Perfect Storm.
Seeing all the vitriol that continuously being re-hashed here regarding RR's tenure. I submit the following resolution.
Let it be resolved that between the years 2008 and ending in early 2011, the Michigan football program experienced a "perfect storm" of events that ultimately led to the dismissal of the head football coach.
These events could not be foreseen, nor avoided due mostly to the complexity of the factors involved in creating them. Therefore these events cannot be blamed or attributed to any one party, event or situation. To attempt to do so is futile and requires that the attempting party ignore or minimize a variety of factors to make their "case".
Its akin to the Edmond Fitzgerald sinking. Reading literally scores of reports, books and second hand accounts of the tragic event, one can only come to the conclusion that there is no clear explanation that will put the tragedy "to bed" once and for all. Having a morbid curiosity about that particular piece of history has led me to spend a substantial amount of time researching and reviewing it, as well a collecting a substantial diary of information on it, I can say that I know only one thing for sure.
The only way that it could have been avoided for certain is this. The doomed vessel never leaves the harbor to embark on its fateful journey. Once it did so, the events that followed became history.
Lets please do the same for the health of our program and our fanbase. Let the events become history.
February 7th, 2011 at 10:37 AM ^
a bit hypocritical?
You say "let's let (these events) become history" while bringing them up again on the front page of the blog...
February 7th, 2011 at 10:41 AM ^
"Rich and the last 3 years sucked" threads. They're just getting tired of people bringing up the guy who's gone to defend him and blame everyone else. If posts like this stopped, the criticism would too.
February 7th, 2011 at 11:12 AM ^
Pulled the words right out of my mouth
February 7th, 2011 at 1:17 PM ^
I take it M-Wolverine is voting against the resolution?
February 7th, 2011 at 4:51 PM ^
If we stop getting posts like this thread.
February 7th, 2011 at 10:55 AM ^
The problem is that everyone wants the last word. It's just like trying to resolve an argument with your wife. At some point, everybody just has to drop it and get on.
February 7th, 2011 at 11:05 AM ^
They're worried more about being right than the health of the marriage. Thing is, the argument is over. Rich was fired, for failing. Time to get behind the program, at least to the point Hoke shows he can't handle it. If he has a losing record in the Big Ten in year 3, you can bet he'll get run out of town too. Even Bo thought 3 straight years of losing (particularly to OSU), and he'd even be in trouble. Hope Hoke wins because it means Michigan wins. But if he doesn't, he'll be doing analysis on CBS Sports Signing Day too.
February 7th, 2011 at 11:14 AM ^
Continuing with your "fight with your wife" metaphor, to heal the wounds of this argument we should just get everyone together, buy a bottle of riesling, get tipsy, and have angry sex on the couch. Then everyone will forget what the he'll we were arguing about anyway.
February 7th, 2011 at 11:53 AM ^
February 7th, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^
just the husbands?? please not just the husbands...
February 7th, 2011 at 1:20 PM ^
No I don't!
February 7th, 2011 at 10:39 AM ^
I think you are hypocritical by criticizing a post for bringing up old history, thereby also mentioning the old history. AHHHHH I did it too!!! Will this vicious cycle never end?
February 7th, 2011 at 10:40 AM ^
Let the history be just that... history. Michigan football is a program that is bigger than all of it's moving parts, and fans should respect it as such. We had a head coach name RichRod who is no more. Now we've got Hoke. Let's give him a chance to make things happen and leave the past behind us.
Go Blue!
February 7th, 2011 at 10:43 AM ^
So if I'm reading between the lines correctly, you are advocating Gordon Lightfoot write a song about RR's tenure?
<br>
<br>I couldn't agree more.
February 7th, 2011 at 12:24 PM ^
The Wreck of the J.B. Fitzgerald?
February 7th, 2011 at 10:49 AM ^
Let it be known that Michigan's lack of success over OSU in the 2000s was a result of the sweatervest selling his soul to the devil over a round of Bartles & James.
February 7th, 2011 at 10:52 AM ^
and really wished he had been given another year.
But I do blame him for many of the failures on defense and special teams. What happened with field goals this last year was appalling. And more balance in recruiting would have helped.
