Tom Luginbill from Scout .com says he thinks RR will succeed at Michigan. He says the Big Tens 3 yards and a cloud of dust is longer is good enough on the national stage. Luginbill also says RR first two years of recruiting went well and says most of Michigans talent are freshmen and sophomores, singleing out Roh and Stonum as two of Michigans better players. He also says RR will need at least four years to get these players developed and some experience. Agree or disagree with Luginbill?
Tom Luginbill from Scout.com
But it means nothing until he brings in the NC's.
A minimum of 17 straight to be honest. The media will probably start to lighten up on him by then too.
Sorry. Nothing to see here.
if you want mediocrity, go to msu. we should have a higher standard for our team. 8 wins out of 12? in the fourth year? stop selling this team short.
I've seen that word (usually in forum rants by Burgundy Blues or dimwitted Ann Arbor townies) more times in the past year than in all my other years combined. Always capitalized, always with multiple exclamation points...
I would have hit on that myself; I think the cascade down the page adds a little something extra as well. Also, I think it seems way more unacceptable with the third exclamation point.
my definition of succeeding is being the best. NC is the best. strive for the top. if UM goes 10-2 thats great, but the goal should be NC's. RR wasnt hired to have only 8 wins in his fourth season.
Because the success of the football team is predicated on the goals that we, the fanbase, who don't impact on-field results, hold for them. MICHIGAN IS THE BEST AND THE BEST = CHAMPIONSHIPS. Anything else is NOT. GOOD. ENOUGH.
Are really turning into a gaggle of bitches.
You're right. The fans, who get prison raped for tickets, PSL', buy the overpriced gear so they can go around looking like college football clowns, donate money to the athletic department, pay grillions of dollars to be students at UM--HAVE NO FUCKING RIGHT to expect anything in terms of results on the playing field?
Well bah golly, sargint! Cankle this heyah blawg! This whole daym thang is all fer naught!
Yer gott dam right! Rawdriguez is perfect! 8-16 is da bomb! Look out Vanderbilt! We comin' for ya!
His points are often right, even if they're obnoxiously exaggerated.
Even if you are ridiculously obnoxious in expressing said opinion.
8 wins in year 4 is really nothing great to write home about. I have a feeling most people try to lower expectations to such an extent that they won't get hurt if they are not met.
If Lloyd and his consistent 8-9 wins were "just not good enough" and "he was living in the 18th century" (actual quotes from WLA "bitches" ) how is expecting anything more than 8 wins from a team stacked with 3 year starters ( which we will have by year of the RR era) asking for too much.
Note that OP never said NC or ELSE!
And Simi is essentially being negged by other Michigan fans for sympathizing with the common Michigan man. Perhaps it is the tone but we have to keep in mind, as you mentioned, that the coaching change was made to improve on the typical 8-9 wins because those were "just not good enough." Maybe i'm in the minority on this, but I think it is realistic we reach 9-10 wins this year. Or maybe, i'm just being an arrogant Michigan fan and need to keep my expectations in check.
"we have to keep in mind, as you mentioned, that the coaching change was made to improve on the typical 8-9 wins because those were "just not good enough."
Lloyd retired. Your statement has no basis in fact.
MSM seems to perpetuate this myth and we should not repeat it. Lloyd retired. HIS CHOICE (exactly like it is Urban's choice to take a break).
But I think Turbocool was pointing to the reason behind the radical change in coaching philosophy. That was the choice of the administration. BM did not want to continue status quo.
As IRIT said it, was the need for a change in the status quo more than anything else, that I was referring to. And yes, Lloyd did retire but we could've brought in a guy like Ferentz who was a spittin' image of LC. But we didn't. We brought in RR to give us a new look and more success.
wow - you know Bill Martin and Mary Sue Coleman? It seems like you have extreme insight into the specific motives behind BM and MSC making the coaching hire they did. I don't remember Martin or Coleman stating publicly that they hired RR because the job LC had done was not good enough and that the status quo level of success (MNC within the last ten years, bowl streak, etc) needed a boost.
I think the "we" portion of your statements is where the philosophical dichotomy is occurring here:
"Lloyd did retire but we could've brought in a guy like Ferentz who was a spittin' image of LC. But we didn't. We brought in RR to give us a new look and more success."
Martin and Coleman don't listen to "Us", thankfully. They do what they think is best for the program, Athletic Department and University as a whole.
Alright, your pretty adamant that i'm talking out of my ass, okay. I used to work directly under a few of the AD's and grew up very close to the program though so yeah, I guess you can say I do have some insight.
