Schefter: Harbaugh to NCAA Unlikely
December 1st, 2014 at 8:46 AM ^
December 1st, 2014 at 8:59 AM ^
From what I gathered, he's going to be run out of SF for the same reasons he is such a good coach, most especially at the college level; His harsh, in your face, overly competitive nature really wears on multi-millionaire players and execs who he works with on an open ended basis as well as the fans of those players, but does wonders on 18-22 year olds who are in and out in 3-5 years.
December 1st, 2014 at 8:59 AM ^
He's won wherever he goes, can develop quarterbacks, and has a fire to win that seems to be unmatched.
December 1st, 2014 at 9:07 AM ^
December 1st, 2014 at 9:29 AM ^
"arguably the best football coach in the world"
uh, I mean, I really like Harbaugh and hope he comes to Michigan, but I'm trying hard to think of any good argument even putting Harbaugh on the same tier with Belichick and not coming up with one.
December 1st, 2014 at 9:36 AM ^
apart from Belichick and maybe the guy in GB who's name escapes me right now, you can make a very gopod argument he is at the top tier of NFL coaches, just like he was at the top tier of college for what he did at Stanford.
December 1st, 2014 at 11:23 AM ^
The guy in GB? He's just a beneficiary of Rodgers. They are maddeningly inconsistent defensively and get wiped out in the playoffs over and over. Pete Carroll, on the other hand, is certainly making a case for being one of the best coaches.
December 1st, 2014 at 11:24 AM ^
The guy in GB? He's just a beneficiary of Rodgers. They are maddeningly inconsistent defensively and get wiped out in the playoffs over and over. Pete Carroll, on the other hand, is certainly making a case for being one of the best coaches.
December 1st, 2014 at 11:50 AM ^
Really? Mike Mcarthy, the guy that won a Super Bowl and 3 straight NFC championships. That's like saying Belichick is a beneficiary of Tom BRady. Sure Rodgers is probably the best QB in the NFL for the forseable future, but it still takes a good coach to win, case and point the Detroit Lions.
Besides not to mention the fact the Packers are consistantly working well under the cap and lower salaries than almost all other playoff contenders and actually build their team through drafting. They also have been the most injured team (by games lost per starter) the past 3 or 4 seasons, included the Super Bowl run.....
December 1st, 2014 at 12:57 PM ^
Um, Mike McCarthy has never won three straight NFC championships as a head coach. In fact, in his 8 seasons in Green Bay, McCarthy hasn't even been to three NFC Championship Games. He has been to two; he won in 2010 when they won the Super Bowl and lost in 2007 to the Giants.
December 1st, 2014 at 11:53 AM ^
Really? Mike Mcarthy, the guy that won a Super Bowl and 3 straight NFC North championships. That's like saying Belichick is a beneficiary of Tom BRady. Sure Rodgers is probably the best QB in the NFL for the forseable future, but it still takes a good coach to win, case and point the Detroit Lions.
Besides not to mention the fact the Packers are consistantly working well under the cap and lower salaries than almost all other playoff contenders and actually build their team through drafting. They also have been the most injured team (by games lost per starter) the past 3 or 4 seasons, included the Super Bowl run.....
December 1st, 2014 at 11:57 AM ^
Are you talking about Vince Lombardi?
December 1st, 2014 at 10:02 AM ^
Well, a good reason to start with is that he has made the conference championship in every season he's ever coached in the NFL. With a team that was a disaster when he came on board.
December 1st, 2014 at 10:55 AM ^
well, start with BB's first 4 years as a head coach in the NFL, and go from there. Or his last 4 years and go from there. The only way you don't conclude that they are on the same teir is if you cherry pick a four year stretch that ended 10 years ago. Funny that those were also in the same stretch of years that "arguably" the greatest QB in football history was in his prime.
Just to be clear, I think Belichick is the best coach in football, but I think right now, today, there is a great argument that he has company at the top.
December 1st, 2014 at 12:53 PM ^
What? No.
Belichick has won the AFC East 11 times in 14 years at New England, including the past 5 AFC East titles, not including the AFC East title the Patriots are cruising to this year. For 11 straight years, the Patriots have won at least 10 games, and they've only been as "bad" as 10-6 twice in that span. With the Patriots, Belichick has been to the Divisional round 10 times, the AFC Championship Game 8 times, and the Super Bowl 5 times. Belichick coached the only team in NFL history to complete a 16-0 regular season, and, yes, won the Super Bowl 3 times in 4 years. It is an incredible, nigh-unprecedented run of consistency that no other active coach even comes close to matching, and it's made all the more impressive by the fact that Belichick has achieved it even in the face of incredible turnover both in his roster (how many Pro Bowl players have the Patriots kicked to the curb over the past 15 years?) and among his assistant coaches (how many Belichick coordinators have gone on to become head coaches with other NFL teams or huge college programs? The number is at least 5 or 6, not counting any assistants that may have taken other jobs before becoming head coaches). The only constant for the Patriots under Belichick has been Brady...and before you discount Belicihick's success for having a Hall of Fame QB to work with, please find for me another coach blessed with a Brady-esque talent at QB and show me their equivalent 15 year period of dominance.
