Semi OT: Enough with "The coaches have thought of it" Posts
This post was triggered by a response to the previous thread, but has been a long time coming anyway.
Ever since the Freep article came out, the majority of users on this site have rallied around Rodriguez. This is perfectly fine, especially as it seems clear that people have unfairly targeted Rodriguez for criticism about pretty much everything.
What is annoying is a trend that seems to me, at least, to have emerged with a vengeance this season, namely posts claiming that any football related ideas someone comes up with have been thought of by the coaches and would be used if it were a good idea. This is often probably true. However, it generally doesn't need to be posted because:
a) The coaches may not have thought of every single damn idea for a play that people post on the board. And some may work.
b) The coaches are not always right about play selection and the depth chart. Nick Sheridan was named the starting QB last season. That didn't exactly work out on the field. Furthermore, if their decisions were always correct, we'd win more games.
c) Part of being a fan is speculating on ideas. It is supposed to be fun. We know that the coaches have probably thought of most of our ideas and have justifiable reasons for not implementing them. It doesn't mean we can't discuss them anyway.
d) As fans, we should not be members of a rigid orthodoxy in which expressing an opinion that is contrary to that of the coaches is tantamount to heresy. If we were, then we would never have reason to say anything in opposition to Scott Shafer (or Jay Hopson, or any of the other coaches for that matter). Once again, sometimes the coaches get it wrong.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:10 AM ^
At times it seems as though (in terms of questioning the coaching staff) anything besides a monotone recitation of "this is a three or four year plan, the cupboard is bare, this is not going to happen overnight" is cause for much scorn. I say the more opinions the better, keep everybody thinking.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:11 AM ^
Enough with the "Enough with..." posts.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:14 AM ^
And stuff about the blog is On Topic.November 5th, 2009 at 9:16 AM ^
my problem is with people who act as if the coaches are somehow blinded or handicapped and therefore are not making the right calls. like the fan sitting on his faux-leather couch is seeing and understanding things that the staff is simply missing. my guess is that these coaches have broken down the film six ways sideways. i know it's fun to play coach as a fan, and i enjoy doing it too. but it pisses me off when people act as if they could do a better job.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:45 AM ^
I probably spend 5-10 hours a week thinking about Michigan Football not the 80+ hours a week the coaches do. Most of us have never coached at any level. I like everyone else get frustrated and like to conjecture - but the bottom line is most of us don't know dick - coaching is not our profession.
I have no problem with discussing and arguing, asking questions about playing or coaching, but when we start to assume we know more or are "smarter" than people who do this for a living then that's a problem for me.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:09 PM ^
The coaching staff is working from 12-18 hours a day, seven days a week during camp and season; they do this for a living and they know football a lot better than we ever will.
That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing a little "reverse wildcat" next year.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:21 AM ^
has the right to question every play call that the coaches do. The problem is that Joe Schmoe thinks that even he Joe Schmoe could do a better job coaching this team than the coaches. He often says things like "I've played Madden and NCAA my whole life and I win lots of National Championships it's easy!" and "Why are we paying these guys millions of dollars to suck I have all of the answers".
Don't even get me started on the "Denard should be moved to slot now" posts.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:26 AM ^
I'm normally one to use the line of logic that 'the coaches know best' for two main reasons. Once again, I assume this is be a minority opinion here.
First, it just comes off as narcissistic to me to think that you know better then a professional that is highly respected in his/her field. I roll my eyes whenever I hear about people that don't listen to their doctor because they read something online and think they know everything. If you pay a professional to do a job because they are the best person for the job....let them do the job.
Second, unless you have been a coach, I don't think it's fair to criticize someone for a job you've never done. A head coach does not have an easy job and picking apart every single action is unnecessarily. A misused timeout or subbing in the wrong back in a goal line situation or the wrong play call; I consider these fairly small mistakes that can be forgiven. I make mistakes all the time in my work and if every mistake was talked about nearly endlessly right outside my office door...I might not be able to handle it with much grace.