But also, why would Martin or Coleman say anything negative about LC? They had no incentive to do so. He was a great coach and most of all, a great guy. There is nothing wrong when an administration looks into a new direction when a coach, such as LC, does retire. You're making it seem as if I wanted LC out and that is not the case.
If Lloyd and his consistent 8-9 wins were "just not good enough" and "he was living in the 18th century" (actual quotes from WLA "bitches" )
Bullshit. Show me these "quotes" on our website, or this one, from one of us.
Every single one of us liked Lloyd Carr.
I may have criticized Lloyd's 4th quarter defenses as "ceding territory so fast Winston Churchill himself would be happy with the appeasement going on", but that's about it.
You're only stating the obvious. The issue isn't the number of wins, the issue is HOW LONG it takes to get there. 7 - 8 wins is acceptable in the short term, not the long term.
Too many people forget that USC, & Alabama, & Texas, & Oklahoma, & Neb., & Ohio State, & ND, were either down for a significant number of years, or are still down.
The biggest disaster, in my mind, would be to panic or be impatient and impetuous, firing RR & his staff too soon. Coaching continuity is critical to developing LONG TERM success.
Not only would it be terrible to let RR go next year, it would make it that more difficult to bring in a good coach, and that much more difficult to recruit and retain recruits.
No, I'm not happy at all with the way things have gone the last few years. But that doesn't imply that I want to get rid of RR. And BTW, he doesn't walk on water, and there prob. are coaches just as good out there. But I will say this. First, he's who we've got. And Second, given the time and the support, I firmly believe he will regularly be in the hunt for the MNC.
Totally agree with this statement, all top programs have been down before and they rebounded. If UM can win 8 games next season and be down for only 2 years it will be a minor miracle. If RR is let go after next season that just sets the program back farther and a whole new philosophy comes in with someone else's players who don't fit their system.
But very few have been brought back by the guy with whom they went down. In fact, I can only think of Penn State as an example of a team that went down the terlet but recovered with the same coach--and of course, we can debate nearly as long as Joe Paterno has been coaching as to how much Paterno has to do with actual day-to-day PSU football.
That's what makes Rodriguez's task so daunting--he is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as the guy who took UM down--he won't be given a very long leash to get them back up and running.
This is exactly right. People argue all the time about whether or not RR is a "good" coach. More important is how he's perceived as a coach by players, fans, assistants. Wins are the currency that pays for being perceived as a good coach. RR doesn't have them here. Like Simi said, it's hard to pull a team out of the gutter when you don't have the image of a winner.
Obviously there's skill and talent involved in coaching, too, but being a winner is huge. Look at Phil Jackson: he rode MJ to the shiniest reputation in all of coaching, and it started a cycle through which his reputation attracted good players and created a winning culture and attitude. For anyone who's played team sports, you know having a winning culture is incredibly important to success. Can RR recreate his image at U-M? If he'd finished out this season strong, I'd say sure no problem. But two losing seasons in a row worries me.
I think you are on to something, but regarding whether fans, coaches and players respect RR, I think only the first of the three might be in question. The coaching fraternity certainly holds him in high esteem, being the inventor of the read option, and I think that recruits are more levelheaded than we give them credit for. Many high school players have played on bad teams at some point during their careers. They know how things can go downhill with a few bad breaks. RR's success at WVU is recent enough that it should still buy him time in kids' minds. Anyway, it's not unusual for coaches to pull themselves off the mat after a shaky start. It's funny that we hold up Kirk Ferentz as some kind of Mr. Dependability; he started out 1-10 and 3-8 after succeeded Hayden Fry.
yes, ive heard it before, however, there are two sides to the coin. assuming RR does not perform next year, it COULD be bad to fire him (see ND who fires a coach every 3 years). however, in the history of the game, there HAVE been coaches to win with other guy's players. just because we would, hypothetically, fire RR does not Gurantee that we would be down for the foreseeable future.
secondly, your assumption presumes that RR will succeed, which is not a given. if, after his third year, there is not progress, how could you say it would be more detrimental to fire him as opposed to retain him? if he is not getting the job done, how long do you keep him around hoping he can turn it around.
like many on this blog, i am frustrated with the on-field results. also like many, i believe the third year is make or break; no more excuses, its not lloyds team anymore. if he cant get it done next year, then i dont see the argument in keeping him around any longer.
people point to amaker as a reason for a coach sticking around, yet i dont understand that analagy at all. amaker consistently underperformed yet we kept tolling around with him. this did not pay off since he ultimatly did not get the job done and we just had additional years of mediocrity. would it have been worse if we cut our ties with him after year 4 instead of year 6 (or whatever year it was...)?
I'll take that one step further.
This team is NOT a prototypical spread team in terms of the talent.
