"The Hell with Notre Dame" - Bo
So no good program ever fired a coach? Just how did all these coaches wind up at their current schools?
Michigan wasn't very good. In eleven seasons, Bump Ellott's record was 51-42-2 overall and 32-34-2 in the Big Ten. This what happened next:
Schembechler later recalled that he remained loyal to Elliott when he took over as Michigan's head coach in 1969. When Schembechler won the Big Ten championship in 1969, he said, "I made certain I let everyone know I won with Bump's kids. Bump was a man of great class and he showed it to me again and again in that first year, never getting in the way, always trying to be helpful, always trying to encourage me." After Michigan won the 1969 Ohio State game, the team presented the game ball to Elliott, and Schembechler noted that "I don’t remember when I felt happier about anything in my life."
Great story and thanks for sharing. Will tell it to my kids one day when I talk about Michigan football.
Heck, when Bo was hired, at the presser, Bo sat on one side of Canham, Bump sat on the other. Bump gets a bit of a bum rap. The assumption is always that Bo took over a losing program, that the '68 team was downright terrible, etc. etc. Michigan finished 2nd in the Big 10 with an 8-2 record that season...
Seems to me Rich Rodriguez (and this fanbase) could have learned a lot by seeing your post 3 years ago. The way Lloyd Carr has been treated in this situation has been nothing short of incomprehensibly embarrassing.
Yes, Lloyd has been treated very badly and so has Coach Rod. I don't blame Lloyd for anything to do with the current football state, it was in the past. Love the guy, just wasn't a fan of his coaching in the end. He deserves the respect for all he has done for the University.
I hated the Coach Rod hire at first, not knowing better, but his treatment was awful. Sure, he has made mistakes but he never had the support he needed.
I definitely think it was a major mistake by RR to fire Carr's entire staff (save Fred Jackson). When you're walking into a program that's experienced such sustained success, why tear everything down? My guess is we'd have had fewer transfers, and more guys buying into the program right away, if more of Carr's assistants had been retained.
Not sure if that was a major mistake. I think he should have kept some of those guys if not all. But, you know a team leader with always want his own team. See this all the time. You just don't know who you can trust. I am not sure you can blame him for that. Other things yes.
That was too bad, but I think it's the rule far more than the exception. I'm open -- honestly -- to a data-driven response proving I'm wrong.
Just out of curiosity, who would you have kept? Not Andy Moeller, I hope. :) Vance Bedford would be an obvious choice.
I think it would have been nice to keep three or four just to maintain continuity. Bedford definitely would have been one, and maybe Stripling (not that Tall is bad, but Stripling was very good) on D. Probably Campbell on offense.
I understand why RR brought his guys over - like Carr, he's loyal to his assistants - but I think that made the transition more difficult for the players than it could have been otherwise. It may have hurt our in-state recruiting ties as well (though it has led to new ones in Florida and elsewhere). Also, it probably alienated Carr somewhat. It can't have pleased him to see the staff he assembled jettisoned.
"The way Lloyd Carr has been treated in this situation has been nothing short of incomprehensibly embarrassing."
I find that hyperbolic. Yes, he has taken some unfair "leaving the cupboard bare" heat. (As if he'd do something like that on purpose ...) As well, I think the crap he got prior to retirement was unreasonable. Incomprehensibly embarrassing, though? I don't quite see it ...
Subsitute RichRod for Lloyd in that sentence and you'd still be somewhat on-target. [*]
* Bando, this does not mean that RichRod doesn't have numerous self-inflicted wounds. Again, it does not mean that RichRod doesn't have numerous self-inflicted wounds. With me?
had wayyyyyy more talent than what RR was left with.
Notre Dame has had five coaches in the past 10 seasons. You have to go back to 1968 to find Michigan's fifth coach in the chain. Michigan would have to hire three more HC's in the next six years to be in ND's league. There is no comparison.
impose uncertainty, a constant learning curve and mediocrity? Was it coach 3, 4 or 5?
My argument isn't against firing RR. My argument is against hiring a coach that is going to run a pro-style offense. It will take 3-4 years to rebuild both sides of the ball. If you are willing to give a coach 3-4 years to rebuild, you might as well give RR a year or two to get the defense back up and running.