With that said, Rich Rod is a human being and does make mistakes. But does every small misstep need to be hashed and re-hashed?
(now neg bang again without providing reasons)
November 5th, 2009 at 9:31 AM ^
But I am 100% with you on this one and agree with everything that you said. In the words of James Carville in Old School "It was perfect, I agree"
November 5th, 2009 at 9:45 AM ^
I agree that every little mistake shouldn't be rehashed endlessly. At the same time, I see no reason why fans cannot criticize their coach. As he has a multi-million dollar contract to win football games, I see no reason that we shouldn't criticize him as we would a professional athlete.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:55 AM ^
Dude, he JUST SAID that it's fair to criticize Rodriguez. There's a difference between criticism such as "the linebackers have struggled this year", and an internet poster scribbling a triple-reverse option spread t-bone center draw on the back of a napkin and acting like it's relevant.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:40 PM ^
"I don't think it's fair to criticize someone for a job you've never done."
So because I've never been a football coach, I cannot critique one. Does this mean that I cannot critique an author, an actor, or a professional baseball player because I've never written a novel, acted in a production, or played baseball at a high level?
He specifically says that it would be unfair for me to criticize Rodriguez because I've never coached football. In that case, Brian shouldn't have ever criticized Scott Shafer or Jay Hopson, even though both clearly didn't (or haven't) done a good job (thus far).
November 5th, 2009 at 10:51 AM ^
is in fact ridiculous. To use a non-sports example, our entire system of democracy is based on criticizing people whose jobs we've never held. It's called voting. And editorial writing. And letters to the editor or blog. Hello?
To those of you who say "hey, shut up because these guys get paid to coach and you don't" I say, then don't ever criticize your President or congressperson--they know much more than you do and get paid to do that job, you don't.
There. I've just ended all political debate. Enjoy yourselves.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:58 AM ^
No, actually, your point is ridiculous.
Criticizing a politician for "being pro-choice" or "starting a war" or "they want to fix healthcare" or whatever your political axe to grind may be does not require any expertise. People's opinions on such matters are based on ideology more often than anything else - if a politician does something in opposition to their ideology, there's an issue. So, there's a difference between saying "I'm opposed to President ______ not having a balanced budget" and saying "HE SHOULD NOT HAVE AAPOINTE JOHN SMITH TO BE HIS BUDGET DIRECTOR" when you know nothing about John Smith. "Being against the war" is different from nit-picking a General deciding to pull a flanking maneuver. You're conflating a general gripe on an ideological principal with a disagreement on a matter that virtually requires a certain level of technical proficiency. Capiche?
November 5th, 2009 at 11:26 AM ^
What is ideology based upon? People's individual analysis of what they think is right, and what they think works. Using your balanced budget example, at what point is it ok to criticize the lack of one? Should we stick to the fact that there is a lack of one, or is it ok to say that it's more important to reduce spending versus reducing taxes in order to achieve it? Or does that require a degree in economics in your world order? What if I criticize John Smith as Budget Director because I know from newspaper accounts that as Comptroller of the Currency he favored a higher tax rate on corporations and that this--based on my ideology--would be bad for the economy and would be the wrong way to balance the budget? No good again? What else should we restrict our commentary on?
I don't want to substitute my judgment for our coaches, and in fact I've been a consistent voice here for supporting them. But it's wrong to think that generally knowledgeable fans can't raise questions about strategy, not just wins/losses IMO.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:42 AM ^
It's with the incessant idiotic fans who post things like:
"We should start Sheridan"
"Why is Williams playing Vlad can't be any worse!"
"Move Denard to slot it's obvious he will never be a QB"
"Why don't we put Denard and Tate in the formation at the same time!"
"Denard is so fast he should be our kick/punt returner! SHOELACE WOO!"
