The Team during my lifetime 1966 to present.
I was having this conversation with the wife and her brother today. It started with this question? When has Michigan been dominate during our lifetime? Never actually, sometimes great amd mostly consistant is what I remember. My point is, why do we bash the current coaching staff when history says we haven't really done anything lately. 1 NC in my lifetime. I am not going to stop rooting or supporting the team ever. I just sit here and read this blog and like the previous post....come back from the ledge and grip reality. Have a great weekend and lets see what happens against the Buckeyes.
Mike.
before the spelling Nazi gets me...its consistent not consistant.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:58 AM ^
High five!
November 22nd, 2010 at 5:23 PM ^
Here's how I see the coaching debate:
We basically have two options:
#1) Rich Rod is brought back...IF...he agrees to letting Brandon and Moeller appoint him a new defensive coordinator, and that defensive coordinator is allowed to hire two of his own defensive assistants (because RR has proven, twice, that he is incapable of putting together a competent defensive staff). The RR assistants lost will be Robinson, Braithwaite, and probably Tall (Gibson becomes full time special teams coach - something else we desperately need - and recruiting coordinator). The defensive staff could potentially look something like this...Mike Trgovac (for example) DC/DL coach, "Trgovac's hire" LB coach, "Trgovac's hire" DB coach.
or
#2) Jim Harbaugh is brought in as the new head coach.
Arguments:
#1) For keeping RR. His offense is great, his defense sucks. If Harbaugh comes in, he's going to have to revamp both the offense and the defense. If RR is kept, and a new defensive staff is brought in, only the defense needs to be revamped. Plus, RR is under contract for another year, and his buyout is pricey. And, of course, Harbaugh angered Lloyd and friends with his academics comments four years ago.
#2) For hiring Harbaugh (my choice). #1) RR's offense isn't that great. It's actually flat out SUCKED against good teams. We were down 24-0 to Wisc, 31-10 to PSU, 35-7 to Iowa, and 31-10 to MSU. Most of the points he's scored against good teams have been scored in garbage time (against prevent defenses). #2) Do we really want a coach who can't be trusted to hire his own defensive assistants? #3) Recruiting. The real reason people were excited about hiring RR was this - his offense at WVU was so great, with 2 and 3 stars, if he comes to Michigan, and starts racking up 4 and 5 star recruits, it's going to be unstoppable. Well, that has not happened. Rich Rod continues to recruit like he's at WVU. And it's sort of a catch-22 situation that might never end. He can't land talented recruits (especially defensively) until his team starts to go to BCS games, and he can't go to BCS games until he starts to land big time recruits. Jim Harbaugh, on the other hand, is one of the best recruiters in the entire nation and would really be able to jump start things here. #4) MICHIGAN MAN. RichRod simply doesn't portray Michigan values. If Bo was still alive, he'd be slapping the sh!t out of him after all of these excuse-filled press conferences. "We're too young, we've had too many injuries, Vince Lombardi couldn't win with this kind of talent, etc...etc...etc...". Rich Rod has yet to man up and accept any responsibility whatsoever. He just blames it all on his players!? How about..."I need to do a better job recruiting, I need to do a better job preparing young players and backups, I need to do a better job putting together effective schemes, It ultimately all comes back to me." That's exactly what Bo/Moeller/Lloyd would have said. Never in a million years would they have blamed the players publicly. Never in a million years should a coach blame his players like RR has done time and time again. #5) Jim Harbaugh's just a better coach, in every aspect. We can't think short-term here. We need to be thinking about 5-10 years down the line. Sure, RR might be a better coach for this team NEXT season. But we need to be thinking long term here. #6) Everything Harbaugh said about our academics was TRUE, and Lloyd hates everybody anyways - that's why he was asked to leave the athletic department (and I have a very reputable source that verifies that).
#7) And I'm making this seperate because it's so important - It's NOW OR NEVER FOR HARBAUGH. He's going to be getting some major offers this off-season (NFL, Georgia, etc.). He almost took the KANSAS job last season, for crying out loud. He IS going to be leaving Stanford after this season. And once he signs a major deal with a major program, he's no longer going to be interested in us. So...if RR ends up not working out (which is very likely) and Harbaugh is no longer interested...who in the he!! are we going to hire!? Miles/Ferentz/Schiano already turned us down. English!? DeBord!? Hoke!? Trgovac!? These are, honestly, going to be our best options if Harbaugh's not interested. In which case, we'll be COMPLETELY SCREWED.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:01 AM ^
From someone with extreme patience with the current situation...