The question is do you think that Gardner would stick around? He's not a pocket QB. Tate probably would, but his need to scramble is going to continue hurting his play. What makes you think that we won't have the same attrition of recruits we did when RR came in? It wasn't what they signed up for after all.
Whatever time that you think it takes to get to a winning combination of offense and defense (it won't be a year), wouldn't you be better served to give that time to RR to let his players mature?
Either way we are switching DC. So, I don't get how switching to a new offensive philosophy coupled with attrition is going to get you a better record than the current system which has shown it can move the ball and score.
I don't understand how the change in offensive philosophy is the only factor with attrition. I think it is much more than that. Please show me any coaching change at any school (that wasn't a defacto handover) that lacked attrition.
It goes a lot further than that...
Coach's personality, culture of the program, athletic training, academic standards, etc. etc. How many of those who left the program under RR left bc of a change to the spread? IIRC it was a small percentage of the attrition.
I don't think the "attrition" argume is nonsense, not because the OP said it was and not because you simply say it is. Case in point - Ryan Mallett. Lets face it - change the offense and kids that signed on to play in the old scheme are going to leave if they have the opportunity and think they can play in the NFL. Why are you so sure that Gardner is going to stay? Maybe come up with facts to back your opinion rather than simply dismissing arguments to the contrary. Explain to me how Denard/Tate/Gardner are not analogous to Ryan Mallett.
One big difference, at least if we're just going to focus on the QB situation and Mallett. Rich didnt run Mallett off, nor would a new coach run any of these QBs off.
See the difference? Multiple QBs with either experience and/or cant miss guru approval. Mallett left a huge hole at the QB position. Rich has stocked the program with three guys I think we can win with longtern. One might transfer, hell even two might. No way all three go. We're just in much better position to handle a QB transfer, thanks to the recruiting and dvelopment of the position the last couple of season.
If we change coaches, I'm pretty confident that some of the QBs will stay. Really none of us know, but if we do see a transfer on the QB depth chart it wont be nearly the killer situation the program was in when the 2008 season started.
Overall, I really dont think attrition will be as killer with the next coaching change if it happens, but I will outline why elsewhere. Just wanted to get my two cents in on the QB situation. I'd hate to lose any of them, but I dont see a situation where we have a new coach next fall and one of Tate, Denard or Devin arent the starter. I just dont
It must be nice for the next coach to get all of RichRod's kids when they are more than true Sophomores because it must suck for RichRod to not see a Junior out of his 1st true recruiting class.
I don't think that Garder would leave. He has the build and arm for a pro-style QB while bringing the speed to the table as well. Any pro-style coach would be able to tweak the offense to his specific abilities. If anything, Gardner would be the best QB on the roster to use in a pro-styl setup.
Unless we hire a coach who runs a true spread DG will be our opening day starting QB in 2011 (assuming RR is gone). I have said this a hundred times, Harbaugh (who does not run a meat and potatoes pro-style) would love to have DG. Gardner is very similar to Luck in terms of size and ability to make all the throws, sure he is a mobile QB but Luck is no statue. DG will stay because he will see the ability to play in the NFL under Harbaugh's tutelage. Who wouldn't want to play QB for a 15 year NFL vet who just sent his last protege to league as the number 1 pick?
Are you high? Who the hell says Arnett and Watkins are even coming to michigan? Keep dreaming dude.
What makes you think Arnett and Watkins are coming especially if there is a new coach. I would even question if Dee stays committed with a coaching change.
I think I heard on WTKA from Sam that Watkins likes the spread and he can show off his talents. Problem with Watkins is if you think 50 is cold, then I don't know what to tell you. Unless we speed up global warming, he is probably a toss up. Hopefully, Dallas can convince him that global warming is here.
I wrote further down, but I took too long to collect and type my thoughts, but I dont think it would take 3-4 years to switch to pro style. There would be a transition period but if we hire a good offense coach/coordinator, they would probably run a modified spread/pro style. The key is we do have lots of talent on offense.