There are any number of great coaches in the NFL right now, and Harbaugh is undoubtedly one of them. But there is no argument as to who is the best, and the best has no peers in the firmament, at least as far as I'm concerned. Track record matters in these discussions; otherwise it devolves to "welp, Coach X had a great gameplan for Team Y last week, guess he's one of the best!" The idea that I have to "cherry pick a four year stretch from 10 years ago" in order to make the argument that Belichick is head and shoulders ahead of everyone else is ludicrous.
Tier 1: Belichick
Tier 2: have at it.
December 1st, 2014 at 1:01 PM ^
December 1st, 2014 at 1:13 PM ^
Harbaugh has won with
(1) the best college QB prospect of his generation, who would go on to be drafted #1 overall
(2) another QB drafted #1 overall
(3) a QB drafted at the beginning of the second round
Let's not pretend that Harbaugh has worked with guys hired off XFL practice squads.
And I addressed the Brady argument in my post: show me a coach working with a Brady-level talent who has done as well as Belichick for as long as Belichick has. Be sure to start your answer with Aaron Rodgers' Mike McCarthy and Drew Brees' Sean Payton, both of whom consistently get knocked out of the playoffs by the divisional round, and the four different head coaches Peyton Manning has had in his career, three of whom only lasted for 3-4 seasons.
December 1st, 2014 at 1:53 PM ^
Except a lot of this is revisionist history. Tom Brady was not Tom effing Brady for their Super Bowl wins. He was a thoroughly good but not quite great QB.
In 2001 (Brady played in 15 games and started 14), Brady was 22nd in passing yards (2843), 14th in TDs (18), 22nd in INTs (12), 4th in completion% (63.9), 24th in YPG (189.5), and 6th in quaterback rating (86.5).
In 2003, Brady was 6th in passing yards (3620), 10th in TDs (23), 17th in INTs (12), 13th in completion% (60.2), 9th in YPG (226.3), and 10th in quarterback rating (85.9).
In 2004, Brady was 10th in passing yards (3692), 6th in TDs (28), 12th in INTs (14), 17th in completion% (60.8), 15th in YPG (230.8), and 9th in quarterback rating (92.6).
So while you could argue he was the best QB in the league due to them winning those Super Bowls and how clutch he was, statistically speaking he wasn't anywhere close to the best.
It really wasn't until 2007 that Tom became the one man wrecking crew/juggernaut/destroyer of worlds that we all think of today.
December 1st, 2014 at 12:03 PM ^
You must not be trying very hard because a simple argument could be made from the performance of their two teams. In the three years that Harbaugh has been in the league his teams have performed equal to Belichick's teams in terms of how far they have advanced in the playoffs. Considering that Harbaugh did this with Alex Smith and Colin Kaepernick and Belichick has Tom Brady I feel like a decent argument can be made there. Also, Jim Harbaugh has a remarkable coaching tenure at Stanford to add to the resume hence the phrase "football coach" was used rather than NFL coach. I'm not going to argue with anyone about Harbaugh/Belichick because I care less than zero about the NFL but I think there is an argument to be made.
December 1st, 2014 at 1:05 PM ^
You could make that argument, but it wouldn't be a good one, because it ignores the fact that 15 years of consistent success are much harder than 3 years of consistent success and one year (2014) of distinct mediocrity.
Again, I like Harbaugh a lot, but 3 good years in San Francisco and one elite year at Stanford do not place you on par with Belichick.
December 1st, 2014 at 9:37 AM ^
I cant really figure out why anyone would be so enamored with Les Miles at this point either. A friend of mine writes for the LSU SBNation site and routinely brings up how large segments of the fanbase are eager to boot Miles out of Baton Rouge. Of course, many of these fans are spoiled and ignorant of how good they have it, but the fact remains that Miles' tenure is littered with woefully uninspiring offenses, subpar quarterback development, and a costly clock management mistake or two. Now, this is also complimented with stellar defensive play and player development but I think much of the credit there goes to John Chavis, an SEC lifer. Im also skeptical of how well Miles would perform without having Louisiana talent to draw from.
