Great group of kids on this squad.
Thank you RR
....as I was leaving yesterday. These are his recruits, and like I've said throughout the year, it seems to me that we had the talent to do this all along, but it takes the right people to manage and develop it. Mattison turned the same defensive squad that was 110th last year into a top 20 defense, and Hoke has gotten these kids to believe in themselves and their ability despite introducing yet another philosophy on both sides of the ball. It makes me like this group of players just that much more really.
The last two years, most of the starters were underclassmen. This year, most of the starters are upperclassmen. It helps a lot when a team isn't having to play boys against men. RR could have won the same amount of games this year with these players and a competent DC.
It's the same old story, I guess: some people don't think it's possible to support Brady Hoke without hurling thinly or not-so-thinly veiled insults toward RR. Why not just embrace Brady Hoke, Al Borges, and Greg Mattison without bitching about RR? Is it really that difficult to do?
Hats off to the players and staff for a great victory yesterday.
If there had been a decent staff on the defensive side of the ball (i.e., not GERG), we may very well be in this same place. I would agree with that - it would be a possibility.
I don't know how anyone could watch this team all year and think that RR could take the same kids and win 10 games. Its an insult to what this staff just did.
Turning a year of the calendar does not turn kids from hopelessly lost to above average. It may be part of it, but coaching has a much greater impact.
Besides that, it makes me cringe every time I read a "with the right DC" comment. He struck out twice hiring a DC, and its obvious many of his defensive coaches were sub-par. A brilliant offensive coordinator he may be, but that does not make him a great head coach.
It wasn't all his fault, he was certainly playing against a stacked deck when he came in, by most accounts he seems like a good guy, but he didn't get the job done, he's gone, we now have an excellent coaching staff, so let's move on without having the daily RR tongue bath thread.
I was gonna post the same thing, albeit minus the tongue bath part. To me, as I said in another thread, thanking RR for this season is like thanking Chamberlain for the Battle of Britain because some of the planes in it were bought while he was PM.
Brewster had similar comments about Minnesota this year. The outgoing coach setting the bar high for his replacement isn't particularly unusual or noteworthy.
It's not so much that he struck out on his DC hires--I don't think Shafer was such a terrible hire.
Fundamentally, the problem was that he brought his defensive staff with him from WV and hired an outsider as coordinator, then scapegoated the coordinator and protected the rest of the staff when things started to go south. No competent DC was going to replace Shafer after that, not if the condition was working with RR's guys as position coaches.
Lloyd Carr got a lot of criticism here, much of it justified, for his loyalty to his current and former staff. It's referred to as "cronyism" and "nepotism". It's ironic that his successor took this to a whole new level (Lloyd might have protected his guys but he never threw an outsider under the bus to do it), to the point where it became fatal, and for the most part he gets a pass on it.
the problem was he was given a 1980's budget and no contract to hire a DC....see the disparity between ~200K to hire a DC, versus $650K and a multi-year contract to hire Mattison.
Please stop with the 'RR hired GERG' stuff. RR was stuck with GERG, becausethere is no way that given $650K that RR makes that hire, it is yet another way in which the AD failed to properly support the head caoch they hired. In any other AD in the country, where you have a beleaguered HC that is struggling on one side of the ball and showing great progress and production on the other, where there is a clear need for a top-level DC, the AD would open the purse strings and make that happen. That is, if they want that HC to stay and be successful. Telling RR that he has to make something happen with a freshman/sophomore players and third rate DC in his first season witho those players is saying nothing more than, 'tough shizzle, no $$ to do what you need, but I do have budget for some rope....go buy some.'
It's not that his defenses were bad. They were historically bad.
Sure, the players were young. But Michigan has had other young players before, and they were never at the bottom of every NCAA defensive ranking.
The coordinators were underpaid, sure. But Toledo's DC was paid less, and their defense was better.
...I don't think there's anything wrong with loyalty. Networking is an important part of life; we're reaping the benefits now of Hoke's contacts and friendships in the coaching community. And also of the care taken of Hoke while he was here and after he left.
But there's a point beyond which it shouldn't be pushed.
...and an all-around good guy. And I do appreciate the effort he put in here, including developing guys like Denard into all-world heroes. But he clearly didn't know what he was doing on the defensive side of the ball...he made one terrible DC hire (GERG), who might not have been quite as terrible had he been allowed to build his own staff and run his own schemes, and another that could have been pretty good, but again was undermined and forced to take on really awful position coaches.
Our players were young, but they also couldn't do basic things like tackle or stay in coverage Look at the difference between JT Floyd last year and this year. That's not just getting older...that's coaching.
He's an offensive innovator. To suggest he isn't is idiotic. He did what he did with a sophomore Denard and not the Fitz we saw this year but the Smith and Shaw we saw this year. Our offense, as a whole, would have been better with him this year.
Which, as you probably know, continues to be a huge thing for us, and for offensive football in general. Our offense might not have been A+ against the A-level defenses of the Big 10 last year, but it was also a record-setting offense that was super exciting to watch. He is, objectively, an offensive innovator.
My issue with him, as a head coach, is that this was his thing, to the point where it detracted from the other important things a head coach has to oversee, like defense and special teams.
Are we thanking him for not totally killing our program while he was here...This is Hoke's team. Lets never mention RR...he is in our past, and lets keep it that way
Your kidding right? I absolutely love Hoke and the coaching staff he put together but don't kid yourself. Those were Rich's kids out there yesterday - not Hoke's. And the fact they all stayed and didn't bolt en masse like Carr's did speaks volumes to the MAN Rich is. Instead of encouraging them to leave like Carr did he told them to stay.
You don't have to dismiss the success of one person to appreciate another's. Hoke accomplished far more than I dreamed he would but he did it with RR's recruits - not his own.
The fact that these kids didn't bolt is more about how well Hoke handle the transition. The fact that so many kids bolted during the last transition speak To how poorly RR managed his transition.
Right. RR told the players to stay and buy in. Lloyd told the players to leave. I am going to guess that you didn't read 3 and Out.
