I think we can all agree that Jim Brandstatter is a true Michigan Man, that guy bleeds maize & blue like no other. Interesting to read his thoughts on RR's job being in jeoprady towards the end of this blog entry. My apologies if this has been posted.
A Michigan Man's perspective
I agree with him, but the fact that he does a weekly show with RR probably lends to him not wanting to say anything bad about him.
wants to sell papers, website hits and broadcast ratings, in addition to a clear yet inexplicable desire to close ranks around one of their own, Michael Rosenberg, tends to make them want to attack Rich Rodriguez and fuel the purported coaching change controversy.
Does "Michael Rosenberg" automatically appear in all of your posts, like some kind of template? I don't know if I've ever seen a post of yours that doesn't mention his name or "Freep."
I was thinking the exact same thing; I'm not quite sure why you were negged.
The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.
Rosenberg is my god. I do what he says. Help me, Section 1.
if you had said that I was in any way incorrect in any of my criticism of Rosenberg.
I'm completely unconcerned at your notion that I might criticize Rosenberg, and the Free Press, too often.
You could have done a search on your own, and you'd have certainly found that while the Freep and Rosenberg might be my favorite topics, they aren't my only topic. A little further digging by you might have revealed that most of my posting on the subject of Freep reporting has been notably popular with this blog's membership. A representative sample:
This blog serves many purposes; it supplies detailed information that can't be found anywhere else, at least not at internet speed. It provides fun and amusement for the members. And, finally (and most importantly, I'd argue) it provides a "publication" platform for information that isn't filtered through the rest of the Detroit sports media.
Where else have you seen detailed, documented criticism of the guy -- Rosenberg -- who single-handedly brought an NCAA investigation down on Michigan? Only at MGoBlog, and a handful of other places on the 'net.
I want the Rosenberg counter-story to be told. I want it to be clear, detailed, solid and.... repeated often enough that everyone is aware of it and can understand if they care to.
Understandable, but what does that have to do with Brandstatter? Rosenberg does not appear in the article, the Freep has nothing to do with this, and Brandstatter didn't even bring up "the media" at all.
The post by "asquared," to which I was replying, suggested a possible pro-Rodriguez bias on the part of Jim Brandstatter, in connection with his own tv interview program.
So I merely pointed out the anti-Rodriguez bias in almost all of the rest of the Detroit sports media. A bias that now seems to be an intrinsic part of their business model.
Seems like a fair and a noteworthy point to make, in response to asquared. And that's what I wrote.
btw - I see that "asquared" drew a number of negs for his post to which I responded. None of those negs were from me. He had a point to make, and I wasn't looking for a fight; just a chance to observe that if anyone wants to talk about "media bias" and Rich Rodriguez, it is a thoroughly one-sided affair.
if you had said that I was in any way incorrect in any of my criticism of Rosenberg.
Your criticism may be correct, but, even if we understand the events, what does it change? I see means, but I see no ends. I could criticize an apple for being an orange and be correct. It doesn't accomplish much. Most of us know the story behind the story, and all Freep talk gets cumbersome. At this juncture, I am not sure what the purpose is?
of the Rosenberg/Free Press depredations. But not everybody is aware. I'd say that most casual fans of Michigan football are barely even aware of the true nature of the controversy and what Rosenberg did.
I've got no polling data on that of course; only the observation that just about every time I've taken the trouble to write in much detail about Rosenberg, Snyder and the Free Press, one or more people (and remember, we are talking about the self-selecting group of people who took the trouble to find out about MGoBlog and log on) will write a response to the effect of, "Wow, I was aware that some people had questioned the Free Press bias, but I never knew all of that ..."
Most of the MGoBlog cognoscenti ARE aware of the Rosenberg/Free Press depredations. But not everybody is aware. I'd say that most casual fans of Michigan football are barely even aware of the true nature of the controversy and what Rosenberg did.
I agree, most of us here are aware of the ridiculousness of the FreeP's accusations. That's exactly why it is tiring to see you constantly remind us of them.
Why don't you hand out flyers or something at Crisler or the next big event. That'd be a much better use of your time if you truly do want to spread the knowledge.
That would be awesome. I can already imagine someone coming back from the basketball game this weekend with a story of some lunatic handing out flyers about the Free Press. It's getting to the point where I think Tater should bring him on to his Tinfoil Hat blog.
