I suspect it was an even bigger problem for Shafer. Robinson had been a head coach. He was just playing out the string; his career was behind him. Shafer's career was ahead of him. He had less experience and a lot more at stake.
Rodriguez Hires Magee, Gibson, and Dews
I could not agree more about your observations regarding chain of command. It seems clear that neither of our coordinators had control of their staffs because the position coaches could just bypass the coordinator and go directly to RR. No organization can excel under that structure. No wonder our players did not communicate well on the field! Our coaches could not communicate off the field!
Well, this just confirms that Washington State, and not Arizona, will be my rooting interest in the Pac 10.
I think watching the RR saga come to pass at Arizona is going to be painful, because it's the same dude with the same schtick again. The fanbase is geeked, the cupboard is bare and 'you guys are just going to need to be patient.' The team 'is making progress' but we're not happy with how we're playing right now. Probably grab some diamond in the rough guys from random states, but definitely a couple from Florida. Few pan out, most transfer or drop out.
I'm thinking it'll be like watching a guy getting hit in the nuts, in slow-mo, in an infinite loop with Yanni playing in the background.
I hope he does well, but it feels familiar so far.
I think that there's a good chance, fair or not, that there aren't a lot of currently employed assistant coaches that would be willing to flip over to RR if he wanted them. Especially on defense. Given what a trainwreck his time in Ann Arbor was, both on and off the field, he may not have much choice but to beg his buddies to come work with him. Any non-desperate soul would be wary of becoming a character in the next Three and Out.
Totally disagree. Our linebacker/secondary performance took a special level of coaching ineptitude. Almost any FCS or non AQ coach would jump at the opporunity to coach for Arizona. And let's not forget that with two exceptions all our coaches were coaching non AQ schools last year.
Quite frankly, the people disregarding him as a coordinator are clueless
WVU's YPP rank from 2003 to now
Average of 25th.
Michigan from 2003 to 2007
Average of 27th.
If you take into consideration that WVU recruits at a level that probably puts them at about the same advantage that Michigan has over their conference opponents (possibly less), to say that Casteel "isn't a proven commodity" and might not make a difference is ridiculous.
If Rodriguez's plan is not to bring in Casteel and saddle some other DC with the same guys, then he is probably an idiot who doesn't understand the importance of all phases of football. If he does, then I think he will be quite successful at Arizona.
Greg Mattison's run at Florida 2005-07
1. He'd be 25th over that time.
2. His performances would be an improvement over Michigan's.
3. Mattison is a "God" isn't he? Can you add and divide? In his Florida years, guess where he falls: 30th. Add in Michigan's 39th place finish this year: his defenses have averaged 32nd in the country in yards per play given up.
I like yards per play better because while it isn't advanced, it takes TOP out of the equation. So Casteel, playing with less of an advantage in recruiting than Mattison over their competition has consistently outperformed the guy who everyone is touting as DC of the year. This isn't a knock on Mattison, it's just to show the outrageous bias everyone shows in regards to ANYTHING associated with Rodriguez. Suddenly, because people want Rodriguez to fail so badly, they'll disregard the effect having Casteel would have on his team or disregard him as a coordinator, even though he has proven to be on the level of the guy who saved this year's Michigan defense.
On top of this, if RR's offense is in full flow, 25th best defense in the country is all you need. Probably better. Ask Oregon and Auburn.
(Note: I don't think TOP matters in wins and losses, but it does matter in total yards and points scored)
If he goes to Arizona, all the bashing on this thread is pointless.
to actually post a response, but that would require showing off your incredible lack of intelligence, so I understand why you choose to neg in the shadows.
I NORMALed you, so the FLAMEBAITer can suck go suck an egg.
When my parents told me I would grow up to be normal...this must have been the day they saw.
WVU's opponents run 10-12 more plays a game than Michigan's opponents.
Also, scoring average: Do you know how many of those points came from special teams or defensive touchdowns? Get back to me.
Finally, the reason I used YPP is because it takes out the area of TOP which contributes to total yards and total scoring.