Forcier is more of a passer. Two tight ends that can block and get downfield to catch passes (insert joke). Running backs don't appear to be home-run threats. Outside receivers are tallish (and the ones coming in 2010 are as well), lacking the speed to blow things up in space. The slots are more possession receivers.
Of course, X Factors would be Stokes, Gallon, and Dileo. What types of receivers are they?
Denard Robinson would be the main concern. Would he bolt? Would he welcome a move to halfback, receiver, or even the defensive backfield, where he was regarded as a Top 10 recruit?
And the guys on the OL, plus the ones in the wings are BIG. We have yet to see if they are or will be the more athletic type that RR seems to favor.
I don't see a tough transition to a more passing oriented, pro-style, or even run-based attack such as under Lloyd.
As for defense--well, I don't know what the hell is going on there, and Michigan has already had a lot of turnover with DC's, sooooo....
When I paid OOS tuition(meaning that in one year, my family paid the university what many kids pay for 4 years) I paid for my education, not for football wins. Had that been my priority, I probably would have gone to USC or maybe Ohio State.. (this was back in the early 2000s)
Today, when I donate money to the university, I do not donate because I want the sports teams to win more. I donate because I want the university to continue being a top tier research institution. Football is secondary.. please do not speak for me or others who think just like I do.
The voluntary decision to spend money on entertainment = forced, violent sodomy. It makes perfect sense as an analogy.
Chitown, I respect your opinions but I respectfully disagree here. I don't know why people get negged when they say 7, or 8 wins is not good enough and they would like to see better results on the field. For starters, I guarantee that 7-8 wins isn't 'good enough' for RR and the players just like it isn't for us. They are playing for conference titles and eventually national titles. Whether they achieve these goals may or may not happen but I have no doubts that they set the bar higher than we do.
And no, the fan doesn't impact the on-field results directly but that doesn't mean the Michigan fan must only have modest expectations for their team. We expect to win and that has made this program what it is today. We consider ourselves the 'leaders and the best' are for that to hold true we must succeed and be superior to our opponents.
I don't even see how this is an issue. I would think all Michigan fans would hold our team to a high standard because you know the current players and staff, in addition to former players and staff, are doing the same.
What I lose with all the hyperbole--you speak'um great with plain English.
Go to ANY university and the fans expect results. So do administrations.
The kids at the WLA can bark all they want, but if RR flops this year--he is gone.
Do I or any UM fan hope that happens? NO WAY.
But, it is what it is M-effer.
Parity renders the whole exercise known as the WLA irrelevant? No more expectations, no more "We Will be a Machine"--no more Barwis Porn, and in effect, no more Michigan Football?
I think the SEC begs to differ. And so does Pete Carroll and USC over the last decade. And oh yeah! Mack Brown and his decade-long run of 10 or 11 win seasons.
Parity is an excuse for mediocrity. HEY! We had that under Lloyd, didn't we? And WHOOPS The cupboard was bare. Poor Richie Rodriguez.
Don't give me "parity" until you tell me that over the last 20 years, 20 different teams have won national championships. Don't give me "parity" until you show me the national champhionships won by Boise State, Purdue, Louisville, Oregon, TCU, etc.
But, you can't.
Boise State, TCU, Louisville, and Oregon actually help the parity argument because they've taken on the big boys and beat them. Not mention Orgeon winning the Pac 10 which seems to be a nail in USC's coffin (not the final one mind you). Your hypebole overextended the tenuous logic you had going.
USC being a model program of success isn't a great argument because on the next thread someone will point out the fishy smell coming from the stagnant NCAA investigation which got held up because Bush settled out of court. I doubt anyone at Michigan would be willing to buy NCs.
And maybe there hasn't been 20 different National Championship winners in the past 20 years, but there's been 16 if you're willing to accept the nation recognizing two number one teams.
The problem with your analysis is that the environment has reached the point that everyone feels that their head coach is a failure unless he wins a MNC every three years are so. It does not work that way. You mention the SEC. The following SEC schools' fan bases will consider their coach unsuccessful if he has not won a MNC in the past five years: Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, LSU, Auburn. Add the rest of the major programs in the country and you probably have fifteen to twenty fan bases who feel that way. Tuberville was run off from Auburn three years after going unbeaten. There is griping among their respective fan bases about Carroll, Stoops, Tressel and Miles, all of whom have recently won MNC's. Expecting success at elite progams is reasonable. Thinking your school is somehow ordained by the almighty to win championships is just silly.
In this day and age you have to be very good and very lucky (injuries as well as breaks) to have a chance to win it all. Sustained success is what we should be looking to have. Unreasonable expectations (We are Michigan fans, therefore we deserve more championships than anyone else.) is foolish. Expect continuing success and with the right breaks, we will get out share.
