No, I don't really want to know. I don't care. It's a waste of time, and I hope it never happens again.
further adventures in Jed York being unsuited for his position
No, I don't really want to know. I don't care. It's a waste of time, and I hope it never happens again.
I think the general theory is that Robinson never coached a 3-3-5 at any point in his 20 some year career. Even when he came in, he told folks he was planning on going with a 4-3 Under type defense. Combine this with the fact that all his assistants are 3-3-5 guys held over from West Virginia with closer ties to Rod then to him and you have some pretty strong circumstantial evidence of either the head coach messing about, or the assistants completely undermining the D-coordinator...Not to mention the 3-3-5 making bizarre appearances at completely inopportune times throughout the last 3 years...e.g. Purdue in year one.
Didn't GERG himself say he had run some 3-3-5 when in Denver and was familiar with it? (Note: I'm not saying the 3-3-5 was the Broncos' base defense during those years)
I feel like most DC's run some 3-3-5 on situational passing downs, but the 3-3-5 stack base defense is a completely different beast.
Staler than the staliest thing ever encountered. Ziff you knew this when you started this thread. Talk about this shit with your dog, he will listen all day, and never rebut you, plus he has just as much inside info as the rest of us.
I don't profess to "know" what happened, but there were a few things that lead to the conclusion that RR (either directly, or indirectly by allowing his D assistant coaches too much authority over the DC) meddles in, and harmed, the D:
1. GERG never ran the 3-3-5 before. Ever. RR and his coached did. It doesn't take a large logical leap to figure out who made the decision to run the 3-3-5. Forcing the DC to run a formation he does not know can never be a good idea.
2. Terminology - there was some GERG statement from when he was hired (before he went on media blackout) where he alluded to having to learn a whole new lingo. Spur, bandid, etc. This was the same terminology that RR and his staff used at WVU. If the DC is first learnign the terminology, it is likely that he is being fit into an existing scheme, rather than being given autonomy to run his own scheme.
3. Observations - I think that game was PSU, but there was one point where GERG was addressing some of the D players in the huddle on the sideline and RR came running into the huddle, almost threw GERG out of the way, and started yelling at the players. The dynamic, more than anything, made obvious, the power dynamic on the D side of the ball.
1. We didn't run WV's 3-3-5 ever as Brian has painstakingly pointed out. So I wonder why not if RR was so gung ho for it?
2. Nice Clue. That is telling as we like to say here.
3. Don't remember it. If it's the one I'm thinking of RR said he was just trying to fire them up, nothing scheme wise.
False on point 1. Found it:
Michigan coach Rich Rodriguez ran a 3-3-5 during part of his tenure at West Virginia, but Robinson said the entire coaching staff was on board with the change. In the 1990s, he said he ran a similar scheme as defensive coordinator with the New York Jets and Denver Broncos.
EDIT- this is a reply to the post above Ziff72's, and the others, who have said GERG "never ran the 3-3-5," or wasn't familiar with it, etc., prior to coming to Michigan.
it's over. RR isn't coming back. niether is Gerg or Schaefer. for whatever reason, it was a disaster. it doesn't matter what the reason was. hopefully, Hoke and Mattison usher in a new era of swarming, effective Michigan defense.
Good God people, it's over. Done. Stop!
It's an inference. Greg had never coached a 3-3-5. Nor had Shafer. RR's defensive assistants had. Then, miraculously, Gerg and Shafer started coaching a scheme that they had never, ever, run. I don't think that's unreasonable.
Demanding "evidence" from situations you know won't yield it is pointless.
Was I demanding? Just trying to get more understanding.
Your point is a good one as other have brought up.
My point is that we never ran the 3-3-5 as described in videos or run at WV. If RR really wanted that defense and not just be multiple as he stated why did he not have the team run the 3-3-5 as WV does. Brian has posted endlessly that we were not doing anything like WV had done previously other than line up with 3 lineman and 3 LB's.
For me it just doesn't add up. If RR wanted the 3-3-5 so bad why would he hire guys that didn't run it?