The evidence seems to suggest that the transition to a spread is longer and more difficult than the transition away from it. MSU, for instance, made a pretty seamless transition from JLS's offense to Dantonio's in 2007. In fact, they've had a strong offense every year he's been there. It's actually been his defense that's held them back (prior to this year).
As you said, it might take a little longer for pro to spread, but if you have athletes and players, IMHO, you can win. Maybe not optimal wins if you recruited the players for the particular system, but close. We just need an adaptable coach.
Still have faith in Coach Rod that he can see this through.
"We just need an adaptable coach"
The crazy thing about this is that RR seemed to abandon the underlying reason he adopted the spread - adapting what he was left with to what he had to play against. Apparently, he produced the new system because he had a bunch of little guys on his team who had no chance to win in their league. RR had the keen insight to craft a system that worked more on adapting internally to a play than overpowering your opponent. The system depended on the ability of players to be craft, shifty, and to make intelligent decisions. That is the beauty of the spread - which played to the strengths of the team RR was left with. And they excelled (I can't remember their record his first year).
But RR abandoned what was the real, underlying reason for his success - adapting a system to what he had, NOT in adapting what he had to a certain system. RR seems to have lost that adaptiveness.
Wow I thought the "RR should have run I formation with Threet" meme had died a long overdue death. Well RR's first year at WVU, they went 3-8 so he's done this dance before. I want you to show me a system that makes that OL in 2008 with Steven Threet at QB a good offense. The best plan that year was to implement the offense, teach the fundamentals so that by now, the offense could be running at a higher gear.
You're right, I forgot that there is only the spread and the I, and never the twain shall meet.
You still didn't suggest an offense that would have gotten us to a bowl game with that OLine and Threet at QB.
The offensive line would have had Boren, Molk and Shilling and Alex Mitchell as almost sure starters (Ortman, Moosman, Dorrestein and Huyge would all see snaps ). Brown and Minor were returning at RB. They were injured much of the year but that wasn't part of the equation...just the talent available. Greg Mathews, Junior Hemingway and LaTerrayal Savoy were available at WR.
You're assuming the Ryan Mallett was gone at QB but that wasn't necessarily a done deal. Steven Threet would have served in the role of John Navarre circa 2001. You might remember Navarre as the QB who lead his team to a New Year's Day bowl game in his first season as a starter.
That offense beats Toledo, Purdue, Northwestern and quite possibly Utah.....and plays in a bowl game.
You didn't answer my question at all. Not even close. The question was not what offense with players we didn't have on the team would have gotten us to a bowl game, the question was what offense with the starters that RichRod had to work with would have gotten us to a bowl game? This was all in regards to RichRod not forming his offense around his talent. Your argument doesn't really answer anything other than we would have been better had people not left the offense. They did. I'm pretty sure RichRod didn't tell them to leave so he could have Threet play QB.
If the 2008 offense was run in the same style as the 2007 offense, the team would have been more successful and they would have made a bowl game. I'll avoid using the term "pro-style" because there are many variations. We had a 33 year streak indicating that was the case. Teams had to transition all of the time (after Griese left in 1998, after Henson left in 2001....).
You can argue all you want about "ripping off the band" and going straight to a new offense and some of that may be legit. You only asked which offense would have gotten to a bowl game, not which offense was the long term solution.
And the "RR finished 3-8 his first year at WVU" meme was paired with the "He finished 9-4 in year 2, so he'll do the same here" meme in 2008.
What happened there?
throw in the center and QB going down in week 4 and you end up 5-7. Maybe do a little research before spouting off. His QB was in his second year in the system at WVU in year two not a true freshman like Tate. I'd say our O is better in year two with "dual threat QBs" unfortunately the D is much worse.
The QB did not go down last season. The center did, yes, but losing a single starter (out of 22) to a season-ending injury really isn't that rare. And if we had no D, well, isn't the coach supposed to do something about that?
First off. It was clear that Tate was not 100% in the 2nd half of the season. Could have been his shoulder, could have been his concussion. I don't know if you've ever had a concussion, but you are not the same. It took me a while after my first concussion to actually hit as hard as I could before. In Tate's case it may have taken him a while to be more aggressive and to think faster. Plus, he was a true frosh.
