Here we go again, there is no way this thread doesn't turn into a "I hate RR"/"I love RR" debate. I've come to understand a long time ago it is impossible to post something about RR without it turning into a flame war. I wish we could just comment on the video and his opinions but, it's just not possible. Especially when you have people like ciggaro cubano and dablue on here.
(Including dahblue...who, has he even posted on here?) but ignore His Dudeness, and BigBlue02, and Section 1...who are just as one note...just one the other side. There's reason it's a flamable topic, and it's not one-sided.
No Dahblue hasn't posted in here I don't believe, but you're right it's not one-sided. Those are just the names that popped into my head when I think of RR flame war. I don't disagree at all with the names you listed, as they are totally on the other side of the argument.
But here you go:
I dont care what you guys say, I miss him. (not a jab at Hoke)
Minor things = stretching for an extra few minutes
Major things = tats and cars for players, not monitoring the equipment room/sale of memorabilia
I don't know if you meant to reply to my post, but I've stated my thoughts on this subject a bunch of times and I agree with what you just said.
That's cool. I don't miss him. Most UM fans don't either. So long RR.
I think this general trend is why his posts are almost always moderated to flamebait or trolling by the time I get to them.
Listen, this isn't a contest and if you like RR you have to hate Hoke or vice versa. I loved RR while he was here but admit it was time for him to go. He had his troubles with the defensive side of the ball but he did some great things with the offense. He conducted himself with class while here (and continues to do so now) and I think anyone who can't just get over it and wish the guy well is being childish IMHE.
RR is gone and BH is our coach now, and I am fine with that. If you don't think he conducted himself with class that is your opinion and you have a right to that. Personally I think he showed a lot of class in the way he put up with things while here at UM. I think he has conducted himself with a lot of class since he left as well, where he has had ample opportunity to sling mud and yet took the high road. I wish him well, if you don't that's your business.
That light in the background gives a halo effect. Rich Rod I can see your halo and know you're my saving grace.
so I can sand on mountains!
I just did it Sunday with the Scoreboard video....
Picking any other type of season would not make any sense. Everyone on this blog, deep down, knows that Michigan was on its way to 10+ wins this season. Bringing in a top-flight defensive coordinator should not change that. And don't give me any crap about "changing schemes will hurt the offense." A new scheme does not take away the threat of Denard's speed and arm, defenses will still have to account for both regardless of his first-five steps. Add to that a threat to develop out of our stable of running backs, as well as a ton of talent returning among the WR... tremendous.
I'm happy with a "9 wins or bust" mentality; our coaches are not happy with anything less than a B1G championship. I love it.
If you are thinking "9 wins or bust" then what exactly happens at "bust?"
Coaching does mean quite a bit, but I am not sure that 30 days of coaching will make these kids seek out contact on defense rather than being pushed off the ball time after time after time.
I just think our defense will be rough for a recruiting cycle. Not to say they are all bad football players, but some of the guys just aren't there yet and may never be there.
While I agree that a new DC won't turn around a bad defense all by himself, that's not all we have going for us. We only lose two guys from last year's defense, one if you count Woolfolk taking over for Rogers at CB, and although Mouton was a solid LB most of the time, he's not a crippling loss.
Last year we had a lot of underclassmen starting or contributing, and those guys are all a year older and bigger. Cam Gordon, Thomas Gordon, Courtney Avery and Carvin Johnson all started multiple games last year - every game had at least two of them starting and for the last few games it was three of them. These guys, starters or not, should play with a lot more consistency this year having on-field experience and another off-season to improve.
Don't sell our returning starters short.
My approach to assessing the impact of the team being forced to start five freshmen in the backfield last year:
If each of five DBs made the right read and was in the right place on 80% of plays, there would be an average of one DB out of place on any given play. This means that an experienced QB who could make his progression to his 4th or 5th receiver would inevitably be able to find an open man on any given play when facing 5 freshmen DBs.