The point is, RR got paid alot of money to do a JOB...why are people thanking him for doing one aspect correctly, especially when he did other parts so poorly. If we went off of the three years of the RR tenure, players like Morgan, Beyer, Ryan, and Floydd may not have reached the potential they reached this year. There development is mostly due to the coaching received by the current staff who won the game. Forget the past coaching staff already
I think the idea, however, is that without RR's time here, several of these kids may not even be here to be coached by the new staff, so then where would we be? Perhaps not at 10-2 with a potential BCS at-large bid.
Well, there's no doubt that if we'd left the head coach position vacant for three years and didn't bother to recruit at all, yesterday would have been very different.
Well thank god we got RR, bc no other coach at Michigan at that time would have recruited good players and good men. Give me a break
I don't recall anyone ever saying that. I am sure many people could have recruited excellent players, but we hired RR, and oddly enough, although it didn't work out here, he managed to find us some great players. Dilithium, for example....
rodriguez did recruit some great guys, but he didn't hold onto a bunch of Lloyd's guys. Plus, did he recruit forcier as well? As much as I loved Tate, he was kind of a punk. There were also questions surrounding Demar Dorsey who didn't make it. A lot of people were afraid that another Pacman Jones would end up at Michigan under Rodriguez.
Rodriguez definitely deserves a lot of credit. But, those kids may not have been as good with him on the sidelines this year.
I get what you are saying, and yes these are RR's recruits, but he is not part of Michigan anymore. I will say this though, he was the only guy to let Denard have a shot at playing qb. Other than that, RR pretty much didnt do anything here. He is a good coach and a nice guy, but ill let his three years here speak for itself.
So in other words, he can be thanked for exactly what the OP wrote and not for what all the RR haters are trying to turn this thread into. Gotcha.
Your argument has nothing to do with this thread.
Some of them were Carr's recruits.
Hemmingway, Van Bergen, Huyge, Woolfolk and Molk were Carr's recruits in 2007 and from the 2008 class, Shaw, Martin, Stonum, Koger and Demens were already "hello's" before RR was named the coach and several other names we know well had indicated interest before Rodriguez.
Your point is valid, but Shaw was a PSU commit until signing day.
Rich was a great man. Perhaps the best man to ever have lived on this earth.
He was a terrible coach. Why can't we all agree that he is an offensive genius, but that offense is only a 3rd of the team and this is why he failed as head coach of Michigan? Defense and special teams were a joke under Rich.
I won't say we couldn't have won 10 games with Rich, but we would have to have won a lot of 65-64 games. That defense would never have been at an acceptable level under him. The record shows that his defenses got worse every year! How can you argue that?
but look at the number of freshamn and second stringers playing those three years, especially in the defensive backfield. You can't just ignore the level of experience and talent on the field as if it didn't matter.
Compare the the amount of money provided to RR to hire a DC....$200K and the length of the contract he was able to offer that DC, 0 years. Now go recruit a top-level DC and be sure to tell him that he has an inexperiened group of players and injuries to the few upper-classmen on the roster, and ask him if he is willing to take a cut in pay and likely commit career suicide by coming to Michigan and having neither the time nor the tools to be successful. that way, he can be sure to be looking for a job again after 1 year of dismal results and a year of sub-average pay, keeping in mind that this person may have kids and may not actually like moving and taking cuts in pay.
That is not recipe for a good hire and that is not something that an AD that wants to support the HC allows to happen. That is shooting a torpedo at the Titanic as it is taking on water.
Now, look at the number of juniors and seniors on the field yesterday, especialy on the defensive side of the ball. Also compare the $650K being paid to Mattison to shore up the Hoke hire, and the number of years in his contract. No comparison. THAT is an example of an AD that wants a HC to succeed.
I am not ignoring the number of upperclassmen out there or the level of talent. My contention is that Rich had the same exact players (minus Morgan and Countess) and his defenses were worse. Much worse. By orders of magnitude.
It is true that the players will be better simply by having more experience, more muscle from offseason workouts, and so on. But not this much better.
But that can't account for all of the improvement. If time was such a huge factor, why did Rich's defenses get worse every year? Weren't those players getting older as well?
As for the defensive coordinator hiring practices, I agree with you. Rich did not get a good break. But neither did Carr, whose coordinators were paid even less, but always had better defenses. Ron English was a virtually unknown defensive backs coach who was promoted to DC under Lloyd, and he coordinated the 2006 defense, which was a monster.
AND, Rich had two cracks at a DC. Sure, he was handicapped a bit, but he struck out epically, twice!
And let us not forget that Rich didn't just have bad defenses, he had the worst defenses in the history of Michigan football!
They were amongst the worst in all of Division 1!
Don't try to pretend that the lack of top level pay rates was the sole reason. Out of the more than 100 defenses that were better than ours, did all of them pay their coordinators more? No.
we're thanking him for bringing us a great group of kids that didn't leave when it got tough
so if you can't see that, then well, you're just a moron
edit: above reply is better than mine lol
I feel close to this group through all the interviews and news articles. They are a wonderful group of kids that accomplished something seemingly impossible after last year.
Congratulations to the coaches and players of team 132.
Now go win a bowl to cap it all off!
I am not trying to have a RR flame war or to dump on the guy, but I have to disagree with this. RR did a poor job at Michigan and objectively set us back some as a program. Some caveats obviously apply - media jihad, divided fanbase, lack of internal support by some - but that aside I do not think that rr deserves credit for this, at all.
1. RR took these same defensive players and led them to be one of the worst defenses in the country. He even publicly said that Vince lombardi couldn't make them successful. Well, Hoke and Mattison disagreed and turned these same players into one ofthe better defenses in rh country, all while transitioning to a new system. Some will say that last year was younger, and that's true. But that doesn't account for the transformation in JT Floyd. It doesn't account for RR and his staff failing to properly use Roh. It doesn't account for the failure to heavily use Demena until late in the year.
2. On offense, RR couldnt figure out how to succeed against the b10 defenses. Borges did. We are actually scoring 5 points per game MORE in the B10 this year than last.
Did RR recruit some gear guys? Sure. But every coach a every school can say that they recruited some great guys. Unfortunately, taken as a whole, the recruiting under RR, especially when you adjust for the players that left during rr's time - was not good, and will leave us thin at several positions (both lines, RB, WR) for a year or so.
