Lynn Henning. Wow.
While I think he might be going a bit overboard, I can't say that I disagree with the overall point of the article...
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081101/OPINION03/811010439/1131/SPORTS0201
November 1st, 2008 at 10:00 PM ^
Are you kidding me? Jesus H Tittyfucking Christ.
Freshman QB and another QB that can barely play on Ann Arbor Pioneer's JV team.
Injured potential starting tailback and other than Minor, freshmen everywhere.
An offensive line that is so bad, a converted DE started today.
Both top WR's in the NFL.
1 serviceable returning LB
Two worthless sacks of shit in Morgan Trent and Stevie Brown in the secondary.
Yeah. Cupboard's just absolutely stocked with prime rib here. I'll just open the front door and watch Lloyd's leftovers bring in the victories by the bucketload.
Lynn Henning, do me a favor. Take a jump off of the Ambassador Bridge wearing a pair of cement boots.
November 1st, 2008 at 10:12 PM ^
Two worthless sacks of shit in Morgan Trent and Stevie Brown in the secondary.
That's uncalled for regardless of how poorly you think Trent and Brown are performing.
November 1st, 2008 at 10:01 PM ^
This article is silly. Henning admits that the offense is crippled while Threet is at qb and that our offensive line is an area that "needed help" then goes on to say "it should not have been the end of the world to have stuck with a more conventional offense that would have taken advantage of Michigan's existing personnel, which was plenty good".
What personnel is that? We have a qb who cannot throw and a line that cannot block so what exactly could we have taken advantage of? Are passing and blocking not important in "conventional" offenses?
November 1st, 2008 at 10:02 PM ^
UM hired away a coach from a team ranked in the top 10 in the country. A coach who has competed at that level for a number of years. Would I have rather we could have to hired the coach from last years national championship team? Yes, it would have been nice but it didn't work out. Get over it!
The big problem right now on offense is the o-line. It has nothing to do with what scheme their running, there just not good enough. So is that because we lost all those lazy linemen that Carr brought who thought they where just entitled to playing time. What the MSM and all those, “Oh Rod and Barwis are so mean they drove our players away,” crowd don't understand is that those are just the type of players that were leading to all the 8-4 seasons when everyone thought we should be playing to National Championships. Should RichRod just have been easy on them to keep them there. Anybody that thinks Bo would have changed his offense or made things easier on anyone to keep them at UM, even if he knew he would have gone 2-10 in his first season, is kidding themselves.
November 1st, 2008 at 10:40 PM ^
November 2nd, 2008 at 1:00 AM ^
"How many collegiate games has good ol' Lynn played in his career?"
With that being said, this is another example of an absolutely ridiculous and stupid argument.
November 1st, 2008 at 10:37 PM ^
MSM will now focus on MSU for the remainder of regular season & bowls. UM will be the "also-ran". Lynn Henning will be reporting on the rest of M's season, Wojo will be covering Sparty fulltime.
This is a fair article. The University of Michigan is paying something approaching $6M for RR's services in fiscal year 2008 - between his regular salary and all the buyout dollars + tax grossup. Little or no ROI from $6M expenditure, its fair to question.
Martin and Mary Sue have luxury boxes and premium seating to sell. Based on what you're seeing on the field, combined with the economy, the state of the football program is going to be a big political issue financially. Sparty goes to the Rose Bowl and we flutter into mediocrity? Questions are justified. . . .
November 1st, 2008 at 10:57 PM ^
November 1st, 2008 at 11:12 PM ^
questions are one thing. this guy is passing assumptions off as facts. a really piss poor read. what the fuck is he talking about here:
"Never, ever have those of us who have followed Michigan football for years, or covered it for decades, have conceived of a season when players would have lost their soul."
"The problem with Michigan football, dare we say it, is spiritual. There appears to be zero loyalty to the new regime. It had been looking like that for the past few weeks, and anyone who saw Saturday's transparent exercise in going through the motions would have concluded much the same."