Barking Sphincter/KoB/whoever else you want to call yourself,
I'm merely pointing out the absurdity in us, as fans, setting the goals for an organization over which we have no control, influence, or impact on. It's one thing for RR to say "Ten wins is not good enough". For us, as fans, to say it - is utterly meaningless.
The level of enmity you hold for us is staggering, however. Perhaps you should release your stress by using your myspace profile to pick up some boys.
absurd for an I-Phone user to "expect" that the 100+ bucks AT&T charges per month should be at least worth some 3G coverage?
I mean we have exactly the same control over UM football as AT&T right (the right to not buy the product)??
The control you exert is whether or not you decide to purchase the product. You exert no control over whether Michigan wins a NC, or whether IBM improves their service.
you were the one calling it "Absurd" to expect anything. Whether the expectations are reasonable or not is a different question, but your argument was that it is absurd to expect anything since we do not control anything. Do you deny that this was your argument?
I personally watch Michigan football because I like football, I went to Michigan, and I had many good times watching them play. I still like watching them play - admittedly less so when they lose. I try to not place "expectations" on outcomes I can't control. If people want to say "Michigan football needs to _____", my contention is that such a statement is meaningless.
to "I do not have expectations", which is fine and we don't feel any need to conform to your methods. Everybody has expectations, except maybe mindless worker drones(think Ixian suboids from Dune). I don't see how they are meaningless....I mean anything that has an effect is not meaningless by definition right. If ND fans were Ixian suboids wouldn't Fat Charlie still have a job? So the expectations did have an effect right?
Why is it okay for you to bitch and moan about the Lions and Tigers but not okay to have SOME expectations for Michigan. Note that even those who do have expectations aren't suggesting anything radical if said expectations are not met.
So "if RichRod doesn't win at least 8 games next year he should be fired" isn't radical? That is the expectation quite a few have put forth on the board.
and certainly not by me. I just resent that I am not allowed to even have expectations.
a lot of this comes from the fact that people were upset or disappointed or whatever you want to call it with the amount of times that lloyd "underachieved" when he ONLY went 8-4 or 9-3.
its interesting to note the same people who wanted lloyd out because "the game passed him by" (im looking at you bouje) are the same ones who say we shouldnt expect greatness year in and year out in college football.
if we wanted "mediocrity" (if thats what you called what we had under lloyd) why did we have to destroy the whole system and rebuild it with RR?
saying 7 and 8 wins on a yearly basis are good enough. What people are saying is that 7 or 8 wins next year isn't the end of the world, and may be realistic given the situation in the secondary. I think most everyone agrees that Michigan needs to be competitive in every game in RR's 4th year or he may lose the supporters he has.
This was a more painful transition than we had hoped, but if you look past the fire in your eyes, you can see that the pieces are falling into place. Demanding 10 or more wins right now "just because we are Michigan" is both absurd and arrogant.
not the next year. You need to learn how to count me thinks.
My response is to turbocool and his (7-8 wins) discussion. I am yet to see anyone post that they look forward to 8 wins in RR's 4th year.
My response has nothing to do with Simi or his opinion, but I'm sure he appreciates you having his back.
1...2...3... ah F it.
"RR will be judged on his fourth year, where I think he has to win at least 8 games."
All I'm saying is that our expectations are meaningless. And if they're "multiple NC's", even moreso, because how often does that happen? Meyer has 2. Either Brown or Saban will walk out of this year with a second. Any other active coach reach that? No.
I hear ya and that makes sense. Ultimately, our expectations are meaningless, however fans have the right to want a winning program. And at Michigan we have been spoiled over time so that has heightened our expectations going forward. That's all i'm saying.
You guys have taken some abstract self-righteous high road since Rich Rod has gone 8-16. Yes, you guys are so wonderfully aloof, and just watch football for the gol' darn sake of watching it. Win, lose, or overtime--you ol' boys just sit around in your velvet smoking jackets, downing cognac, smoking long Cubans, and chat about the good ol' days in Tappa Kegga Bru fraternity.
Meanwhile, the minions, the dinizens, the lesser people expect something from Michigan football like--GASP! WINS! A competitive product!
Oh for shame.
And as for "enmity"--you brats deserve every bit anyone tosses your way. You're hypocrites. YOU have been the ones pounding out ridiculous BarwiS Porn, saying how much better Michigan will be, and how great Michigan will be under Rodriguez.
Kind of sounds like--yup! Expectations.
Now maybe challenge yourself a lil bit and come up with a new line other than "go looking for boys, Simi"
For your correct diagnosis of my mental/emotional condition.
Maybe I should get some help?