All of that said, there is one thing that I am definitely willing to give re total credit for. Not one other division 1 coach was willing to give Denard a shot at qb. RR saw the potential and mad him a starting qb. Last night, I think we saw a glimpse of denard's true potential. That goes to rr. However, o do believe that Borges is taking Denard from a spread qb that is somewhat one dimensional to a true qb that is going to be deadly in 2012.
One thing nobody can deny: RR left the program in MUCH better shape than he inherited, leaving behind a full set of competent offensive starters and a talented, if inexperienced, defense. For that, I am thankful.
I disagree with this comment. I think the widely held contention that Lloyd Carr left the cupboards bare is a sad excuse for Rich Rod. The cupboards were bare of players that played RR's system. Hoke took players designed for RR's system, modified his system and has proven successful. RR tried to force a bunch of round pegs into square holes and you give him an excuse for failing. I call BS.
Michigan lost over 90 percent of its offensive production going into the 2008 season.
Do you even know who was on the roster then? a five star qb with game experience (left bc of RR coaching pick) , Adrian Arrington (left bc of RR coaching pic), Brandon Graham, Warren, Schilling, Boren (left bc of RR), Mouton, etc. There was talent on that roster that with more player development, would have turned out into great players. Further, the pick of RR itself caused us to lose out on our better players like Arrington, who entered into the NFL draft.
I understand that some players leaving aren't RR fault, but you are acting like Carr gave him a MAC level team, which is fiction
In addition, who here thougth at the beginning of the season we would be here...this close to a BCS bowl birth. No one would have rationally thought that...We are here bc of great coaching and player development, not RR
Pretty sure that one's on Mallett himself, not Carr or Rodriguez.
you want to asign blame for the "Boren" fiasco to . . .RichRod?!
Maybe you should see if Mr. Plow is hiring.
I agree with the defense remarks, but not the offense. We may be scoring more points, but you can't claim that isn't due to factors such as improved field position, the emergence of Fitz, and a better kicking game.
Seriously, imagine if we had a kicker in some of the games last season, a lot of things could have changed. Along with this, imagine if our offense didn't start on our own 10 yd line and we had somebody else capable of running the ball. I assume you could blame RR for these failures as well, but I think our offense was pretty capable, we just had no special teams or defense to get the field position or field goals and Fitiz's injury last year didn't help his development, something RR had no control over.
I agree, I'm perfectly happy, but I think the offense's "improvement" has a lot more to do with other factors than better play on that side of the ball
Somehow Hoke and company turned him into a competent kicker when RR's staff couldn't
The kickers basically coach themselves. And keep in mind who recruited tehm, which is the topic of this thread.
And under the new coach - which was the point of my comment. Someone cured Gibbons mental problems and Despite your belief that the kickers basically coach themselves, I think the coaching staff under which he necame a good kicker deserves some of that credit
Yeah, the "someone" who cured Gibbons' mental problems was probably Gibbons. The point of your comment is to give the current coaching staff credit for Gibbons' improvement, which is ridiculous when we don't have anybody on the coaching staff who knows the first thing about kicking. If you don't want to give credit to Gibbons for his own improvement, then find out who he pays for private coaching in the offseason and give credit to that guy.
Well, at least they weren't looking for a new kicker on the way to the team bus the morning of the game. Or if they were they didn't tell the press about it.
that the difference between a first year freshman kicker and a second year kicker is about 1 light year, correct?
I don't recall anyone here ever making that argument before the season started. Everyone had given up on Gibbons (except Hoke, thankfully). The hope was that Wile - another freshman - would be our kicking savior.
While last years average numbers look great, the average for the last three games looked pretty bad - this year the story is quite different, the offense has performed much better in the last three games.
1) It's not the same players because a) every upperclassmen who played last year is now a year older - that experience is not insignificant, b) we have several players that were not available last year, like Morgan, Ryan, and Countess, that are making contributions this year and c) we are a lot more healthy. As evidence I present a comparison - last year's starting secondary for OSU: Freshman Avery, Kovacs, Vinopal, and James Rogers vs. This year's starting seconday for OSU: Freshman Countess, Kovacs, Woolfolk/Gordon, Floyd. Yeah same players.
2) Again, just about everyone on last years offense is now playing on this years offense. They are expected to be better based on the acquired experience alone. They weren't. It's hard to say that last year's offense wasn't good against big ten teams when last year's offense basically had to score on every possession because the defense was such a disaster. Put this years offense on last year's team and we don't make a bowl game.
We scored 7 points against Ohio State last year - how is that the defenses fault? This year the offense also had the pressure of having to score almost every serious against Ohio State and somehow they managed to score 40 points (ok 38 if you take away the safety). 38 points would have won the Ohio State game last year
I think you're being way too hard on this year's offense. True, if they were coupled with last year's defense we might not have made a bowl, but that has a lot more to do with last year's defense. IT WAS AWFUL. One of the worst ever.
Contrast that with this year's offense. Decidedly not awful. Not one of the worst ever.
So, while you may be correct in your assumption, it doesn't matter one bit in the real world.
And, shouldn't the fans of the program that lives by the motto "The team, the team, the team" care about more than just offense? Yes. This is why RR failed. If he were Bo, he would have said, "The spread, the spread, the spread". Fine for an offensive coordinator, not fine for a head coach.
Get over it.
$200K and no contract = GERG hire.
$650K plus multi-year guaranted contract = Mattison hire = AD supporting the HC with what he needs to succeed.
Also, Junior/Senior defense with no injuries and upperclassmen in the backfield > that freshman/sophomore defense with no DBs older than sophomore or an real experience on then field.
Much Better DC + experienced/whole defensive unit > GERG + freshman/sophomore
No one should be at all surprised at the progress the defense has made this year.
Gerg wasn't his first DC. Funny how people just skip over that. RR didn't even give Shafer a hole year to prove himself (funny how folks claim RR didn't get enough time to prove himself, but RR had no problem dropping his DC after 1 year). Shafer has done well at every stop as a DC, except for Michigan.
The defense was a disaster because RR refused to let a DC hire his own staff and run the defense the way it should be run. No quality DC was going to come to Michigan while RR was here, no matter how much money he was allotted, because RR would not provide him with the autonomy needed to hire his own staff and run the their own type of defense. But don't let that get in the way of your fairy tale
$200k = GERG = worst defense in Michigan history
$??k = Bill Busch = Utah state's defense is better than Michigans.
