RR breaks his silence (barely)
Per the AP: Rodriguez expected to be "exponentially" better next season.
Doubt we'll hear anything more from him tomorrow on this topic, given that he's been hired to talk about NSD, but I guess you never know.
February 1st, 2011 at 6:24 PM ^
No point in starting a new thread, so here's an ESPN article saying Rich Rod was upset about the timing of his firing.
February 1st, 2011 at 6:25 PM ^
i could see being upset at the timing, but if we don't get blown out the bowl, maybe he still has a job. in that way the timing could have worked for him.
February 1st, 2011 at 8:07 PM ^
Maybe DB had his mind made up but waited until after the bowl to prevent RR from taking Denard to Maryland or wherever.
/conspiracy
February 2nd, 2011 at 2:14 AM ^
I read it as he was upset about the entire timetable. I would assume that RR was saying that the bowl game would add nothing substantial to the discussion and would have just rather had a decision one way or another after OSU.
February 1st, 2011 at 7:01 PM ^
I can understand the firing, but I too question the timing. If we really wanted Hoke, we could've gotten him after the O$U game. We didn't learn anything from the bowl game that we wouldn't have already known, and it would be better for the players and RR staff if a decision would've been already made.
If we were waiting to see if other candidates would be available, then DB lied by saying Hoke was the first choice.
February 1st, 2011 at 7:19 PM ^
Not exactly true. One major thing we learned was that the defense was not able to improve with the month of bowl practices. If it had improved RR might still be here. Having said that I wish he had gotten the 4th year.
February 1st, 2011 at 7:33 PM ^
Your logic is confounded by hindsight.
The bowl game was RR's last chance to resurrect himself and demonstrate that the team was headed in the right direction. Up until that point, the coaching situation could have gone either way. But it was never a sure thing that RR was out prior to the bowl game. If it was a sure thing, then yes, all of this would have happened much sooner. The story rumbling out there about Hoke being the first choice is BS. If Hoke was the first choice all along, then DB would've interviewed him much sooner than he did.
February 2nd, 2011 at 2:19 AM ^
I disagree a bit. The CC decision could have gone either way definitely, but I don't think the bowl game added much.
Everyone who wanted him gone knew the defense was terrible and the offense had trouble matching points to yards, and everyone who wanted him back knew that Denard is awesome and the defense was young and injured. The battle lines were drawn well in advance of the Gator Bowl blowout. It just happened that DB gave that as his deadline (also well in advance).
February 2nd, 2011 at 11:58 AM ^
Because it just reinforced prevailing opinion (and then some...other than that awesome offense thing). What it had the opportunity to do was change them, with a good showing (win or competitive loss).
February 1st, 2011 at 9:18 PM ^
Yes we probably could have gotten Hoke after the OSU game. But alumni, boosters, and people within the university would have went ape shit if we fire RR for Hoke without trying to get Harbaugh or another proven coach.
February 1st, 2011 at 6:24 PM ^
i really respect the way he hasn't taken shots at the program.
February 1st, 2011 at 7:43 PM ^
well i can assure you that if RR did take shots at the program, it would bring the program more together, and polarize him from it even more, as a whole.
February 1st, 2011 at 7:45 PM ^
It is hard to take a shot at the program when you look at his record. Look, RichRod got a bad deal because of certain perceptions that were pervasive throughout his term as HC, but that is where it ends. At least there is some solace in that the gets a nice chunk of change for having been terminated before the end of his contract.
Unless I am missing something, the defense was going to have a new DC, and I have some doubts as to whether there would have been an improvement over Hokes hire for that position.
I wish RichRod well.
February 1st, 2011 at 7:27 PM ^
I can't really disagree with his points, although the bowl game wasn't the best sign that Michigan had turned the corner. Mainly, I hope there are some signing day coups.
February 1st, 2011 at 6:26 PM ^
I can't really argue with any of that.
February 1st, 2011 at 6:26 PM ^
I hate hearing this. I've done my best to move on the Hoke era, but Rich Rod basically just said exactly what i was thinking throughout the entire "process". The transition was over; time to begin the 9-10-11 win seasons. Best of luck to you Mr. Rodriguez wherever you end up
February 1st, 2011 at 6:32 PM ^
I felt the same way.......I think DB should have mad RR fire his defensive staff, but I am all in for Brady Hoke now.
February 1st, 2011 at 6:42 PM ^
he's ultra loyal. I don't think he felt like that could be done without scapegoating. I don't know, but I think this was part of the back and forth with DB.
