SI Lead Story: Rich Rodriguez thriving at Arizona (writer talks some about Michigan)
Nothing new but thought others might find it of interest on a Thursday afternoon.
"Seemed like what was a Rodriguez problem in 2010 was actually a Michigan problem"
Quote by Rodriguez on Michigan "It's not like I dwell on it, but when people ask me about it, I say, yeah, it sitll bothres me. It still frustrates me because we'd like to hav eseen what we could do with another year or two."
Talks about how Arizona AD Greg Bryne who hired Dan Mullen at Mississippi State thought hiring Rich Rodriguez to Arizona was a no brainer.
October 30th, 2014 at 6:57 PM ^
I was sold on Tate after the final drive in the '09 ND Game.
I remember yellling, "we have found our quarterback!"
October 30th, 2014 at 5:59 PM ^
October 30th, 2014 at 7:05 PM ^
If Tate was not a head case and was our QB with Denard our RB we'd have had a backfield similar to WV's best. It would have been interesting to see how things would have shook out if Tate was a stable force.
October 30th, 2014 at 7:11 PM ^
It probably would have gone better with Denard if everyone around him was in year 3 of the program instead of being in year 2. Everyone was learning the system at the same time so everyone was making mistakes and confused.....not just the young QB.
October 30th, 2014 at 5:06 PM ^
The problem was that they had no good option at quarterback. Does that sound familiar? Job one for the next coach is get a quarterback. He doesn't need to be good just no turn overs and make solid decisions say like Brian Greise. Denard was great, at least running. DG has all the tools but can't make good decisions with the ball. The last several years have been on the QBs, with the understanding that the coaches recruited them. . Might already have the QB or they already are on there way, but if they are not get someone who is. Coaches these days are only as good as the QB who is playing.
October 30th, 2014 at 5:48 PM ^
Brian Griese was a lot better than people give him credit for. Accurate and smart, he played pretty well when he was given the plays to do something with which was rare under LC no matter who the QB was.
October 30th, 2014 at 6:07 PM ^
October 30th, 2014 at 7:18 PM ^
People forget that outside of Gardner RR struck out on every quarterback recruit he went after. Pryor, BJ Daniels, Tajh Boyd. He lost Kevin Newsome. The list goes on.
He couldn't get anyone to come play quarterback for him.
October 30th, 2014 at 8:16 PM ^
You never heard of Tate Forcier and a guy named Denard Robinson? RR recruited them in his first full recruiting class and added Gardener in his second full class. He didn't get a third class. So, what exactly is your point?
October 30th, 2014 at 4:35 PM ^
Rodriguez proved that any coach, no matter how talented, will struggle to succeed at a program that does not fully support him. There's a lesson to be learned there, and we should fucking get smart and learn it as we prepare to embark on another coaching search.
October 30th, 2014 at 5:46 PM ^
Thank you, saveferris......we need to pull an all nighter and learn the lessons now that we didn't learn back then.
October 30th, 2014 at 6:59 PM ^
Bo: Bo's Lasting Lessons
JUB: Three and Out
October 30th, 2014 at 9:27 PM ^
He has to win. No coach has a god given right for everyones support. Bo was not who everyone wanted, not that Joe Pa would have been horrible option.
October 31st, 2014 at 10:27 AM ^
Bo had an AD that cared about his development and was invested in his professional growth and maturation. Bo was not BO for quite some time. And even RRod acknowledged that when he said recently he wouldn'y have had to deal with all the issues he did at Michigan had Bo been there......because then he would have had someone from the program who was truly invested in seeing him succeed!
October 30th, 2014 at 3:56 PM ^
I think money coming from the Big Ten Network had a large influence in the increase in total staff salary for Hoke than RR. The Big Ten Network was started Aug. 2007 and nobody really had an idea that the channel would succeed. Also, BTN was not present in most cable/dish subscriptions. The success from BTN resulted in increased payouts to the Universities allowing for an increase in salaries.
October 30th, 2014 at 4:12 PM ^
+1 Insightful.
The money pool we are swimming in now was not always this bubbly.