I'd chalk it up to the fact that, if Jim Brandstatter truly wanted Rich Rodriguez gone, he would go through the appropriate channels and avoid publicly chastising him on a blog.
A vote of confidence in a public forum speaks far more to his endorsement of the head coach than silence, Michgan Replay notwithstanding.
I linked to this in a thread a long time ago -- but it's worthy of future discussion. Much of what Brandstatter says is couched because of his relationship to the program, but I think it's interesting that he is willing to potentially go against DB here and strongly support RR. That says a lot. Plus he's right.
I don't think DB cares that much about statements like this, he probably likes the passion. Now if he came out railing on him about waiting, that might be a different story.
If anyone has real info on what Dave Brandon is thinking, it is Brandstatter. He talks to RR and Brandon weekly and is constantly around the Athletic Department. He also knows all of the former football players and more significant alumni very well. It seems odd that Brandstatter would publicly say RR should be given a fourth year if he believes (or knows) RR is going to get canned. Brandstatter easily can make his case privately to the Great Brandon, while crossing him publicly on such a high profile matter makes little sense.
Thanks for posting! His more-of-the-same echoed my sentiments after OSU as well.
The term "Michigan Man" doesn't mean anything.
It means someone who is loosely affiliated with the University of Michigan.
"an Ohio State Man" or "An Alabama Man" or "A Texas Man."
Just another perspective.
and the sooner people stop acting like things aren't done the right way unless they're done the way Bo would have done it, the better off the program and the fanbase will be.
I would +1 you if I could. Having lived in the southeast and western U.S. for about a decade it gets lost to people who have been lucky enough to live in Michigan their whole lives. The kind of attributes that a Michigan man unquestioningly brings with him is not common from people from other regions of the country. The world would be a better place if there were more Michigan men out there.
I once had an interview with Motorola. The first interviewer told me up front that they did things the Midwestern honest way, thus implying the Swedes at my former employer were cheats. (Interestingly, we viewed Motorola as the dirty player, and interviewing with them was like interviewing with the dark side.) Frankly I found the insinuation insulting, just as I find your comment insulting.
Part of my family is from Kansas, and part is from Maine, I live in North Carolina - that southeast you refer to. Family and the majority of people I know from all three regions show similar values in self made independence, doing the right thing, hard work, etc.
From my time at Michigan I remember the fires in Detroit every year at Halloween, and the vandalism the day the Tigers won the world series, etc. Then there is the crime in Detroit. (Raleigh or Charlotte are way down the list ...)
So please, the Michigan Man values ventured at above are close to the pin, but don't tell me the values of all mid-westerners are so much more pristine than the values of people elsewhere in the country. Ya'll can f-off with that kind of talk: bless your hearts ...
Thanks for the post.
That is the same way i feel about RR. He deserves another recruiting class.
It is great to be reminded of how good the offense is now, and how bad it was in the past. I fully agree with Jim that the defense isn't that far off, and that RR needs another year to get things clicking. I appreciated reading this.
One last thing on his comment that RR needs another recruiting class. This isn't worth another post, but I do think that if RR returns for 2011, we could actually see an extra 4 star or two sign on with Michigan in January. I think RR is BOTH a great recruiter and great coach. So far, almost all comments have been suggesting the negative impact on recruiting caused by DB's insistence on waiting. I just don't agree with this at all, and really look forward to seeing what will happen after RR is given a vote of confidence after the bowl game.
What has this defensive staff shown to lead you to believe that they will correct things? Three years of crappy defense tells me enough. These guys are a millstone around RR's neck.
Hard to how much each of these factors has brought about our defensive issues and you can try but you can't really separate the 3 very easily on pure number or % terms.
My take, for what it is worth, having reviewed the decimated defense and other data and analysis posted on this blog....
2008 was all about a very crappy offense putting the defense in a hole and coaching staff/culture changes. Schaeffer brought in because Casteel would not come.
2009 was all about a a slightly better offense putting the defense in a hole and not enough defensive playmakers (in pipeline or on field) and attrition.
2010 has been all about inexperience and injuries and lack of experienced talent on field(Woolfolk getting hurt, Warren off to not get drafted) with a much better than avg offense not putting D in a hole.
To remind everyone, the Decimated defense conclusions:
- Michigan had generally small recruiting classes (2005 -2008)
- Those defensive recruiting classes were about on par with Penn State anyway, and well below those of Ohio State
- Michigan had exceptionally high attrition from its 2005 to 2008 classes.
