Rod's in-game coaching
Let me preface this: I'm glad Rich Rodriguez is our coach and I think he's a brilliant offensive mind. I hope he's around for a long time.
BUT, I have concerns about his in-game coaching. There were several times yesterday when I was frustrated/baffled with our playcalling, most notably on the 3rd and 1 call with about five minutes left when V. Smith got wrapped up in the backfield. Apart from a few big gashers, our RBs had trouble running up the middle all day, Smith hadn't been able to shake loose on a single run, and we desperately needed a few first downs to FINALLY put the game away. A Denard sneak is almost 99 percent guaranteed to get us 1 yard. Instead we hand it off to our smallest back who's still clearly not the player he was a year ago before his knee injury. If we were going to pound it, I would have at least liked to see a fullback and tight ends in there to prevent what happened from happening, i.e. a DE coming completely unblocked and blowing up the play.
Another frustrating moment that comes to mind for me was the decision not to call a timeout at the end of the 2nd quarter against UConn, when they had the ball at our 1 or 2 yard line and our defense was obviously disoriented. We had 3 timeouts, and there were about 15 seconds left in the half. Clearly the clock was not going to run out on UConn, and I was screaming at my TV for Rich to call a timeout and get our guys prepared for a stand. Instead we watched UConn easily punch it in, gaining momentum headed into the half.
I feel like there have been numerous moments like these during the past three years.
So my question to fellow M fans: What do you thing of Rich's in-game coaching, solid or suspect? Like me, have you been frustrated by sporadic what-the-hell-are-we-doing moments? Do you believe that when we're involved in a very tight game, Rich's coaching will be the difference-making factor for or against us?
Hope I don't get crucified for this, just curious if you're seeing the same things I'm seeing.
September 19th, 2010 at 11:10 AM ^
That screen to Stonum with under 2 min left in the first half was a money call. Not a difficult play by any means, but timed perfectly. We caught UMass un a blitz and Stonum got us 6, one play after they scored on us.
September 19th, 2010 at 11:10 AM ^
He's made 2 mistakes in 3 games.
<br>
<br>That is unacceptable! He's clearly a terrible coach and should be fired now!
<br>
<br>In case you couldn't tell I was being sarcastic!
September 19th, 2010 at 11:48 AM ^
I posbang any post with an effective use of unacceptable. Well played.
September 19th, 2010 at 11:57 AM ^
Imagine we were watching the game together at bar in Ann Arbor and I said, "Man, Rich Rod makes some weird calls. What was he thinking there?" I don't think you'd jump all over me. This is a discussion board, just wanted to get fans' take on his in-game coaching. I've seen a lot more than two instances in three games, which I said explicitly in my post. These were just the two I cited. Probably the most glaring issue that I didn't mention is that we came in totally flat and almost got beat by an inferior team, and I think it's our coach's job to make sure that doesn't happen.
There has to be a place on this site for some thoughtful criticism, come on now.
September 19th, 2010 at 1:43 PM ^
Doesn't mean that he's a bad in game coach.
<br>
<br>Every coach will make a decision that people don't like sometimes especially when it doesn't work.
<br>
<br>This topic is stupid.
September 19th, 2010 at 1:47 PM ^
Can you stop being a jackass for once and allow intelligent, mature people to have a discussion? There is a difference between critiquing and derogating. Stop confusing them. For example, you did the latter, the OP was trying to do the former.
September 19th, 2010 at 1:49 PM ^
Cosign.
September 19th, 2010 at 2:03 PM ^
I'm sure many people do not understand the emotion that gets conveyed by their words on a message board, versus their delivery of the same statement in a bar with their facial expressions completely visible.
But to start off a post with "I'm concerned about Coach Rod's in game decisions" is a very broad statement, essentially condemning/criticizing the majority of the decisions that were made throughout the entire game.