Im not making a case against Miles necessarily, just adding that he's not without his question marks either. Michigan is in a difficult position, this year especially, but it sounds like the Harbaugh or bust crowd better be prepared for disappointment.
December 1st, 2014 at 10:19 AM ^
It's all about perspective. I suspect that the reason that the LSU fanbase is not as enthusiastic about Miles is the same reason that our fanbase was somewhat down on Carr during his last three years. Like Michigan, LSU fans are spoiled by regularly finishing with 8+ wins (often more) and being in the conference championship discussion. They don't realize how good they have it, and don't appreciate how hard it is to sustain success over a long period of time, even with all of the institutional advantages conferred by an LSU or Michigan type program. Based upon Miles' success, their perspective is skewed.
Our perspective is also skewed, such that a coach who can regularly win 8+ games and compete on a national scale would be a dream at this point for most of us. Sure, for all of the reasons that you outlined (and you nicely summed up the negatives), Miles is far from perfect. But, when compared with the other candidates out there - good coordinators with no HC experience, lower conference coaches who may or may not be able to hack it on the national stage, Ron English, Cam Cameron or Hoke returning - Miles is a massive upgrade.
December 1st, 2014 at 11:08 AM ^
That may be part of it, but I can understand the ambivalence of LSU fans. Ironically, it's not the results on the field--his record hasn't been bad at all, which is why he still has a job.
But I am not convinced that Les Miles is a particularly good coach. He obviously knows how to acquire talent, since boatloads of it truck into the NFL every year. But the team on the field seems to be more a collection of talent than a well-coached team of players; this is particularly true on offense, where Les has squandered jaw-dropping levels of talent every year with mediocre offenses. When people think of low-scoring SEC slugfests, they think of LSU, because every one of LSU's biggest games in the Les area are low-scoring slugfests.
That is criminal with the kind of talent he has had on the field. Actually, kind of like Lloyd Carr in that respect. But he's not a fantastic game-manager either, frequently making crazy choices that get bailed out by lucky plays (remember the 25-yard TD pass with 1 second left against Auburn a few years ago, when a field goal was the right move?) or stupidity by the other team (Tennessee trying to win a game with 15 players on defense).
The reason Miles hasn't been fired for all of this is that he keeps winning. The way he coaches suggests that he should be losing two or three games a year that he shouldn't, and it just never quite happens. I think LSU fans are fine with him going because they're convinced that the bottom will fall out at any moment.
December 1st, 2014 at 11:26 AM ^
This is a very good summary, and it is also the reason why Miles to Michigan wouldn't excite me. There are so many things wrong with the way that he coaches and I feel like he wouldn't get away with them nearly to the same extent at Michigan that he does at LSU.
December 1st, 2014 at 12:09 PM ^
If collections of talent won games on their own, Michigan wouldn't be looking for a new coach
December 1st, 2014 at 12:27 PM ^
i've heard today.
December 1st, 2014 at 2:05 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 1st, 2014 at 12:13 PM ^
He's been able to win at LSU, but LSU already had a strong program in place when he took over. I think the comparisons to Carr's record at M (at least on the field) are fair. When Carr was here, the consensus seemed to be that he was a good fit for the program he inherited but might not have been an ideal choice to rebuild a dysfunctional program. I have similar concerns about Miles. As you say, his game management is shaky and he doesn't have a track record of getting the most out of his players.
I think Miles' track record at Oklahoma State is more relevant for us than his record at LSU. At Okie St, he inherited a 3-8 team and was modestly successful: 4-7, 8-5, 9-4, 7-5. That was 14 years ago, though.
If we're going to raid the SEC, I'd rather have Mullen.
December 1st, 2014 at 1:35 PM ^
Not only would I rather have Mullen, but I'd rather have Bielema or Freeze. Miles isn't even my third most desired candidate in the SEC right now.
December 1st, 2014 at 9:41 AM ^
Unless you call the way Parcells left the Giants and Patriots "getting run out of town." He's not getting the authority he feels he deserves and is tired of dealing with unprofessional management/ownership that undermines him publicly and through media back channels. He's the best possible hire anyone could make at the NFL or college level.
And for that reason, him returning to Michigan has always been a pipe dream.
December 1st, 2014 at 10:21 AM ^
We want him because he's the antithesis of Hoke.
Has intensity where Hoke has pudding.
Has fire where Hoke has "well..."
Has a standard of excellence where Hoke has "we need to execute..."
Has a proven track record at every stop where Hoke had a losing record coming in.