Wasn't GERG "asked" to run the 3-3-5? I'm not saying that GERG is blameless, but he was in a tight spot. RR represents well to his coaches. RR was loyal and that was one of the reasons he was fired I think.
It's water under the bridge but I would like to hear the story.
February 1st, 2011 at 7:32 PM ^
This is just my opinion also, but if DB, after the OSU game, would have sat RR down and said, "I like the way the offense is progressing; it's good and should be even better next year. However, the defense, even accounting for youth/inuries, is unacceptable. Since you've already replaced just a DC once, logic states you'll have to hire not only a better DC but one who has much more say in scheme and assts. Do you agree?"
If RR says, "Yes, cleaning house is difficult but appropriate," he stays. If not, he goes. This should have been in December, so if RR was out, we then had a real shot at Harbaugh and if not him, get Hoke so he can have a better shot at the D Cooper's of the world.
I think RR, like most head coaches, can realize what they have to do to stay and get better in their job. Look at the Mack Brown situation (believe it or not, Texas was worse than U of M this season at 5-7): he looked at a dire situation, and NINE assistants either left (Muschamp) or were fired (pretty much everyone else), including guys who had been with Brown for 10+ years. Performance and the need for change ultimately trumped loyalty.
Anyway, thanks for bringing up Brandon and his lovely "process" again - the less I hear/think about him for a long while, the better.
Here's to a good signing day.
February 1st, 2011 at 9:28 PM ^
But Mack Brown didn't exactly clean house. Muschamp left to coach Florida. He fired the OC, sure. But being in the BCS championship game the year before allows Brown to do that. Going 15-22 in three seasons does not.
February 1st, 2011 at 10:08 PM ^
Besides Muschamp leaving, Brown let go five or other assistants; that's half his entire staff. The OC was just one of those people.
He has new DC, OC, DB, DT, OL, and WR coaches. That is cleaning house.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/01/31/2811946/brown-blames-arrogance-…
(I said eight before, but that was typo in an ESPN article).
February 1st, 2011 at 11:44 PM ^
There could have been more player transition if the CC happened sooner. Jim Harbaugh wasn't going to ditch Stanford before their bowl game.
RR put in for a larger budget and commitment from DB for longevity assurances to get a better DC and was turned down. Let's not forget the tearful banquet.
Here's to a productive spring and some wins. 2011 is a cake walk of schedule compared to 2012.
RR is not the same guy as Mack Brown or Ron Zook ( the anti-Mack Brown in many ways) who cleaned house last season and improved the D tremendously. RR has not faced the adversity like he did in A2. All the D staff were RR people. I don't think he had it in him to do it.
February 1st, 2011 at 7:42 PM ^
I hear what you are saying... I just don't think that it could be ignored just how bad the defense played. At some point, RR was going to have to assume responsibility for that. Not to mention, the special teams. Two out of the three phases of football were bad. The head coach can't just be the reason for why we had an explosive offense. Then he isn't the head coach he is the offensive coordinator. In which case, we still needed a head coach. Look, I rooted for RR. I prayed that things would work out for him here. I did not want to see Michigan have to go through another transitional period... But it was necessary. That is in my humble opinion.
February 2nd, 2011 at 1:17 AM ^
I really don't know why everyone keeps saying this....the special teams weren't bad. They weren't bad by a long shot. They were actually arguably the best in the B10 two years ago and middle of the pack last year. The defense was bad. The special teams were most definitely not.
February 2nd, 2011 at 12:09 PM ^
HANG ON TO THE DAMN BALL mean anything to you? How about worst FG kicking, ever, this year? You can look at the overall average stats, but that's kinda like asking Mrs. Lincoln how the play was.
February 1st, 2011 at 6:39 PM ^
If we must rehash it, the problem was that nothing was apparently happening to fix the colossal problems on defense and special teams. Don't I remember sometime in December that RR said that he was going to keep the defensive staff. My heart sank. I was always a Rich Rod supporter and still really like the guy -- he has been stand up through the firing -- but we were not going to win 9-11 games with epically bad defense and no special teams. I don't know which has me more excited: Brady Hoke or never having to see GERG on the Michigan sidelines.
February 1st, 2011 at 6:54 PM ^
I don't remember anything here or elsewhere quoting RR as saying he would keep the defensive staff next year.
As far as special teams goes, it is hard to have a good special teams when the guys who should be playing there are starting on defense due to a lack of depth. If we hadn't have had an epic flameout at the kicker position, this wouldn't have been as big of a deal. Punting didn't regress as much as we feared with Zoltan leaving. The returners were actually holding onto the ball. With a league average kicker, the special teams would have been acceptable to Michigan standards.