- Attrition disproportionately attacked our higher-rated players.
- Attrition disproportionately attacked our older players
- Of Michigan's 3-star recruits, a disproportionately few ended up as contributors
You can't shoot the players, so your choices are either to shoot the coaches or ride it out if you think they can get that pipeline rolling again. Being a Defensive coordinator at Michigan has not been a very stable job since the tenure of Jim Hermann and his 9 years that ended in 2005....
This team has issues with fundamentals for three years. While I do not dispute your points, the biggest problem is a lack of coaching as evidenced by the poor fundamentals.
So with this logic u can take any HS player in the country and turn him into the best tackler, angle taker, and a guy who will never miss an assignment? You're right athleticism has no clout whatsoever in what these guys are doing. It's all coaching.
I've seen much of the same bad tackling, poor pursuit angles, and missed assignments happening not only from 2008-2010 but during the 2005 entire season, the last two games of 2006, and the 1st two and last two regular season games of 2007 with an entirely different set of defensive coaches.
Like I said, hard to tell how much of the 3 things you cite are attributable to coaching and how much are attributable to the talent of the players being coached.
What you can say, and always be right about, is that the coaches recruited the talent so they have either done a poor job of coaching or recruiting or both.
Football talent is more than speed and size and strength, as witnessed by people like Chris Spielman and Jordan Kovacs. The ability to see what is going on, understand and have field presence, and know where you are supposed to be and anticipate what will happen next is a definite defensive football talent that can be hard to measure. Thus, the often conflicting opinions about players amongst fans and amateur experts alike.
Even if Michigan brought back the exact same staff, it would be almost impossible for the Freshmen and Sophs to not become better players. Now, add to it that there's probably a <5% chance that we don't get a better defensive coaching staff (regardless of who's the head coach), and you have a chance that this D could go from horrendous to merely below average.... Then in 2012 almost everyone comes back AGAIN...
means 5 losses again. I think a better staff gets these players to above average.
Time for a change.
Sorry Brandy, but it did not. A offense working means scoring. This offense did not do this vs OSU or MSU. The team was down 21 points when it started to click vs Iowa, Wisconsin, and PSU.
Now, there are legitimate reasons for this. Youth at QB is the most obvious reason. A lack of breakaway threat at RB is another.The offense did show flashes that it can work, but it is not there just yet.
The defense is an abomination and has been for three years. Something drastic has to be done on this side of the ball if RR is going to succeed here.
I understand that he works with RR so he won't ever criticize him publicly. That's appropriate.
why such long pauses in between points?
I'm writing this on my iPhone, so if it looks odd that maybe a reason why.
Thanks for the post. I feel the same way except for the Defense. GO BLUE!!
I agree with Brandstatter, let RRod finish the job.
There's not anything I like about losing,but this team......this team, I like as no other and I've seen many Michigan teams but this team will always have a special place in my memory.
Thanks for the post.
I also agree that RR needs at least another year to get the players far enough along in the system and to get the defense up to par which could come together next year and certainly in 2012.
Brandy is a great guy and a total homer.
of one David Brandon.
brandstatter once ate an entire toaster because the toast wouldn't pop out--cord and all!
Robbie Timmons told the story on the news one night. She was cracking up.
+1 to you sir for bringing another perspective to the forum.
I heard him on the Huge show yesterday. Let me get this straight, I heard he was going to be on there, and that was the only reason why I listened. He said that RR needs to at least see his class through. He also said (I'm paraphrasing here) that with the strides the offense has made, blowing this thing up wouldn't make any sense. Just fix what is broken. (The last sentence was verbatim.)
First, Brandstatter comes out in support of RR being retained as HC for another year on his blog. Then he goes on the Huge show and says the same. This could be the beginning of Dave Brandon's media campaign to let down the JH supporters softly because RR is coming back. It is similar to how the B10 handled the news that UM and OSU were going to be in different divisions. They put out "unofficial" comments by persons other than Delany indicating the way the decision was trending. If we hear more from Brandstatter on this or anything similar from others close to the program (i.e., Desmond, Woodson, Moeller, Carr, Beckmann), then RR will be back for at least one more year.
I keep hearing how good our offence is so here are a couple questions I have
If you remove Denard from our offense is it still that good?
Did we have a back that ran for over 500 yards this year? (I don’t remember)
How many dropped passes did we have in big games?