Knows how to recruit/develop QBs whereas Hoke knows D Line gaps and how to clap his hands.
It's sad we won't land Harbaugh. I'm not loving the Miles alternative because he's never recruited the QB position all that well, which is vital. But Miles, or anyone frankly, will be better than Hoke in terms of coaching and competitive competence.
December 2nd, 2014 at 1:42 AM ^
December 1st, 2014 at 11:27 AM ^
Stanford, national power.
December 1st, 2014 at 12:14 PM ^
He may be ran out of SF for what ever reasons. Why are we head over heels for a guy that's going to fail?He is not failing by any reasonable standard. He's recorded four winning seasons in four years and has reached the NFC championship game in his first three. He is only "failing" by his crazy owner's standard.
December 1st, 2014 at 1:05 PM ^
December 1st, 2014 at 1:21 PM ^
December 1st, 2014 at 8:47 AM ^
At least we were all swiftly knocked back down to reality this time around. Now if Les could just say no instead of using M as a bargaining chip for another contract, we can really get back down to Earth.
and........
Now I'm sad again.
December 1st, 2014 at 8:57 AM ^
Time to start drinking and get out of bed. Schefter, you troll.
December 1st, 2014 at 11:22 AM ^
Not sure if serious, but don't shoot the messenger - Schefter is a Michigan grad who keeps the winged helmet on his shelves in the background of his every broadcast. His news on Harbaugh is as credible as it gets.
December 1st, 2014 at 2:18 PM ^
I like Schefter and think he usually does great work, but the "troll" was referring to what him saying Harbaugh would replace RR couple years back.
December 1st, 2014 at 11:55 AM ^
"On ESPN's Football Today podcast, NFL analyst Adam Schefter said Thursday that he believes Jim Harbaugh will replace Rich Rodriguez as the Wolverines' head coach after the season.... 'The sense is Jim Harbaugh will wind up at the University of Michigan ... Again, this is the buzz around the league. This is what smart people think is going to happen. That's the sense of people that I know, trust and respect — that Harbaugh will not go to the Niners, that he will go to Michigan.'"
December 30, 2010
Maybe we should all cool our jets on the supposed reliability of Schefter's sources. Love the guy, but he's been wrong in the very recent past about this exact subject.
December 1st, 2014 at 1:22 PM ^
through the back channel and was all set to have him to be the next coach until SF swoped in and hired him. Dave Brandon can deny that he never offered him which is his position.
December 1st, 2014 at 9:43 AM ^
Likely or not it never hurts to throw your best offer out there.
December 1st, 2014 at 8:39 AM ^
December 1st, 2014 at 10:36 AM ^
Oh no.....
December 1st, 2014 at 8:39 AM ^
Schefter is a big Michigan guy, and one of the more trustworthy ESPN guys. As much as I would love to see it happen, gotta trust Schefty on this one......
December 1st, 2014 at 8:55 AM ^
I like Schefter and think he does a great job. Like any reporter, though, he's only as good as his sources. Any report is subject to its sources opinions and biases.
New Orleans Saints head coach, Sean Payton, just blasted Schefter yesterday for what he pretty much called a lie. Is it possible that Payton was the one who wasn't being truthful? Yes, but my point is reporters are not far removed from weathermen. They gotta report something, whether it's right or not.
“Go to Adam Schefter and check with Adam. Because I think I would know if we were interested in signing any player. And so, but those are the Sunday splash reports. When you’re in this business, on Sunday, you’ve got to have something that everyone reads, regardless if it’s truthful or not,” Payton said, via the Baton Rouge Advocate. “We like our running back depth. And, if you would do a little research, Khiry [Robinson]’s coming back next week. Any more splash reports I can answer your questions about?”
December 1st, 2014 at 9:24 AM ^
I may seem to be desperately holding out hope (because I am) but he said "unlikely" so you have to wonder how the information was communicated. Was it a source he only MOSTLY trusts? Or is that exactly what the source said? And how would anyone know? If Harbaugh wants to coach Michigan it doesn't seem like he would let that information out there to anyone outside of his immediate family or his agent.
December 1st, 2014 at 10:06 AM ^
Exactly. And that's my point about reporters' sources...because these people seem to rarely go on record anymore.
Who is the source?
Who is their employer?
What is their position?
Do they have anything to gain by getting the word out?
What mood were they in when you talked to them (were they pissed - if so, at what or whom)?
We rely on the reporter to vet these kinds of things, but how often do they really do that? In the 24 hour news cylce, is there time or even an emphasis put on decifering any biases that your sources may have?
The CC: should be treated like the NFL draft - don't believe anything you hear, read or see.