Now, if the DBs are able to improve their reads/positioning to being in the right place 95% of the time (and the number of DBs shrinks to 4,) then it will take 5 full plays to occur before an opposing QB will find the wide-open receiver (at least until they get to the LB or Nickel who is in coverage.)
1. Freshmen are much more likely to be out of position than sophomores. This is not talent dependent. One year of tape review = massive progression on positioning.
2. Adding Troy and Floyd back into the mix, in the least, brings positional correctness back. Senior leadership on the field, directly communicating = massive progression on positioning.
It is not hard to imagine the secondary taking a huge step up due simply to being in the right place on any given play, let alone having Mike Martin playing through single blocks instead of triple.
Our new scheme will have (bulked up) Roh at WDE on a 4-man line instead of either OLB or DE in a 3-man line, neither of which he is suited for. We hvae good size at SDE and both DT spots. That should make it a lot harder for other teams to push us off the ball even though Campbell is unproven.
I will not be happy with less than 9 wins this season. I do not accept the argument of "coaching change" to excuse regression. Players win games, and Michigan is stacked with players. Coaches lose games, and Michigan is stacked with coaches who do not accept losing. Argue with me if you like, but we have a coach who will not be happy with anything less than a B1G championship (which I suppose is possible with only 8 wins... but my guess is that Hoke will not be happy with four OOC losses and then limping into the title game with one conference loss. I think Hoke is more of a "13 wins or bust" kind of guy.)
So, join the "9 Wins or Bust" cult, else Brady Hoke may point you out as untremendous.
and notification that I may be stealing that in the future
Why does this not exist in the MGoStore? Blue shirt with maize TREMENDOUS on the chest. Sold with a matching scarlet and gray (or green and white) shirt that says UNTREMENDOUS.
I disagree that M's roster is "stacked" with talent. Plenty of talent on O -- but without a top-notch RB and much depth, especially at WR. And the defense is certainly not stacked with talent at most positions. The D-line starters are good. After that? Lots of question-marks.
I think that the talent that will be on the starting offense and defense is near the top of the B1G, but the depth is pitiful. We will have a very deep team after two recruiting cyles with the way Hoke & staff have recruited so far.
I respect that you know what we all believe deep down, so I should probably defer to you with respect to my true beliefs, but I don't think a 10-win season was in any way inevitable. I think Michigan was going to be better in 2011 than it was in 2010. Coming off of a season in which our wins were close and our losses were blowouts, there was a lot of room to improve before it even showed up in the record.
I'm optimistic about this year but very cautiously so. In addition to being worse than our record suggested last season, we're learning new systems with reduced practice time and still have very questionable talent on defense (though more experienced questionable talent). I think the long-term outlook is brighter than the short-term outlook. A very good season is possible, but I hope the Michigan fanbase won't lose it if we see another so-so record in 2011.
For deferring to me on your true beliefs. :)
My bad for assuming everyone else was on the same manic high as myself regarding the upcoming season.
If I could +1 from the mobile App, I would
I agree, and I'll take care of the +1 for you.
At about the midway point last year I thought this year was going to be the year for RR (conference championship and who knows what else), and then things started spiralling out of control.
I would agree that 10 wins would have been a minimum with RR if he was forced to bring in a new defensive staff with a big time DC, but with the same coaches on the defense...I don't think anything was certain other than the fact that gerg would have likely been knocked unconscious for rubbing stuffed animals in players faces.
I would agree that 10 wins would have been a minimum with RR if he was forced to bring in a new defensive staff with a big time DC
I am not sure why anybody thinks that Rodriguez would need to have been "forced" to completely revamp his defensive staff. Now, some of the guys on defense were Rodriguez's guys. And that might have been an issue. But I am guessing that Greg Robinson was gone before anybody even began to discuss Rodriguez's future in the first week in January. I am guesing that Rodriguez's firing was made all the more diffcult by the prospect that perhaps Jeff Casteel might come to Michigan to be the next DC. I think that Rodriguez was unhappy with Michigan's defense the entire time he was in Ann Arrbor, and that it was essentially Plan C or Plan D to retain Greg Robinson for the 2010 season.