February 1st, 2011 at 7:17 PM ^
I think it was after the Penn State game. He said something about how they were inferior athletically in too many positions and that a magic wand couldn't be waved to fix their problems. He also caught hell for saying he would spend more time focusing on his defense....and that he would stand by his defensive staff. Seems like forever ago.
February 1st, 2011 at 8:40 PM ^
"but we were not going to win 9-11 games with epically bad defense and no special teams. "
I disagree for the same reason that I felt our offense would have to improve immensely in 2010 to win 7-8 games. Looking at our depth chart on defense I never thought we were going to see massive improvements this year on D from the previous years, and I don't think we would've or will see major improvements on D this upcoming season. I know I'm pulling my crystal ball out here and also being very hypothetical...but let's dig in to my take of 2011 under Rich Rod.
Even if we hired a new DC and ran more 4 man fronts, and our freshmen turned into sophomores (this is usually what happens /s) I think there would still be some holes and issues on defense that would make it difficult to make any serious strides. To be even more blunt our defense isn't very talented right now and the solution is 1) Continuity 2) Better recruiting that generally follows more success on the field (thus eliminating the high amounts of negative recruiting/ bad press).
I think our defense would have been middling at best in the Big Ten under Rich Rod next year, and probably far below average and our ST is a work in progress in terms of the kicking game. Our offense, however, was and still is going to be dynamic 2011. We still have A LOT of work in this are though and the offense itself would've (and still can) win us at least 9 games in 2011. Denard is absolutely fantastic as a college QB and Devin is better than Tate. Dee Hart would have been an immediate impact guy who would've complimented DRob perfectly IMHO. WRs galore and an experienced line+almost everyone back meant 9 wins to me regardless. Beating the elite is still going to be a challenge for Hoke and probably would've been for RR next year. 2010? Who knows with that murderous schedule.
February 1st, 2011 at 7:02 PM ^
"The transition was over; time to begin the 9-10-11 win seasons."
Just because we all wanted that to be a part of the script doesn't mean it was ever going to happen. The local media was after him, the national media ate it up, and he had NO IDEA how to minimize the firestorm (see: Groban, Josh). That was never in any of any of our scripts and neither was it that the "transistion" would take at least three full years and still show as many signs of regression as progress.
9-10-11 win seasons don't happen just because we want them to. And they really don't happen with poorly disciplined special teams, non-sensical DC hires, offenses that can't duplicate success against heightened competition, MACtastic recruits aplenty, and a head coach who proved he could not handle the media relations portion of his job.
February 1st, 2011 at 7:21 PM ^
Agreed. RR inherited a sub-par roster, compared to typical ones, but he had more talent to work with than most B10 coaches had. He just didn't adapt to it. Nor has he left Hoke a roster deep with talent. The team Hoke is inheriting is every bit as thin as the one RR inherited -- but even more unproven.
February 1st, 2011 at 7:43 PM ^
RR inherited Sheridan/a freshmen Threet at QB (Don't mention Mallett, he was gone no matter what), inexpierenced recievers with very little previous production, an inexpierenced o-line and 2 injury prone RB's who weren't starters the year before. The defense was largely made up of left over role players from an average 2007 defense, even though they did have some expierence.
Hoke inherits the Big Ten Offensive Player of the Year at QB, a 4/5 * QB behind him, an expierenced and talented receiver core, and an expeirenced and talented o-line.
How exactly are the guys that RR left for Hoke more unproven than the players he inherited? At least on offense that is a completely false statement.
February 1st, 2011 at 8:21 PM ^
Mallett. You can say that all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Mallett showed no indication that he was leaving until after RR was hired. He left because he was a pro-style QB suddenly thrust into a spread offense (run by a coach hot after Terrell Pryor).
RR clearly had no interest in adapting to pro-style qbs. He made Steve Threet run a spread.
Sports Illustrated:
Given his experience, most figured Mallett would be Michigan's starter next season. But he might have gotten a different impression from the coaching staff."I wasn't in on any of it, and I don't want to put blame," said Debbie Mallett, who added that neither she nor her husband heard from Rodriguez. "I don't think it's the things Coach Rodriguez said, it was what he didn't say. You know how you watch someone, it's the things he didn't say, watching his body language ... that's the kind of impression Ryan got.
"(Rodriguez) was saying all these things may come to pass. But Ryan didn't want to take the chance of it not happening."
