Not all disasters are the same. Even during the Carr denoument, Michigan was never worse than mediocre. Now, they're much worse than mediocre.
Other examples of coaches turning programs around?
Art Briles, Baylor.
What we need to do is look at the depth and experience on all of these teams we mention. I just can't believe that it's taking this long to turn things around, but I simply don't know.
is that after the '07 season, I didn't think the program needed an overhaual, just some tweaking here and there.
So we should have hired Ron English and we would have been fine, at least with that logic.
but at least Ron English knew how to defend PSU.
Yeah, let's hire a guy who took Louisville's defense from 84th to 70th in the nation and then was hired as the HC at EMU andd has a record of winning one game in two seasons with a defense at the bottom of the NCAA. Do yuo think maybe there were other guys running that defense that made him look good?
with my original post, I never said anything about English. Somehow in your infinite wisdom, you figured that must have been what I meant.
No, that was the guy M was looking at hiring of the all the coordinators we had. That was not a leap to figure that one out.
Really had no one in particular in mind when I made the comment. I thought Carr and his staff had gotten stale. The program at that point was by no means bad (like it is today) but was in need of some fresh ideas, imo.
Now that is a sentiment I can agree with. Things had gotten stale and we were in need of something. I am not sure of the state of the program as on paper it appeared ok, but how many of the players left would have been gone regardless. None the less something had to give.
Not sure about that one at all. After '07, Henne, Hart and Long graduate. You think the defensive attrition would not have been an issue? What about the depth chart on the offensive line. The prevailing wisdom around here seems to be that Mallett was gone regardless and returing to Arkansas.
If all of that is true, we'd still would have had problems. Tweaking implies a few changes. I think regardless of who replaced Lloyd, the new coach would have had quite a bit of work to do.
I think Nebraska is a good team to compare ourselves to. They're considered a traditional power. A legendary, long time head coach. Generally thought of as a top program in the country. Brand name recognition. Usually Top 20 in recruiting. etc etc.
Nebrask replaces Tom Osborne with Frank Solich while Gary Moeller follows Bo. Both are devoted assistants who are considered good coaches but neither makes it for a long time. Solich is replaced by Bill Callahan and Moeller is replaced by Carr. Callahan can't reclaim the glory that is Nebraska while Lloyd shares a national title with (ironically) Nebraska (grrrrrrr). Lloyd retires and Michigan goes out of the family to find RR while Nebraska goes back and gets former D-Coordinator Bo Pelini (interesting that they went with a defensive minded coach while we go with an offensive minded guy)
Here are some numbers on Nebraska over the last 8 years
2010 HC= Bo Pelini DC=Carl Pelini OC=Shawn Watson
- defense gives up 17.75ppg / 310ypg (up from last year, but still less than 3TD/game)
2009 Pelini - Pelini - Watson (10-4 record)
- D yields 11.2ppg and 284ypg (a stunning 18points/80yards BETTER than 08)
2008 Pelini - Pelini - Watson (9-4 record)
- D yields 29.2ppg / 361ypg (8points/110yards per game BETTER than 07)
2007 HC=Bill Calahan DC=Kevin Cosgrove OC=Shawn Watson (5-7 record)
- D yields 37.9ppg / 476ypg
2006 Callahan - Cosgrove - ? (Watson was TE coach) (9-4 record)
- D yields 18.4ppg343ypg
2005 Callahan-Cosgrove-OC=Jay Norvell (8-4 record)
- D yields 20.4ppg/326ypg
2004 Callahan-Cosgrove-Norvell ( 5-6 record)
- D yields 27.1ppg/371ypg
2003 HC=Frank Solich DC=BO Pelini OC=Barney Cotton (10-3 record)
- D yields 15.4ppg/307ypg
Some things I think that are interesting:
Shawn Watson seems to be the only holdover coach from the Callahan regime and he happens to be the offensive coordinator. It seems Pelini wanted to maintain some continuity in the program while he worked at overhauling the defense. Meanwhile, Michigan has one holdover, the effervescent Fred Jackson.
Pelini restructures the defense and makes then considerably better than when he took over while our defense gets alarming much much worse.
The old adage that defense wins championships isn't just some cliche, it's the truth.
Keep RR and the offensive group, but get rid of this pile of shit defensive staff.
i can't get over how quickly he turned around that bad defense.
Bo Pelini came into a VERY similar situation at Nebraska. Big Red was a perennial powerhouse program that "went another way" with Callahan. BC completely tore apart Nebraska's program and its traditions only to fail spectacularly. Pelini, who had been the DC at Nebraska at one point, came back and IMMEDIATELY restored Big Red to its traditions and winning ways.
It can happen.
Based on what I have just pointed out the obvious solution would be to hire....Ron English.
(Damn, too lazy to read any thing but the first page before formulating my response and the poster right above me gave a much more thorough answer)
Please, for the love of God, STOP SUGGESTING RON ENGLISH!