November 2nd, 2008 at 11:40 AM ^
Other media personalities have said that there are some players, mainly upperclassmen, who haven't totally "bought in" to the new regime. Some have cautiously referenced this as possibly being one of the reasons they have struggled to pick up on the new schemes. I wouldn't be surprised that we see more tranfers after this season. It happens quite often when there is a regime change. The question is whether or not Rich Rod can keep this recruiting class together and continue to add to it. I know that there is a common belief that Michigan will have no problems with recruiting, but, from what Tom Beaver said this morning on his radio show he seems to think that there is a danger of more decommits as the losses pile up and the program, at least on the surface, appearing to be in somewhat of a state of disarray.
November 2nd, 2008 at 11:46 AM ^
Other media personalities have said that there are some players, mainly upperclassmen, who haven't totally "bought in" to the new regime.
Do you think that there is a correlation between this and the large number of underclassmen (particularly freshmen) who are starting or seeing significant playing time?
November 1st, 2008 at 11:30 PM ^
November 2nd, 2008 at 12:04 AM ^
November 2nd, 2008 at 12:54 AM ^
Lynn Henning is on the money.
I've followed Michigan football since 1960. I've NEVER seen a Michichan team play this badly for a whole season. Even when Woody laid on the epic 50 point beat down of Bump Elliot's team, Michigan did not quit on its season. Nor did it routinely give up touchdowns to all comers.
Comments I've read continue to blame this disaster on the players and to absolve Rodriguez and his staff of responsibilty for a team that looks totally out of synch. When MSU or ND suffered through a season like this, I remember the Mgobloggers mocking head coachesJohn L Smith and Charley Weiss as incompetent idiots. Last year, Dantonio was been derided as a cave man coach.
OK, fair enough. Both MSU and ND were terrible the last 2-3 years.
But please explain why NONE OF THIS YEAR's DEBACLE should not be placed at the doorstep of Rodriguez? I mean, he did hire his assistant coaches, and fire all but one of Carr's staff, right? Comments on this blog keep blaming the players for being freshman, inexperienced, confused by the new schemes, stupid, etc. There's some truth there, especially given the inexperience at QB, the losses on the offensive line, and the "transition" to the spread offense. But last time I looked, Michigan's defense did not have to make the same kind of leap that the offense did in going from a pro set to the spread. In fact, all the defense had to to do was build on some of the strengths they already had, and try to improve their weaknesses.
Hasn't happened. All we hear about is the need to for our players to get better at tackling, covering receivers, staying in lanes, etc. Gosh, I thought that the coaches job was to help players improve. Our players may not be the best in the Big 10, but does anyone really think that we've got the WORST PLAYERS??
If this disaster continues through 2009, Rich Rod will be on the way out before Jan 1, 2010.
November 2nd, 2008 at 11:55 PM ^
This still isn't comparable to ND last year other than the W-L record. Weis had multiple years to build up his team, and only after that did they go 3-9. That WAS his fault for not being able to cycle the team appropriately.
Then of course, you go on to say that besides our sucky QB, our MAC level offensive line, and a transition to a new spread offense that we should be good. Yeah, so like, other than the whole offense sucking, we should be good. Yeah...
But what about the defense? App. State exposed our semi-competent defense last year. Then we went on to lose guys at safety and linebacker. And then no one was left to fill their shoes. Add on to that an offense that is barely competent. Then of course, you seem to forget that changing defensive schemes isn't as easy as you might think. It's not as "flashy" or noticable as the offensive, but it's not a cakewalk either.
Maybe RR + staff don't know how to "coach" up players. Maybe they can't get them excited enough. But I highly doubt this. He turned 2* happy WVU into a national power. He went 3-8 at WVU in his first year. I know I'm rehashing old arguments, but my god, a losing season isn't the end of the world.
OMG we only have the 4th longest winning steak ever now! We totally suck!