"The linebackers suck obviously this means that we need to fire our LB coach"
etc
If we didn't have to answer the same god damn thing every day then yes I'd agree with you. But on this site most every idea has been hypothesized and discussed ad nauseam.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:42 PM ^
You don't have to answer the same idiotic questions, it's not really your responsibility. Sometimes I see one of your examples, sigh--and then actually move on.
I'm not saying that they are not dumb, repetitive and plainly wrong people and posts here--there are, lots of them, more than I might personally like. But to say (basically) "shut up, the coaches know more than you" to every person here that raises a question without discrimination is, IMO, as dumb as the questions themselves.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:33 PM ^
This list is excellent, and my only addition would be, "That play didn't work so the coaches screwed up the playcalling/personnel decision and here is what I would have done totally differently (with the benefit of hindsight)."
November 5th, 2009 at 1:01 PM ^
What I'm saying is that someone's belief on a macro level doesn't qualify them to nitpick the micro-level details that go about carrying out their macro-level belief. That's my problem with your political analogy - most people base their decision on broad-based platforms: Pro/Anti gun control? Pro/Anti immigration reform? Pro/Anti healthcare reform? Most voters don't get much deeper than that - and those that do, if we're to choose an example like gun control, would probably have problems suggesting an implementation process for gun control without consulting subject matter experts - like law enforcement.
To another analogy - it's one thing for a President to call for heightened troop levels in Afghanistan. It's another to dictate how and where they're used.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:34 AM ^
As someone who typically defends the coaching staff, I have no problem w/ people criticizing them. That said, critics should expect to have their opinions put under the microscope too...There's also a big difference between saying, "Denard Robinson should be moved to slot receiver" and "Rodriguez is an idiot for not moving Denard Robinson to slot receiver." The former is something you'd like to see. The latter is an attack.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:41 AM ^
but discussing what a poster may believe to be a big glaring problem should not be dismissed based simply on the fact that the poster is not the coach, or even has never been a coach. Not all coaches are good coaches, and all good coaches can read things incorrectly and often do make bad decisions. Your OP is well stated however and is hard to argue with. Example of good posting, the original post, your well thought out response, and this acknowledgement of your response with the corresponding point awarded.
Example of bad posting - "Are you the coach?!! Where have you coached?!! I guess I didn't see you in the huddle!!!" with a corresponding neg.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:57 AM ^
No, not all coaches are good coaches. But YOU, as someone who doesn't warrant being paid a cent to coach football at any level, or even being asked to coach peewee or powder-puff football, are, with nearly 100% certainty, a worse coach than a bad professional football coach.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:08 AM ^
Even John L Smith?
November 5th, 2009 at 10:26 AM ^
to the list of bad posting examples.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:37 AM ^
the coaches have already thought of 'Enough with "The coaches have thought of it" Posts'
November 5th, 2009 at 9:57 AM ^
I would argue that Nick Sheridan against Minnesota looked better than Steven Threet against anybody last season.
just sayin'
November 5th, 2009 at 10:15 AM ^
Doctor: I'm sorry, Seth9, but you have cancer.
Seth9: NO!
Doctor: I'm sorry, but it's true. The standard course of treatment for this would be to treat it with radiation and chemotherapy.
INTERNETZDOCTOR: Actually, Seth, I suggest that you take this pill full of pencil-shavings and puppy-drool. The puppy drool has been found to counteract the growth of melanoma with it's essence of unbearable cuteness. The pencil shavings are an irritant - they'll irritate the cancer so bad it'll leave.
Seth9: Hhhmmm, INTERNETZDOCTOR, I'm interested in your ideas. Where did you go to school?
INTERNETZDOCTOR: I went to Harvard. But I was en English Major. I write sitcoms now. BUT HARVARD.
Doctor: I only went to Iowa. But I actually have, you know, A MEDICAL DEGREE AND YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.
INTERNETZDOCTOR: HARVARD. Plus I used to play Operation. What, isn't it OK to question the MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT? They only want to sell you drugs and keep you SICK, man so they can sell you MORE DRUGS.