My guess is that the reason it took two days to fire RR was he wouldn't give up the defensive coaches. Otherwise what is there to talk about? And that defensive staff wasn't going to give us a 10 win season.
On the flip side, what top notch DC would want to come in to a situation where the coach was on the hot seat. If he's that good he has other options and going down in flames with RR probably isn't option one on his list.
but I think you've got it exactly backwards. I think that the first thing that Rodriguez and Brandon agreed on, was that Greg Robinson had to go. And I think that Robinson was informed of that fact one or two days before any final decision was made on Rodriguez.
Letting Robinson go was the easy decision, since he was nobody's first choice to begin with.
The hard part would have been the other defensive position coaches, most particularly the guys who had been with Rodriguez at WVU. Things would have resolved themselves if the next DC was Jeff Casteel; Jeff had worked with most of those guys previously.
Now you ask the right question: What DC would come in to a program where the coach was already on the hot seat? Not many. But if in fact the final hard decision that Brandon was faced with was the one that has been the subject of rumors -- that Brandon had come to the conclusion that Michigan had underpaid for its DC position and needed to vastly upgrade; AND that Rodriguez had spoken to Jeff Casteel and had learned that Casteel might come to Michigan if everyone were assured that Rodriguez would be extended -- well, that scenario is one that sort of proves both of our respective points.
In my heart of hearts, I think that is exactly what happened. Rodriguez and Brandon were both eager to get rid of Greg Robinson. As for the decision on Rodriguez himself, Brandon was torn, and the possibility of bringing in Jeff Casteel to rescue Michigan's defense, keeping the Rodriguez offense, just made a hard decision even harder.
That Casteel wsa considering coming here, other than you?
And if anyone thought Rich was getting a contract extension after the end of last year, they were truly wasting their breath having that conversation. That "assurance" was never coming (because Brandon seems like a guy who would want to owe MORE money to a guy he's thinking about firing).
I think there is a wide range of what could have happened under RR. While I think eveyone would agree expectations for the offense should have been higher under RR, there are lots of unknowns about where we would be on defense. How good a defensive coordinator would RR be able to hire? Would there have been transfers? Would RR's recruiting class have suffered after the loss? It is not as simple as - more experienced defense = better. We'll never know - but 10+ wins hardly seems a certainty to me
Agreed. If we'd handled our business against middle of the pack B10 teams (not needing six zillion overtimes to beat the Illini) and not had our head kicked in by the ranked B10 teams, I could buy jumping up to 10 wins. As it stands though claiming 10 wins is claiming "We'll handle all the medoicre teams [that we barely beat last year] and get ourselves some top tier scalps as well."
PSU: coaches lose minds, change scheme/positions
I'm jumping on the optimism train. There are players on O and D. T/O margin should regress to the mean.
"T/O margin should regress to the mean. "
You have doomed us all.
but I do not miss him.
Hoke = Upgrade.
I totally agree with you on this. I am happy that he is gone, I wish him well, but I do not miss him. I also 100% agree with you that Hoke = upgrade.
BUT, why go there? It is just going to spark a debate that can be summed up as follows:
Anti-RR: Happy he is gone, we were never going to win with him, he didn't get Michigan, he recruited midgets, and his spread offense wasn't going to work in the B10. And, he made poor staffing choices, sang a Josh Grobin song and hates babies.
Pro-RR: We were on our way to 10-wins. Book it. The offense was the best ever, and was going to be even better, the defense was GERG's fault and also we were forced to play 17 year old kids at virtually every position. But the offense - we were going to be amazing this year.