Nah. Just more alcohol. I hear that helps with problem solving.
you're so full of shit KofB/Simi/BarkingSphincter/ZipGoshBoots:
“Date of Birth: May 13, 1963
Biography: I was in prison for a decade
Location: dex and the WLA are my bitchez
Interests: Camel Filters and Potato Chips
Occupation: Making the intranets my bitch "
My very own Intranets Stalker!
Would you like my address so you can camp out on my front lawn?
"And as for "enmity"--you brats deserve every bit anyone tosses your way"
agree. ive watched the wla last year rip into any poster who dare question rr (although they have been awfully quiet this year) and its amazing to me the amount of vitirol and unneccessary obscenities can spew forth from their mouths while raback obama can be negbanged to oblivion for calling someone "gay".
if rr does fail, the best part will be the wla crawling back into the hole from which they came with their tail between their legs.
You sound like a complete tool. Maybe if you didn't sound like a nozzle, people wouldn't dislike you and actually read what you have to say before negging you. You could actually have some valid points, but when you come across as a dickhead before you even make a point, not many people will agree with you. Your point could be that killing babies is bad, but if you start it out with "I am extremely sarcastic and I banged your mother last night," no one is going to get past that and they will probably stop reading.
Edit - this somehow replied to the wrong post. It was directed at Simi Moquoketa
With someone who cares whether people agree with me, or even like me.
There is a basic premise at work here: If people agree with someone, chances are they will find that person not terribly annoying.
I can't believe someone with a Castro avatar is contending that expectations and the will of the people have no influence. It's exactly the expectations of fans, taken collectively and maintained over time, that make some schools "tough places to coach" whereas the Michigan States of the world name buildings after perennial 7-game winners. Expectations at U-M, Texas, USC are higher than they are MSU, Baylor, Arizona State. Because of us.
I can't believe someone with a Castro avatar is contending that expectations and the will of the people have no influence.
It makes sense to me. Communists have never believed in democracy.
is still floating around with two. But that certainly doesn't diminish the point of your post.
I agree that NCs should be a goal, but success at Michigan has been defined in other ways, and should continue to be defined as such. Beat Ohio State, win the Big Ten, go to BCS bowls. MNCs are not the cherry that titles in other sports are. Going 12-1 and beating USC in the Rose Bowl would give Michigan just as much national exposure and respect.
I like the handle. If I could do it over again, I think I would choose theSITUATION.
What years after the NC did Carr win 10 games?
1998: 10-3 thanks to the extra game at Hawaii.
2002: ??? I know they lost to ND, Iowa and OSU so unless they played 13 games that year they only won 9.
2003: 9-3 (losses to Oregon, Iowa and USC. so unless they played 13 they only won 9)
In 2003 they were 10-3.
It's your friend, use it. http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/
and in 2006 we were 11-2 with a heartbreaker in Columbus and a debacle in the Rose Bowl.
Beggars can't be choosers.
I really want RR to succeed so I am not sure if this desire is clouding my judgement. I have been a high school coach for 24 years and am not claiming to be an expert, I at least have a little bit of knowledge.
1)I am not excited about the passing game under RR- it does not seem like a sophisticated passing game in anyway- very simplistic at times.
2)O-line play needs to improve- seems Michigan wants smaller quicker which doesn't seem to hold up against the Penn st. and tOSU's and Sparty's of the world.
3) RR likes a running style spread and I am not convinced that Tate is THAT guy.
Yes I think RR will be successful but I am not convinced he has his guys yet- even for the next couple of years.
"1)I am not excited about the passing game under RR- it does not seem like a sophisticated passing game in anyway- very simplistic at times."
That is a pretty consistent knock on his game throughout his coaching career. Even the really strong years at WVU their fans were constantly complaining about the lack of creativity in his passing scheme.
I watched every game this year on television- I live on the west coast so I cannot make it to the big house to see games live. From the limited view I have- our high school passing game has more to it. For example- you run certain routes when a team is running zone and you run certain routes against man-to -man. You send certain receivers in motion to create mismatches in the coverages- getting linebackers covering receivers etc.
I do not see a lot of that- I see plenty of routes that are "banana" routes which defenders have an easier time getting underneath. Anyway- I do not know if the O-line didn't protect well enough to allow better routes, or if the receivers just are not fast enough to run them.
Sorry- passing offense is my thing and I tend to ramble.
is Brian Kelly's passing offense is not an complex scheme. It's a pretty simple scheme yet Kelly succeeded because he is a good coach(knock on wood).
I know that it's totally unrelated to RR but RR doesn't need a complex passing scheme because his offense is not made for passing 75% of the time. It's made for downhill running.