Secondly, this is an honest question that may make me sound stupid, but how is RR responsible for the D. I know, I know he's the head coach, other than that he has proven to be an offensive guy. His def. coaches are responsible for recruiting and developing the players. I just don't understand how RR can be responsible for the D's performance.
Look, RR has proven that with the right players on offense they can do incredible things, and they are proving that quite well, not great and def. not at their highest potential, this year,. How can you fire a coach when nearly all of his recruits are underclassmen??
In football, lots of players aren't 100% healthy during the season. Tate played all 12 games. Yes, his shoulder was iffy, but it didn't stop him from completing almost 60% of his throws. I don't see that as a reason why we lost seven straight conference games.
And as the head coach, RR is responsible for the entire team. It's his choice to spend most of his time with the offense, and that's fine - but it's still on him if the D fails. Maybe he shouldn't spend so much time with the offense. At this point, I feel like Calvin Magee could keep it running and RR might want to focus on D for the rest of the season.
As for firing RR, that still depends on how the rest of this season goes. But if he loses three or four of the next four, I don't see how Brandon can afford to keep him. The fans can't take more 2-6/1-7 Big Ten seasons with losses to every good team. It will be a very uncomfortable offseason if he's retained following a 6-6 or 5-7 season. I don't want to know how ugly it might get just in the stadium if we drop the next two home games.
But you can't fire a guy who hasn't seen the majority of his players develop. We still have first year starters and even first year college students starting in these games. You can't tell me any other coach would turn this program around with what he was given after Carr left. Even if it had been another style like Carr's, it just wasn't working as well, and Michigan needed a change. I just think it sucks for RR to be fired and has only truly had 1 and a half years of recruiting with an empty cupboard of a team handed down to him.
yeah, since the offense doesn't look any different this year than it did last year... think before you post.
Think before I post? What are you talking about?
The players have to start learning the offense sometime and you can't practice two offenses. You either implement or you don't.
Blueblueblue-This response is to your 6:50 post. This might be buried under the other responses. I wasn't a fan of Coach Rod at first. Many reasons and one of them was my frustration with why he couldn't win with any players. I always thought that a good coach can adapt his scheme to his players. After looking into it more, he just didn't have the skill players to succeed on offense in any scheme.
I think Coach Rod can adapt, he just needed better players. Now. he has them. Just my humble opinion.
Year 1: 7-5
Year 2: 9-3
Year 3: 6-6
Year 4: 11-1 (Probable)
So, do we want to be competing for a B10 championship next year or in 2? Do we want to compete for a NC as soon as next year (if we can have a below average defense or better) or wait for 4?
We are not guaranteed to follow that trajectory, with or without RR. Why are people acting like success is obviously around the corner if he stays? Returning starters does not guarantee great improvement. Charlie Weis always seemed to return 20 starters, yet churned out 6-6 records every year. He, too, couldn't seem to figure out the defensive side of the ball and kept changing coordinators. How exactly are we different?
I'm just pointing out that it takes time. A new guy isn't going to come in next year and win 9-10 games with these players. If it is going to take time to build the defense, we might as well stick with an offense that is working and is only going to get better. Charlie Weis had 5 years and had time to implement the offensive philosophy before he left. Denard is still playing with a limited playbook. It's working...mostly...but it can still work better when we add variety to what he can do.
Either way we are getting a new DC. Why should we scrap everything that is working because of the stuff that isn't working? That doesn't make sense.
not coming to Michigan.
Players want to go where they can develop and win. Talent is always available for winners.
Ok sure but I still think the regression on offense would be more than the improvement on defense over the next couple of years
As one of the announcers during the PSU game noted, most of Denard's gaudy stats came against cupcake opponants. I do not believe that we would suddenly have trouble with these teams if there were a new coach. As of now, our offense still has struggled against the only two quality defenses that we have faced. What would be different? As for the defense, it couldn't possible be worse than it is now, and a new regine might be able to get more out of these players.
Dude our least amount of yards so far was 380 against MSU. That wouldve been near the season high in most years under Carr.
But as we know, that was more a function of Carr being very conservative than anything. When his teams needed to score, they scored.