Anti-RR: We were forced to play 17 year olds because RR's attrition and player retention were terrible. He made poor staffing choices (GERG), poor recruiting choices (Dorsey), and poor fashion choices (I know I saw him wearing red once when he was at WVU and that is UNACCEPTABLE). Also, he didn't know an obscure, and somewhat new, Michigan tradition about the #1 jersey, so there you have it. Also, the offense wasn't that good - tons of yards, etc. against crappy teams, but totally shut down against MSU, Iowa, Wisco, OSU, PSU's back-ups and MSU (Gator).
Pro-RR: But we moved the ball against all of those teams. Take out a few fumbles, a few interceptions, a few drops, and improve our team's fundamentals, and we would have beaten all of those teams. That's what counts.
Pro-RR and Anti-RR guys together: I hate you.
I threw in some jokes on both sides to add levity, but that really is how this debate always goes. It's better if the debate is just left in the past.
Um, you sparked the debate sparky.
How did I spark the debate? Is someone going to raise an issue with any of the joke-point/counter-points that I raised? My purpose was simply to show that both sides have their arguments, some are silly and some are valid for both sides, and the arguments are so beaten to death that we can all reiterate both sides by now. Just a joke and definitely not intended to spark a debate. I think that a comment like "Hoke = upgrade" is a lot more likely to start the debate. Just my opinion - feel free to disagree.
Nobody said a thing about it until you chimed in.
Hoke is a better fit for UofM, better fit for B1G football and a better fit at any school that can and does draw top level recruits with NFL level talent.
I agree with his prediction for UofM in 2011 under coach Hoke & Co, however when he talks about how we were "positioned" for 9-10 wins I have to respectfully disagree. Nothing I saw in the last half of last season would have led to believe that we were positioned for anything other than another 5 wins early then total collapse.
When the Blitz featured Urban Meyer interviewing Chip Kelly and Mr. Kelly's exact words were "If we had the personel to run power I succesfully, then we'd run power I". I said to myself if only someone else had been as willing to adapt.
I wonder why you didn't see anything the second half of the season....oh I know why. Our freshmen and sophomores were pushed around and beat up by the 3 best teams we played all year who started mostly juniors and seniors. Didn't Wisconsin lose something like 18 fourth and fifth year seniors? Some people look at the youngest team in the big 10 (which I believe is true for the second straight year) and see plenty of room for improvement. Since you dislike RichRod, you don't. Great. Could we at least stop using played out memes like "if RichRod would have run a pro set the first 3 years he would have won a lot more games but he was too stubborn." I will tell you this, if the only returning starter was Taylor Lewan (similar to when RichRod took over) and the leading rusher and passer in Michigan history were just drafted into the NFL, you can bet your ass Hoke would be running a whole lot more out of the power I.
Yeah, damn those played our memes, they're so damn inconvenient when they're all true and stuff. Now he's a talking head hoping for another shot while AD's who might be in the market are watching his Michigan films and thinking this guy might just be an egomaniac. Watching him repeatedly line up 7yds deep on 1st and 10 only to be faced with 2nd and 14 they might even suspect insanity. Hey, asshole, try running a fucking dive play on 1st down and make it 2nd and 7. You might be surprised how many more offensive chances you'll get if you tire out their Defense a little. You know, keep them on the field shedding blocks and having to make tackles.
Yeah, it might be a tired meme, since its so damn obvious.
Now my beliefs have migrated toward the idea that moderating his spread attack or running a fundamentally sound pro set offense was never an option. He wouldnt know where to begin. Its evident that he's a one trick pony and had no choice but to run the only way he knew how regardless of the personel. It was not stubbornness, it was ignorance.
Watch his interview during the capital one bowl in 2008. He says straight up the he's going to modify things to match the players. Your and others assertion is that we had no players, fine. I find that an awful tired meme too. Minnesota or Purdue would have gladly snatched up most of the guys on that roster and been happy to do so. Even those perennial middlings wouldnt go 3-9 and lose to Toledo.
The Toledo loss was to a team so bad they fired their coach at the end of the season. In my opinion this was a much worse loss than App State. App State would have beaten those Rockets by 30 points.
