Those who want Harbaugh, think about this
November 28th, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^
...a coaching search in 2011-2012 in which we have to choose someone's position coach who was a failed FCS coach (i.e. Tennessee now as they're program has had *that* much damage done to it).
November 27th, 2010 at 11:39 PM ^
It's easier to turn a scrambling QB into a pro style QB, than it is the other way around. If a different offense was implemented I wouldn't foresee any major hurdles, besides picking a starter out of the three gems we have.
November 27th, 2010 at 11:43 PM ^
I don't think Denard could play QB in a pro style offense, and Tate's iffy too. I think DG would be the best pro style QB of any we have. Denard could still make an impact as a SR/RB though
November 28th, 2010 at 12:55 AM ^
If a different offense was implemented I wouldn't foresee any major hurdles...A lot of us, myself included, didn't foresee any "major hurdles" at changing to the spread; we all know how that turned out. The personnel at Michigan is much better-adapted to outrun people as opposed to overpowering them. Another system change would entail at least two more years of misery and wouldn't guarantee that the team does any better than losing bowl games to elite teams as they did to Texas and USC under the old regime. This team is on the right path. It just requires a bit more patience. The reward will be well worth the wait.
November 28th, 2010 at 12:04 AM ^
JH ran a spread at San Diego. Crazy idea but he could have Tate as the QB and Drob as a Desmond type of receiver and return man.
November 28th, 2010 at 11:30 AM ^
So you're going to make a receiver out of a guy who just threw for nearly 2500 yards and rushed for something like 1600? Really?
So he then has like 1000 yards receving, because he is phenomenally talented after all, and you just made Roundtree, Stonum, Junior, etc less effective because they aren't getting the ball much.
Tate then rushes for 600 yards or so, max.
I'm thinking we just dropped about 2500 yards of offense somewhere.
Now, fill us in on the rest of your plan.
November 28th, 2010 at 11:43 AM ^
Hasn't Roy had something like 20 drops this year?
November 28th, 2010 at 11:58 AM ^
So, we should keep RR because you want Denard to be the QB. But it was cool for RR to let Mallet split, right? A top-ten NFL QB? Wait...I just looked at your name...nevermind...I won't expect a rational response.
November 28th, 2010 at 12:10 AM ^
I would keep RRod with little hesitation if Dave Brandon called me and told me it was my decision (Ke$ha is his ringtone on my phone), but a.) don't think our QBs would struggle mightily in a hybrid pro system b.) think Harbaugh is a caveman coach who wouldn't utilize Denard's silly potential in a hypothetical scheme (whether it would be as successful for DRob's particular talents as the godfather of the Shred and Spread is debatable). Harbaugh has already shown some neat innovation and flexibility in changing the offense post-Gerhart and imagine this year's OSU offense if Tressel wasn't an uberconservative troll and smart enough to be a Michigan grad.
November 28th, 2010 at 12:18 AM ^
Why so much love for Harbaugh, I thought four years ago everyone was calling for Lloyd's head because he couldn't win enough, now everyone wants to go back to that. Harbaugh is not going to win multiple MNC like I believe with enough time RR can. If Uof M goes and hire another hier to Bo we will once agian be stuck in the stoneage of football. Do you think Saban came from the Bear coaching tree.
I for one am sick of playing for a Rose Bowl while the rest of the country plays for A MNC.
November 28th, 2010 at 1:10 AM ^
An Insight Bowl once every 3 years?
November 28th, 2010 at 4:53 AM ^
Playing in the Rose Bowl is an awful fate that no program should have to suffer through
November 28th, 2010 at 8:37 AM ^
Oh, that's right, none. When his WVU team actually had a chance to play in the MNC in 2007, they choked at home as a 28 pt favorite and lost to a terrible Pitt team.
The fact that some UM fans are STILL convinced that UM will be a dominant power under RR is absolutely mind boggling.
November 28th, 2010 at 11:46 AM ^
...I honestly think many on this board are more invested in having Rich Rodriquez succeed then they are in ?Michigan (look at the completely unfair stereotypes and outright dismissal of RR critics, the endless parade of ridiculous excuses, etc.).