Uhhh...are you guys really that obtuse (What did you call me)?
I can't believe that neither of you could figure out that was a tongue-in-cheek statement!
sarcasm detction FAIL!
Nebraska does have access to juco and other players that Michigan would never touch. That certainly helped to turn around their defense in a hurry. But you're right that the overwhelming proportion of the credit should go to good coaching from Pelini and his staff.
Just took a SDSU team that was 2-10 two years ago under Chuck Long and was 4-8 his first year but now has them bow eligible at 6-2. Not to mention a quality win over a ranked Air Force team (at the time).
I'll say it one more time: Brady Hoke is Lloyd Lite. I'll eat my keyboard if he ever succeeds at a high Division One job. (SDSU is not one of those jobs.)
Lloyd Lite sounds pretty good right now. But in reality we'll see what he's all about when SDSU comes to the big house next year.
I remember when Perot was running for President, during a debate someone asked him if he felt like he knew how to fix all of the problems with this country. His reply was something to the effect of, No but I know how to hire people that do. RR knows how to build an offense and I don't think there is any arguement about that but as long as he has been in AA the defense has been the biggest problem. In 08 it was suppsosed to be the D that held us together while the O developed. The D was as bad as the O. Last year the O was supposed to hold it together as the D improved. The O started out OK but then regressed as the year went on. This year the O was supposed to keep the D in it. Well I am no rocket scientist but can see a pattern. I am not sure if the problem is the GERG or if it is that ridiculous3-3-5 that RR insists on using but without a D we will never get back to Where Carr had us. All of the talk about the mass exodus not being RRs fault makes me ask this question, (1) "If Carr had stayed would we have had the mass exodus?" (2) 'Why does the mass exodus continue". A good coach can work with what they have to find success.
There are recent examples that I will avoid because this isn't a poltiical blog, but historical examples of presidents who "staffed it out," i.e. gave a lot of control to their staffers, tended to not work out nearly as well as the more hands-on directors. Some of the "staff it out" guys were extremely popular in their time, but on historical examination were considered disastrous.
LBJ got us deep into Vietnam by letting his advisors run foreign policy, since he was a domestic-minded guy and really put most of his mind toward those goals.
Warren Harding "staffed it out" and his team ended up making all sorts of corrupt deals, resulting in a popular but extremely ineffective presidency.
The Antebellum presidents were mostly elected out of caucus, meaning they were chosen because they were weak personalities who would pretty much let the party bosses run the show. This produced three or four of the worst administration in U.S. history, all in a row (depends how much you want to blame Tyler, since back then it wasn't clear how much power an ascending VP should have as president, and Congress ran all over him).
I've studied the English monarchs almost to the degree of Michigan football, and they make an even stronger case for staff-dependent leadership generally being a disaster. To whit:
- Richard II -- Playing favorites with his advisors got his uncles' powerful families so pissed off they got rid of Dicky Duo twice.
- Henry III -- John's son (and Longshanks' papa), let his close advisors do as they may, resulting in a civil war-ish thing, and the Provisions of Oxford (kind of the Magna Carta II and in some ways more important).
- Edward II -- Longshank's son (the effete prince portrayed in Braveheart), let his rumored lovers run things into the ground.
- Charles I -- He had a very high idea of a king's rightful power, but the political battles he fought were largely over the amount of faith he put in his team.
- Richard I -- Was really popular for being a war figure, but he bankrupted England with his wars (and getting kidnapped). He was lucky in having one of his father's advisors basically take complete control of England's bureaucracy and provide leadership, while his mother did all of his diplomatic work in Europe.
There's more, but that's a sampling.
Conversely, the really successful historical leaders had excellent staffs, but were extremely hands-on and multi-faceted:
- Henry II -- Had an All Star cast around him, but the energetic, intellectual, and explosive king was the Bo Schembechler of the Middle Ages.
- Henry I -- Earned nickname "beauclerc" for his control over his bureaucracy, and being the head man over some really big names in his curia regis.
- Abraham Lincoln -- His cabinet members were all well-known, big-time names for his time, but I can't think of a ruler in history who had his hand in more facets of his government. The greatness of Lincoln can be found as much in his minute leadership as the grand, historical stuff.
- George Washington -- His cabinet is a veritable who's who of the age; only GW could have kept Hamilton and Jefferson in the same room without those two coming to blows. Very notably, when Washington started feeling his age late in his 2nd term, he eased off his involvement in his staff's operation, with near-disastrous results.
- Elizabeth I -- A great example since she surrounded herself with the age's most prominent politicians, yet used her own political savvy to keep them constantly in fear and awe of her and her will.
- FDR -- Famously built the "brain trust," but was clearly the biggest brain among them, intimately involved in all aspects of his administration, from execution of the New Deal to military decisions through the war.
I would suggest that history clearly shows that a good staff is very important, but the acuity of the person at the top means a great deal more. The ideal leader, historically, seems to be an intellectual giant who is intimately involved in all facets of his/her administration.