Oregon also graduated most of the o-line from last year and started a lot of inexperienced guys and never skipped a beat. I think a major reason is that Massoli is a threat to run- Tate is no Massoli. Tate is more of a passer- which goes back to my point about the passing game for Michigan. Do not get me wrong- Tate did a phenomenal job considering he is a true frosh- not sure he is THE GUY for RR's system
They can reload much faster than other teams; they skipped several beats in their first three games, then were back up to speed.
They rolled right thru Boise at the beginning of the year with those 8 pts. Then they uh hammered Purdue when Purdue gave them like 7 turnovers. The Oregon offense was terrible for the 1st half of the year, they got some breaks and took off from there. To say they didn't have a rough time this year is ridiculous. Look up their offensive output for the 1st 4 games.
that Oregon has been running the same system for 3-4 years so they know what to do when called upon onto the field.
...about his passing schemes at Tulane.
1) Yes, I much prefer the passing game from the past that involves all these complex, long-developing passing routes while our OL gets shredded and our QB gets killed.
2) The thought that Michigan and RR wants these "smaller" lineman is a fallacy that is not supported by facts. Look up the average weight of the OL of some of the other teams across the country.
3) Tate can be the guy when he starts making the correct reads. As a freshman, he rarely did that.
rebuttal to your rebuttal...
to be fair, I saw nothing in the previous guys post about a preference for the pro-style dinosaur QB's out there.
i think it's certainly fair to question whether Rich has the chops to develop a passing game that isn't totally predictable. Yes, you're right about Tate... i think he CAN be the guy as well, and thought he played pretty well for an undersized freshman starter. better reads will help, but the question is, can Rich Rod's system really support a consistent and creative passing attack?
Put another way, I wonder if Tate's really the guy Rich wants running his system. It really seems he might prefer a QB with more athletic ability who can ACTUALLY evade tacklers like Tate thinks he can, but clearly can't (ala Devin Gardner). Tate will be fine, as long as the system adjusts to his abilities as a passer. He may get stronger and a bit bigger, as well as showing improved decision making, but i don't see him magically getting faster or more elusive. So, back to the OP's concern, i think the simplicity of the passing game could limit what we get out of Tate at QB.
IMO, if a true RR scrambler comes in, the scheming/creativity of the pass game becomes a little less important, as a Pat White or Gardner or Pryor-type QB can make the plays with his feet and buy time to find the open guy downfield.
don't get me wrong, I like Tate, and want to see him continue to improve, but I'm also wary about Rich's ability to cultivate a passing game with the efficiency of a Florida, Texas, Oklahoma (ie: the top-flight programs).
regardless of what kind of offense we're running, the pass game has to be effective.
So you think Tate being a True Freshman had anything to do with a simplified passing attack? I don't think people realize just how hard it is for a true freshman to step in and be the leader of a D1 offense. Ask USC what they think about starting a true freshman at QB. They had won the Pac 10 seven straight years and went to seven straight BCS bowl games until this year. With all the talent every year they bring in, do you think a true freshman QB had something to do with that?
Someone said it before, at Tulane, when Shaun King was breaking records, I don't think anybody was complaining about predictable passing schemes.
Since you are a coach I respect your points, but disagree with a couple of them.
I agree that the passing game has been simplistic, but I'm wondering if that's because RR has never had a starting QB with more than a year of experience. Let's see if it becomes a little more complex this year.
The O-line needs to improve, but not because of the quicker, smaller guys that RR has been recriuting. NONE of RR's O-line recruits have really played yet, except Omameh who playes very well. Molk is the only guy from our line last year who qualifies as "smaller and quicker" and he was our best lineman.
RR does like a running style spread, and Tate might not be the ideal guy, but he will be successful because he is good at both running and throwing. I do think that DG will be Jesus-frickin-Christ in this offense by about his Junior year.
RR does not have enough experienced guys this year; in 2011 he does.
That is why I made the point I do not believe he has his guys yet and is still a couple of years away. The beauty of Barwis is that guys get into the best shape of their lives. Maybe the negative is that they also lose too much weight and are slightly undersized. Don't tell Barwis I said that- he might eat my baby.
1) Simplistic can be quite effective. Also, his Tulane offense led the nation in passing. Maybe, the combination of lack of protection and Tate's shoulder injury limited what they could do. Florida's best pass play is a shuffle pass and it doesn't get much more simple then that.
2) RR has constantly stated he would gladly take 5 Jake Longs. If Barwis' program does for the Oline what it did for BG you should be greatful. The goal is for athletic lineman that are strong and lean. He doesn't want excess fat. As for your assertion about not holding up, let's wait until he has some of his lineman playing together.