I don't think Utah State is paying top dollar for their DC. And I'm sure they have some underclassmen.
UTAH STATE HAD A BETTER DEFENSE THAN MICHIGAN FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!
Does this illustrate our point. We aren't talking about an underwhelming Big Ten defense. We are talking about Michigan -- the winningest program in the world despite RR's three awful seasons -- having a worse defense than the UTAH STATE MOCS.
How can you be serious?!
Thanks to Rich Rod for recruiting some amazing kids. Thanks to Hoke and his staff for embracing all of them as their own.
Ironically, I was reading the last portion of Three And Out last night after the game and the very same thing struck me. By all accounts, RR is a great guy and it certainly appears he brought in a lot of the same. Kudos RR and best of luck out west.
Thank goodness we are not arguing whether RR left the cupboard empty.
While he may not have left the whole cupboardvempty, he left at least a few shelfs pretty bare
We had a very solid defensive line and reasonable corners, while we looked weak at safety and linebacker, we also had some pretty crappy coaching in those positions. I suspect that Hoke, Mattison and company could have turned that crew into at least an average Michigan defefense (which based on some earlier posts on the subject would have lead to about9 points less scored per game)
I agree that there were some solid pieces on defense in 08 but it was hard for them to get any momentum going because they were on the field all the time. We had Nick Sheridan and Steven Threet being protected by a patchwork line and handing off and throwing to people who hadnt really played in real games.
You found Kovacs, Jake Ryan, Thomas Gordon and Desmond Morgan. You got Countess to love Michigan so much he committed after you were let go. You got Craig Roh, and likely a handful of others who will emerge as the future of our soul crushing defense. Your coaches may have messed it up for you but you still have laid a foundation that will benefit Michigan for years to come. Thank you, Rich.
I'll betcha Denard Robinson is thanking Rich Rod for the opportunity to play QB.
If for nothing else, Michigan fans should be grateful to him for seeing a QB in that kid.
Screw RR. The only thing I'm thanking him for is being gone so we have a good coach and staff now.
for being a dumbass
and, let's be sure to judge the current coaching staff after a few years of success and not one year with a weak schedule in a down year for the Big 10.
If Urban Meyer comes into OSU and gets them back on track, you might be singing a different tune if he can use his system and once again dominate the Big 10.
You're rooting for that.
Well, except for the "kinda" part.
Heh, go back and read the RR hater posts from the past few years. Their rooting interest is quite clear.
Or are you just out for revenge now? Over the better interest of the program. So I guess you're saying you're no better than the people you decry.
I suppose you mean the spread. I don't think many of us care about that. In fact, we love Hoke and Borges, and they have run the spread almost exclusively (particularly late in the season). Our problem with Rich isn't philosophical (offensively, at least).
He put out the three worst defenses in Michigan history. They actually got worse every year. His special teams may have been worse than the defenses. Those two phases of the game caused him to have the worst tenure of any of Michigan's coaches. This is why we "sing our tune". He couldn't win, because he didn't care (or he didn't know, but I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt because he is a "genius") about anything other than offense.
For the record, we don't think Urban Meyer will entirely ignore defense. His Florida teams were damn good at defending people. I don't think anyone will be surprised when a hugely successful coach wins at a traditional powerhouse.
Also, we certainly can judge our coaches on one year with a weak schedule and a down year for the Big 10. The last three years have also feature bad Big 10's. Ohio was certainly better, but we didn't have Nebraska. And the 2010 non-conference schdule of UMass, UConn, and Bowling Green isn't any stronger than this years, but guys like you thought going 7-6 should have saved Rich from being fired.
You can't have it both ways.
Mattison converted same great kids into a real top 15 defense. Rr and his coaches he hired had them hovering around Mac status. Further borges has produced more points with same great kids. And special teams actually is functional with the same kids.
The guys hoke tacked on to this class and convinced to stay contributed immensely. And even so, the wings on the helmet do most of the recruiting around here of the 3 and 4 star talent. My point, love the high character guys that stuck through it but feel bad they had to. Feel great for guys that get to reap benefits of their toiling And Wait until Mattison gets the 5 star guys to come in. Then you can really start thanking rr. Insert sarcasm here.
The worst 3 year stint in our history with the same guys. Enough said. Thanks rr.
from a simple person
your lack of any in-depth knowledge of what has actually transpired is so indicative of the group who now think that 'everything is okay now' it is sad.
Life must be easy there on the surface.
RR brought this program Denard Robinson. He did a ton of other good things, but that alone deserves 1,000 thank-yous.
...this would be the one.
Wasn't it RR himself who used to say "we're only going to talk about players that are part of our program"?
Today would be a great day to follow his lead and limit our talk to the players and coaches that are currently part of this program.
Nothing good can come of another RR debate, especially on the day after the program's biggest victory in the last seven years.
I'd love to ban any further threads about Arizona's coach
But this is Michigan and we need to keep the conversation limited to players and coaches that are at Michigan.
What a bunch of douchebags. Two minutes into a glorious new We Can Beat OSU? era and you want to rehash the past.
- Oooooh, I have a zinger that's going to win this flame war. Just...can't...resist...the submit button.
OP saw fit to thank Dickrod for bringing in some character guys who can play football well, which, uh, dreadlocked and yes . Unless you're trying to argue that no, he brought in a bunch of POS riff raff, you should sit down, watch a replay of the game, brew some chamomile tea, and let go of all the rage. Things are looking up for us.
thinking maybe a post that starts "what a bunch of douchebags" may want to take your own advice and "let go of all the rage." Seriously, man, you'll live longer.
Sorry, didn't realize your wittle feelings were on the line here. Michigan's good again. Good enough for me. Apparently not everyone else who wants to plant their "BEST FAN EVER!!!" flag on each other's face.
I don't know what there's to argue about in this thread: I like Denard, Odoms, Shaw, Koger, Kovacs, and all the other players RR brought in. I assume the rest of us do as well. So yes, thank you for the personnel, old coach.
Every damn time we talk about RR...
We just won as many Big Ten games this year as we did the last three years combined. 10 wins too, not 15 in three. Sorry, I don't miss Arizona's coach. Not to mention we just beat Ohio finally. Just ride the Hokeamania train and be happy.