A more accurate statement that could have lead to more thoughtful discussion would have been a topic sentence like, "here are the plays where I think Coach Rod really screwed up"
Certainly Bouje doesn't help things by essentially also commenting without much information, thus inevitably the back and forth quickly turns into, "you're an idiot" "oh yeah, you're a jerk"
But most of this is the responsibility of the OP (much like all responsibility ends up on the Head Coach) in crafting a statement or question in a clear and specific way.
Now, what I don't really understand is why anyone who has experience with this blog would begin critiquing specific plays until Brian completes the UFR's? For me that is the most informed point at which to begin a discussion. And whether or not you agree with Brian's system of analysis, at least it is a published system, and thus you can either critique his analysis systematically, or from a judgement standpoint within the system.
And maybe, just maybe we can eliminate a few posts that start off with a tone of, "oh my god the sky is falling" and are quickly followed with, "because Coach called a play that failed because someone missed their assignment, but I still think it's a dumb call causes there happened to be other plays where people didn't miss their assignment and Denard gained yardage, thus I'm concerned about any plays Coach calls where he's not relying on Denard and his magic Dilithium powers.
Certainly Bouje has a limited capability or range of possible responses, and he could have said something different than this is a stupid post.
But on looking at the entire post, I'm not sure why the OP even called this play, because from my opinion it could only have ended up with the result that we saw.
I'm pretty concerned about the Posting on this site directly after game day.
September 19th, 2010 at 2:21 PM ^
I'm somewhat confused by your rarefied practicing-what-you-preach approach. You might want to tone down the rationality.
Seriously, agree on all points - well-stated, well-thought-out.
September 19th, 2010 at 2:47 PM ^
No it's not a stupid topic at all. It's also WAY more than one call. Other examples of questionable in game coaching: 2009- the triple option Rich ran against Purdue last year was quite suspect. We were up two TDS and we had Tate run a triple option that was fumbled. Purdue recovered and scored a TD and essentially.. that was the game. The fake punt versus Michigan State inside our own 20 yd line. Ended up being the difference in that game. Even the way our goal line situation vs. Illinois was mishandled by the offensive staff. Mishandling of each situation and taking uncalculated and unnecessary risks. That's not great coaching.
Now I've supported Rich and always maintained the his offense would be dynamic once we had the QB situation handled. After we went 3-9 and some folks got on the fire "dick rod" kick I maintained that patience is a virtue. After last season I still approached 2010 with cautious optimism so don't take me for a Rich Rod hater. Rich has had success evry else and this was just one game. However, it was quite reminiscent of 2009's defense and 2008's special teams in a game that shouldn't have been that close.
UMass should've been handled easy and these types of performances had better be an aberration or else we could be in for a longer more difficult season than we'd imagined. Can we score on teams? F*ck yeah and that is awesome! But..can our defense get off the damn field against quality opponents that like to control the clock? I hope we can but that was bad yesterday..It looked almost identical to 2009 Michigan and that tells me a lot of this is scheme/coaching (not all Rich Rod's fault). Gerg got an F yesterday IMO..hopefully he can adjust..but it isn't wrong to come here and express concerns about our team. It's an honest question and valid point.
September 19th, 2010 at 1:53 PM ^
While I don't disgree with your sentiment that the most glaring issue is that he allowed this team to come out flat yesterday, I don't think that supports your argument that he's a poor in game coach. I don't think the play call you mentioned above was all that bad of a call given the circumstance, not great, but certainly not terrible. I also don't think the lack of a timeout call against Uconn falls squarely on his shoulders. I guess I'm just going to have to disagree unless you come up with a little more to support your claims.
September 19th, 2010 at 1:48 PM ^
I have new seats this year, and I now sit right by the "Unacceptable" guy. If you've ever heard a single, shrill voice in the east stands screaming "UN-AC-CEPT-A-BLE!" every time the opponent scores, this is the guy. To the credit of my section, no one ever chimed in or seemed to agree with him. I didn't say anything to him, but just gave him a "WTF are you doing?" look after the last time. He looked a little sheepish.
