Thread for Fisking the "Attention to Detail" Post About Firing RR

Submitted by UMaD on

A popular post on Michigan Rivals message board has been circulating via email and was reposted by genuinely sarcastic and discussed on mgoblog.  The author made the case that RR should be fired and did it in a way that came off as thoughtful and balanced.  It was the best case I've heard and it was an entertaining read albeit extremely long-winded and tangential.  What I've tried to do is condense it into the author's core reasons for firing RR.  I have many qualms with the post, but thought I'd open it up for MGoBloggers to discuss.  Are these valid reasons to fire RR?

Here's the core of the Fire RR Rationale:

1. Vanity.  RR took “special joy” in dismantling the program [tradition] in order to fully rebuild it in his own image.  Contrast with Bo, who had his own way of doing things, but understood doing it within the context the Michigan tradition. Rich doesn't seem to understand that Michigan is bigger than him.

2. Lack of Diplomacy. RR criticized Lloyd's program, antagonizing Carr-era holdovers. RR established a tone from the start that opened himself up to being undermined. RR did little to earn respect and support from Lloyd Carr.

3. Recruiting Decline.  Average rank of player has declined.

4. Diminished Academic Culture. RR recruits too many academically borderline players. “While Lloyd used to get his one or two exceptions a year for borderline kids, we take more of them under Rodriguez”.  RR does not take “academics seriously beyond lip service”, and runs UofM no different than he would an SEC school.

5. Defensive Approach. “Rodriguez views the defense as a sparring partner for the offense [and primarily] there to get our offense ready. Stopping other teams is the secondary objective.”

6. Inability to Manage. It is “beyond [RR’s] management and leadership abilities” to run a program like Michigan.  “Michigan is simply a bigger, tougher job than West Virginia” due to Detroit market size and conference strength of the Big10 (i.e. need for excellence on both sides of the ball, not just one).  RR is “not a strong enough manager and leader to cope with the events of the day and halt a critical downward spiral.”

7. Lack of “attention to detail”. RR has failed to create a winning culture that exhibits attention to detail. As a result, breakdowns in execution, fundamentals, concentration, and ball security occur. (7a) Exhibit A: Fumbling “On 7 of Rich's last 10 teams fumbling has been a major problem” across different programs and players.  (7b) Exhibit B:  The defense is awful.  Casteel, Shafer, Robinson have all been successful without RR, so RR is responsible.” An overhaul of the defensive staff will not fix the problem, since two competent coordinators have already failed.  (7c) Exhibit C: Special teams. “Special teams is ALL about coaching and attention to detail.” Ohio State and Va Tech special teams are always better than us because of “attention to detail”.

 

Note:  To people griping about all the redundant threads - save it.  I clearly labeled the thread and anyone who doesn't want to discuss this topic is free to ignore it.  I starting a new thread because I think its an interesting topic to discuss, I think I added something worthwhile to the conversation, and its entirely seperate discussion from the other thread which seemed to focus on genuinly sarcastic's personaility or the validity of the "what if Mike Debord was coach" conjecture.

bleuadams

November 30th, 2010 at 4:04 PM ^

*****THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POST TO READ BECAUSE IT'S 'THE' TRUTH*****

#1) Michigan is NOT Jim Harbaugh's 'dream job.'  He wants an NFL job, because him and his brother are so competitive.  SD, SF, Oak and Car (and maybe even Dal and Min) are all going to be fighting over him this off-season.

#2) Dave Brandon is going to be doing absolutely everything he can to convince him to come to Michigan over the next month.

#3) In all likelihood, Rich Rod will be brought back (signing a two year extension after the bowl game), and Greg Robinson will be replaced (along with the 3-3-5).  Ron English is supposedly an early DC candidate. 

scottydreisbach

November 30th, 2010 at 7:39 PM ^

I think most of the garbage thrown at Coach Rod is completely false.  He is a quality coach who has largely done his best with a lot of factors that have been out of his control.  

I agree with some of the sentiment from the turnovers and special teams "attention to detail" argument.  Frankly we were almost worse on special teams this year than we were on defense.  Between missed field goals, lack of onside recoveries and putting our defense on the field with bad field position from poor punting, we did ourselves no favors.  Youth and inexperience nothwithstanding, we needed to have better special teams play.

Turnovers are a bit tougher to analyze because they are definitely correlated to talent, but again I think Coach Rod needed to do a better job getting the turnover margin closer to positive territory.  

profitgoblue

November 30th, 2010 at 3:23 PM ^

Because we cannot help ourselves.  If it has to do with Michigan football, we'll read it.  Even if we know its going to piss us off, we can't help ourselves.  And then we get pissed off and angry at the poster.  The only weapon against these threads are the down-vote.

UMaD

November 30th, 2010 at 2:51 PM ^

1 and 2 seem possible, but are difficult to prove.  I don't see any evidence to support this.

3. Is this true?  It early to judge RR's 2 full classes but it seems like he has done well under the circumstances.

4.  Brian discussed this before - shouldn't Michigan be proud to take struggling kids of high character and help them be all they can?

5.  Just seems unbeleivable that any succesful major conference football coach would take this attitude.

6.  Pure opinion.  The only evidence for this is his record at Michigan for which there can be many explanations/rationalizations.

7a.  Wonder if this fumbling stat is true.  At Michigan, it seems largely explainable by inexperience/youth.