This suggests to me that gerg, et al. didn't know enough about WVU's style of 3-3-5 to run it properly. I suppose it's possible they Michigan was trying to run some other 3-3-5 and doing that poorly, but why assume they were not trying to run the same 3-3-5?
Brian has about 7,684 posts up about how we look nothing like the WV 3-3-5 ran. Our dline and LB did not line up anything like WV does.
That's why I assume.
RR ran it at WV and brought some defensive assistants. If they wanted WV's defense I'm pretty sure they could have looked at tape and at least lined up correctly.
who the brains of RR's WVU defense was, and he didn't join RR's staff at Michigan.
Well here is a possible scenario: RR hires Gerg and tells him he can run the defense he knows how to coach. When results are not immediate (due to talent or scheme or whatever), RR decides to go back to what he and his assistants were familar with in WV and has Gerg implement the 3-3-5. The only problem is 1. Gerg has never run the 3-3-5 so he is unsure how to actually set up the formations correctly. 2 RR basically let Casteel handle the defense at WV so he was unsure of how to make the corrections as well. This leads to massive failure, ala the Penn State game with linebackers like 2 feet behind the Dline.
Not saying this is true, but it seems like a plausible option if you are having a hard time visualizing what happened.
I can go with your scenario except the lining up part. To believe that GR couldn't figure out how to line up players from looking at a tape is lunacy.
We'll just have to wait for the book, but football isn't that complicated. Brian never played in his life and he looked at a couple of DVD's and a few youtube clips and knew where to line up the lb's.
FORCED to cuddle with stuffed animals.
How did that acrylic-fur animal thing get started? What sort of animal was it? What was the inside joke? The players apparently thought it was genuinely funny, didn't they? Why would none of the players say anything about it? Has anyone ever reported the real story?
Well you can only get so much from tape. He had never run this defense in his entire career. He doesn't know the little intricacies of it. He probably got as much out of the tape as he could in the short amount of time he had to install it. Either that, or Gerg played with his stuffed beaver instead of actually watching the tapes. Could go either way.
The WVU 3-3-5 was developed and run by a highly successful DC.
Ours was adapted by a multiple-time failure and a few guys that had the highly successful guy's notebooks.
I'm not as worked up about the OP bringing up this topic as some (if you beat a dead horse long enough, you get dog food, and that's useful), but chitownblue2 nicely crystallizes the "RichRod Defense Problem" . When Michigan couldn't get Casteel as a DC, RichRod hired two DC's with no 3-3-5 experience, and then told them they were stuck with Casteel's old assistants.
With this mismatch, it's no surprise that the defense was a tad dysfunctional the past few years. Of course, whether a 3-3-5 is even viable in the Big 10 is another topic. But it sure as hell wasn't likely to work for Michigan when Robinson and Shafer had never coached the scheme before.
Gentleman & Scholar alert.
How about an "RR" tag?
I love how it is completely fine to talk about any prior Michigan coach.....as long as it isn't RichRod. When a valid question is brought up, just get over it and move on. No explanation needed. Just give a short answer that doesn't answer the post and never talk about RichRod again.
Here, how about I put it to you this way:
I seem to have missed all your posts on the thread right below this one entitled "stats don't mean wins." In fact, I don't notice you posting on anything other than why RichRod was horrible. I wonder why?
My point was some of us like intelligent debate and wonder what happened the past 3 years, want clarification on the reasoning of posts of those who disagree with us, think the program would have gotten better as more upperclassmen played under RR, etc... To this, yourself and other people who hated RichRod come up with "get over it. Hoke is here. Support him or get over it. You suck as a poster for trying to clarify anything with regards to RR. He is gone and was horrible. Get over it." But, at the same time, you completely turn the other way and don't notice when people make stupid fucking posts about RichRod failing at Michigan. In short, people who supported RR are completely fine talking about the past and the future of our program, which includes the current and past coaches. People who hated RichRod, such as yourself, only want to talk about why he sucked and anyone discussing otherwise needs to "let it go" or "just accept it." That is what I was talking about. It's ok to have positive discussion about Michigan football.....unless it involves the last 3 years, in which case fuck off and get over it.