September 19th, 2010 at 11:11 AM ^
Just be happy your coach is not Brian Kelly - imagine how his Sunday is going
September 19th, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^
He made some calls I was just shaking my head at. I mean, like yesterday, I'm ok with going for it on 4th and 1, but emptying the backfield? I mean, they had the run working all night, at least use it as a decoy. Instead you have Crist looking as fast as the stay puff marshmallow man trying to juke out his own linemen to run for a first down. What the hell was that?
September 19th, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^
He definitely seems to have taken the Charlie Weis online course for 4th down playcalling.
September 19th, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^
Agreed, good decision, awful play call.
I also don't understand why he then didn't decide to go for it with 2:30 left and in OT. If you're going to be a guy that plays the odds and goes for the win, do it ALL THE TIME. It's almost like he wants to have Les Miles' Balls (or stupidity...) but falls into the NFL mindset of not wanting to be blamed if it fails and costs him.
September 19th, 2010 at 5:05 PM ^
If it was the right call to go on 4th down the first time (as I thought it was), then it was the right call the second and third times too.
September 19th, 2010 at 11:49 AM ^
September 19th, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^
Agree with this point. But I have been very impressed with Crist thus far this season. Recall how much of a question mark he was going in.
September 19th, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^
...I immediately started rooting for State. That would've been perfect. State would've been gift wrapped a victory which they couldn't take all the credit for. And ND would've had their annointed savior ready for the firing squad.
Maybe that's sweet justice for him playing his QB last week with concussion symptoms.
September 19th, 2010 at 1:52 PM ^
My big knock on Kelly is that - like Weis - he doesn't seem to understand the importance of running the ball. In pressure situations, he seems to default to passing on every down. He has two excellent backs in Allen and Wood but forgets to use them in the fourth quarter. This helped both us and MSU considerably.
September 19th, 2010 at 11:12 AM ^
Yeah, I was definitely confused with the choice to go with Vincent Smith on that 3rd down. Give it to Hopkins and let him plow forward.
September 19th, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^
Watch the replay. V. Smith had the first and thensome... except for a blizting OLB that went unblocked. That was the problem.
September 19th, 2010 at 11:43 AM ^
It didn't matter who the RB was on that play - the run blitzer was gonna take him out.
Now that might be a coaching error or just a good RPS call by UMass
September 19th, 2010 at 1:49 PM ^
But there was another option of the higher percentage play, even if the defense is expecting it - letting the qb keep it.
September 19th, 2010 at 1:54 PM ^
Yeah, but ideally we'd like to develop alternatives to that. For one thing, it can get predictable, and also, that's the kind of play - running into a stacked line - where you see QBs get injured a lot.
September 19th, 2010 at 11:17 AM ^
I've wondered about that before, and did again at the game yesterday. Then, I was watching the other games last night and thinking the same thing about other coaches' decisions (Meyer, Kelly, Ferentz etc.) Now I think, maybe I just don't know whats going on in the game and can't make the sort of judgements. Also, I screw up way more than once a week, so I'll give RR the benefit of the doubt.
Edit: for clarity
September 19th, 2010 at 11:13 AM ^
The guys had an off day. The stadium was deflated from the opening kick. It was a typical lose-lose cupcake game. If those plays would have "worked" you would be compaining about something else. A win is a win.
September 19th, 2010 at 11:14 AM ^
If this bothers you, you obviously don't remember the Carr years very well. I can't even count how many times I cringed on a 3rd and 15 dive, or his favorite go-to play, the screenless screen.
September 19th, 2010 at 11:20 AM ^
Pretty sure Carr always punted on 3rd down...
September 19th, 2010 at 12:05 PM ^
September 19th, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^
My favorite was the sweep to the short side of the field. I don't know if that set up the always money play action bootleg to the TE, but I was always "flummoxed" when that sweep was run.
