, I advocated for Woolfolk to play FS this year, too, and he was still in line to play cornerback. He's a good cornerback, but I just think he's more valuable to this team as a safety.
October 28th, 2010 at 2:41 PM ^
I agree with you on Woolfolk at free safety. But I hope you're wrong that our current freshman won't be better than Rogers is now next year. If that's the case we've failed in recruiting and development.
October 28th, 2010 at 6:29 PM ^
Well...I hate to disappoint you...but...
October 28th, 2010 at 6:31 PM ^
I think Avery, with a year under his belt, can be an upgrade from Rogers. The kid has good athleticism and instincts, but just doesn't fully understand his responsibilities as of yet (and needs another 10-15 pounds).
October 28th, 2010 at 1:42 PM ^
You could add Koger to the mix as well. In fact I think the two back, four wide, with a tight end formation could give us some serious advantages next year.
October 28th, 2010 at 1:50 PM ^
we're goign to have a 3 lineman formation? I think that's illegal...
October 28th, 2010 at 1:32 PM ^
Anyone who still clings to the "fire the coach and all our problems will be solved" way of thinking should talk to a Notre Dame fan these days and see how they're liking their latest regime change.
Different is not always better.
October 28th, 2010 at 1:59 PM ^
They gave him a full five years and ample opportunity to prove himself. His last team was full of the players he had recruited and developed. Any coaching change is risky (again IMHE), but after five years that was outweighed by the risk of keeping him on. I thought they jumped the gun a bit on Willingham, but not with Weis.
Now that early contact extension they gave him was just stupid...
October 28th, 2010 at 2:48 PM ^
"ample"
"outweigh"
October 28th, 2010 at 1:38 PM ^
UM could win right away.
<br>
<br>Two, thus staff has yet to show that they can field a big ten quality defense.
<br>
<br>Third, this staff has yet to prove that they can a team if good quality.
<br>
<br>Maiden is ignoring some glaring issues with this staff. Issues that no amount of spin will eliminate.
October 28th, 2010 at 1:46 PM ^
This is exactly the kind of post that has been referenced in the "What is and isn't allowed to be posted" Thread.
Even if you have some good points to make here, they don't come through with all these errors. The comments also do nothing but back up the notion on this blog that most people wanting RichRod gone don't back it up with sound logic. Come on, you've got to bring it better than this. "Maiden"...really?
October 28th, 2010 at 2:03 PM ^
October 28th, 2010 at 1:54 PM ^
I'll donate one of my MGoPoints for that.
October 28th, 2010 at 3:52 PM ^
Third, this staff has yet to prove that they can a team if good quality.
October 28th, 2010 at 4:30 PM ^
I will not neg you. Others already have, and by the end of the day, you may have zero points. I will, however, off some constructive suggestions on a post such as this.
1. All that you did was make unfounded, unsubstantiated and unthought out statements. If you have a point to make, offer some support. It doesn't have to be Mathlete level analysis, but tell us why, or example, you feel that UM could win right away. Analogies to other teams starting a defense with 7 freshmen and a walk on, along with ZERO back-up QBs that have done well would work.
2. You basically said the same thing 3 times. All of your points say the same thing - RR sucks as a coach. If that is how you feel, say it once. And, if you do want to say that, refer back to rule #1 and say it correctly.
3. You reference Maisel's spin. What spin are you talking about. Give an example. Same goes for your other points. Give examples, or some form of support. Otherwise the post has the feel of a temper tantrum.
I personally, do not necessarily disagree with you that our current coaching staff might not being doing a great job with what they have available. Notice, I said "might" because while I am dissatisfied with aspects of this team, we are 5-2, and could end up with an 8 win season with what might be the worst defense fielded in any major conference this season. So for me, the jury is still out.