Good point but I still don't see how the next coach could afford to be conservative with what they will inherit on the other side of the ball. Nobody would be saying anything negative about the offense if we could field anything that resembles a defense.
I am a big believer in defense wins championships so on that note I'm disgusted. However I have no trouble saying that this offense under Rodriguez will be one of the best in michigan history, particularly next year
I don't think anyone is pining for a coach as risk-averse as Carr was. There aren't many coaches like that anymore. Nowadays, punting from your opponent's 35 is pretty rare.
how many times his last four years did they score enough to beat OSU. How many times did they win in South Bend. How many fourth quarter collapses were there when we up by 7 or more points? They scored when they needed to?
Do you seriously not see the problem in this statement? Ask yourself, if that really would have been a near season high for Carr, why is that the case? (hint - it has to do with defense, running, controlling the pace)
Low yardage has nothing to do with controlling the pace. That's a BS argument. Carr's teams had more chances to accumulate yardage because the defense could actually force the other team into 3 and outs. Our offenses weren't as good under Carr, period. Michigan's offense under RR is doing amazing things despite having a horrible defense that allows the other teams to have a much higher time of possession. The other teams are keeping the offense on the sideline with time consuming 10 plus play drives.
You must have missed the post that showed there were other offenses that scored more points than this one, whereas the same Lloyd offenses would actually increase their scoring in Big Ten play, unlike our current offense whose numbers are going down in Conference play (and most likely to go down ever further with Illinois, Wisconsin and OSU still on the schedule), after having feasted on an extra OOC cupcake and FCS school.
Why does everyone bring back tempo and time of possession as a valid argument? I really don't understand. Also in response to jmblue above I can see Carr being a bit more conservative (had the luxury to do so with killer Ds)...but only so much so. I don't get how our offense is that much more "aggressive" as we tend to run the ball even more than Carr did (running is generally lower risk than passing, regardless of the type of offense).
Here's some tempo free stats for you:
Michigan 2003: 4.25 YPC, 7.39 YPA, 135.64 PE
Michigan 2006: 4.27 YPC (43rd in the nation) , 7.67 YPA (36th) , 143.71 PE (26th)
Michigan 2010: 6.37 YPC (4th), 8.95 YPA (9th), 155.33 PE (19th)
And remember this is with a sophmore first year starter at QB. In 2006 Henne was a junior with a ton of talent at RB and WR. In 2003 Navarre was a senior and had the same amount of talent. Our RBs were much more talented or reliable in 2003 (Chris Perry) and 2006 (Hart) than any of the RBs we have now.
This offense is going to be insanely good and probly the best in the nation once the execution errors get smoothed out.
I think he only looks at the scoreboard. Yea we put of 17 pts against MSU, but I'd be happy with 380 yds of offense on a down day.
And not points.
We'd still be 5-3 if that were the case.
As the mistakes go down and denard ages we will be able to score more often
7 Freshman and Sophomores on the field most of the time. Has anyone of the brilliant graduates here figured out how that youth ranks us in major college football. I would bet that that is the major reason why we are a bottom defense we have probably the youngest. Maybe I will waste my time and figure it out but since I don't have 500 or 1000 points I cannot post (if I get to 1000 points I will drop off this site)
IMHO, I would think a good coach can do pretty well with good players for any system. There are good players here on offense and I think we can run a pro style and be successful. Of course, we would need some time to transition.
With these players, I think we would do better with the spread than pro, but we would still be pretty good. The key is I think we have some great players on offense.
My vote would be still to keep Coach Rod here.
THIS TEAM SUCKS!!!!! When are you people going to wake up? It's gonna take 3-4 years to rebuild what? To rebuild this garbage defense and special teams he has put out for the last 2+seasons?
If the only move made on the defense is to get rid of R. R., it would be addition by subtraction. The experiment is over....let's move on!
Our defense consists of almost all freshman and sophmores at the most important positions? How the fuck do you think a new coach is gonna suddenly turn these 3 and 4 star kids into Lock down corners and scary LB's in the big ten?
Take a step back and really think about it...