And really, the point wasn't ONE YEAR. It was based over a series of time. So when I show you the numbers from 2007 and Casteel is better than Mattison, is Mattison now a trainwreck coordinator? No they are both consistent on a similar level, with ups and downs based on talent and circumstances such as the offenses used to support them or coaching staffs. But of course you take a defense of Casteel as some sort of shot at Mattison when really I just used Mattison as an example of how delusional some Michigan fans are. That's you.
But hey, go ahead and hate Casteel because he is tied to Rodriguez. That seems productive.
because you just proved the lack of perspective so many Michigan fans have:
So a defense of someone's track record as a DC who is getting trashed on is now "RR fanboy status"? Right. He is now "my guy"? I'm merely pointing out how wrong people are to say he would make no difference at all, when over time, his defenses stack up favorably in comparison to the guy people are hailing as the greatest DC of all time here at Michigan. Like I said, if we use your assessment of one year, then I guess I'll use 2007, where Casteel's defense was better than Mattison's so therefore he must be better always all the time and Mattison must be a trainwreck. Except I wouldn't because my mind doesn't work like a simpleton's mind.
Seems like my assessment is far more accurate.
Turnovers...we can have this argument all day. I guess you need to explain to me how in two years Mattison's Florida teams could average 2.2 takeaways per game, but then in 2007 only average 1.5. I guess he really stressed them more in 2005 and 2006 eh? Or wait, I guess when WVU averaged 2.6 Takeaways in 2007, Casteel was stressing them way more than he was this year, when they only averaged 1.7?? Yeah, you're take on teams forcing turnovers is an argument with no holes. Sounds like its either A. Blind luck on the bounce of the ball or B. depends greatly upon the talent your team holds. But hey, you keep thinking that YPP isn't a good indicator of a strong defense.
By the way: you have no point. The people agreeing with you have no point. You took ONE YEAR and made it your whole argument, when I took a look at a body of work over time. No one has bothered arguing that fact, because, as usual, it would reflect positively on someone tied to Rodriguez.
But like I said, carry on with your blind hatred while I carry on being reasonable and fair. I expect people who agree with someone's ridiculously slanted opinions to neg me. I'm just glad you opened your mouth to prove how right my assessment of those doing the negging was.
Did Mattison's defense produce so many fewer takeaways in 2007 than they did the years before and why did Casteel's defense produce more takeaways in 2007 than they did in 2011? Why do Casteel and Mattison have similar YPP in some years and wildly different YPP in others? Oh you answered that with my own caveat on how certain defenses perform due to factors such as - gasp - talent and experience. That is ALWAYS the biggest factor. Once again, your response makes little sense.
And no, I held my doubts about Hoke to myself. Most of them left after Mattison was hired (hey, look! A guy with a proven track record!). After that, my only concerns were whether they (Borges and Hoke) would try to enforce the wrong style on Denard (happened somewhat, figured it out) and cost us some games we should have won. I'm different from you. I don't trash someone just because I think Rodriguez got a raw deal, while you are here, trying to prove that a good DC isn't a good DC because you hate our ex-HC.
You're right about one thing: We don't know things for certain. But there's a good chance he would have made a difference for a variety of reasons.
I'm sorry you can't handle the fact you've been so blindingly wrong in all your responses but I can't help that.
In fact I gave you credit for being right in saying that we don't know FOR CERTAIN whether someone will succeed at a new job based on their previous line of work.
But, why do coaches/coordinators fail at the college level? You say Weiss failed: He looked pretty good when he had the Brady Quinn teams did he not? Two BCS bowl appearances, 19-6, 1-1 vs. Michigan. Oh right, he had talent. Then it left. Suddenly he is no longer successful. Now you can make a case that he didn't recruit correctly, but when he had talent in 2005 and 2006, he was successful.