3) RR has run many different spreads in his career. Led nation in passing at Tulane, balanced at Clemson with Danzler, run oriented at WVU. How can you assume to know that he likes a running spread? Ever think that he didn't have the talent at WVU to pass more? Maybe just maybe he ran what his talent was best suited for. Do you believe he went out and recruited a bunch of WRs wthout the intent of using them?
How many wins in 2010 for Richard to be employed in 2011?
My guess: 8
8 wins would be awesome for next year. DBs with no experience scare me. 2011 in a BCS bowl guaranteed!!!
I would think that depends on the wins no?
I agree that depends on the wins 8-5 and at least 2-2 against our rivals (I consider PSU a rival out of personal hatred)
He might get by with 6-6 and a lesser bowl win if one of the wins comes in late Nov.
Well we do play 13 games now adding the bowl game but 7-6 with wins over ND and MSU is not something Id burn my couch over, but Id accept that as yet another improvement. For all these bloggers who are saying expecting a NC in the near future is too much to ask I say this is Michigan every year I expect a NC I realize this is not going to happen but I'm sorry I refuse to root for my team to go 9-4. To me that's like rooting for Michigan to lose 4 games. Every year I say 13-0 NC! Is this realistic NO but I'm a michigan fan where in the rulebooks does it say I have to be realistic. Every game I watch I root for Michigan to win and am disappointed when they lose. Everyone on this blog expects Michigan to win week in and week out, thus everyone expects Michigan to go 13-0.
ND, OSU, PSU on the road. UM could lose all three of those games even with superior talent and the greatest coaching staff ever assembled. If those games are losses and assuming the other non-conference games are wins (is that safe?), the rest of the B10 schedule must be at 5-1.
but what about the defense?! I'm an RR supporter, but the defense scares the hell out of me for at least the next two years.
There's alot of talent on defense.They suffered as much from youth and inexperience as the offense.
I expect a similar level of improvement from both.
the defense scares the heck out of me going into next year. The dline should be okay, but the LB core is a disaster right now. I really hope the new LB coach can get Mouton and Ezeh (or whoever starts there) to at least be decent. Anyone other then Leach who sees time is going to be pretty inexperienced.
The secondary is going to be young and probably very inexperienced.
I just hope RR can get through next year and still be on the sideline in 2011.
The secondary does worry me some.I think there will be enough improvment everywhere else(both sides of the ball) that it won't hold the team back TOO much.
He says the Big Tens 3 yards and a cloud of dust is longer is good enough on the national stage.
To this, I disagree. Alabama runs a very "3 yards and a cloud of dust" type of offense, there just needs to be a great offensive line for it to work well. USC hasn't run the spread, and they've been successful. Is that type of offense more conducive to having success than the spread? No. Can it work? Yes. Sitting on the ball and being ultra-conservative can be very bad, as just a few plays can make a very good team lose to a clearly inferior one. With the spread, scoring early and often to pounce on a team and exploiting one-on-one matchups with the potential for big gains with faster players than the defense usually distances the better team from the lesser one. Defense is just as important, and Rodriguez's fate will probably be predicated on the defensive play in the future.
Luginbill also says RR first two years of recruiting went well and says most of Michigans talent are freshmen and sophomores, singleing out Roh and Stonum as two of Michigans better players.
Yes! I wouldn't use Stonum personally to make my example, instead probably Roundtree, but with these players that "fit the system" going into their sophomore and junior years, the team will obviously be better with experience.
He also says RR will need at least four years to get these players developed and some experience.
Probably. By then, Forcier will be a junior, Gardner will assume the change-of-pace role, and Denard will be running the "Percy position" (to take Florida's terminology). The defense will have even more experience, as will the offensive line. The team will probably be very good in 2011 if there is enough patience to keep Rodriguez around for that long.
Good points and +1 to you sir
I have not looked at their schedule for next year- I know Uconn at home- but at tO$U, at Penn ST. home against Sparty and Wisconsin- some Mac schools mixed in. At Indiana and Purdue will not be easy- 7 or 8 wins tops
In a rebuilding year, facing the similarly mediocre teams at home is an advantage compared to facing the teams you are going to lose to anyways at home.
Essentially, the schedule is the same as last year, except with the conference and Notre Dame games flipped between home and away. Also, UConn, Bowling Green and UMass replace Western, Eastern, and Baby Seal U, UConn and BGSU are better than the teams they replace on the schedule. That being said, all three are games that should be won, but possibly a loss to UConn or BGSU. Call it 3-0.
A home-field advantage would have been great against Illinois or MSU this past year. It will be good for us next year. Having Iowa and Wisconsin at home will be good too, playing them in Ann Arbor will be far easier than playing them at Kinnick or Camp Randall. 3-1 is pretty realistic any way you look at it.