I know this is special teams but after three years shouldn’t we have a guy who could kick a field goal so that everywhere on the field is not 4 down territory?
Given the amount of physical punishment the QB takes in this offense, is it reasonable to expect Denard to be any healthier next season than he was this year? He left eight of our twelve games due to injury, and never returned in four of them.
as Denard is the Sun and Moon and Stars, but Tate Forcier has proven himself to be quite a good quarterback in his own right.
I don't think that QB will be the position we will be scratching our eyes out for next year.
Our offense is not the same with Tate in there. This offensive scheme is based around having a running threat at QB and he doesn't bring that. I don't want to go another season with Denard regularly getting knocked out of games. Regardless of whom the coach is, we absolutely must cut down on the number of carries he gets.
Our offense is not quite as good with our backup QB as with our starting QB, clearly a reason to fire the coaches.
Tate is actually a running QB by most people's definition over the history of Michigan football similiar to JH in running ability and style, while Denard is a dilithium runner and growing better passer.
Glad to have both, and appreciate what they each bring to the table.
Far more worried/concerned about having some safeties and cornerbacks and linebackers who can perform than anything on the QB side of the equation. Remember, w/o Tate, no way we beat Illinois after Denard went out with Gardner at QB.
Stanford without Luck (the player)
OSU without Pryor
Aub without Newton
Texas without Colt... errr nevermind
Florida without Tebow... errrr skip that one too.
The key issue here is that Denard has proven himself injury-prone, while Luck, Pryor and Newton haven't. Those guys are a lot bigger than he is. Luck and Pryor also don't carry the ball as often. Assuming Denard is our guy going forward, we've got to tweak the offense to cut down on the punishment he takes.
That is a different issue than the question that was originally asked, which was, how good would UM be without Denard....
Of course I think we are in better hands with our backup than any of the above schools would be.
What is your solution? Change the offense so that Denard gets fewer carries? The point of the previous post is that if you take away the best player of any offense the offense is, quite obviously, not as good. And that was in response to the previous-previous post that argued that Rodriguez's offense is not as good as people state because Denard is an integral piece. That argument makes no sense - take the starting QB out of any offense and that offense will not be as good.
I think the point is to temper expectations. It seems almost unanimous here that the offense will be a juggernaut next year. However, that juggernaut does have a weak point, our oft-injured MVP. Especially since next year is pretty indisputably "put up for shut up" for RR if he comes back, his continued employment basically hinges on Denard's health. I for one do not want to go through next offseason after 6-7-8 win campaign saying "well, IF denard hadn't been hurt, the offense would have been totally awesome! We'd have won 10 and gone to the championship game!" There have been far too many "well, if only!"s the past few years.
Think that may help us to take a little of the load off of Denard????
If you remove Denard from our offense is it still that good?
No, but it's still good. Recall that Tate threw for almost 300 in basically one half against Iowa.
I guess when I asked the question without Denard was the offence still good I was a little vague after reading the responses. What I’m wondering are we to one dimensional? That’s why I asked the question about our running backs, do we have one that ran for 500 yards this year? and our field goal kicking we play four down football, why since RR has been here haven’t we had someone who can kick a field goal?
"Coach, finish the job!"
"It took me a long time to come up with those four words, but hey, I still did better than the Conference when they had 4 months to come up with two division names!"
Boom, you are soooo correct!
This is just common sense to me. Everything he wrote I completely agree with. RR is NOT that far away from creating exactly what everybody wanted when Carr retired. In my opinion, if RR is fired our football program may never recover. To bring back a pro style coach is suicide. We will be right back to where we were in 2007. We will be stuck with players that don't fit a system.
RR is NOT that far away from creating exactly what everybody wanted when Carr retired.
Really? Then why does just about everyone agree that if RR is retained, we need to completely clean house defensively?
I think RR should be brought back on the condition that he and Dave Brandon work together to hire a new DC who would have full authority to hire and fire position coaches on that side of the ball. That is very different than agreeing that all of the position coaches on the defensive side should be replaced. I also think they need to hire a full-time special teams coach, one who specializes in teaching kicking technique.
RR needs to be told that his offensive knowledge is equal to or better than that of any other coach in the country, but he also needs to be told/convinced that he needs major help for everything else. If he acknowledges and agrees to that, we could have the most intimidating team in the country in a couple of years. If RR fights it, he should be fired.
is not yet done, or DB really knows how to keep a private deal private.