How the hell are you to say any other coach we bring in will be able to coach these kids up to all star level? You are getting way ahead of yourself..
Give it a rest
It was a response to your original post, but since there are so many replies to other posts it got pushed way down here..
You said "you think brandon would bring in a coach that could have a D as bad as RR"
So i said.. you actually think a new coach is magically gonna teach these freshman and sophmores we have running around on Defense into all stars? There is one problem with your argument.. and all the risk of completely cleaning house on coaches..
What is the gaurantee it works out with our next coach?
If you haven't forgotten RR was one of the hottest coaches in america other than Les Miles when we got him.
Even if we had Les Miles we may have a good D at this point, but it is obvious his teams have major problems on offense.. and he can't manage the end of a game for his life
Well they shouldn't get worse on D considering how much depth and exp we will have.. I def agree that we need a different D coordinator.. and people say RR is too stubborn to do it, well if it means either that or his job, im sure he will be canning some people after the season.
I'm not gonna argue one way or the other on a coaching change because I have no idea, honestly, but the "they can't get worse" thing has been said every season that Rich Rod has been here. This isn't meant to be against Coach Rod, but against the "it can't get worse" saying. I think we can agree the only time it can't get worse is if the opposing team scores every time they touch the ball. If it were true that it couldn't get worse then I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be much harm in keeping Coach Rodriguez around for another season.
RR has a proven track record of turning teams around everywhere he's been. it's wrong not to give a coach 4 years.
there's no denying the team is getting better overall each year. the trajectory may not be what we have hoped, but we will be even better next year and still better the year after that if we keep RR. no doubt about it.
UM 3 seniors, 2 jrs, 4 soph, 2 freshman (3,2,4,2)
I didnt look two deep, nor did I look to see how many are redshirt. UM 2006 = 7,3,1,0
at me from this data is, MSU's defensive experience is pretty close to what we have.
MSU (4,2,4,1) vs (3,2,4,2) us.
that our 3 seniors are Banks, Mouton and Rogers, none of whom would be likely to be playing elsewhere and all of whom were recruited by Carr.
Also Rogers is a converted, backup WR who hasn't played DB before. So even if he's a senior it's his first year at DB.
maybe produce a comprehensive statistical comparison of offense's in Michigan history? maybe going back 20-30 ish years? I have a gut feeling this might be one of the better ones in that time frame....the numbers have been really good...is it worth getting rid of a head coach who has proven he will have dominant offenses anywhere he goes simply because he has a VASTLY undermanned defense? I still just can't get past the thought that this team, with any semblance of a d, would be contending for the national title... Lloyd sure never had an offense like this...and I think he had the talent to put up these kind of numbers, but didn't...
We do not have to radically change our offense. RR is not the only coach in the world who has this system. We can hire a coach who will run a similar offense AND know how to coach defense and special teams.
i don't have the stats, but when henson was healthy that 2000 team was the best O i've seen here at UM. and i remember the leach days. i think this O can surpass that team next year.
It's probably not going to end up outscoring 2003, 2000, heck, probably not 1999. All Lloyd teams.
100% chance offense is even better with Junior Denard, etc.
25% chance that defense climbs out of 9th level of hell into a level where we are merely tortured and not soul-flayed and we sweat out 9 wins
100% chance the offense is worse due to everyone unlearning the last system, players leaving etc. - SEE RYAN MALLETT - See Denard go to Auburn or some other team
25% chance that defense climbs out of 9th level of hell into a level where we are merely tortured and not soul-flayed and we get ?? wins
Look - fire RR now and expect to relive the last two years as the offense goes up in flames with some new system.
Except that the programs that have transitioned from spread to pro-style have generally done so pretty seamlessly. The transition from pro-style to spread is the one that's trickier.
But beside all that, who says we need to change our offensive system? There are a lot of spread gurus nowadays.
Really spread to pro style has been seamless? Tell that one to Texas or Florida this year.