I sure didn't write any of them. I don't recall any recent "wistful romanticized" Rodriguez references.
My only point, all along, was that Rodriguez was treated unfairly. And, I never felt as though David Brandon made a good case for dismissing him. I didn't think that there was a good case for dismissing Rodriguez, particularly if Plan B was Brady Hoke. Most relevant to this thread, I didn't understand how Michigan had failed to attract Jeff Casteel, to compliment the Rodriguez offense, after Casteel has clearly been one of the highest-performing DC's in the nation for the last five years.
I thought those were all relevant points. They were at least arguable points. I don't see any "wistfulness" in any of that.
Ha. Yes, You are just an innocent bystander pointing out the sad nature of these RR posts, all the while being unfairly classified as a person who hates RR.
Also, you might want to try and be a little less condascending. Prick.
Edit: This was meant as a response to dahblue.
Yeah, because memories of getting smacked by OSU and Wisky are soooo much fun.
I know this from VERY VERY RELIABLE SOURCES IN THE PROGRAM:
RR forced Schaeffer to run the 3-3-5 against Purdue in 2008 and it was doom.
Schaeffer refused to run the 3-3-5, so RR ran him out..and Schaeff is doing great at Syracuse now.
RR hired a newly FIRED Gerg, and told him if he wanted a job, to come and run the 3-3-5.
He did, and it was the worst ever!!!
Period. That is why Gerg NEVER did post game interviews, cuz he had nothing good to say, and couldnt stand by this defense.
Horrible situation for all!! and it was all RR's fault.
no, ONWARD AND UPWARD with a new staff that knows that defense wins championships!
Jesus, it's getting pretty close to mlive in here some days. You have a VERY VERY RELIABLE SOURCES IN THE PROGRAM huh? You mind letting us know who it is?
Ice just proved my point about mgoboard turning in milve.
Only if we roll over, play dead, and let it happen.
If Rodriguez told Robinson, "If you want a job, come run the 3-3-5"...
...then we wouldn't have run a 4-3 back in 2009.
You can ask Gerg yourself. Simply place a "Coach Needed to Run 4-3 Defense" ad on Craigslist and wait for him to reply. Once you ask him why he's looking for a new job, I'm sure he'll be more than willing to divulge what really happened.
I feel badly for through this entire debacle because anytime I see him the only vision I have is that stuffed beaver attacking his neck!
I can understand why people think RR discussions need to stop: it's a headache thinking about the last few years*, we have a new coach who's taking us in a new direction, and RR will never step foot near this program again.
(*as a fanatical senior at UM who had high hopes for football as a student, I understand this as well as anyone)
But, in defense of Brian and others on here, please stop telling us to "get over it," or to stop talking about it because it's irrelevant now. It's not.
Hopefully after Hoke has a good season, RR discussion can be anecdotal not argumentative, but we're 3 months off of an RR season, so it is completely relevant. A few months into Obama's term, Bush's just-completed term did not become completely irrelevant. Bush made his mark on the executive branch and judicial branches of the federal government (just like RR did on the program and the depth chart), but I didn't hear anyone saying discussing Bush's term is irrelevant in 2009 because Obama desired another direction. (Putting no value on either president, or comparing their value to the coaches)
As far as thinking we're complaining when we wonder what went wrong, I think that represents a difference in fundamental beliefs about RR as a coach. What I think, and what I'm pretty sure Brian and many posters here think, is that we hired a truly elite college coach who came into a fucked up situation, with fucked up people surrounding (read: covering) the program, and fucked up a little himself. Others here (correct me if I'm wrong) seem to believe we made a "sexy" hire in RR, that he got lucky at WVU with great players and a great D-coordinator, and when he came here he was exposed for who he was.