Disclaimer: My second team to root for is the Rockets.
Purdue's big win in 08 was Central Michigan and we beat Minnesota....I am not sure what your point is. And since 08, Purdue has had 4 guys drafted, Minnesota has had 2, and we have had 7, so I don't really know if they gladly would have snatched up most of the guys on our roster. Are the facts that we have had one of the worst 3 year draft turnouts in the history of our program the facts that interest you or do you still think we had a lot of talent?
i liked rich as a man and a offensive coach. i did not like him as a head coach. guys like mattison wldve never even returned a call to someone like rich. we are laying a foundation of toughness...not gimmics. and that makes me happy
Yeah, but Mattison took a job for a "gimmicky" coach when Meyer wanted him. Turns out that worked pretty well
good point. however...glad to move on regardless
pwn pwn pwned.
The entire phrase "foundation of toughness" is a gimmick. It's schtick. Hoke will ensure that players learn fundamentals, and his theorized offensive philosophy is based more on overpowering than speed and agility. That doesn't mean anyone is tougher, it means people will make their blocks and there'll be fullbacks out there slamming into people, which will make everyone go "omgz look how much tougher they are than an RR team" despite the fact that an RR team isn't supposed to do that (well, except for make their blocks, which would've been nice, especially the WRs).
"Hoke = Upgrade."
We'll agree to disagree.
Coachspeak: "The main thing for [a new coach] is to develop your players and develop that team, but you don't want to neglect other areas. And that can be a tough balancing act. You've got to lean on your staff a lot."
Translation: "Thanks for nothing, GERG."
Coachspeak: "[Michigan] can do very well. They've got 19 returning starters, the player of the year returning in Denard Robinson. And they've got eight home games."
Translation: "Thanks for nothing, Lloyd."
Coachspeak: "I think Brady's getting a lot of support, both internally and externally."
West Virginia disagrees
I find it very interesting to hear Rich speak regarding the current Michigan team. One can see that he has done his best to move on, although I think its pretty clear that he really wanted that 4th year. Very competitive guy
...and it might not even be so contrarian.
My feeling is that as great a year as Denard had last year, he had LOTS of room for improvement this year, insofar as he may have been running Rodriguez's offense. Denard is brilliant. I love Denard. I worship the ground that Denard's afterburners leave smoking underneath him. But I can think of two or three very big plays in every 2010 game that we lost, in which Denard, playing as essentially a first-year QB in the Big Ten, made freshman-appearing decisions. And it is not easy to be the QB in that offense. It was to be expected.
I think Denard had a very suspect game against Miss St.; and Denard played poorly against Mich. St., too. Turn around the results of those two games (PSU, Wisconsin and OSU were all lost causes), and is Rodriguez relieved at the end of the season? And I'm not even talking about the odd fumble or turnover on Denard's part, when the guy is handling the football 70 times and running with it 25 times. I'm talking about learning and executing the basic stuff that Rodriguez was trying to teach him.
I am not knocking Denard or blaming 2010 on him. Far from it. He is our hero. What I am saying, is that I think Rodriguez has an excellent case to be made, supporting his statement of last spring when he said he would have expected "exponential" improvement in 2011. Because I think that as good as Denard was in 2010, he'd be that much better in 2011 leading the Rodriguez spread.
Now isn't this thread an interesting bookend to yesterday's "Lowering Expectations" thread? No matter how you feel personally, or what anybody might be able to predict, today we have Rich Rodriguez predicting a very solid (possible 10-win?!) season and laughing about five games at home to start, while yesterday Michael Rosenberg was predicting that Michigan "will struggle early" before a mystery win over Nebraska or Ohio State, because, well, you know, it's just how it's gonna be, at the end. Tremendous.
It is nice to surmise that with a couple plays we win a couple more games, but without Crist getting hurt - maybe we have another loss
Except that reimagining the team's record was a secondary point. (Relevant only to what might have been enough to keep Rodriguez here.) The main point was what kind of improvement could be expected this year. My expectation is that even the best player on the team would have improved greatly, and as a QB would be a very big difference-maker for any 2011 W/L record.