October 28th, 2010 at 1:44 PM ^
I think that by in large, IM is correct - Branson would not be inclined to fire RR. But, there are things that could alter his inclination. If, for example, we go 6-6 after going 5-0, I do not see RR keeping his job. Two epic implosions in 2 years would likely result in RR being shown the door, IMO. Similarly, if, for example (and I am not remotely saying it would happen) we only go 7-5 and Harbaugh's agent calls Brandon and says, look, Harbaugh has offers to go to the NFL but would really rather come home - if you guys are going to change coaches, this is your chance to get him), I am not sure that Brandon would pass this up. There is also that pesky NCAA violations thing still to be resolved.
Again, I think that RR will be back, but I think that there will be many factors that will ultimately affect that decision.
October 28th, 2010 at 2:01 PM ^
I think if Michigan goes 7-5, Harbaugh is in the NFL. It is unlikely in the extreme that Brandon decides to change direction after a winning season. Things would have to go *really bad wrong* in order for that to happen, because it means hitting the "reset" button on the investment made over the last three years.
October 28th, 2010 at 1:53 PM ^
Maisel's logic perfectly captures the conventional wisdom, which is how I feel most of the time. Michigan is improved over last year, and this will most likely be reflected by the results over the next five weeks.
However, there are two caveats. First is the remote potential for serious NCAA sanctions. Second is the equally remote possibility Michigan loses the next five games in such a way that includes blow-out losses to bad teams (like last year's Illinois game). Either of these scenarios, unlikely though they are, could change the syllogism.
October 28th, 2010 at 2:03 PM ^
I like IM pretty well, detest Schlabach and Forde. I know we at mgoblog generally dislike College Football News, but they had a great line in the prediction for the game this weekend:
Penn State is bad at playing football this year.
Sometimes even the cretins get things right. Go Blue.
October 28th, 2010 at 3:28 PM ^
It's a bit funny that people are so rabid with their "RR must stay" rants. How about "the season must play out" rants? Those would be much more accurate.
Whichever way it turns out, the one thing we (and by "we" I mean, Dave Brandon) cannot do is make a decision influenced by fear of "starting over". Such a statement is predicated on the false assumption that a new coach would run a completely different style of football than RichRod. How can anyone assume that without knowing who the hire would be? Maybe the next guy runs a spread? Maybe pro-style? Maybe a combo?
Assuming, for the sake of argument, (because it's the name everyone uses and it satisfies the assumption of a completely different style of football) that Harbaugh is the replacement. Would his pro-style really require "starting over" or is that another false assumption? I vote - false assumption. Harbaugh has offers out to roughly half of our commits. But the QB, you scream! The QB! Well...Harbaugh offered Tate as well. If the coach who runs the "opposite" offense of RR has actively recruited so many of our current players, why would that change be starting over? Please don't get angry because the word "Harbaugh" was typed. It's not lobbying for the guy. It's merely pointing out the serious flaws of "starting over" fears even in the context of the most different style of play.
RR deserves to finish the season with his team the best he can before people scream to either fire or retain him. Let's hope we win out and the NCAA agrees with our defense, but the sky will not fall upon Ann Arbor if Brandon chooses a different path.
October 28th, 2010 at 4:58 PM ^
I am a rabid "RR must stay" fan. Because to the core of my being, I think he represents our best chance at being incredible in the near and intermediate future. I truly think he is a genuinely good human being who also happens to be a remarkable coach. However, I know that one of my faults as a fan stems from being "overly loyal."
You are right, though. The season should play out. If we win this weekend, it is not definitive validation. Conversely, with 4 more games left, if we lose, it's not condemnation either.
October 28th, 2010 at 5:51 PM ^
I guess it is true that most people seem to be of the idea that firing RR will devastate the program. This may not be true. HOWEVA, I think most people remember the difficult transition from Carr to RR including all the transfers and bad press. I doubt this would happen again and I think David Brandon would handle the search for a new coach better then Bill "sailboat" Martin. I just think many fans are fearful that another coaching change would mean lots of transfers and a negative affect on recruiting.