I will not feel all that good about the coaching change until we compete at the highest level. I fear that our offense will not do what is needed to really compete for the NC.
As to the OP, I do think there were so many issues, from depth on hand when RR arrived, to the buyout at WVa, to the media, to Michigan Culture, to the change in AD, that I think RR never had a real chance to succeed.
While I'm sad about that, it was time to move on.
February 7th, 2011 at 10:59 AM ^
We win another National Championship? Hope for your sake it's not another 50 year drought. There was some fun football played between '49 and '97.
<br>
<br>And if the past NC games are any indication, I'd worry more about playing NC level defense than any level of offense. Because the former seems a lot more common denominator than the latter.
February 7th, 2011 at 12:10 PM ^
I don't know how Hoke will turn out. I am confident of the defense, especially with Mattison as the DC. And Hoke will back Mattison and put priority there.
Here's what I don't know how to predict. I believe that with the coaching change, we will get back to 8 - 10 wins a year, competing for the Big 10 title regularly, at least in our division. But to compete at the highest level, I think you need a pretty good offense as well. If our defense is lights out, but the offense doesn't really shine, we will get back to top 25 status, but won't regularly be at the top.
Let me use an analogy of tOSU/TSIO. They have been far better than Michigan. They have done a great job of winning the Big 10, and have generally done well in bowl games. However, I think they would have been pantsed by Auburn, Alabama, and Oregon this year. Now, winning all but one or two games, finishing in the top 10, that's not bad. But it isn't being competitive at the highest level.
Should we be happy with that? I don't know. I don't read Terry Foster, but IIRC, he had some column about Michigan competing nationally or regionally. I'm not convinced we are going to compete nationally. We might, we might not. All I'm saying is that right now, I am in more of a "wait and see" position.
February 7th, 2011 at 4:55 PM ^
Last year, and All-Offense Arkansas this year, I'm not sure that level is that far off. Alabama seemed to do fine with an old school offense; and the high powered offenses of Auburn and Oregon were slowed greatly by their pretty good to average defenses.
February 7th, 2011 at 11:07 AM ^
"I fear that our offense will not do what is needed to really compete for the NC"
Our offense under RR didn't do what was needed to really compete against a single decent - forget good - B10 team.
February 7th, 2011 at 11:24 AM ^
to exagerate the truth to emphasize your personal feelings.
February 7th, 2011 at 11:31 AM ^
Well, that added a lot. If you would like to discuss, rather than just calling my post "sparty", can you tell me what was exaggerated about my post or what personal feeling I am trying to emphasize?
The only point of my post is that our offense really wasn't able to compete with the decent to good defenses that we faced. How did I overemphasize this, and more importantly, do you really disagree with this point?
February 7th, 2011 at 11:40 AM ^
Our offense under RR didn't do what was needed to really compete against a single decent - forget good - B10 team
This is an exageration. You either did not pay attention to every game over the past couple of years or you choose to ignore those that Michigan was competitive in to emphasize your point.
For one.... Iowa 2009. I was at that game in Iowa City. Michigan could have, and possibly should have, won.
February 7th, 2011 at 11:56 AM ^
I guess I wasn't clear - when I was talking about our offense's inability to really compete against quality B10 teams, I meant this past year, not prior.
But, the fact that you had to go back to 2009 - to a game we lost to a decent, but far from great team - really highlights the strength of the point that was I was trying to make.
February 7th, 2011 at 12:05 PM ^
- You were crystal clear. You said "offense under RR" which certain covers his three years at Michigan.
- 2009 was only two seasons ago and as far as Iowa not being good, they were an OT game against OSU away from being Big 10 Champs. Watch football much?
- I could have argued that Michigan's offense moved the ball well against MSU and Iowa this past season, but I choose to point out the most glaring hole in the "point you were trying to make."
February 7th, 2011 at 12:12 PM ^
I don't get the personal attacks - calling me "sparty" or saying that I don't watch football - just because I disagree with you. Not necessary, if the goal is to have an intelligent discussion.