However as you noted, you only suggested two games where Denard's improvement alone would have been enough, I've suggested one where we got pretty lucky, taking both, one game swing.
Maybe it is the term exponential growth that bothered me, but extrapolating one players significant growth into a significant improvement in record eems a stretch to me. The point I was making is that many people like to point to expected improvement in Denard as a reason that we would have been so much better with RR, yet they ignore so many other factors.
I fear that some have such lofty views of what RR would have done, that they will likely view anything Hoke does as less than what would have been. If we beat ND with all their starters, take care of the middle of the pack in the big ten teams and can stay within a touchdown of the best big ten teams, we will be a significantly better team, that won't make our record any better
He even clarifies his point for the second time and you still completely miss it. He isn't trying to debate what could have been or what was under RR. He's talking about Denard and his potential improvement. It isn't hard to imagine that, when considering the improvement we saw from Denard between year one and two, Denard could have shown exponential improvement between year two and three in terms of running the spread offense You're the one talking about records, he just used the two losses to illustrate a point..
but the things i couldn't get over were the defense and special teams. I think RR is a great coach but the choices he made at the coordinator positions still baffle me. I'll take Hoke with his hotshot coordinators over RR and his staff of baddies.
I just don't see how 9-10 wins was possible with that D..no matter how much better Denard got
You missed his point, I think - you're talking about good luck the team had that could have gone the other way, but he's not talking about luck. He's saying that Denard was good, but still had lots of room to improve. Expecting a first year starter to be significantly better in his second year in the same system is not a particularly bold stance to take.
I suspect Denard still improves fundamentally as a passer this year, since he was actually pretty raw last year (even though much better than we expected). However, I think the new system will require a lot more thought and precision, so even if his mechanics are better, it may not translate to better performance.
Something is off in the universe because for the second time in 2 days I agree with section 1 on a RR topic. Denard was Awesome last year but he definitely played like a freshman starter against at least 2 teams that we lost to. Now, o don't think that you can extrapolate a what would have been record because there are too many variables, but the point is that denied can be expected to improve and that may lead to a great season.
To make himself look good if we achieve it or not?
Or both he and Rosenberg now just analysts who get paid to give out silly predictions because people talk about them, and it garners hits?
Winning in the Big East doesn't prove shit. Now winning in the Mountain West and the MAC, that's where men are born.
Well Urban Meyer was first in the MAC, and then in the MWC. So by the conclusion of my n=1 study and some savvy statistical regression models, Hoke is destined to win multiple NCs.
meta-analysis or gtfo.
I love this board, but I don't understand why any pro RR people get downvoted and anti RR people get upvoted. I understand this wasn't meant to be a "debate RR" thread, but if someone says "Hoke is an upgrade, heres why..." you're asking for someone to disagree with you. I think both posts are fine, however the response to Hoke being an upgrade gets downvoted, and the "Hoke is an upgrade" post gets upvoted.
People have differing opinions. Always will. It's not a sin to believe that RR is/was was a better coach. Rooting for Hoke to fail would be, however I don't think any RR supporters are rooting against Hoke in any way.
The reason why the RR faction had such support on MGoBlog and those opposing and innocently questioning Rodriguez got negbanged is because of a few reasons:
1) Misopogon's Decimated Defense, Mathlete's work to show correlations between performance and youth/new defensive coordinator, and the hours that Brian poured into figuring out why the team was underachieving gave many readers something to point towards when disagreeing with people questioning Rodriguez. Had someone that disagreed with Rodriguez put the detail into why they thought Rodriguez was doing a bad job aside from blanket statistics like "losing record," "horrible Big Ten record," etc, I truly feel like it would have been better received.