Brantley was the #3 pro-style QB in the 2007 class(right behind Mallett and Clausen) while Gilbert was the #2 pro-style QB in the 2009 class(right behind Barkley). Additionally all the other talent on the Florida and Texas offenses is probably higher guru approved than ours. So why if those teams struggled with the switch, would we have a seamless transition? And if we don't have a seamless transition, isn't it worth it to at least give Rodriguez one year with his own first recruits as upperclassmen when we KNOW the offense will be to semi to legit juggernaut and take a chance on the defense improving?
Why all this talk about having "his QB?" That is ridiculous. He needs "a" qb that isn't a true freshman or Threetidan. He has done just fine with every QB he has ever coached other than Threet. Why do you keep assuming he needs "his qb?"
While I think this is the most minor of quibbles, we have seen this offense this year run fairly well(if in different ways) by both Forcier and Robinson. And Michigan is one of those schools who will always get at least one top notch recruit at the QB position every few years(Mallett in 07, Forcier in 09, Gardner in 10)
watch the damn games. the O is pretty damn good with tate in there too. the d sucks. the D sucks. THE D SUCKS. because it's practically all frosh and sophs. there are no all american senior on this D (hell no all big 10 first teamers or honorable mentions either).
that florida and texas both changed coaches this year and are working with new play books
Well they didn't change coaches but to say they didn't change styles or playbooks pretty considerably from McCoy and Tebow would be very wrong.
show me a spread program that brought in a pro-style coach that then instantly improved the program. Then - what pro-style coach would be willing to come to Michigan now?
Or, a spread guy nearly as good as RR but willing to come to Michigan with his super DC also willing to come to Michigan on his coat-tails?
show me a spread program that brought in a pro-style coach that then instantly improved the program
Michigan State - from 4-8 in 2006 to 7-5 in 2007, with no real dropoff offensively. They've ranked among the conference leaders in offense every year Dantonio has been there, even though he isn't an offensive-minded coach.
As for who would come here, I don't know. I didn't expect RR would come three years ago. That's completely up in the air. But any idea that this is not a desirable HC job is nuts. We're the winningest program in history for crying out loud. Our next coach might well be a defensive-minded guy who is open to running the spread (which is the case at Oklahoma).
but your second reply "I don't know" is the main issue I have.
I'd rather give the man - who made our offense scary - a chance to improve his D than hope for an unknown.
Everyone is in love with Harbaugh (including my wife - beside the point) but he went 4-8, 5-7 the first two years. Isn't that the same as RR? A guy trying to turn a program in a different direction?
Someone needs to lookup old Stanford schadenfreude posts from '07 '08 to see how many were asking for his head.
What elite coach would want to come to a program where the previous coach was fired after 2 1/2 years? Coaches realize if the previous guy wasn't given a fair chance, neither will they.
I know...very disappointing loss at PSU, haven't we seen enough? I get it. But where is our confidence as Michigan fans? Have we not been 5-3 before, with hope of finishing strong? I know I am the optimistic type, but there is a lot of football to play...are we really convinced that this team won't finally get it (the freshman) and come out inspired against Illinois? Get their confidence back against Purdue, then come home and ride the momentum against a Wisconsin offense that plays into what strengths the defense has? Keep the faith, we could be heading to OSU, a beatable team, with essentially NO freshman...every player with 11 games under his belt, and then who knows...then the bowl game after 15 more practices and getting healthy. This team has a chance to still win 10 games this year....believe!!!
the post man...big posbang! just one break to go our way, and this season turns around...
OSU, Wisconsin, Illinois and probably even Purdue are going to run right over us, literally. If we couldn't stop PSU (starting a walk-on QB who never played significant minutes before) from hanging 40+ on us, what do you think everyone else is going to do?
PSU scored on almost every possession!!
What bigger break could you ask for than a walk-on QB starting against your D PLUS your opponent being riddled with injuries all over the place?
Pass whatever it is you're smoking, man.
He is smoking the same thing that makes you think we went against a walk on last Saturday. He was a redshirt Sophomore that had been in the system for 3 years and has earned a scholarship. Does he suck? Yes. Did he almost beat out Freshman Bolden at QB? Yes.
Is he their 3rd option at QB?
Did Purdue take their 3rd string WR, start him at QB, and shred us?
Are you seriously implying that our loss to PSU wasn't as bad as we think because their 3rd string QB wasn't actually a walk on, but had earned a scholarship this current year?