+1 to you sir!! I only talk about coaches who coach for Michigan
because ignorance is bliss
so, stay ignorant and you will be happy.
Thank you Master Rod.
I agree. I actually sent an email to the Arizona AD asking him to pass on a similar message to Rich yesterday. I knew that posting on this board was pointless as I'm sure Rich doesn't read it and it would only cause a flame war if I did.
I know some people will never see it but this team was about to turn this corner anyway. It was set up for success. Mattison is truly an amazing hire and I love Hoke and they deserve tons of credit for what they've done. However, recognizing some of the fruits of one coach (RR) does not equal insulting another (Hokemania).
Frankly, my biggest problem with all the praise of RR is that it comes from many of the same people who incessantly blame Loyd for all of RR's problems. While RR clearly had challenges on offense, most of his failings on D (and I'd argue special twams) were of hos own making. If rR had a competent D during his tenure, we wouldn't have fallen so far. I don't get why I need to praise someone for fixing problems that were in large part their own fault.
Where in my post did I even mention Lloyd Carr? (notice the correct spelling of his first name) I love L.C. and will always be a huge supporter of him. You are replying to my post with meaningless references to feelings that don't exist inside of it.
My reference regarding success was simply stating that I think RR was set up to succeed this year as well.
on a "team" effort by both coaches? RR certainly gets credit for having the ability to spot and recruit talent. A+ to him.
Hoke, and more importantly Mattison, gets credit for molding these kids into winners. I love Hoke because he "gets it". I also believe that RR got it eventually.
I often wonder what the team would perform like if RR hired Mattison in January?
Man.... but sometimes people come into your life for a short period of time just challenge you to change and accept new things. Sometimes that's all they were ever meant to do.
In what alternate universe would Greg Mattison have agreed to coach under Rodriguez?
It's a pointless "What if?" exercise, but presumably you can get a better coach for over $800K (whether that would be Mattison or somebody else) than you do for $200K.
Other than seeing a qb in Denaerd his recruiting and player evaluation seems average at best - especially on defense
Thank you RR for ruining our bowl streak. Also thanks for putting the football program on probation and tarnishing it. Thanks for breaking all kinds of traditions that Michigan has like giving out that #1 jersey that means alot to the program. Thanks for putting up a good defense which is what michigan was known for. Thanks for not getting it.
Pretty typical post for you ... some good, well-argued points marred by a few heaps of DOOSHiness. I think you're right about Amaker.
Would it be asking too much for you to be pleasant? You'd get more +1s!
I get annoyed by threads like this, too (really). If you're wondering why they appear so often, look in the mirror.
By aligning yourself with people like Michael Rosenberg and refusing to concede much of anything to the pro-RR crowd (even when appropriate), you'll increase the likelihood of these types of threads being launched.
no problem with this post. RR played an important part in Michigan history. All other opinions are welcome as well. Go Blue!!!
...seems to be discounting that this group of defenders is a year older and isn't littered with true and redshirt freshmen. Additionally, people seem to forget how bad the B1G is, especially on offense.
I think Hoke, Mattison, and Co. have definitely outperformed the previous staff on D and ST, but allowing a horrendous O like Ohio's and such a green QB who is a poor passer to look like 2005 Vince Young suggests there is some merit to last year's D not being able to stop anyone.
If the current coaching staff had last year's roster, sure, they would've done better, but not good enough to stop people on a consistent basis. You just can't w/half the D being first year players. Even Saban at Alabama had a problem stopping people his first year, and went 6-6.
So, thank you RR for Denard, Lewan, Countess, Demens, Morgan, Ryan, etc. Thank you BH and GM for putting guys in a position to be successful and teaching them good technique. And, thank you B1G for being so weak this year.
One of the most encouraging things this year was the way that the team improved from week to week. The Nebraska game was a real breakthrough in my mind.
The defense improved signficantly. Tackling by the defense was excellent. They completely shut down Nebraska. I think Mattison gambled a bunch against OSU and put the game on Miller's thorwing - which turned out to be a decent (though scary) bet.
I thought that the offense also improved by the end of the year. The offense against Nebraska and OSU, both tough defenses, was balanced and strong. We put up big points against both Ds. In previous years, I thought our offense regressed at the end of the year. For example, last year we only put up 7 points against OSU. That may be b/c of external factors (outside pressure, kids getting worn out by the end of the season, coaching change rumors etc.) but that was the reality.
Even special teams improved by the end of the year (despite the fumbled punt).
I have to chalk this up to coaching. This staff has done a tremenous job. I still think RR would have done a great job in the long run and I'm not sure if I would have let RR go.
I was however a big fan of the Hoke hire. He is a great fit for Michigan. There is an untangile benefit to having someone at the helm that is in their dream job. This has to help in recruiting (Hoke must be powerful explaining to recruits that Michigan is his dream job), in coaching (he can feel these rivalry games like us and has inherent respect for all the past Michigan teams), and with the press (his statements are very believable).
Kidos to RR for some of the exciting players he brought to MIchigan that would never be there. His biggest success is Denard. He does not get enough credit for creating Denard. We should continue a pipeline to Flordia - allowing this to collapse would be a shame. I am surprised by how well RR's staff recruited under the radar guys for the D, like Ryan and Morgan - two of my favorite D players (once he finally realized several years in the importance of finding good D players to plug in). It will be interesting to see how Hoke and company do.
Cheers to the future. Hoke and his staff are clearly good coaches. If nothing else they were able to adapt their schmes to the players they have and produce a well disciplined team in all phases of the game.
The future of Michigan football is bright. Go Blue!!
Thanks for bringing us Denard, some other rad dudes, and then getting fired so we could get a real coach.
We will never know what RR and a new defensive coordinator could have done this season, it does not matter, and that's how things are,
Debate and logic are all fine, but no proof available. One of the things about decisions, like to fire RR or to Hire RR in the first place, you never get to find out how the alternatives would have worked out. Get over it, what is done is done. We have a team to be proud of at 10-2 with a bowl game coming, and we appear to have a good incoming class and a set of coaches that have done a pretty good job so far. We can see how good the coaches are as they start anew next year and start bitching about whatever it is they do wrong or praise whatever they do right then......
Next year's goal, Big Ten Championship! Let's get there!