I'm not saying either side is right, but just understand these different modes of thinking. If you believe the former it is completely relevant and interesting to discuss what went wrong, if you believe the latter it is not. So, please just let us in the former category discuss what went wrong because there aren't many better places to do it, and stay out of our discussion if you have nothing to contribute other than oversimplified played-out arguments.
That is all.
It's not so much that RR's tenure is irrelevant now that rankles people, so much as the continued "How dare anyone speak ill of RR" attitude. You could have argued that that kind of "circle the wagons" attitude was justified when he was the face of the program. I don't think you can argue that now. He is an ex-coach and there is no point in now glossing over his deficiencies.
As for whether RR is "truly an elite coach," if he is one, how do you explain the chain of events that took place on the defensive side of the ball? 1) Hiring Shafer, only to basically strip him of duties halfway through one season and then shove him out the door; 2) hiring a proven failure in GERG; 3) bringing him back despite a defense that was worse than 2008's and 4) asking him to run the 3-3-5, a defense he'd never run before, all the while (by RR's own admission) hardly even supervising him. This has the distinct whiff of a guy who didn't know what he was doing on defense.
I think you're right about this (I don't agree with 3, because it's hard to fire a guy for having a worse defense with worse personnel, and make the decision to have your third coordinator in three years--BG and company's 4th in 4 years). RR didn't know what he was doing on defense, or at least had too blind of a trust in his assistants, and not enough trust in his coordinator(s).
My argument that he's an elite coach is that he gave us the best chance to have a perennially elite program. I'm sure many would argue against this, but I believe he could've been a truly elite recruiter if he ever got the program on solid grounds (and that he did pretty well considering he never did). Continuity on the defensive side of the ball, and a serviceable kicker would've had this ship righted. Easier said than done, I know. We were all impatient.
My point wasn't about whether or not he is an elite coach, but that some of us believe he is, and could've been here if there weren't so many circumstances working against him. It was a strange thing that happened here, and I think we have a right to discuss it.
when was it determined that RR was a control freak about the defense? I don't recall any article in the past implying that RR was soley determining the defensive scheme.
Do you think Shafer and Greg Robinson came up with the idea to run the 3-3-5 on their own?
If you need someone to find you exact evidence in this situation then you are just being ridiculous. If you walked into your home and heard moaning from your bedroom, then found your wife naked with another man, would you deny that they were cheating until you saw actual penetration? COME ON.
My theory is that Michigan never had a true defensive coordinator under Rodriguez; Bruce Tall and Tony Gibson were his real coordinators. Shafer was forced out because he refused to be a figurehead for Tall/Gibson. Rodriguez' undoing wasn't so much his meddling with the defense, it was his unchecked loyalty to Gibson and Tall in allowing them to essentially run the defense without actually promoting either of them to coordinator.
When Rodriguez was assembling his first staff back in '08, he simultaneously asked all of his defensive assistants at WVU to join him in Ann Arbor. Most of his position coaches decided to follow him before Casteel made up his mind. When Casteel decided to stay at WVU, it put Rodriguez in a quandary: he had to find a new DC who could work with the position coaches he had already hired and start out with the entire defensive staff on the same page. That clearly didn't happen. Instead of just promoting Tall, Gibson, or Hopson to DC, he went after a DC with coordinator experience at a BCS school and hired Scott Shafer. By the end of '08, it was clear that Gibson/Tall/Hopson had mutinied against Shafer and that Rodriguez sided with them over his DC. Robinson was hired when he called Rodriguez out of the blue (or perhaps out of desperation, after having been fired by Syracuse) and lobbied hard for the job. Robinson was a good candidate on paper but wasn't in a position to exercise a lot of authority over the position coaches who (with the exception of Hopson) had been with Rodriguez since WVU. As someone who was just happy to be employed, he was fine with being a figurehead DC who implemented the will of Gibson/Tall/Hopson and later Braithwaite (another former WVU guy), but the inherent flaws of that model doomed his defense from the start.
Irregardless, of who was calling the shots on D, it's time to move on.
Irregardless is a double negative. It may be in the dictionary, but for future reference using that word makes you look bad.
so much for the dictionary...