Mattison's defense was fantastic at Florida in 2005 and 2006 in both metrics we used. Then in 2007, it wasn't. Why? Because most of his talent left. In 2006, Casteel's defense suffered steep drops in most stats. Then in 2007, it was a top 10 unit. Why did Hoke go 12-2, then 7-6 at Ball State? The examples go on and on.
What people fail to realize about Casteel is this: Bringing him in would have cut many of the problems that Shafer faced off from the beginning. Rodriguez would not have mettled in Casteel's affairs. It is far less likely he would have fired him after one year - I doubt we would have been as bad - and we would have kept stability there, plus not hired GERG.
You saying that he has been "serviceable" or reluctantly conceding he is "above average" is fine. It's at the bare minimum of a compliment, which is more than I would ever expect from someone with such an anti-RR standpoint.
I personally think that coaches can only do so much. I think GERG affected a youthful defense that suffered every bit of injury and attrition imaginable as much as a coach can negatively. I think Mattison did the same in a positive matter with a much more experienced unit and that explains your wide swing. I think that if you look at someone like Casteel, he consistently has an above average defense that occasionally puts in a great year. This is more than enough to win a bunch of games with a Rodriguez offense in full gear.
The point is, if he gets the right players, he will be successful. If he doesn't, he will be like most coaches and suffer the consequences. People look at Team 132 like they are the Bad News Bears. As if they have no talent and the coaches are responsible for every bit of improvement. While they are the reason for SOME, the biggest factor in the success this season is that we have a talented, experienced team...the most in those areas since 2007 and we are much healthier this year. You add the Mattison effect and you get the wild swing we've seen.
I just don't see how you can look at the stats and numbers over a 10 year period at WVU and say its unlikely he would be of any help to Rodriguez. It's not a SURE thing, but it's a probable thing.
You also need experienced players. Football isn't like basketball, its rare that you can just plug in a freshman and he will dominate.
The coaching aspect of it: Oklahoma's YPP this year is 5.1, which has them in a tie for 32nd in the country. So out of 120 teams, they are at the top end of the spectrum in performance. My point would be: that's pretty good. So if you had a better coordinator/coaches, maybe you get to that 15-20 range (that WVU range!).
That fact is, coaches often stay at places for longer periods of time than players are able too. In those tenures, you see wild swings. How can you explain that? How can you explain Mattison's defensive stats dropping significantly in all categories in 2007 when he is clearly a great coordinator? It's talent and experience. The next year, Florida shoots back up the rankings, but Mattison is gone...
Michigan in 2006: Great defense. Came up against equal talent at the end of the year and got beat. There is your coaching difference.
Michigan in 2007: Good against bad teams. Against the spread? 30+ three different times. There's your coaching difference.
This says to me either:
1) RR thinks that what happened in AA was beyond his control. He doesn't see himself at fault at all. He sees himself as a victim. So it's ok to hire these guys because they were successful at WVU and what happened in UM was not their fault.
2) RR just doesn't care that much. He is milking his name and WVU accomplishments for another contract or two. Oh sure, he'll do the work, but he's not going to be crazy about it. Hanging out with his buddies is pretty important too.
I think it's a lot of both. I was a big fan of M hiring RR initially, but when he said at the start of year two, "I was like anyone else, I thought, it's Michigan. Just roll them out there and you'll win your share," I have been RR Hater #1. I wouldn't want someone with that attitude running my 7-11, let alone my school's team.
Taken so out of context its unbelievable.
What was the context that you think I'm missing? I just did a quick google of it and found a Wojo article with that quote. There's a whole paragraph quote along with it. I see nothing there that changes the meaning.
I agree with #1 - that's a very valid assessment and quite possible.
But if you seriously think, with #2, that RR, who worked himself up from a student assistant job 30 years ago and has been in football ever since, got a multimillion dollar job, puts his reputation (which was seriously damaged at Michigan) on the line and moves his family across the country just so he can "hang out with his buddies" and not really "do the work" that's just weird.
All evidence from stories that have been written (see that one in SI this week for just one example) say that he wants to win badly at AZ. You can certainly criticize his coaching choices, offensive philosophy, etc, but I would need hard evidence to say he doesn't really care and he's just "milking it." You don't have any shred of that.