Had Loeffler been retained, Mallett's decision might have been different, Debbie said. Though Ryan said he has no problem with Rodriguez, he did say there wasn't a lot of interaction between them with two phone calls and one in-person meeting."I really didn't get to ask a lot of questions," Mallett said. "I have a lot of respect for what he's done, but for me to be successful right now, I have to go somewhere else."
Plus: Hoke inherits the worst defense in Michigan history. Funny how you disregard that.
February 1st, 2011 at 9:04 PM ^
about this Mallet argument is that it really doesn't matter when it comes to on the field results. DRob will be the QB in 2011. Mallet wasn't a Wolverine in 2008. Period. Doesn't matter that "Rich Rod ran him off" as some ppl like to say. Hoke will have better talent on the offensive side of the ball than RR had in 2008 regardless of any other arguments people would like to propose.
2008-Threetidan, Freshman Concussion machine McGuffie/Minor with a broken wing, all 1st or 2nd year guys at WR with the exception of Matthews, and virtually no experience on the O line learning a radically different system than alot of them were recruited to.. after a coaching change that is usually difficult for any team in it's first year under said coach.
VERSUS
2011-Robinson/ Gardner, WRs "galore", a large group of RBs who just got a year older, and a very experienced Oline. Everyone is back. Oh and did I mention Threetidan?
But anyway Mallet wasn't here and I guarantee RR didn't go after him with a stick. At this point I just want to see our current staff succeed with the players Rich Rod brought in even though I liked Rich a lot.
February 1st, 2011 at 9:51 PM ^
2011 defense? And while Denard certainly is a boon Rich didn't have (so if Denard decides to transfer after Spring I'm sure you'll blame Denard entirely, just like Mallett), the offense next year is more the defense Rich had in 2008. You don't want to count players who were hurt or left because they didn't like the system (he may have been a dick, but Boren was an all-Big Ten dick who was able to win championships), but we don't even know who will be healthy or whatever last year.
<br>
<br>Talent Rich received- Brown and Minor, Junior Hemingway, Huyge, Matthews, Molk, Schilling, Koger, Stonum. If Molk=Martin talent-wise, that's not really worse than the defense we have returning. You take into account the guys on the line who never made it to the fall, and it's even more comparable. Our proven defensive talent consists of one guy. Everything else is hope that this point.
<br>
<br>And he had a defense that included Stevie Brown, Obi (who played better before Rich got here), Brandon Graham (going into his junior year, probably the closest defensive equivalent to Junior Denard you could hope for), Brandon Harrison, Tim Jamison, Will Johnson, Mesko, Mouton, Terrance Taylor, Morgan Trent, Donovan Warren, Troy Woolfolk, and a class with Cissoko, JT Floyd, Demens, Martin and Will Campbell already committed.
<br>
<br>An all NFL squad? No. But Some guys playing, and others with a shot. After Denard and Molk, how many more of the matching offensive guys on the squad are going to see the League for more than a minute? Probably another lineman. None of the Running Backs. Maybe Roundtree as a possession receiver, but he's pretty slow. Combines will kill his draft status. Real good college player, but we're not loaded with future 1st rounders on our strength, the offense, either.
<br>
<br>Which has been our problem- we lost a lot of talent, and other than spot work, never really replaced it. Rich wasn't left with a full hand, and couldn't get many more good cards to replace them.
February 1st, 2011 at 10:10 PM ^
But isn't it also true that if Denard had transferred people would have been decrying the hire because we didn't get to see Denard's potential in RR's system? You can't let RR off the hook for losing Mallett and at the same time forget to give Hoke credit for keeping Denard around. The roster they inherit is only as good as the players they can convince to stay. It's not completely an input out of their control.
February 1st, 2011 at 10:12 PM ^
for that quote. i had not seen it yet and it kind of pokes holes in the meme that mallet was gone "no matter what."
the point is, no one knows what mallet was going to do with rich rod, a pro-style coach, or even lloyd carr for that matter. what we do know is that rr contacted mallet only three times (or thrice as conan would say) and apparently that was not enough.
February 2nd, 2011 at 2:27 AM ^
And Mallet not reciprocating three times is pretty telling if you ask me.
February 1st, 2011 at 9:31 PM ^
If anyone would show me any evidence that Rodriguez made half the attempt to keep Mallett that Hoke made to keep Denard, I'd love to see it. All I've seen was the quote from the Jim Rome show when he said he tried calling him three times. Really, Rich? Because you were on campus from December 17 on and in Florida during the Capital One Bowl. Couldn't meet up with him then?