McGloin didn't do that by himself. Some guy by the name of Royster did help him out. In fact, I think he became PSU's all-time leading rusher that game am I right? Not excusing the defense's performance, but some people seem to think that McGloin went Ryan Mallet on us.
who have better QB's and equal if not better running game, won't roll us? What about Illinois? They seem pretty competent all of a sudden and Scheelhause (sp?) is better than McLovin.
Please, tell me in concrete terms why we will beat an Illinois team....or hell, even Purdue.
One that isn't 0-8 in chances to get bowl eligibility and counting. We don't believe in the miracle victory of yore anymore because it hadn't happened for over two years.
The only thing that bothers me more than our horrific defense, is that we've made no effort to get better recruits. I understand the argument that Rodriguez is an offensive-minded coach, and that our secondary has been inexplicably plagued with injuries and such, and would be better if that hadn't happened, but after seeing week after week of subpar defense, I'd begin to think that maybe RichRod should shift his attention to getting some top 100 defensive recruits, or looking for another DC.
Shit like this is why I don't ever go to RCMB or any of the OSU blogs. I wish there could be a moratorium on FRDKRODPLZ posts and any of their variants, no matter how subtly worded.
Denard is a great "football player"...not a great spread offense QB. He isn't limited to this offense.
Do you guys really believe that changing the coach would be a step back? And, where would it be a step back to? R. R. winning percentage in conference is .200....I can't understand why people want to keep defending a guy who is only winning 20% of his conference games.
This team is WORSE than last year's team. The ONLY difference is that there is a better QB, now. Illinois is a Loss....Wisconsin and tOSU are loses. Purdue is going to be a toss up, like the Indiana game. And ANY mistakes on offense will land this team into another 5-7 record, no bowl game and a ton of questions. Rich Rod is making excuses every week because he has NO answers. It is getting tiring listening to this guy try to point the finger everywhere but the mirror. This is is 3rd season, why are there little to no Juniors on defense? Why are SO MANY people leaving? Everyone who wants to defend Rich Rod has an excuse for all of this: Warren took bad advice, BooBoo was a head case, JT Turner was not motived, Lolata was derp derp, Vlad was derp derp......At some point, you guys will wake up and see that the problem with this program starts ( and ends) at the top.
So you think we were a better team last year than this year with 4 games left to play. Just asking the question.
there are 2 differences between this year and last year's team....
Denard-much better than Tate the freshman, and arguably the best player in college football.
The Defense-100% worse than last year's defense. And I can use those percentages because others feel free to just float those types of numbers out in defense of R.R.
Graham and Warren leaving make a huge dent in the d, I don't ignore that. But this team lacks general fundamentals of playing defense. That is plain and simply, coaching.
How do you know I am missing the point, when I asked you a simple question if you think we are better this year than last. I wasn't making any assumptions. I just asked a simple question.
Just trying to having a discussion and understand what you are trying to say in simplistic terms.
You said there are 2 differences, but is this year's team better?
No, I don't think this team is better. The offense is a lot better but there are still problems with it. People keep talking about our scary offense, but 17,28,31 in the last 3 Big Ten games isn't scaring anyone. Not to mention, our offense didn't start scoring until the games were blow outs.
And the defense is drastically worse.....They were 83rd nationally last year and now they are 106....and I don't see any signs of improvement, no matter what Rich Rod says.
all of this crap about "who would want to come here".....Who wouldn't want to have a resource like Denard Robinson, as a Junior, to start their program off on the right foot? You guys are just grasping at straws.
Not a reason to read this post
i don't think it would take 3 years to rebuild. the offense would still be very good. even if it was a "pro" system you can move tate to qb and denard to rb and flanker, hopkins as a power back. our wide recievers are awesome. the o-line is very good although a power coach will want to add more beef over the years.
and the d and special teams- well, they can't really get any worse.
to me it comes down to whether you think rrod can save the defense- if he can he may be worth another year - if not then you don't really lose that much, do you?
not to say i want rrod gone. i think he's taking on a pile of sh-- he didn't have to and has had some poor luck, but it is what it is at this point.