September 19th, 2010 at 11:58 AM ^
was so, so money. Rode that all the way to the MNC in 97.
Good times.
September 19th, 2010 at 1:57 PM ^
And who can forget the timeless old "Pull both starting WRs from the game and call an inside running play." Mike DeBord, that wily character.
September 19th, 2010 at 11:14 AM ^
I have been fine with RichRod's in game coaching.
In reference to your examples. Michigan ran for 284 yards. I don't think you can criticize the coach for giving the ball to his TB on 3rd and 1. As I recall, Ronbinson was stopped in a QB sneak just last week so that's hardly full proof. Every single play cannot be Denard keeper.
In the UConn game, they had no time outs. So, Michigan did not want to give them a free one. UConn did not 'punch it in easily.' They ran on 3rd down, which made a FG no longer possible, and got stopped. They had 2 plays called and quickly ran another and got in. You can argue that Michigan should have called a TO after the 3rd down play, and I would be fine with that, but UConn was scrambling also. I was surprised they got a play off w/o some kind of penalty.
September 19th, 2010 at 11:17 AM ^
I think your specific examples and concerns are justified. I will say though that there are a lot of in-game decisions that need to be made by the head coach and no head coach bats 1000 on those decisions. I think in a game like yesterday, where there is some obvious disappointment and concern by the team's performance, the "mistakes" or decisions that don't work out are amplified. Whereas against ND, people were pointing to specific examples of RR out-coaching Kelly in-game. To answer your question I trust his in-game decisions making, but I know it won't always be perfect. Also, sometimes the "right" call, doesn't actually have a positive outcome for whatever reason. I will say that sometimes I think RR has too much confidence in his players' ability to execute a play in a critical situation. Its hard to fault him for that. If I recall from reading Bo's lasting lessons, he discusses a few times where he made the wrong in-game call and still regrets it. Coaches, even the best, make mistakes. Finally, on an unrelated note, I think its hilarious that you felt the need to preface your post with:
Let me preface this: I'm glad Rich Rodriguez is our coach and I think he's a brilliant offensive mind. I hope he's around for a long time.As if the "support RR and never criticize him or die" crowd would read it and be like "oh OK, hes one of us, I'll read this opinion." You have legit concerns and going back and analyzing plays and decisions is possibly 2nd guessing, but I like the discussion on this blog which is why I frequent it so often. Good post, and I haven't seen this specific topic discussed too much here yet.
September 19th, 2010 at 11:21 AM ^
Most of my what-the-hell-are-we-doing moments are when we're on D, and I'm guessing he has little to do with that in-game.
For that failed 3rd and 1, is it not at least partly Denard's fault not recognizing there was an unblocked, potentially blitzing LB? I have no idea, just wondering.
September 19th, 2010 at 11:30 AM ^
Rich said there were a lot more "called handoffs" to protect Denard a little more, that certainly seemed like one of them.
September 19th, 2010 at 11:37 AM ^
Yeah, I definitely agree with that. But, I didn't mean was it a ZR(-1), but should Denard have called an audible or timeout?
September 19th, 2010 at 11:36 AM ^
I don't think the 3rd down call was at all bad, we had 280? or so on the ground, sending your tailback up the middle on 3rd and one is hardly ever a "bad call". Would you rather have seen Hopkins and his 1 career carry on that play?
I'm also not sure we can blame the TO against Uconn on him, I think that falls more on Gerg or anyone on the field. Obviously he takes some of the blame here, but probably less than Gerg.
We're never going to be 100% happy with our playcalling, hindsights always 20/20. however if what we can come up with is 2 debatably bad calls in 3 games, I'd say lets thank our stars we don't have Brian Kelly captaining this ship.
September 19th, 2010 at 11:55 AM ^
a repeat of the Hopkins mini-RAGE package on a 3rd and 1 with Big Will as the lead blocker. Should we have to do that against UMASS? No. But it would have given us some breathing room for sure.