October 30th, 2014 at 3:25 PM ^
October 30th, 2014 at 3:37 PM ^
3-3-5 isn't a normal 3 man front like a 3-4. It's ok for a change up if you're going nickle or something, but to have it as your base defense takes a lot of specialization to know how to effectively run it. An average DC who is used to a 4-3 isn't going to come in and quickly learn how to run a base 3-3-5 in a short period of time.
October 30th, 2014 at 3:57 PM ^
October 30th, 2014 at 4:31 PM ^
The consensus, if I remember right, was that we did run a base 3-3-5 in 2010, and that since GERG was a 4-3 guy that RR had probably forced him to run a 3-3-5 instead.
October 30th, 2014 at 6:19 PM ^
October 30th, 2014 at 6:57 PM ^
Possible, I don't really feel like digging through UFR's from 2010 to find out for sure. Either way, the point remains the same, that at some point the 3-3-5 appears to have been forced upon GERG and is not an easy defensive scheme to learn as a base D.
October 30th, 2014 at 9:02 PM ^
He was right. You aren't remembering correctly.
edit: intended for bblue
Why does the threadin always get screwed when comments roll over onto the next page?
October 30th, 2014 at 6:19 PM ^
October 30th, 2014 at 4:09 PM ^
"recruit kids who could qualify?" You mean recruit kids he was told would qualify?
October 30th, 2014 at 7:02 PM ^
I see what you did there. +1
October 30th, 2014 at 6:14 PM ^
I didn't read the article. It was more in reference to the general dong punch/Stone Cold Stunner feeling (I didn't wanna search dong punch at work) that accompanied this article and that seems to be the norm lately.
October 30th, 2014 at 3:02 PM ^
October 30th, 2014 at 3:11 PM ^
October 30th, 2014 at 3:19 PM ^
That team would have had to have a defense that could prevent an im flag football team from putting up 30 to beat anyone by two td's. Teams michigan beat by two td's that year, bowling green, thats it, thats the list.
October 30th, 2014 at 3:33 PM ^
You're forgetting the UConn Game.
October 30th, 2014 at 3:49 PM ^
You are right, for some reason in my head it was 20-10 not 30-10. My point was that the team wasn't good that year either. Yes this year is terrible, yes Brady Hoke is terrible but none of that means Rodriguez would have worked here for a lot of reasons, some institutional and some on him. It is easy to improve from year to year when you start with 3 wins. He went 15-22 in 3 years, the worst 3 years of all time in michigan football history, Hoke went 26-13 in his first 3, the difference in how those teams were left was not an 11 game difference in talent. Rich Rods great offense of that year managed 14 against miss state, 7 against osu, 17 against msu, etc. Against good teams they folded. Like I said none of this means anything about Brady, he sucks and has to go but the revisionist history about Rich Rod is absurd around here. His teams vacilated between bad and mediocore and spent most of the time in bad and it wasn't just because he couldn't bring casteel with him.
October 30th, 2014 at 4:43 PM ^
More reflective of how awful our kicking game was and the fact that we had a first year starter at QB.
Yds vs MSU: 377
Yds vs OSU: 351
Yds vs Miss State (Bowl Game): 342
We committed 8 turnovers in those games.
We had 186 yards on offense against MSU this year. Do you seriously see us sniffing 300+ in any game not featuring Indiana the rest of the season?
Brady had one good year, two mediocre years and one awful year. You take out that 11-2 season and you have 18-16. That's terrible. I don't think this is revisionist history for some of us. Some of us actually thought he deserved one more year with his D-Coordinator (Casteel) or another worth serious bucks.
October 30th, 2014 at 4:50 PM ^
October 30th, 2014 at 9:05 PM ^
There will always be a RR bandwagon, and I'll probably always be jogging along next to it, maybe hopping on here and there when I'm tired. The reason is that he was never given a truly fair chance to succeed here.
October 30th, 2014 at 5:41 PM ^
I'm not arguing this years offense is good but who gives a shit about yards without points? Thats like caring about time of possession. 8 turnovers is a lot for 3 games and its an issue Denard continued to have as he matured as well, accuracy and ball security weren't his two strongest traits as much as we love the guy. Most importantly though saying ignore ppg is complete shit, his strong point was supposed to be offense and in year three with guys he recruited and had in the system for more than a year his offense stilll couldn't score in the games that counted. Denard had just as much experience as the qb in zona now, just as much experience as manziel, etc.