November 28th, 2010 at 12:28 AM ^
Harbaugh has experience running a spread - he did so at the University of San Diego when he was there before his current gig at Stanford. I don't know why people assume he's married to a pro-style system. Even in the system he runs now, Luck is used as a rushing threat now and then (and he's not exactly Denard-fast).
November 28th, 2010 at 1:21 AM ^
Geez, after all the time I spent last year arguing to keep Denard at quarterback last year, I'm shocked that no one suggested that maybe a top 5 rusher would probably make a pretty good RB too. Devin is a pocket passing QB, it's quite clear when he gets on the field that he doesn't want to be a RB. He can place a long ball as good as anyone I've seen, and as his mechanics and throwing ability mature, he would make a great pocket passing QB. Tate is just going to do whatever he can do to get it done on the field, he'll adjust as need be.
November 28th, 2010 at 12:37 PM ^
I don't think Denard has the physical build to play tailback. There's more to the position than just carrrying the ball. He's a QB.
November 28th, 2010 at 2:04 AM ^
Yeah, probably one or two of our fine QBs would transfer. But we might be losing Tate regardless. Harbaugh should be able to succeed with whomever remains. He was, after all, a quarterback. And other qbs will be dying to play for him.
November 28th, 2010 at 2:21 AM ^
Completely ignoring the pro or anti RichRod argument, your claim that none of DG, Tate, or Denard could run an offense under Harbaugh is absurdly wrong. DG is an ideal QB in any system, and Harbaugh ran a spread variation at SDSU, so this is a strawman argument anyway.
November 28th, 2010 at 3:46 AM ^
nope, we barely won three games and got blown out in all of our losses. we were just as close to 4-8 as we were to 7-5.
We need Harbaugh now. He would find a way to be bowl-eligible next year regardless of personnel which is where RR failed.
November 28th, 2010 at 5:22 AM ^
If I'm not mistaken, Harbaugh's team is 11-1 right now, ranked #6 in the BCS, probably headed to the Rose Bowl, (in your face MSU!) lost only to the #1 ranked team in the nation, and has beaten Southern Cal three times. Harbaugh played in the NFL for several years, played in the Rose Bowl, played QB for the Michigan Wolverines during the Bo Schembechler halcyon days ... Yeah, you're right. No reason anyone would want to stick around and play for him.
November 28th, 2010 at 8:34 AM ^
every coach is a system guy who cannot run an offense without a specific QB. Look at Texas (Vince Young), OSU (Pryor, Smith), VaTech (Vick). These coaches have had both running first QBs, pocket passers, and guys in between.
Why do you believe Harbaugh is inflexible?
November 28th, 2010 at 9:45 AM ^
As properly noted below, Harbaugh offered Tate a ride to Stanford. So, sorry OP, you're dead wrong. But let's dig deeper. You say that none of our QB's would do well in a pro-style offense. I wonder what coaches in college football think about that?
http://rivals.yahoo.com/michigan/football/recruiting/player-Devin-Gardner-81347
Oh, I guess the coaches at Iowa, Notre Dame, MSU, and Wisconsin all think you're wrong. Devin will be a stud under Harbaugh. You think he wouldn't want to play under an NFL QB who was a part of a Michigan program that used to put QB's in the NFL like a Pez dispenser?
Harbaugh (or whoever the next coach is) will have to be a person who succeeds where RR failed - he will need to re-recruit players and make the best use of the talent he has available. In the case of QBs, that won't be hard.
November 28th, 2010 at 10:33 AM ^
Why the F would Denard transfer? He loves Michigan, is about the team, and knows he won't project as a QB in the NFL. So if anything, playing slot would be good for his future.
November 28th, 2010 at 10:52 AM ^
Tate for sure would be okay. Gardner would probably excel as well. Unfortunately, I don't think denard would be the starter, but who knows! If he improves his passing the same amount from season 2 to 3 as he did from season 1 to 2, then he very well could be the starter.