Doctor: Sure, it's OK to question my diagnosis - by, you know, getting a second opinion. From an actual Doctor.
Seth9: Hhhmmm. I don't know Doc. INTERNETZDOCTOR isn't afraid to speak truth to power, and I appreciate an inquisitive, original thought.
Doctor: Whatever.
INTERNETZDOCTOR: Let's go to Cedar Point!
fin
Postscript: One month later, Seth9 was dead due puppy-drools tendency to turn into carbolic acid on rollercoasters.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:38 AM ^
Not just an English Major, but an English Major. At HARVARD. In Cambridge.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:04 AM ^
My best friend is a doctor. nothing annoys him more than patients who think they know everything about how to diagnose and treat their illnesses. This goes to your point.
But he also will tell you there is no better patient than the patient who studies and asks pointed questions about the course of treatment. He can give you several examples of patients bringing things to the attention of doctors that were initially ignored, and then benefitted the patient. No one is above being second guessed.
I realize your analogy was just that, but I think this example can apply to any field. Read The Wisdom of Crowds for plenty of examples of the majority outdoing the experts in various fields.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:42 PM ^
I agree with the fact that patients that do research in an effort to maintian or better their health is a great thing. I have not had many that have unearthed anything to help me in treating them but they do come to me with a greater knowledge of what is going on in their body and thus make it much easier to discuss their treatment with them.
I think, however, in chitowns analogy he is showing a patient who has the benefit of having a Dr. give him advice (which he doesn't like, which is fine, everyone is entitled to a second opinion). When the patient disagrees with the advice, he enlists the help of an internet Dr. who is not actually an MD. Inspite of knowing this, the patient still takes the advice of the internet Dr, rather than the actual MD who has an actual license to practice. That's like going to see a plumber to get your engine fixed IME.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:57 PM ^
But IMO chi's example was used in support of criticizing people here who raise questions about coaching strategy and that is what I was addressing. I wouldn't take the advice of an mgoposter either over an expert, but I think it's possible they may have valid opinions when criticizing the coaches.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:04 PM ^
Of course they "may". I wouldn't argue otherwise. In general, however I believe that there's a reason why somebody sees fit to play Rodriguez millions to coach football instead of me. When the issues at hand are as blindingly simple as "Why isn't Denard Robinson at slot receiver?" then no, I don't think dissenting opinion on MGoblog has any validity whatsoever.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:49 PM ^
I think you are getting at my entire point. I would call Rich Rod an expert. I don't consider the average mgoboard poster as an expert (there are exceptions).
I agree that it's possible for a non-expect to have good observations, the phase "I bet the coach hasn't has thought of that" directly applies since he knows what he is doing. When someone brings an issue they have (say, use of time outs before half time) I fully believes that Rich Rod thinks about that issue a lot more then we give him credit for.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:00 PM ^
My post stated that there is no reason to follow up every damn thread suggesting that perhaps the coaching staff should attempt idea x by saying, the coaches have already thought of it and did not do it for whatever reason, therefore, your speculation is pointless. I went on to say that the coaches do not always make correct decisions, and at times, a fan-proposed idea might have actually *gasp* been a better decision (even though it probably isn't). Furthermore, even if a proposed idea is not feasible, it still might be fun to talk about.
Your response was to compare me to an elitist idiot who decides to take medical advice from a completely unqualified person on the internet over an actual doctor, ignoring the gravity of the situation (sports = entertainment, medicine = life and death), while equating college football to an actual science.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:55 PM ^
My main point was to be funny. You may think I failed. That's fine.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:32 PM ^
My apologies.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:18 AM ^
Actually, when somebody says something INCREDIBLY obvious like "we should start Vlad!" or "Why not try out Sheridan?" or "move Woolfolk back safety mer mer mer" it does warrant trust the coaches post. The coaches are paid to think of things like that, not to mention that they are such obvious things (some of which have been tried... and changed... I wonder why?). Yes it's fun to speculate, but not about such mundane stuff and certainly not 40 times daily
November 5th, 2009 at 10:24 AM ^
What about pad level? Hip swivel? Grit? Moxie? Panache'?