There's a difference between just making a winning record and consistently competing for Big Ten Championships. Sure, there's off years in there, but at least 3 years out of any 5, we were in the hunt for the Big Ten title in November.
There's definintely a difference between most of your lifetime and today.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^
Piggybacking on this, I remember reading once how true that statement was - that every senior class under Bo, Mo, and Carr had at least a share of one Big Ten Title. Also as someone who is very patient, it is sad that that streak was broken for the 2008 class. Here's to hoping the 2011 class is the first to restart that streak, in the first year of the new Big Ten.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:00 PM ^
Which is why people were grumbling the the M stands for mediocre stuff was out there in 1997....well, till....
November 21st, 2010 at 2:34 PM ^
I'd love to see history repeat itself in 2011
EDIT: I just realized this comment doesn't make a whole lot of sense-I'd love to see Michigan end the Big Ten Title drought with a National Title in 2011.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:04 AM ^
During your lifetime 1966-2009 (44 seasons) Michigan won the Big Ten 21 times or about half the time. Did they win a slew of national championships? No, but almost every year they were competitive or dominant in their conference.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^
I really enjoyed the 90's and the early part of the new century.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:53 PM ^
I actually have that in a frame somewhere
November 21st, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^
Given the time period here, take a gander at the 1970's and tell me Michigan wasn't "dominant."
November 21st, 2010 at 11:29 AM ^
But I think it is a little hard to argue that a team that never won a bowl game (Michigan in the 1970's went 0-7 in the postseason) was dominant. More like lightyear's better than the Big 10 also-rans (at a time when the rest of the league was terrible) and just as good as OSU most years.
November 21st, 2010 at 12:05 PM ^
Most of the Old Blues don't seem to realize that the Big Ten (i.e., Michigan and Ohio State) went 1-9 in the Rose Bowl in the '70s.
November 21st, 2010 at 12:24 PM ^
And for the first half of the 70's, Michigan could only go to a bowl game every other year. So that's a bit of a red herring. And there's the fact, already brought up, that the B10 got shelled in the Rose Bowl just about every time in that era. Even Woody's teams.
There's more to a season than the bowl game and national championships. Especially in that era, when the B10 didn't particularly get a lot of National Championship consideration. Guys who have fistfuls of Big 10 rings have every right to consider themselves part of a dominant program.
November 21st, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^
I mean, here's a sobering statistic:
Starting with the 1967 Rose Bowl, assuming it's the first one in your lifetime, between the 1967 and 1990 Rose Bowls:
Big 10: 6 Rose Bowl wins.
Pac-10: 18 Rose Bowl wins.
I mean, it wasn't just the 70's. It was the 80's, too. The Big 10 has traditionally never done well in Pasadena.
November 21st, 2010 at 1:32 PM ^
Play the Rose Bowl at Soldier Field every year and I bet that record is reversed. Face it, those teams were playing in comfortable surroundings and Big Ten teams were not.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:07 AM ^
But the "really haven't done anything lately" lost me completely. So if we're not winning national championships "consistently" then we haven't been a "dominant" program? All those bowls, Big Ten Titles, and wins meant nothing to you? So, if that's your only measure of greatness...how far away from it are we now?
If you didn't like the previous 40 years of Michigan football, you are going to be really disappointed with the future. Because the idea that Rich or anybody else is likely to turn us into a program that wins it all on a bi-annual basis is asinine, unless you want them to be cheating their asses off. People who think Rich was the answer to being the champ every year are just asking for him to fail in their eyes.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:11 AM ^
you know this isn't the place for things like logic and realistic goals.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:17 AM ^
"People who think Rich was the answer to being the champ every year".....
Wait a second. Sounds to me like you're saying we won't be champs every year. But, but, but....we're MICHIGAN for God's sake.
Derp.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:36 AM ^
I (and I'm sure others) do think that Rodriguez is the answer to being the champ more than once every 40 years.