I'm grateful for the players that RR brought in who perservered through all the chaos. I'm grateful for the players that Carr brought in who didn't run for the hills or the plowfields or the money even though their dreams of glory at Michigan seemed dashed. I'm grateful for RR telling his kids to stay and buy in to the new coaches.
I'm grateful for the new coaches who accepted the former coach's size-challenged speedsters, and were open-minded enough to take them as their own and coach them as intensely and passionately as the athletes who more fit their preferred prototype, encouraged them and allow them to compete and prove little people could play as big as the Big Ten bruisers they faced. I'm grateful the new coaches could put it all together and salvage the dreams of the upperclassmen before it was too late for them.
And I'm even grateful for the chaos of the last few years, because it played its part in bonding these great kids, helping them mature, giving them the drive to constantly improve, and making them appreciate their success in a way silver-spoon diva athletes will never understand.
I am so grateful for The Team, The Team, The Team, and all the coaching men who guided them and continue to guide them. Team 132 never pointed fingers or demeaned one coach as a way of supporting another. They never blamed, they perservered. It's all part of Michigan. And their love of Michigan can only increase our own.
I agree with the thanks to Rodriguez, but it's coming off to plenty of people as a slam to the job Hoke did. RR definitely left some things, both good (offense) and bad (defense) for Hoke to improve. Honestly I think both have taken steps forward...the offense, while maybe not quite as lightning-fast, has proven more effective against in-conference opponents, and is only going to improve as Borges figures out Denard's skill set and its utility. The defense went from the worst in Michigan history to one of the statistically best that's been around in either the Carr or Rodriguez era.
Rodriguez' downfall was his inflexibility on offense and lack of attention to defense. Hoke and his staff have changed that, while continuing the other traditions and characteristics about Michigan that Rodriguez, Carr and those before had developed and maintained
Overlooked is the choice each member of Team 132 made to stay at Michigan. And in whatever way Rodriguez instilled that in them, I am thankful. But at this point, it's to some degree water under the bridge.
Two losing seasons, massive depth problems on D-Line and O-Line that will rear their head next year (and even this year in the form of starting a walkon SDE/DT). Severe problems with DB retention. A conference win/loss record similiar to Tim freaking Brewster. The man who hired and retained GERG and his stuffed toy collection.
That era is over. I love Denard and some of his recruits, but I'd have traded the last three years for three more years of Lloyd Ball (8/9 wins and getting our asses kicked in the Rose Bowl) no questions asked.
RR is an Arizona Man now. We have a staff that moved us from 108th to 8th in scoring defense, won 10 and set us up for a BCS Bowl. Thank you Hoke. Thank you Mattison. Thank you Borges. Thank you assistants. Thank you RVB and Martin (Carr recruits) for sticking for Team 132 and making this happen.
I'm with you 'cept for one little detail. Getting 8 wins out of the '08 team would have required a miracle. Let's not forget that more stumbles that year out of an aging Lloyd Carr would have made recruiting more difficult (especially in O-H-I-O).
You mentioned the defensive line roster. Some people have mentioned the underrated recruits like Thomas Gordon and Desmond Morgan. That's fine, but I think RichRod is (justifiably) going to take some heat for his recruiting missteps in '09 and '10. We're going to hear "bare cupboard" some more.
If RR had gotten anything out of that defense, we could have had a better record in 08. If he'd managed 6-6, his climb all the way up to 7 wins in 2010 wouldn't have looked nearly as impressive
For being at Arizona and not Michigan.
Why do we have to keep bringing up Rodriguez?
The leaders of this team (Molk, Martin, VanBergen and Koger) are Carr's recruits. At the post game press conference yesterday Molk said (in response to a question) there was a 1000% difference between Rodriguez' and Hoke's emphasis on the Ohio game. He also said he'd do anything for Hoke and "he is us, we are him." Martin said that at first he didn't understand Hoke's comments about playing Michigan football but that he and the staff taught the team what it was by teaching them how to compete and that they learned a different mentality.
Why do we have to keep bringing up Rodriguez?
The emotional center of this team has been remade under Hoke, something that seemed all but lost under his predecessor's leadership. The whole Michigan Man and Michigan football themes (that so many derided as the enemy of the future during the Rodriguez era) have been restored. Playing football at Michigan is once again a transformative experience, just like Desmond talked about when they honored him this season as did Jake Long yesterday. I have no doubt that many of the Rodriguez recruits will one day talk about this experience, thanks to Brady Hoke and his staff.
Coaches don't make teams win games. Players win games. They always have and they always will.
Jim Caldwell went to the Super Bowl in his very first year as an NFL head coach. Two years later his team may not win a game. Did he just get way worse at coaching?
Jim Harbaugh went 17-20 in his first three years at Stanford. Then he won the Orange Bowl. Did he just get better at coaching every season? And if so, David Shaw must be the best coach ever because he had to replace Harbaugh and two coordinators, yet still magically went 11-1 this year.
When Rich Rodriguez got to Michigan we lost a four year starter at QB and the school's leading passer to the NFL draft, we lost a four year starter at RB and the school's leading rusher to the NFL draft, we lost the number one pick in the NFL draft at OT, we lost two starting wide receivers to the NFL draft, we lost the team's leading tackler and leader in INTs and PBUs, and we lost the team's second leading tackler who had posted an astonishing 28.5 TFL on the season. All off a team that went 8-4 in the regular season, got smoked by Oregon and Wisconsin, and lost to a 1-AA team. And that is before the attrition kicked in. It is also before former Michigan players started telling kids to commit to Michigan State.
Out of that crater, his teams got better every year, winning two more games than the season before. Still people bitched and moaned that we were headed in the wrong direction. They said his players were too small to even compete in the Big Ten. They said he recruited thugs and criminals. They said that player attrition (by guys who have since proved they never would have seen the field at Michigan) had doomed the team to a massive future rebuilding project (while conveniently ignoring the rebuilding project that existed from day one of his tenure). They said he didn't recruit a single good player on defense. He said we were just about to turn the corner but nobody believed him and he got fired. Then he said "I still think this team is about to turn the corner" and everybody freaked out and said he was a liar who was trying to undermine the new coach (despite the fact that he told all his kids to stay together and win for Michigan and each other) by raising expectations to a level that was simply unattainable by any mortal man with this collection of dreadlocked, illiterate midgets he had brought to Ann Arbor.