February 1st, 2011 at 9:56 PM ^
To say it would have been better for all involved if the first call Rich had made after taking the job had been to Mallett and not Pryor. Would such importance swayed him? Who knows, it didn't work on Pryor. But at least rather than creating the "he told Pryor before he told his team!" meme, (he'd at least be contacting his new team's players), it probably would have killed the "he didn't make it a high priority to keep Mallett" one. It at least would have been a good PR move.
February 1st, 2011 at 7:45 PM ^
right?
RR inherited Sherridammit. Something like 10 new starters on offense. He had a very thin defense.
Hoke has Denard, every running back, every receiver, 4/5 OL back. He gets a defense that returns 9/11 or 10/11 starters with a bunch of promising guys that were redshirted.
How can this team be more unproven than the '08 team? We had no, zero, zip, nada for experience on offense in '08. We have 20 something returning starters with at least a season of game experience.
We get it, you don't/didn't like RR. But saying things like this just makes you sound stupid.
February 1st, 2011 at 10:36 PM ^
Please say that you are joking. If you think that BH has a talented team to work with than this not a serious argument. You have the B10 player of the year, not to mention a slew of talent, albeit young talent, on both sides of the ball. Plus you get all the guys that were out because of injury. No matter how the defense looked, they improved by 2 wins every year last i checke'sd, that was progress. Lloyds last team was full of talent and they only won 8 games his last year. We were at 7 with freshmen and soph's
February 2nd, 2011 at 12:13 PM ^
9, but who's counting in a thread where we only lost 5 games last year..
February 1st, 2011 at 7:55 PM ^
amazes me, how people who hated RR continue to spout off nonsense even after he is gone.
February 1st, 2011 at 9:43 PM ^
Nevermind the fact that RR's 2008 offense might have been notably better -- not good, but better -- had he maybe adapted to the talent, rather than force the talent to run an offense for which it was ill-suited. Threet had some talent. A year after his transfer, he was starting in the Pac 10. And RR doesn't get a pass because the talent (Mallett, Boren, Arrington) didn't want to play for him.
You're taking the position that the defense Hoke inherits is significantly worse than the offense RR inherited from Carr -- to the point of calling suggestions to the contrary idiotic. Which says something about you right off the bat.
This defense is young. So, yes, they should improve. But young doesn't equal talented. This is not a defense loaded with young blue-chips. You won't find anyone, outside this board, who thinks the D is stocked with young talent. Quite the opposite, in fact. Nobody gives RR high marks there.
But anyway. Hoke isn't inheriting a bad defense. He's inheriting a ghastly one: 108th out of 120. Last in the B10. Worst in school history. It was thrashed by every quality team it played. It surrendered 137 points in its final three games. Troy Woolfolk, although a fine player, doesn't make this defense okay. The D's few proven players will be gone in a year. And, finally, these young kids were "coached" by Gerg. Hoke has to start from scratch.
This is, quite literally, the worst defense any M coach has ever inherited.
And you're calling me an idiot.
February 2nd, 2011 at 12:19 AM ^
who had a mediocre at best, 16 tds to 14 ints ratio as a Junior this year. Keep believing he would of had a decent season as a freshmen though, if RR would have ran a different offense.
Regardless on what you think about RR, it's time to move on with what we have currently. Continually bashing RR, even after he is gone doesn't accomplish anything. That is what I meant by people still taking as many shots at the guy as they can even after he is gone.
February 2nd, 2011 at 2:27 AM ^
Threet is not a great QB and probably never will be, but there is merit to the idea that putting him in an offense that he's well-suited to run would have been worth one or two more wins in '08 (at least Toledo, considering that their only TD came off a Threet INT).
February 1st, 2011 at 8:10 PM ^
The transition was over;
Not on defense.
February 1st, 2011 at 6:29 PM ^
I still feel terrible about the whole situation. I loved Rich Rod, despised our record, but always thought he could get it done here.
Now, I'm very pleased we have Hoke and can't wait to see how he performs (excellent start, better than I could have imagined), but just wish this could have gone down some other way.
I completely blame this all on Bill Martin and how the 1st coaching search went down and RR's demise.
EDIT: BTW, I know for a fact that Maryland, Pitt and others were sending out feelers to RR about their coaching vacancies before our bowl game and RR told them no because he was committed to us for the long haul. He's a classy individual and I think DB did him a disservice for the timing of the announcement.
February 1st, 2011 at 6:45 PM ^
Probably so, but it's like most break-ups of whatever kind. There never is really a good way to do it and your best efforts often come off poorly. I think we should take DB at his word when he says he thought RR and the team deserved the bowl game. It may not be the way college football works, but it seems to have been honest.