October 28th, 2010 at 6:06 PM ^
I think the fear of some recruits transferring upon a coaching change might be accurate, but there's the parallel possibility of that new coach's recruits following him to A2. Hopefully, kids are eager to play for Michigan (and not just the coach). Here's what Demetrius Hart said about possible coaching changes upon his commitment:
"I liked Michigan either way and if he were to leave it wouldn't affect me because I think I can play in any offensive system," Hart said. "So it really wasn't my concern."
We shouldn't be ruled by fear in making a change, but we should only make that change if the entire body of evidence suggests it must be done.
October 28th, 2010 at 5:47 PM ^
I tend to agree with this statement by Maisel. I am an RR supporter and really want to see him succeed. David Brandon must decide at the end of the season what he wants to do. There is the elements of the sunk costs that Michigan has already incurred and the opportunity costs that are involved with keeping RR or firing RR. Howeva, if Michigan loses the last five games I don't know if even the most loyal RR supporter will be able to stick by him. I really like David Brandon and if he decides to make a change I have confidence that he will make a decision that is best for Michigan. He does after all have a massive pimp hand. Ultimately I hope RR wins enough games so that he will be here next year. I think next could shape up to be a really special season.
October 28th, 2010 at 6:14 PM ^
October 28th, 2010 at 6:42 PM ^
Long time reader but first time commenter. I think the intense fire R-rod now crowd and the intense just give him time crowd both have it wrong. I evaluate coach Rod by asking is he maximizing the potential of his team. A good coach almost always wins the games he should and ocassionally pulls off upsets. My concern with coach Rod is the bad losses the last two years and the lack of a meaningful win. No one will ever convince me Toledo and Purdue in 2008 and Purdue and Illinois in 2009 were games we should have lost. I could get over one or two losses like this but four bad losses in two years makes me at least question the direction of the program. So far so good this year. We beat the five teams we should and lost to two better teams. I think the last five weeks provide the perfect test for determining if the program is heading in the right direction. We have had a week off, our team is healthy and we will be the best team on the field each of the next three weeks. The last two games we will be decided underdogs. I think the semi objective standard should be win the next three or win two of three with an upset in the last two. Accomplsih that and I think R-Rod should enjoy our complete support and confidence. If not, I think there are legitimate questions about the trajectory of the program. I personally think he will make it to year four at which point he owns all the problems and should be judged by the bottom line reults on the field.
October 28th, 2010 at 7:23 PM ^
I really don't care about any losses that occurred in 2008. We were really young and really bad and really didn't know what the hell was going on. That's what happens when you bring in a new coach with a brand new philosophy. If you want to blame anyone for those losses, blame Bill Martin, who hired a coach who runs the zone read option without the personnel to run it.
October 29th, 2010 at 8:21 AM ^
Understand your view on 2008. It's fair to say Martin knew what he was getting. I'll confess I'm from the school of thought that says you coach the players you have not the ones you want to have. I think you have to adapt your system some when you don't have players to intially fit your scheme. The Toledo game just really sticks with me. I live in Toledo and have season tickets. I just remember how awful that team was in 2008 and we still lost to them. Anyway, I'm curious if you agree with the second part of my comment about the next five weeks. I know you have a football background and you seem to be pretty objective when you assess the team, the coaches and our personnel. Curious if you read it the same way.
October 29th, 2010 at 9:23 AM ^
Regarding adapting to personnel:
On the one hand, I do think it's somewhat silly to run the zone read option with quarterbacks who are unable to do it well. It probably would have behooved Rodriguez to run a more pro-style offense in 2008. The offense probably would have looked more competent. However, the personnel that year STILL would have been terrible at running a pro-style offense, too. So he could have gone 3-9 running his offense . . . or he could have gone, say, 4-8 while "adapting" to his personnel. That's not a wide enough margin to make a difference, in my opinion.
I do agree with most of the second half of your post, though. I do think we should be favored in the next three weeks, and I think Michigan NEEDS to win 2 of those 3 games. However, I don't think we necessarily need to pull an upset over those last two weeks. I'm not saying I'd be happy with a 7-5 season, but it would show continued improvement.