2) The Free Press Jihad made it feel like there was a media firestorm against Rodriguez, and any questioning of his methods only piled onto that firestorm, making it more difficult for Rodriguez to achieve success. This is by no means correct since Random Blog Guy has less effect on the negative atmosphere than Booing Fans in Stands or Real Life Protester or "When Can We Fire This Guy?" Letter-Writer, but it's possible that Random Blog Guy is the same as those showing disgust in real life.
Again, this is only my theory so take it FWIW. The obvious counterargument to this is the lack of content Brian has generated to show why Hoke will succeed versus what he generated for Rodriguez, but then again there's not a lot of material for Brian to go through for Hoke. So I can understand why Brian's not trying to rally the troops to support Hoke.
But there's also a reflexive "defend our coach" aspect, and it only seems to apply to the current guy, not the last guy. Lloyd could get roasted when Rich was coach, and be the blame for every bad thing that happened; and now Rich can be criticized without much backlash, whereas Hoke gets the benefit of the doubt. The main difference is the editorial viewpoint of the blog that backed Rich but not the other guys so much.
You're right that the "defend our coach" position is the default one amongst the commentariat, but I think the main editorial viewpoint at the site has consistently been contrarian towards "common wisdom" (as opposed to "pro" or "anti" any particular coach).
Thus analytical criticism toward RR was tolerated (and eventually encouraged) while "blue hair in club seat / brah on sidewalk / dolphin-puncher" criticism was thrashed. "RR's defenses are terrible because he fails to place linebackers in position to effectively react to plays and avoid blocks" was fine, "DickRod is awful because he's not a MICHIGAN MAN and that newfangled spread offense with tiny quick guys will never work in BIG TEN POWAH FOOTBAW" was not. Common wisdom said RR "doesn't get Michigan and stubbornly forced a spread on an otherwise good team". Analysis showed that late-Carr recruiting played a major role in early struggles. This blog strongly defended analysis.
This rather neatly explains Brian's current lukewarm editorial stance on Hoke. The current hype around Hoke (and Hoke's own public persona) is based in large part on "common wisdom" - "He's a MICHIGAN MAN", "he gets tradition", "he preaches TOUGHNESS", etc. Brian's editorial voice is reflexively annoyed by this type of "analysis" , even though it's positive (actually, precisely because it's the sort of positive that resonates with blue hairs and brahs). Despite that, Brian gives praise where analysis can be done (mostly recruiting). With little relevant performance data to go on, and Hoke's actual record fairly mixed, the "analytical stance" on Hoke is not fully formed and we get mostly the negative reaction to the common wisdom fawning.
The commentariat is stuck between "defend the coach" and "analyze the data (most of which is only relevant to the fired coach)" and anarchy reigns.
against Hoke has been MANBALL!! The site has become what it once hated.
Goodness. We won't see if Hoke's an upgrade until several years down the line, Rodriguez obviously didn't do enough to stay, and all of this debate before Hoke has coached one game at Michigan is asinine.
Who are we to judge whether RR did or didn't do enough to stay? Obviously Brandon didn't think he had done enough to stay. However, if we had a different AD, and RR is still here, did he suddenly do enough to stay?
I understand its a slightly pointeless thing to debate but to say that he "obviously didn't do enough to stay" is a very bold statement IMO.
You do know what his record was right?
Yes, I'm aware of his record. He won 3, 5, and 7 games. When Rich was hired I expected him to struggle initially, but I was willing to experience a few down years in order to see a team with brilliant offensive schemes and michigan caliber players. Clearly we saw the very beginnings of this plan last year on the offensive end. We also returned 10 starters this year, so clearly the offensive performance was beginning to take place.
I also envisioned an average Michigan defense, which I think we would have seen this year. One of the best offenses in CFB, with an average big ten defense IMO would be a formula that would tear through the Big 10 year after year.
Obviously we didn't have an average defense last year, however my thinking is that it's must easier to improve special teams and defense to an average level, than improve an offense from above average to elite.
I don't like the guy but I'm sure these interviews are frustrating. You don't see Phil Fulmer fielding Tennessee questions every five minutes.