Yesterday, those "little guys", the ones who ALL STAYED, ran for 294 yards against Ohio State. Those untalented players beat the team that Henne, Hart, Long, Manningham, etc. never could. That defense without any players on it held Brandon Herron to 2.5 ypc. With another win in January this will be the most successful Michigan football season in over a decade. And almost all of those tiny, undisciplined, untalented players come back again next year.
"They" were fucking wrong. Rich Rodriguez didn't break Michigan football, he walked into a broken program and when he left it was even better than it had been before. The least they could do now is admit it and say thank you now that they get to reap the benefits from all the hard work and effort that Rich Rodriguez put in to build a championship caliber program at Michigan.
Post of the year. Thank you Purple Stuff for providing the necessary dose of perspective. I'll take this roster of players over any of the past decade and a half.
You'll take this roster over the '97 national championship squad???
that the win yesterday would help us move on, but apparently some aren't quite ready to let it go. And though this won't help, your commentary was so wildly misleading it could be a political commercial.
To say "out of this crater, his teams got better every year" is a lie. We were 9-4 before he got here, he went 3-9 his first year of coaching. He was the crater. 3-9 is not better than 9-4, no matter what universe you live in.
One can forgive him for struggling that first year, and you mention the challenges he faced. But it is not ironclad that any coach would have gone 3-9 that first year. I would remind you that this year, Hoke and Mattison took a defense ranked 108th and made them worlds better. While last year folks marinated in the excuse of "youth," Mattison & Co managed to accomplish their turnaround this year with two freshman lbs and a true frosh corner, and they turned out to be among the best players. Good coaching can do wonders, and to gloss over that disaster of a first year is either a sin of omission or a blatant attempt to deceive.
There is nothing to admit about RR. Seems like a good guy, did some good recruiting (though there was plenty of bad, and plenty of attrition, all of which Hoke & Co. managed to overcome). It will be interesting to see how he does in Arizona. But he did a poor job coaching here. Any simple review of his work on defense and special teams would leave even the most casual observer to that conclusion. That is what needs to be admitted, and no amount of spin is going to change that
Players cartainly win the games. We agree on that. The rest of your post, however, is complete and utter nonsense.
Players must be caoched. Every day. Every. Day. That can't be hard to understand, can it?
Why doesn't the #1 recruiting class always win the National Championship? Because some promising players turn out to be bad, and some under the radar guys turn out to be great. And coaching is a huge part of that.
Yes, players do win games, but every single play that is run during the course of a game is called by -- wait for it -- coaches. So, coaches can win games. They can certainly lose them (with bad calls). But that's not the point. That's too obvious.
Coaches teach the players to play every day. Quarterbacks spend hours and hours on how to properly drop back. That's it. Nothing about reading a defense, knowing your offense, or throwing the ball. Just dropping back. They have to be coached to do that. It is not something that a person just knows how to do. Almost no high school QB is any good at it. But it is important. And it is coached.
The same can be said for every position. Do you think lineman know how to pass-protect naturally? Do you think Jake Long would have been the first pick in the draft if he was coached poorly for 5 years? Of course not. He was a great player, but his greatness was attained with the help of coaching, which I'm sure even he will admit.
A lot of our current defenders have talked about this being the first year they were really coached. Roh said something to the effect of he had never heard he was doing anything wrong before Mattison got there. Martin credits Hoke with teaching them to play Michigan defense. These were good players last year, but they weren't at their peak because of lackluster coaching. I think we can all agree that GERG was a disaster.
Your notion of "players" as independent from coaches is nonsense.
Comparing Caldwell and the NFL to college football is asinine, and you must know it. College coaches have to develop high school kids into NFL players before Caldwell ever gets them. And still, with as many as 5 years of college coaching and tremendous athletic ability, some guys turn out to be Vernon Gholston.
All that being said, yes RR did get some good players. Yes, he brought us Denard, who is going to be a legend at Michigan. Yes, he left the program in pretty good shape. But he was terrible while he was here, which is more important.
Why do people keep posting about RR? Its always a divisive topic, digs up a bunch of arguments we've all seen here a thousand times, creates hard feelings, etc.
I seriously think this all goes back to people wanting to prove how right they were (whether original "supporters" or "haters"), and its pathetic that people just won't let it go.
The three years are a black mark on the program no matter who was to blame (and there was a lot to go around, to RR, the administration, former players, etc). You would think a 10 win season would be enough to turn the page, but apparently not. The greatest win in years is just another reason to dredge up another littany of RR threads.
We get it - he's got a new job, we all support him 100% (or not), Arizona will be all of our new second favorite program (or not), and his recruiting had some positive effect on our recent 10 win season. Let's move on.
Because pretending Coach Hoke built this season up from nothing is utterly delusional. The fact remains that he inherited 9 starters from a great offense and a (frightfully, painfully) young, but talented defense. Could RR have coached this team to 10-2? I suspect not, simply because the defensive improvement under Mattison was astronomical. But to accept the media narrative that Coach Rod firebombed the program and Coach Hoke single-handedly rescued it in year one is to ignore the reality of the situation.
No, the reality of the situation is that the current staff just won 3 more games than the last staff with the same team, plus an extra year of experience. All of the losses were close while only two of the wins were close.
Most importantly, the team got better as the season went on, which certainly can not be said for the last 3 years.
So you can keep fighting a fight that most people don't give a crap about anymore to satisfy your own football brilliance, but me and most other people here are going to look forward to a bowl game and a bright future for this program.
It isn't fair to say Hoke brought this team up from the ashes. He inherited a good offense, and a great QB.
But the defense was awful. Not just frightfully and painfully young, but AWFUL. And he made them good. Not just average, but GOOD. So, although he may not have totally built his team up from nothing, he certainly did build the defense up from nothing. Perhaps from less than nothing. The 2010 Michigan defense was worse than that of the Utah State Mocs. I would count that as a negative starting point.
That being said, you have forever disqualified yourself from ever accusing Lloyd Carr of leaving the cupboard bare. He simply left RR with a (frightfully, painfully) young offense and a pretty good defense.
Can't have it both way, bud.
Thanks RR for the memories, you are a good man and a good coach, and you had some tough luck, but thankfully and rightfully, you were replaced by a better Head Coach in Brady Hoke.