As to your points:
I was talking about this season. As I already said. This season, our offense was downright terrible against good teams. You mention the MSU and Iowa games because we "moved the ball well." Well, when they start awarding wins and losses for "moving the ball well, let me know, and I will reconsider my opinion. The goal of an offense in football, I believe, is to score points. Ours did not against Iowa or MSU for much of the game. I will ask you a question, and I would be curious as to your serious answer: Do you believe that this past year, our offense performed well against the decent and good B10 teams, and if yes, please explain by which metric.
Also, you mention a single game against Iowa - a decent, but still not great team that couldn't win the B10 in a very weak 2009 conference - in which we LOST as evidence that our offense played well against decent competition. (also note that we lost the MSU and Iowa games that you referenced in 2010).
How did we do against 2009 OSU? MSU? Or, more recently, how did we do against 2010 Wisco, Iowa, MSU, Iowa, PSU or MSU (Gator)?
February 7th, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^
February 7th, 2011 at 2:20 PM ^
1. I didn't include 2009 MSU initially. Only in response to his specific point about 2009.
2. The reason that I didn't include UConn or ND is because I specifically said "decent B10 team." I assume that you know that UConn and ND are not in the B10. Also, I should point out that both of these teams are pretty crappy on D and were even mor crappy in the beginning of the season.
3. Illinois - do you really believe that they are a decent B10 defense? If so, then your standards are lower than mine.
Look, there is room for disagreement, but a serious question that I would like for you to answer: Do you think that our offense performed well against decent B10 competition in 2010? If so, by what metric?
February 7th, 2011 at 2:54 PM ^
finished the season allowing 20 points a game and 22 points a game respectively. That is about the same as Wisconson allowed. Their defenses weren't great by any stretch, but they weren't horrible or crappy either.
February 7th, 2011 at 3:15 PM ^
February 7th, 2011 at 4:08 PM ^
First, I have not changed my argument. From my first post up the chain until now, I simply said that our offense did not perform well against every decent B10 team that we faced. I never waivered in this statement.
If you read the chain, you will see that my mention of ND and UConn was responding to another poster who raised those teams.
I will re-ask the same question that I have asked others:
Do you believe that our offense performed well against the better B10 defenses that we faced? If yes, by what metric?
I would be interested in your asnwer.
February 7th, 2011 at 5:01 PM ^
February 7th, 2011 at 5:17 PM ^
"you wrote our offense didn't play well against a single decent B10 team? Now you are saying every decent B10 teams. That would be the definition of changing your argument."
Wow. grasping at straws.
Look, we are not going to agree on this. I love our team, but I think that our offense didn't perform as well as some on this board (obviously, including you) believe when we faced the better B10 defenses. By contrast, you believe that our offense was effective against these defenses.
We will not agree, but that is fine, we don't have to. I assume that we both come at this issue from the same place - a love of the team, and a desire to see us return to football prominance.
February 7th, 2011 at 7:29 PM ^
So let me get this straight. You claim that the offense didn't play well against a single decent B10 team. I point out 4 decent to very good teams that the offense did well against. You then change your arguement and say that they didn't play well against all decent teams in the B10. Then I am grasping at straws when I point out that you were wrong?
Also, I don't care if we don't agree, the only problem is that you haven't actually backed up your arguement with anything. That is the difference between the two arguments...mine is backed up by statistics and numbers, yours is backed up by your feelings that they didn't score enough points to win the game. You have consistently confused the offense doing well with us winning the game. These two are not anywhere near the same and if you think the offense is what lost us the Iowa, Wisconsin, or Penn State game then I don't think you know very much about football. Either that or you do but you realized you used a tired meme (the offense didn't do well against good competition) and then tried to defend it with your feelings. That would be like me saying "our defense played pretty well this year and I am going to point to one game against UConn to prove my point." The only problem with this is that just taking one game completely disregards any other data other than what makes your point the strongest.
Also, I am still waiting to hear how you think Illinios, who had a better defense than 2/3 of all college football teams, has a below average defense. Want to tell me, or do you want to keep fighting the good fight of feelings and non-truths?