Gibson is a really good recruiter. That trait may be somewhat useful to the program.
but I have no faith in Tony Gibson as a coach. Good thing Pac-12 defenses are already used to giving up 30+ points a game, because these guys will probably fit right in.
The best thing I've took from this topic is the posts from some you unwavering Rich Rod loyalists who are finally seeing the light. John U. Bacon, take notes.
It is the same old Rodriguez-haters who have been complaining all along. And doing the same old fact-twisting and quote-mangling.
The sportstalk radio-fanboyz are talking past the rest of us.
We say, "Rodriguez was treated badly, and unfairly, when he was at Michigan." Three and Out documents that fact rather exhuastively.
The fanboyz respond with, "Rodriguez wasn't a good coach," or worse, "Hoke is tremendous!" We are talking past each other, with arguments that are fundamentally non-responsive to each other. And worse, become proxy arguments for our respective sides. (Proxy arguments in which the sickest Freep-subscribing elements of the Michigan fan base hope for Rodriguez to fail, which would somehow excuse the way Rodriguez was treated here. And those who demanded fairness for Rodriguez thereby feel pressed to root for the new Arizona program or worse, for Brady Hoke to experience the same problems that Rodriguez had.)
I am not going to waste my time arguing with some anonymous fans on the internet who probably don't know any more about football coaching than I do (which is next to nothing) about who is a better coach. My argument was always, "Rodriguez was treated unfairly by my university." I thought I always had the best of that argument, and now there is a book reporting from the inside of the program that largely proves me correct. I don't need anything more. It isn't my job to win games.
If it just ended at "Rodriguez was treated unfairly by my university," I would have no problem with it. I think it's when some people then go on to imply "Rodriguez would have been a stunning success at Michigan if only he were treated better" that many are not convinced. And that's why there will never be an end to this argument: there is no way to prove one way or the other how much different, if any, the outcome would have been if Martin weren't incompetent (at least at some things), and L.C. weren't a big ol' meanie, and the fans and former players were more supportive, and so on.
The best test might very well be RR's performance at Arizona. If in 4-5 years he starts churning out an occasional Big 12 champ and fairly regular BCS bowl participation, that'll be pretty good evidence he's the great coach his fan club thinks he is. Depending on how far below that mark he hits, that'll be evidence that he's not so great.
Rodriguez was treated badly at Michigan. I think that argument has been won. If it was ever in doubt, or otherwise beyond argument.
I just don't have a lot to fight about beyond that. I'm not a faux-expert on college football. Although having won the argument and established that Rodriguez was treated badly, I am mostly interested in who treated him badly, how they did it and why they did it.
I'm fine with your observations and curiosity. Just be sure to allow your curiosity to look in Rodriguez's direction as well. Most of the "haters" are curious too. They just happen to think the head coach needs to be front and center when explanations for Michigan's football failures the past three years are discussed.
Yes, the Arizona AD seems all in on this hire and ready to defend his guy. They had RR saying things like "Desert Swarm" and "Bear Down" right out the gate. So they have the PR side of things all set up. So now variables are RR's staff and we'll have to see how they do.
feel pressed to root ... for Brady Hoke to experience the same problems that Rodriguez had
The more you reveal that at least a small part of you is rooting for us to fail. Because you'd rather be "right" than have Michigan succeed. Some fan.
And you might want to go back and reread comments by redwhiteandmgoblue, joeyb, and others. It's not all the same old same old....to a lot of Rich's supporters his act is getting old.
I rooted for them to succeed, I just didn't delude myself like a lot that we actually were, and realized a change needed to be made. It was a successful change too. I wanted us to win; we didn't. The difference is, he, and you, feel like we need to lose, so you can be right, wins and loses be damned.
That way you can complain on the internet more to compensate for your small penis.
he used to hang out with at Dan's Downtown Tavern. Barmaids on lap and all.