That being said, I don't quite get what the OP's point is. The current staff shouldn't get a pass because "Oh well we weren't winning national titles anyway so who gives a shit." They deserve a pass because they are rebuilding a team that was completely broken. Even if you want to blame Rodriguez for breaking it, you have to acknowledge that 3-9 = totally fucked up program in need of tons of work. That work has been going on the last two years (as evidenced by the ever improving record) and all signs point to continued improvement next year. The problem with the Rodriguez critics is that they assume the program has reached its ceiling when all evidence points to the contrary (that or they are just still really pissed about 3-9 and the last three years).
November 21st, 2010 at 11:40 AM ^
Rational Rodriguez critics don't think the program has reached its ceiling. They think the progress is too slow, especially on the offensive side of the ball where Rodriguez's expertise supposedly lies.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:48 AM ^
That isn't being rational. The progress from 3-9 to today (especially on offense) has been incredible. The team is averaging 16 more points and 225 more yards each game than they did in 2008. And they still only have two or three seniors getting any sort of playing time on offense. Teams don't improve any faster than that, especially when the coach has to rebuild the entire roster from the ground up.
Saying "It isn't happening fast enough so I'm still pissed even though I'm pretty sure it is going to continue to get better" isn't being rational. It is just whining.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:53 AM ^
You're citing stats that were inflated by games against non-conference trash. Against teams in the top half of the Big Ten, Michigan's offense has been shut down in the first half of every game. I didn't expect wins in many of these games. But we should have seen one good first half by now, especially in one of the home games against MSU, Iowa, or Wisconsin.
November 21st, 2010 at 1:03 PM ^
But you are just citing the first half of three games? I don't understand how you cannot think this offense hasn't improved?
We've won more Big Ten games this year than the last two combined and had an undefeated non-conference (something I remember praying for 5 or 6 years ago). There have been some very ugly moments and yesterday was certainly one of them, but it makes no sense to look at 6 quarters of football rather than the entire body of work to judge the improvement of this team.
November 21st, 2010 at 1:25 PM ^
My argument above was that the progress on offense has been too slow, not that the offense hasn't improved. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an offense that many claim is great to play well in just one first half against a good opponent. They've had four chances and failed every time. And the game is out of hand by then.
Michigan has equaled their Big Ten wins from the last two years and only went undefeated in non-conference games because their non-conference opponents turned out to be historically awful.
November 21st, 2010 at 1:50 PM ^
So the progress being slow is now only dependent on how we have done in the first half of games against our top 15 BCS opponents? What would have happened if we would have come out swinging and it was 24-24 against Wisky, then we got shut out the second half and lost 48-24? I guess we would be fine by your standards. This would actually be worse as it would mean the coaches made 0 adjustments, but hey, our offense did well in the first half, so there is progress right? That is the problem with picking and chosing how you are going to evaluate this team. I am quite glad Mr. Brandon doesn't think like you or anyone else criticizing one of the best offenses in the nation. I know I know, we put up a lot of points agains crappy teams. Next you will tell me the other teams were letting up, right? Because that meme isn't played out enough is it.
Also, I will say this over and over until people actually get it....when your defense can get 1 single stop and you have the possibility of being down by a field goal, the game is not out of hand. That is not only stupid but ridiculous.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:08 PM ^
Getting blown out either way sucks. But I would much rather see a team that comes out and imposes its will on the opponent and is competitive during the first half. If they are shut out in the second half, thanks to the opponent adjusting to Michigan's offensive schemes that's just an indication that the offensive repertoire is limited. You can always add more weapons to your arsenal. But against MSU, Iowa, PSU, and Wisconsin Michigan doesn't seem to know how to use the weapons they have until they're beaten and bloodied.
And while it sounds nice to claim Michigan's offense is one of the best in the country, they're not even the best in the Big Ten:
http://cfbstats.com/2010/leader/827/team/offense/split07/category09/sor…
Note these stats include the triple overtime so you can subtract 3 points off Michigan's average.
Finally, Iowa and PSU are nowhere near top 15 BCS teams.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:11 PM ^
Wait so because our offense is slightly behind two teams ranked in the Top 10 in the nation means we can't claim to have one of the best as well? It's fine if you still don't want to look at the entire season but I will and Michigan is sranked number 4 in total offense.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:29 PM ^
Can they cash in some of those yards for points and get some more wins?
November 21st, 2010 at 2:22 PM ^
Anybody who's complaining about the offense is either trolling or has been been watching games from 2008 by accident on their DVR.
The offense is not this team's problem. This teams problem is that the defense couldn't stop a sack of drowning kittens. The offense is this teams saving grace and our shining beacon of hope.