February 7th, 2011 at 7:52 PM ^
For god's sake I can't understand why you keep arguing about this. It doesn't matter at all unless we could beat those "decent teams," and we didn't. The only reason anyone ever brings up the "We didn't score against good opponents" argument is because of people trying to blame all of the failures of the past 3 years on things other than the guy most accountable for it all, the head coach.
FWIW, the offensive production against teams with decent to good defenses dropped off like crazy. We played 5 ranked teams, and scored an average of 18.8 points against them. That is not enough to beat most ranked teams, especially with the D that we had.
February 7th, 2011 at 10:18 PM ^
I'm arguing because I can't figure out your fucking point. First you say the offense didn't play well against a single decent B10 team. Then you say the offense didn't play well against every decent B10 team. Then you say the offense only played well against teams when they were down by a bunch of points. Then you say it doesn't matter how the offense plays becasue it wasn't enough to beat decent teams. Pick a fucking point and argue it. Not only are you wrong, but you still don't know what the fuck you are talking about. I still can't believe your best point is that our offense played worse against ranked opponents....as if this is unique to just our offense. What you fail to mention is that all of those ranked opponents had really fucking good defenses. The worst is Michigan State with the 39th best defense (which dropped about 10 spots after the ass kicking they received by Alabama). The other ranked opponents we played had these defensive ranks: #5, #7, #21, #25. So saying our offense didn't play as well against them as it did against Bowling Green and Indiana is not a very good point. You still haven't addressed Illinois I might point out. Do you still think they have a crappy defense or have the stats showed you that you don't really know what you are talking about? Am I wasting my time asking or will you not ignore my question this time?
February 8th, 2011 at 4:44 PM ^
I suppose the main point is that the offense was not the elite offense you and others make it out to be.
Also, this argument is a waste of time, and this is the last time I will post anything relating to it. Hoke is our guy now, and this is no longer relevant. I hope we can see eye to eye from here on out.
February 7th, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^
2010:
Wisco:
28 points in just the second half despite being shut out the first half. Wisconsin did not change its defensive scheme. Balls-out, heroic adjustments.
Iowa:
Came within a single score in the 4th quarter despite trailing 28-7 at the half. Defense failed to make several crucial 3rd-down stops. Iowa is not as aggressive as Wisconsin, but did not alter defensive scheme, either. 550 yards and 28 points, mostly with Tate.
MSU:
380 yards, would have been at least 14 more points if not for passes thrown behind receivers in the endzone.
PSU:
31 points, no turnovers from Denard. Defense couldn't do shit against Freshman McFavre.
Gator Bowl:
Atrocious, but I wouldn't be surprised if RR was counting on Tate to be an available backup. Game plan probably involved a bunch of QB runs that were scrapped because Denard had no backup and injury couldn't be afforded.
February 7th, 2011 at 2:28 PM ^
One thing that you fail to mention is that in Wisco, PSU and Iowa, almost all of the production game when the game was pretty much out of contention.
Specific responses:
Wisco - you are correct that they didn't change their defensive formations. And, we came back. But, since you accused me of not watching the game, I would assume that you did, as well. Look back at some of the highlights, if you have 10-15 minutes. Can you honestly tell me that Wisco was playing with the same intensity during the period when we put up those 21 straight points as when they were shutting us down in the first half? Of course, when the game became remotely close, they ramped up the intensity and stopped our offense. So in this game, our offense only scored when the game was out of contention (or damn close).
Iowa - as you note, we didn't start scoring until we were down 28-7.
MSU - "380 yards" - and when they give our wins and losses by yards, I will concede that you win this argument. For now, though, they don't. They decide games by points. And, while we would have had "14 more points" if not for those passes thrown behind the receivers. That is a part of football. The Steelers would have shiny SuperBowl rings if not for those pesky Big Ben picks.
PSU - "31 points, no turnovers from Denard" - you fail to mention that most of those points were, as with the other games, when the game was pretty much wrapped up.
Gator Bowl: "Atrocious, but I wouldn't be surprised if RR was counting on Tate to be an available backup. Game plan probably involved a bunch of QB runs that were scrapped because Denard had no backup and injury couldn't be afforded." Seriously? Excuses, much?
February 7th, 2011 at 3:58 PM ^
Look at the following box scores and tell us again how those games were wrapped up before Michigan started scoring. The offense wasn't the unit that let us down most of the season.