7b.  Defense bad seems explainable by personnel.  That the people he hires do elsewhere seems to indicate he makes decent decisions in this area.

7c.  Punting has been awsome and Kicking has been awful.  This is a direct result of personnel, not coaching. 

 

In short: very little evidence to support the assertions made.

profitgoblue

November 30th, 2010 at 3:10 PM ^

"Neg All Coaching Change Discussions" (NACCD) Policy violated.

1 MGoPoint subtracted.  No offense intended - it's a non-discretionary policy.

All rulings are appealable and will be revisited after written request "filed" by appellant within 24 hours of the date of this Violation and Citation.  

jmblue

November 30th, 2010 at 5:00 PM ^

1 and 2 seem possible, but are difficult to prove.  I don't see any evidence to support this.

It's pretty safe to assume that Lloyd was not happy to see virtually his entire staff broomed out. 

But anyway, you're overanalyzing things.  The biggest problem people have with RR is the 6-18 Big Ten record.

mackbru

November 30th, 2010 at 7:23 PM ^

 

3) Absolutely and consistently true. We went from a top-10 recruiting team to 20 last year. We're currently hovering at around 25.

4) One of my favorite rationalizations in the college game. Coaches aren't taking tough-luck kids because they want to rescue them. They take guys they think will help them win games. Period. The first thing you hear from sleazeball coaches -- Ole Miss, Auburn, Clemson -- is how they really wanted to give a kid chance. No, they needed a linebacker. Gimme a break. High educational standards are vital.

5) RR has given us not a shred of evidence to suggest he's knows anything about defense. He hired incompetent coaches and recruited badly.

6-7) They have been a model of disorganization and lack of attention to detail. Took three years to find a guy who can simply catch punts. They lead the league fumbles. They can't tackle. Also, the NCAA sanctions stemmed entirely from bureaucratic missteps and sloppiness.

The coach is responsible for the personnel. If the personnel fails, the coach fails. RR lost five key defensive recruits this year by signing guys who weren't up to standards, either as a student or a player. Five! Had he recruited more wisely, he wouldn't have had to throw so many freshmen to the wolves.

There's abundant evidence to support all of the above. Just look at the stats and watch the games against quality opponents. They're a blunder-fest.

DCBlue

November 30th, 2010 at 2:52 PM ^

it would have been nice if you would have simply pointed out that it is actually being "discussed on mgoblog" a mere 10 posts before yours.

Good Lord.

His Dudeness

November 30th, 2010 at 2:53 PM ^

Pasted from the other thread:

This comment in the article made me furious:  "When Harbaugh says these kids couldn't get hired by the people who adulated them... he's right! You probably won't see Jeremy Gallon and Mike Shaw and Jake Ryan going to work for Wall Street banks and Chicago ad agencies and Detroit auto makers if/when they graduate."  How anyone would have the audacity and meanness of spirit to so insult kids who are breaking their backs to help our football program is almost beyond belief.

This.

What the author wrote here is very offensive and is disgusting. Whoever the author is can go fuck his or herself. Seriously, what is written there makes me very angry.

trueblue262

November 30th, 2010 at 3:11 PM ^

it's not so much insulting the players or kids. But rather, saying that it shouldn't be hard to (one you graduate or elgibility runs out) to come back and help the school or program with the knowledge that was gained in the time there. And to me, it only makes sense that the people guiding these teenagers through their 4 or 5 years here be ones that have done this themselves. Its not saying that the kids mentioned are not smart enough to graduate. Atleast in my opinion anyway.

kaykaybroke

November 30th, 2010 at 2:54 PM ^

it is supposedly the start of the rich rod era you know... i see no reason why not to make the team in his own image if it's his style of game play... changing it for no reason though is untolerable.

however i think richrod is turning this traditionally tough defense 3 yards and a cloud of dust offense into a superpowerhouse offense with a somewhat avg big ten defense.

mGrowOld

November 30th, 2010 at 2:56 PM ^

It will stop when people stop responding to the posts. Or if every post bringing up the subject-especially when other threads are up on the same topic-gets neghammered into bolivian.

profitgoblue

November 30th, 2010 at 3:08 PM ^

"Neg All Coaching Change Discussions" (NACCD) Policy violated.

1 MGoPoint subtracted.  No offense intended - it's a non-discretionary policy.

All rulings are appealable and will be revisited after written request "filed" by appellant within 24 hours of the date of this Violation and Citation.  

Blue_Sox

November 30th, 2010 at 3:05 PM ^

is say "let's take this outside." Your post is no different from what is going on in the other thread, you simply want to grandstand about your own views. Stop being an attention whore.

jonny_GoBlue

November 30th, 2010 at 5:13 PM ^

Point #7 is the only one I view to be reasonable.  The rest are nothing but the same garbage excuses anyone who wants Rich Rod gone will use to make a case where they would otherwise have none.

I mean c'mon... "RR criticized Lloyd's program, antagonizing Carr-era holdovers."  Seriously?

gnarles woodson

November 30th, 2010 at 5:21 PM ^

I agree with you.  I am on the side of firing him but it's based on the win/loss record and the belief that I don't think he can turn it around here....He isn't a good fit, IMO.  I don't hate the man, or despise him or wish ill will towards him.  And if he isn't fired, I will root for him to succeed.