September 19th, 2010 at 2:15 PM ^
The kid has one career carry for one yard and you want to give him the ball in that situation? What would your feelings be if we did put in that package and Hopkins lost the ball? I'm assuming it would've gone something along the lines of "WTF is a freshman doing with the ball in that situation!?!" The play didn't work, I'll wait for Brian to explain why in the UFR, but for now I'm not going to say that handing the ball to your tailback on 3rd and 1 is ever a "bad coaching decision".
September 19th, 2010 at 4:01 PM ^
I just said I wouldn't have minded the mini-RAGE package. Just like I wouldn't have minded a naked bootleg or any other number of plays designed to picked up short yardage.
If he fumbles, he fumbles. I wouldn't have said anything about having a freshman in that situation since, let's face it, we have freshman all over the team playing meaningful snaps. It is not a new trend for us to have freshman making plays and against ND, the mini-RAGE package blew their D line a couple of yards into the endzone.
September 19th, 2010 at 2:28 PM ^
Bitching about running up the gut on 3rd and 1 amounts to nitpicking. It's predictable, yes, but you expect your line to be able to get a surge there. And you expect that, at worst, you won't lose any yardage, so you can possibly go for it on 4th down. It just happened that one UMass player made a great play.
September 19th, 2010 at 12:05 PM ^
My only qualm with his in game coaching is the yelling. There's a quality to it that's humiliating/shaming and I'm just not a big fan of that kind of motivation. Rather than tell someone how what they just did was stupid, I think you can yell and tell them what they should have done instead. Admittedly, I'm not a coach, but I am parent of a boy who participates in athletics, and I can see the difference in the coaches he's had.
September 19th, 2010 at 12:44 PM ^
They're big boys. They can handle it. If they can't, they are playing the wrong game. I'm guessing you're a mom and have that motherly instinct, and are always defensive of your child, but kids grow up and learn to handle adversity in situations like that. There isn't always time to sit a kid down and have a calm, cool, and collected two-way discussion on the matter in the heat of the moment.
Every ass-chewing I've ever received has invariably led to thicker skin.
September 19th, 2010 at 12:51 PM ^
I am totally responding as a parent, and I differentiate how I yell ("Well, that was the stupidest thing you've ever done!" vs. "Next time, don't leave all your expensive sports equipment in the yard when they're expecting 3 inches of rain!"). I get it.
September 19th, 2010 at 12:36 PM ^
I'm guessing that's a -1 RPS. By then the o-line was moving the d-line backward. A zone-read option would have killed it. As noted above, if you're evaluating RPS, you have to evaluate all of them, not just the one's you remember after the fact as that is not going to be a random sample.
September 19th, 2010 at 12:39 PM ^
I think his in-game coaching has been, by and large, good. Aggressive without being Brian Kelly-ish stupid. Mixing up the receivers. Keeping the opposition on its heels. The problem has been his recruiting, and his ability to keep the recruits. Despite what the apologists say, the attrition has been a real problem. And that, in turn, may well scare off future recruits.
September 19th, 2010 at 12:59 PM ^
In general, I've been critical of RR. One of my most recent gripes has been the lack of downfield plays. If the point of the spread option offense (although the option seems much more essential than the "spread") is to "spread" the field, it only makes sense to spread both horizontally and vertically. Alas, I digress. The second half seemed the first time that RR made an effort to throw downfield (and Denard threw a beautiful pass) and use his running backs. I forgot we had them. I thought they were just little fullbacks. I kid. I kid.
Yes, that 3rd and 1 call was bad. I'm not sure why Smith gets the most touches when he tends to get stuffed repeatedly. I would prefer an offense that isn't so tied into one player, but we've got what we've got. At least it can score (almost at will) and, in the second half, we saw some more traditional football plays in the mix. Our defense, however, let's talk about play calling there....ok, maybe not...that's painful.