Iowa
| Time | Team | Scoring Type | Description | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13:13 |
 MICH |
TD |
Stephen Hopkins rushed up the middle for 2 yard gain (Seth Broekhuizen made PAT) |
28 - 14 |
| 11:41 |
 IOWA |
TD |
Ricky Stanzi passed to Derrell Johnson-Koulianos to the left for 19 yard gain (Michael Meyer made PAT) |
35 - 14 |
| 10:34 |
MICH |
TD |
Tate Forcier passed to Junior Hemingway to the left for 45 yard gain (Seth Broekhuizen made PAT) |
35 - 21 |
| 7:00 |
MICH |
TD |
Tate Forcier rushed to the left for 3 yard gain (Seth Broekhuizen made PAT) |
35 - 28 |
| 2:57 |
IOWA |
FG |
Michael Meyer kicked a 30-yard field goal |
38 - 28 |
Penn State
| Time | Team | Scoring Type | Description | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9:34 |
MICH |
TD |
Denard Robinson rushed up the middle for 4 yard gain (Seth Broekhuizen made PAT) |
31 - 38 |
| 5:48 |
 PSU |
FG |
Collin Wagner kicked a 42-yard field goal |
31 - 41 |
Edit: Removed first three quarters due to clutter.
February 7th, 2011 at 4:02 PM ^
February 7th, 2011 at 4:10 PM ^
I do not think that being down by 7 against Iowa is "out of the game." However, think about what you are saying - when we were down by 7, we didn't score! We scored when we were down by 21 to get to down by 7. At that point, and when the game was again close, we did NOT score.
So using your example - Iowa - makes my point - we can't score until we are down by 21. Then, when we get within 7, we do not score, again. We only scored when down big. Ditto Wisco. Ditto MSU, Ditto PSU. I would say OSU or Gator bowl, but in those games, we just didn't score at all.
February 7th, 2011 at 4:28 PM ^
Are you implying that the opponents let Michigan catch up until it was back within one score and that the Michigan offense had really nothing to do with closing the scoring gap?
Do you have any sound reasoning to back up this statement? Did the teams in questions put in their defensive reserves? Did they drop to a "quarter" package? Enlighten us.
February 7th, 2011 at 4:43 PM ^
Of course I am not implying that. However, there is obviously an intensity difference between playing when the game is on the line and when you are up by 20+ points. That's all. Obviously, our offense had a lot to do with getting back in the game, but the common theme amongst ALL of our games against tougher B10 competition, is that when the game was close, our offense couldn't put up points.
By the way, I am still curious for the answer to the question that I asked you up thread:
Do you believe that this past year, our offense performed well against the decent and good B10 teams, and if yes, please explain by which metric.
February 7th, 2011 at 5:01 PM ^
The metrics are defined through out this thread.
Aside from the three best teams we faced, who were all top 15 caliber teams (OSU, Wisconsin, and Miss State), our offense performed at a level that would have won us games with an average defensive performance.
Obvious intensity difference? The only thing obvious is the box score and stat sheet. Your interpretation of the box score is nothing more than opinion based rhetoric. Suggesting that teams played with a different intensity in the third quarter of a game where the outcome was obviously still in question is just silly, especially when taking into acount that teams like Iowa, Wisconsin, and Penn State had very little success against Michigan in our life time. They aren't going to relax on an opportunity to give a little back.
February 7th, 2011 at 5:16 PM ^
February 7th, 2011 at 12:47 PM ^
stats of those teams you listed in terms of yards and points allowed, and average the yards and points UM scored against them in comparison, UM still averaged more points and yards against those teams than their averages. In the case of Wisconson, Iowa, and PSU those averages were exceeded by a decent margin. Hence the reason, why your played terrible against decent defenses statement is an exageration.
February 7th, 2011 at 2:31 PM ^
at the number of points per possession (there was a Diary on this a while ago, if I recall), and our numbers are not quite as impressive.
also, as I mentioned in response to another poster, how many of those points were when the game was out of contention?
Serious question: Were you happy with our offense's performance against the better B10 competition? If so, why?