The Fifth Amendment protects him from answering those questions.
Insert interview here.
Gai1: Hey! RR didn't get a fair shake, THE OFFFENSE!!!, moar experience next year!!! WINS WINS WINS
Gai2: Rich Fraud sucks, no D! No MANball!! rabble rabble rabble
...that Colbert was gai.
I think your link is broken. When I clicked on it all I saw were broken dreams.
The interviewer removes the mic from his mouth before he actually ends the question and they shot the video in front of a spotlight resulting in a very distracting backlight. I cannot believe CBS will put out this kind of garbage -- but then again, it's CBS.
I noticed RR commented that he thinks Michigan will have 9 or 10 wins..."at least that's what I expected if we were going to be there."
While at Michigan, RR never stated what he thought his record was going to be for the coming year. This thing RR did here is not a "prediction". By stating these many wins (which I firmly believe is too high and on purpose) he is effectively telling Brandon to kiss his ass and an attempt to put Hoke in a poor light if he doesn't get 9 or 10 wins this year. To RR, anything less should cause fans to think Hoke failed, and at or above it will be because it was with RR's players.
If that isn't throwing Brandon and Hoke under the bus I don't know what is.
If we had a defense like we do with our offense, 9 or 10 wins is real. The reality is, if Hoke goes less than 9 or 10, it WILL be because of RR's defense -- AGAIN.
What a perfect illustration this is, of what I was saying about the "bookends" comprised of this thread, and yesterday's "Lowered Expectations" thread. LOL.
It really is too funny. If Hoke wins it will "be because of his ability to use his talents for what they do best" and if he loses it will "be because of RR and that stupid defense."
Too funny. I really feel bad for RR.
if anyone is thinking that RR is between a rock and a hard place with these interviews, don't forget he is being paid to have a mic shoved in his face AND he knew he was going to be put in the position to comment on Michigan, Hoke, et al.
I supported RR while he was here. Now I support Hoke. And after Hoke wins A LOT here for a long time, I will support the next guy.
what would this guy have said if RR predicted we would win5 games and cite the fact that we were going through a transistion on offense as the reason? Then it would have been "RR thinks we are going to suck this year...he hates BH and doesn't think anyone can coach offense like he does..boo hoo hoo" This is really getting ridiculous.
Ha! I love it. 20 returning starters. 8 home games. No Wisconsin or Penn State. Returning Big 10 offensive player of the year....why wouldn't he predict the same amount of wins to temper expectations. It's the only logical conclusion.
And if we aren't taking into account the team he inherited, he had the worst offense in a very long time that has had 1 player drafted in his 3 years. That 1 player just happened to be the only returning starter when he came in. It is pretty easy to pick one aspect of the last 3 years and draw whatever conclusion you want.
And you are pretty set on avoiding another completely obvious conclusion...that we would have gotten quite a bit better no matter who was coach this year. That is what happens when you return 20 starters and the best dual threat QB in the history of college football. Thus my point.
Wouldn't post it with a ten foot pole. Or whatever. Because I knew it would become...this.
But you do make a great point, he should probably just abstain from the question, because it's no win for him. Predict too many wins and it looks like he's trying to say "if 'I' was the coach we'd win that many...and they didn't? tsk tsk" or "well, so what they won 10 games...we would have too" OR if he predicts too few, he's basically saying either this coaching staff will be a mess, or "damn, I left him crap, I should have been fired". There's no way for him to come off sounding good in answering it, unless he gets into a long winded analysis of transition, and player development blah blah blah that doesn't fit the current media soundbyte format. But he's going to be asked it. I guess he could have not taken a media job....but it seems like a lot to ask to not take money people want ot throw at you just to avoid one question a session.
Well and the fact that his new employer loves hearing us debate about his predicted wins. RR has to know that any debate he stirs up is good for CBS Sports, who is cutting his paycheck nowadays.
Yeah he fell short of expectations, but always though he did it the right way.