Anyways, insert relevant comment about lies, damn lies, and statistics here.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:35 PM ^
Well I had a response typed about how he had a valid concern, but then I saw his latest post. I was treating him as someone trying to make an intelligent argument. I was wrong and have wasted my time.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:06 PM ^
Too slow? What were you expecting this year? I think this offense, that has very few seniors, is exactly where I want them to be and have exceeded my hopes at the beginning of the season. They haven't performed in the first half, but they have also made very good adjustments and gotten us back into three of those games. The Iowa and PSU games were all one score games in the second half at some point and we got to within 10 of Wisconsin multiple times. MSU was the only game where we were out of it and stayed that way.
It's not unreasonable to want them to play well in the first half but to ignore the adjustments and play of the offense during the WHOLE game is being unreasonable.
November 21st, 2010 at 3:30 PM ^
That isn't being rational. The progress from 3-9 to today (especially on offense) has been incredible.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this. In Big Ten play, we were 2-6 in 2008. Now we're 3-4, with an extremely difficult game left to play. Does one extra win in league play really constitute "incredible" progress?
Yeah, we've done better against MAC programs, and beaten ND the past two years. But you know what? We never lost to a MAC team before RR arrived - and Lloyd had a winning record against ND, too. Where exactly is the evidence for your claim that RR is somehow the guy to help us win more national championships than Bo, Mo, or Lloyd?
November 21st, 2010 at 4:39 PM ^
3 wins < 5 < 7
20 ppg < 29 < 36
You can continue to complain that the results aren't what you want them to be, but ignoring the progress as insignificant just because the overall record isn't as good as past Michigan teams means you are just complaining rather than evaluating the actual situation on the ground. Pounding MAC teams is progress if you lost to Toledo. Beating Notre Dame twice in a row is progress if they blew you out the year before with a .500 team. Beating an improved Illinois team is progress when terrible Illini squads blew you out two years in a row.
You can blame Rodriguez all you want for 3-9 (I would disagree with you and I think the evidence supports my position, but you are entitled to that opinion). However, once we went 3-9 you should have realized that the shit was broken and that it would take time to get it back together. Ignoring the fact that it is getting back together simply because you aren't happy about the initial results or because we aren't all the way back yet doesn't make any sense.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:40 PM ^
You guys are beating to death a strawman argument that no one has made: that the Rodriguez offense has no progress in three years.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:46 AM ^
You said something along the lines of if Michigan doesn't win 10-11 games next year you would support firing him? I think that would still constitute improvement though as the way you put it above.
Personally, I was pissed with the 3 win season not b/c "OMG only 3 wins", but b/c I thought we should have had at least 2 more (Toledo and Purdue). That Toledo game really soured me on RR. Going down inside the 10 at the end of the game and then running the clock down just to attempt a game tying FG (which we of course missed). But that really made me mad. I don't want a coach that settles for OT, against Toledo no less, when there is plenty of time to conservatively go for the win.
That being said, I'm not opposed to him giving another year, like you say, to attempt 10-11 wins. I'm just weary that we can give him another year w/o extending him (and at this point I wouldn't want to extend him w/o seeing more). If we don't extend him, recruiting is going to be a problem next year.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:57 AM ^
Let's not forget that the last time they had been down in the red zone Threet had thrown a pick six (the deciding play in the game). With that shitstorm of an offense I can understand playing it safe for fear a player might jab the ball into his eye and hand it to the opposing team (which I think happened at least 3 or 4 times that season). I can also understand wanting to go for it though, and hindsight proves you right (although we may have been fucked either way).
And yeah, I probably wouldn't want to fire him if he goes 9-3, but I think we'll win 10+ next year between our continued improvement and the overall decline in the Big 10 (which by the way is pretty awesome this year). We're still on the way up and I'd be disgusted if we didn't get to see where the ceiling is over the next couple of seasons with Denard and Co.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:43 PM ^
I love the program but people just think were going to win every single game every year. I wasnt bashing, just saying.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:14 AM ^
Ah, the deep philosophical question that seems to torment Michigan fans (probably every other fan base too). I've heard another UM fan say it this way during the Carr years -- he wants a National Championship at least once a decade. If he gets that, he doesn't care what happens during the other nine years.