Hoke is a better coach than RR. If you don't believe me, then just listen to the seniors on team 132 talk. Not very hard to read between the lines and these players have far more insight than most anyone.
Thanking RR for this season is like thanking the guy who buys the groceries at a four star restaurant
I'm happy he recruited guys like Denard, Vincent Smith and Odoms, who probably wouldn't be here otherwise. At the same time, I'm thankful Hoke is now the one coaching them. It's time to turn the page.
Not the OP's point, but what this thread has devolved into is nothing but wasted energy arguing over the same points that have been hashed and rehashed ad nauseam. I wanted Rich Rodriguez to succeed, but the fact is, he didn't, at least not enough to keep his job. He did leave behind a bunch of great kids, some who he recruited and a few that Carr did who didn't bolt after Carr retired. To his credit, Rod told every player to a man to stay and play for Michigan.
Regardless of who is to blame for all the BS that RR had to deal with, and there's plenty to go around, he didn't win enough games in a short enough period of time to persuade the athletic director that keeping him would be in the best interest of Michigan football.
We now have a head coach who loves Michigan in his soul, not because he took a job, but because he knows how special Michigan is. So let's leave the Rodriguez era to Michigan football history and look forward with hope that the Brady Hoke era will rival that of the Schembechler era in success and duration.
I just finished 3 and Out, and I have to say that it felt very biased to me towards making RR look better than he really was. You could essentially write a book like that about any coach that goes in with high expectations and then doesn't deliver (they will all have their what ifs). There were just too many excuses from Day One and nobody wants to hear excuses. One point hugely missed in the book is that at almost every opportunity RR went about explaining how he really didn't realize how bad of shape the program was in until he arrived. This is no way to garner support from Carr or his former players. If I were Carr I would have been pissed to have the new guy come in complaining about how little he was left with. He could have said it so many different ways (i.e. It will take some time for me to install my system here) that would have been better than blaming the Hall of Fame Coach with a stellar record and pretending he inherited a broken mess. He created a broken mess and his teams never got better during the season, only worse, even on offense.
We should not be thanking RR at this point. I wish him success at Arizona, but any fool who appreciates his 3 years at Michigan and feels that somehow the Michigan Program was broken when he arrived was not a true Michigan Man or fan of Michigan Football.
Thanks to Hoke and all he brought with him, but I'm just glad that it is now about Michigan Football and the players and not as much about the Coach.
I hate falling back into this argument, but if you read Three and Out, you should understand that Lloyd didn't just leave a bare cupboard, he helped empty the cupboard. He told Ryan Mallett to leave, he told Justin Boren to leave, he told all of his players after Rich was hired that he would sign transfer papers for anyone who asked.
Lloyd never supported Rich, either publically or privately. He let players come to his office and vent about Rich. Unlike Bump Elliott, who told his players to quit whining and not to come to him with their complaints when Bo was hired. When asked in interviews, Lloyd never said "I support Rich Rodriguez", he said "I support the program". That was not true anyway. He did nothing to quiet the dissent. Thank goodness Brandon made him "retire" when he was helping another DI school find a head football coach while on Michigan's payroll.
So when Rich said the talent wasn't what he expected, he was right. He lost at least two offensive starters who would have made a huge difference in 2008.
Let's just ignore all facts, assume that the people (i.e. Bacon) who investigated just made it all up in apologetic fashion, and stick with our presuppositions. Can't go wrong that way.
You'll find my footprint on your lawn.
Sort of like how Bacon made up parts about the Purdue game and the parts about how Lloyd didn't require class attendance during the week of the Ohio State week?
I'm not gonna trash Bacon or his book, but come on.
If you were embedded in the program for 3 years, don't you think you'd be a bit sympathetic? It's natural. You'd have worked with the guys every day. You'd have personal relationships with them.
I'd imagine its something akin to what former players feel for their coaches. People have feelings. Bacon quotes Molk as saying, "I loved Coach Rod", but just yesterday, he said the same thing about Hoke. When you are in the battles together, you start to love the people around you. It's not surprising, it's inevitable.
So of course Bacon is biased. To pretend he isn't isn't being realistic, either.
Now, I'm not saying his bias led to false claims or anything. Just that he painted his picture with certain brushstrokes. A small thing was his assertion that Carr allowed players to skip class during Ohio week. That is patently false. But it fit his story, and he didn't care enough to check up on that claim. There is no reason to include it in the book. It doesn't pertain to Rich at all, other than making Lloyd look like an asshole. And because of that, because that is the only reason for it to be in the book, you can tease out Bacon's intent. It's not something a guy who was unsympathetic to Rich would do.
He also blames Lloyd for letting Boren go, shortly before telling of how much of an asshole Boren was. The asshole part of it fit Rich's side of the story, who says that he never talked to Boren so how could he complain about Rich's family values. Bacon tried to have it both ways on that one. Would he rather Carr kept the problematic asshole around to poison the new coach's regime?
That's the stuff I mean. Bacon has a strong enough case without some of the stuff he includes, but he includes it to make a stronger case for Rich. And that's not surprising.
Again, I'm not bashing him. For the reasons I stated above, I understand him.
Why should anyone take the word of people on this board over Bacon? As you stated he was in the thick of it for three years. None of you were. So who has better facts the book or people on this board?
And the point he's making is Bacon was in the thick of one side of it for 3 years, so that naturally creates bias. The other side didn't want to have anything to do with him, quite apparently. And considering the end result, probably for good reason.
I didn't say anyone should take an mgoblogger's word over Bacon's. Why do you make false accusations? We seem to be talking about two different things.
I just said that one cannot honestly believe that Bacon is unbiased. I used a few examples to show what I mean. Neither of those examples is damning to Bacon. I even said he has a good case without those errors. My only problem with Bacon's book is that he tries to play it as an objective report, when it simply cannot be.
Maybe if he had spent 3 years embedded in Carr's program before being embedded in Rich's, he could be objective. He would have spent as much time building personal relationships with one staff as he did with the other. But as it happened, he is only close to one side of it. Again, I'm not blaming him for anything. He wrote the only book he could have written (with a few silly errors).
I don't think I'm being unreasonable. Bacon has written a damn good book -- a must read -- but we can't claim he doesn't have a certain slant.