Corching isn't only about play selection. Its about measuring intangibles and determining the correct cliches'. You think, tickled me pink, just got pulled out of RR's ass?
But, i do agree that coming here to shiat out our various ideas and opinions on the team is part of the fun, and that criticizing others for criticizing others is probably pretty fuckin critical.
So, in closing, potato salad.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:50 AM ^
I just hate reading 100 people a day say things like "why don't we move DRob to slot" or "Why is Vlad not in instead of williams." This isn't being critical of a play call, this is saying the coach is an effing moran who doesn't even know how to watch players perform and select the best players for his line-up.
On top of that, it wouldn't be so bad if the threads or comments only appeared once in a blue moon and then disappeared after the poster was informed why his idea was likely a bad one. However, they come up about 10 times daily which only adds to my angst.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:49 AM ^
...we blog is to provide unique thinking and opinions not provided by MSM like the Freep. And the more diverse, intelligent/intelligible opinions the better IMO
We can agree to disagree. The problem here is that people with differing opinions will remain silent for fear of getting neg-bang-raped.
There are too many new members on here treating mgopoints like Chucky Cheese tickets and if they get 500 they think they can trade them in for a pink slinky. It's a complete power-trip fantasy.
I don't agree with every argument but for christssake, I'm not going to neg someone for having a different opinion. I could care less about my mgopoints but lets save the neg-blasts for the worst trolls or complete idiots. Good Lord.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:52 AM ^
Starting a diary asking "SHOULD WE MOVE DENARD TO THE SLOT" is not unique. It occurs on a daily fucking basis. That's the complaint.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:58 AM ^
That's not what I'm arguing. MGoBoard is full of that...people will put anything up to build up their points - that's my point...who fucking cares? It's old, it's not original, it's frustrating to sort through.
I'm talking about valid, intelligent arguments on the comment section that some don't agree with that get neg-bombed. Is there a need for that?
November 5th, 2009 at 11:13 AM ^
Yes, its ok to question the coaches. This is a fan site used for discussing Michigan. It is ALSO ok to say that you shouldn't question the coaches, because its just like someone's opinion man.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:23 AM ^
I got one the coaches haven't thought of:
Line up a tight end and three receivers in a single-file line (tight end on the line of scrimmage, first receiver right behind him, etc.) on one side of the formation. Immediately after the snap, the QB throws it to the first receiver in that line- be sure this is a lateral, and not a forward pass- while the tight end blocks. That receiver can fake handoffs to the second and third receivers as a sort of mini-read option.
But, here's where it starts to get good: that receiver who took the lateral from the QB? Denard Robinson, babby! He can run it, he can hand it off, he can throw it downfield, he can even lateral it back to Tate, who then throws it, or scrambles!
But, wait, it gets better! The third receiver in that line? One Zoltan Mesko! That's right- Denard can pitch it back to Mesko, who then catches the defense off guard with the quick kick! And, in some cases, Zoltan can even fake the punt and just run the ball!!
Hold on! There's MORE!! We have an eligible receiver over on the other side of the formation! And that receiver? BRANDON GRAHAM. Why? Because putting a defensive player on offense is GUARANTEED VICTORY (see: Charles Woodson).
And THAT is an awesome formation that the coaches have never thought of because they are STUPID IDIOTS.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:44 AM ^
Can I subscribe to your newsletter?
November 5th, 2009 at 12:53 PM ^
What can I say, I have a gift. I'm like the next Mike Leach.
I don't have a newsletter yet, but if you send enough money my way, I'll start one and you can subscribe to it.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:47 AM ^
corch rick rodregis
November 5th, 2009 at 12:57 PM ^
starring clapperback tort fissiers
November 5th, 2009 at 6:42 PM ^
Annexation of Puerto Rico? What about a pitch to Johnny?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCildVCn2No