And 18-16 is still way better than Rich Rod was and its complete bull shit to take out a best year. If you just ignore this year than rich rod hasn't done shit at arizona. You also are not a good coach if you can only win with one d-coordinator because what happens if that d-coordinator gets a head coaching job? Your defense doomed to suck forever. Rich Rod had two chance to make a d-coordinator hire and he fucked both up and that is why he got fired. If he could only ever have been good here with casteel then he wasn't a good long term fit anyways.
October 30th, 2014 at 6:29 PM ^
but let's look at the trend. What could RR have done in another year?
3-9, 5-7, 7-6
compared to Hoke who went:
11-2, 8-5, 7-6, and is on track for probably 4-8 at best this year.
October 30th, 2014 at 3:43 PM ^
That 2010 team also won in South Bend. If you don't think it would have crushed this year's team, you're delusional.
October 30th, 2014 at 3:56 PM ^
My point was that teams wasn't good enough to crush anybody. And jesus 2010 Notre Dame as proof of a good win? That same Notre Dame team lost to Navy 35-17 and lost to Tulsa at home that year. This is the revisionist history I'm talking about, would 2010 Michigan probably beat this year team? Yes. But they would be like a 7 point favourtie max and you wouldn't feel comfortable betting on them because they could lose to anybody. That team almost lost to Umass, illinois and indiana. They might be better than this team but that certainly doesn't make them good.
October 30th, 2014 at 3:57 PM ^
the lack of touchdowns the offense has had this year. The point is, there is no defense needed if there is not an offense to defend
October 30th, 2014 at 4:18 PM ^
Eh they have put up offense on the defenses they have faced this year that were as bad as michigans 2010. This team still put up 52 on app state and 34 on miamai (oh) which are the teams ranked closest to Michigans 2010 defense. Which obviously says way more about michigans 2010 defense than it does about this years offense.
October 30th, 2014 at 4:42 PM ^
Only difference between 2010 defense and 2011 defense was a competent DC and some growth in the young players. If RR had a competent DC, he would have had a better defense and by 2011 probably one as good as the D that materialized here.
You are also forgetting about the long series of articles on this blog in 2009-10 about the decimated defense. When Carr left, he left the cupboard bare, and that was well documented. It was starting to get better by 2011, and that plus a competent DC resulted in a competent D.
You are also overlooking the FACT that RR never had an experienced QB. If he had gotten another year with a Mattison level DC, my guess is that he would have gotten more out of Denard (less trying to pound a square peg into a round hole) and an equally good D.
We'll never know, but I wish RR the best.
October 31st, 2014 at 12:05 AM ^
October 30th, 2014 at 4:05 PM ^
October 30th, 2014 at 8:02 PM ^
October 31st, 2014 at 1:38 AM ^
October 30th, 2014 at 3:33 PM ^
And those who point out OSU and the bowl game, well, everyone knew he was a dead man walking. Even his players.
October 30th, 2014 at 4:19 PM ^
The whole "improving every year" thing is fool's gold. It's pretty damn easy to "improve" every year when you set the bar so low no one can even find the bar anymore.
Hoke is terrible. That doesn't mean RR wasn't terrible when he was here too. Doesn't mean it was all RR's fault, but let's not rewrite history and forget how terrible things were.
October 30th, 2014 at 4:40 PM ^
I agree with this. We really didn't improve from 2009 to 2010. In both years, we got smoked by the good teams we played. The only real difference is that in 2010, we won our close games (OT against Illinois, beat Indiana at last second, etc) and in 2009 we lost our close games (lsot to MSU in OT, lost to Iowa and Purdue by 2 points each). When you look at those two seasons, they look almost identical. In fact, in 2010, all of our losses (6) were by double digits. We only had 4 double digit losses the year before. And in 2009, we only lost to OSU by 11.
Point is, everyone likes to say how much we were improving, but that was our whole argument for firing him at the time - we weren't. Sure, in 2010 we beat Illinois (barely and because no Juice) and Purdue, but that's the only difference in the record. The differences in the scores suggest we actually went backward.