November 2nd, 2008 at 12:49 AM ^
of the guys that left Michigan's Football Program, what the hell would he have done with this group-.500? Coach Carr knew when to get out-don't think so-think again. This highly over-rated veteran Michigan Defense exhumes the sediment of why many Michigan Fans wanted Coach Carr gone-the loss to Appalachian State simply removed any doubt. When Coach Carr left Michigan's Football Program Boren jumped on the"feel good" bus leaving AA, obviously some defensive players missed that bus. The same writer hammering Coach Rod, would be hammering Coach Carr had He stayed. Defense can be coached, heart and desire can't.
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:40 AM ^
Last year there were plenty of indications of this season to come, starting with the Appalachian State and Oregon games. Michigan showed very little depth (Freshman Mallett and Minor), and a number of terrible starters on defense like Sears, Brown and Chris Graham (who Brian termed "worse linebacker ever"). Their subs, who couldn't beat these guys out, are now starting.
Last year's defense gave up the 2nd most points (by 1) all time by a Michigan team. That was with a servicable offense loaded with NFL talent keeping them off the field (at least in comparison with this year's offense). With the LB's and DB's currently on the field, its a small wonder that this defense is on pace to be the all-time worse (and granted, this is complicated by the intallation of a new defensive scheme).
The offensive turnover-fest hasn't helped matters for the defense, either.
QB, OL, DB's, LB's, and hell even WR's, this team, coming into the season, had MASSIVE problems EVERYWHERE except at DL, RB and maybe TE (whoopty-fucking-dooo).
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:56 AM ^
Defense can be coached, heart and desire can't. Agreed, but to my very untrained eye, what I see is a lack of confidence by the (1) DC in the coverage capabilities of the LBs and DB and (2) confidence in each other that they will meet their responsibilties.
This to me is at the heart of the problems of the defense. Shafer has them playing "soft" because the tendancy early in the year was for them to get beat long (but ofter the pass went incomplete). The missed tackles resulting in big plays/TDs also contribute to the DBs playing back a bit more.
I have noticed (my untrained eye) that, while in coverage, some CBs/LBs have seemed to drift from the receiver they are responsible for, towards a receiver they fear/think the ball may be going to (usually futher downfield), only to have the pass be thrown to their receiver. The CB/LB, seemingly not trusting S help, is then caught between two receivers in no man's land.
Great defenses exude confidence. This defense (rightly so based on previous games) has none. Thus, they can't get a single stop when they need one (either when they are playing well like against Toledo, or poorly against Pudue).
November 2nd, 2008 at 1:26 AM ^
Henning's article is too focused on offense. I don't think there's that much else our staff could have done to improve it, all things considered, other than commit to Threet as our #1 QB before the season started.
But on defense, he can't get a pass - not when a veteran unit deteriorates into the worst D in school history. His decision to hire Shafer is looking extremely suspect. With a DC who could have delivered merely an average Big Ten performance, instead of the conference's worst, we could have pulled out a couple of extra wins, and would still have a shot at a bowl right now.
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:53 AM ^
Wait, didn't our offense score 35 points yesterday to a Purdue defense that actually hasn't been terrible? Teams whose offenses scored fewer points against Purdue than ours did: Oregon, Central Michigan, Notre Dame, Penn State, Ohio State, Minnesota, Northern Colorado. The only team whose offense scored more than our did on Purdue was Northwestern.
This was virtually 100% the fault of the defense. But of course, the columnists can't lay the blame on the defense -- it's much harder to lay all the blame on Rich Rod and only Rich Rod if it's the defense's fault.
November 2nd, 2008 at 11:31 AM ^
November 2nd, 2008 at 11:22 PM ^
Right, but he is much more tied to the offense in people's minds than the defense. When people think of the new system RR brought in, they really only think of the offense. Sure, the defense is guys he hired, but you're still more likely to see the defensive coaches get blamed when the defense is bad as opposed to RR. On the other side, RR gets blamed for everything on the offense since it's his system.
At least that's how the media seems to think of it.