Other fans (I think I'm in this group) wants to be "competitive" every year. Not really sure what "competitive" means. For Michigan, I think it means a Big 10 Championship about every other year, a Bowl game every year, and a BCS Bowl game 2 out of every 3 years, or something like that. It probably also means one "off" year a decade, which means (I hate to say it given our current record because I don't mean it as a criticism of the current team or coaching staff), 8-5.
Isn't that about where we've been other than the last three years during my lifetime? (since 1965)? (and, again, that isn't a criticism of the last three years, or an attempt to introduce the "who's to blame" question into this thread.)
November 21st, 2010 at 12:36 PM ^
This is EXACTLY why we are where we are. We have gotten away from only caring about beating Ohio State. And if we do, its likely we're competing for the Big Ten title, and then we go from there. This new M generation wants the flash and the ESPN highlights, with little mention of the fact that weve been smoked by Ohio State going on a decade now. They'll diss Gittleson to praise Barwis, they'll diss Harbaugh to praise Hart. If you want things to return to prior success, then the Ohio State game is ALL that matters. Its what keeps us up and strong.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:16 AM ^
ranked us the #2 team of the past 40 years right behind Nebraska. Yeah, we were kind of somebody....
November 21st, 2010 at 11:30 AM ^
Once, we were kind of somebody like Wisconsin was yesterday: a team that said, "We know what we're going to run, we know that you know what we're going to run, and we're going to run it anyway. Try and stop it, because we know you can't."
. . . I couldn't help thinking all game yesterday--"damn, that used to be us."
November 21st, 2010 at 11:40 AM ^
Carr's teams were often middle of the pack in rush offense (despite having a few high quality #1 running backs). The "you know what we're going to run" strategy didn't really work against USC or Oregon. You have to go back well over a decade to find a Michigan team that operated like you desscribe and that had it actually work against a team with a pulse.
November 21st, 2010 at 12:45 PM ^
Honestly, the best teams at Michigan weren't remotely as one-dimensional as Wiscy has been. Lining up and trying to run over teams all the time may have worked 30 years ago, but UM used to crush Wiscy because the Wolverines had lefit NFL-caliber WRs that could abuse the Wisconsin secondary. I know people like to gloss over the past as well as the future, but I never want to see UM adopt the style of offense that Wiscy runs. When everything is perfect and you have 17-19 seniors on board, it can be scary. But when that isn't the case, you have a team with few playmakers on the outside and a team that can't catch up when they fall behind. RR's team has taken its lumps, but I think the future is quite a bit brighter than what lies ahead for Wisconsin.
November 21st, 2010 at 1:11 PM ^
That may be true but I can also remember being shredded by Oregon, Texas, App St., and other spread teams wishing we had an offense capable of such feats. The general consensus around Ann Arbor in 2007 was that a change was needed and we were living in the past.
Now we want to go back? I'd love to see what some of these defensive players can do once they reach the age of 20.
November 21st, 2010 at 1:52 PM ^
November 21st, 2010 at 11:45 AM ^
All things considered, being a Michigan football fan is still better than being a fan of any other school. Period. And that's why we do it, and that's why we aren't going to stop. Go Blue.
November 21st, 2010 at 1:00 PM ^
During your lifetime my favorite teams we're the ones from 1972-1974. Good Lord the OSU games then we're epic and literally generated entire books to be written about them. One of the greatest injustices in sports was that those teams never played in a bowl. Bo said his record in post season would've been at least three games better had his best teams been allowed to compete in a bowl.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:39 PM ^
Didn't Michigan only lose something like 8 games in the 70s?
November 21st, 2010 at 3:58 PM ^
Plus 3 ties.
November 21st, 2010 at 3:27 PM ^
NC's aren't the be all and end all of it. In recent history for example USC won a few of those and was dominate but then it came out that they were hiring extra coaches and other illegal practices. History has plenty of other examples of dominate programs that got taken apart by the NCAA or turned a blind eye to off the field antics (Miami).
Michigan had an amazing active bowl streak, the best winning percentage in the nation and we'd never been hit with a major violation. We put talent in the NFL and we had minimal off the field incidents that the coach staff tended to crack down on hard.
So I'd argue we were dominate in the sense we bent the game to our will. We didn't need to pad our roster with extra coaches or pay for play. We were a Top 25 every year and a Top 10 most years and we did on our terms. We didn't sell our soul or get dirty to do it like other schools had.