Indiana and Purdue are still not very good, so if the team improves, which it should, both of those games are probably wins although not gimmies. 2-0 is probable but 1-1 would not be unbelievable.
Ohio State and Penn State will both be good (assuming no mass exodus of Buckeyes to the NFL and that Penn State can find an able-bodied quarterback). 0-2 on the road is probable.
Notre Dame is a wildcard. It's on the road, and it's hard to see how Kelly will do. Tossup
Looking at that, the record would be 8-3 with Notre Dame being a tossup.
8-4 is the best guess, with an upset or taking care of all the same-level teams it could be 9-3. 7-5 is not out of the question either.
You're guessing ND is a loss for us with the state of their progam(losing top players,new coach,etc)?
...And after it being a win in 09?
I do think 8-4 is a reasonable guess.
Well, 8-4 assuming all of those things with losses to OSU and PSU, then Iowa or Wisconsin and one of any of the rest except for UMass is pretty reasonable.
No game in South Bend can ever be chalked up as a W. Ever.
For some reason it seems the only team that Touchdown Jesus still has some magic over is UM. Lots of teams have gone into South Bend and won this past decade, but for some reason except for 2006, South Bend still seems to hold a curse over UM.
Unless you're Navy.
For me after the last two years, it's just tough to look at next years schedule and say there's a decent amount of games they should win.
To me UConn and ND are both toss up's. UConn's going to be a very tough opener. Like you said, who knows what ND will be like with Kelly and for some reason South Bend is a house of horrors for UM.
I'd like to think BGSU should be a win and I'd definitely UMass should be a win. I'd also like to think that Illinois at home without Juice should be a win. After that, I see MSU, Iowa and Wisky as toss up's. D'Antonio puts a tough of emphasis on the UM game and for the last two years it's worked. They've done a great job of shutting down UM.
IU and Purdue on the road could be interesting. I think RR is 1-7 on the road in big ten play with Minny in 2008 being the lone victory.
Like you, at this point I see 0-2 against PSU and OSU.
I think the offense should be decent, it's the defense that makes me worried next year.
I think RR is 1-7 on the road in big ten play with Minny in 2008 being the lone victory.
D'Antonio puts a tough of emphasis on the UM game and for the last two years it's worked. They've done a great job of shutting down UM.
Yes, but that was with two very bad teams. It is pretty fair to expect that road success as well as success against MSU will improve with a presumedly better team next year, although I wouldn't say that Michigan was "shut down" in '09 by the Spartans by any stretch.
The defense worries me too, but a good offense assuages those fears somewhat.
For the most part agree. As UM gets better, success on the road and against MSU should hopefully follow.
In regards to 2009 at East Lansing, I'd say that the UM offense really didn't do much of anything until the 4th quarter. It wasn't like the offense was moving the ball up and down the field against Sparty the first 3 quarters and not managing to put any points on the board. The offense really didn't do much of anything until the 4th quarter, and a lot of that was Tate improvising.
To be fair, a lot of the issues in the first three quarters were either due to self-inflicted wounds like drops or bad blocking, or due to the fact that we never had the ball. The receivers started to catch, and Tate got out of pressure, and the offense took off.
An overtime game on the road is never being shut down.
That was one of Michigan's problems all year. They managed to move the ball but their scoring offenses was suspect.
a significant amount of key people? Royster, Odrick, Clark, Quarless, Lee, Hull? Suppose there's a chance Bowman will declare, too. Tough to win on the road there any time, but I have a suspicion PSU will struggle a bit next year. Their young OL seemed to come together all right and they have some talent on the outside and at RB, but I suspect they'll be hobbled at the QB position. Newsome projected as the starter, anyone know? I think he's the only one that got any significant amount of snaps behind clark. If he's like most young QBs, he'll have his ups and downs. And their D will have to rely on some unproven players. Fall is a long way away, but at this point, I don't think this is an auto-loss.
2010: 8-4 (White Tiger's analysis is probably close to how a lot of us feel)
2011: BCS bowl competing for a Big Ten title
2012: Competing for a NC (Forcier a Senior, Gardner a Junior = now or never)
If RR & co. are unable to follow this trend, we should start talking about his future at Michigan. He has basically sold out the last two years in order to commit 100% to his system, I'm quasi-fine with that as long as it reaps the benefits long-term.
UM's in a ton of trouble if we don't see this trend since our roster will be full of RR's players, and if he can't win with them, who will?
I like this analysis a lot. IMO 2 big keys for the season are 1. beating UConn and getting off to a good start and 2. If we lose that PSU game on the road we can't come back the next week and lose to Illinois then head out to Purdue with back to back loses and a feeling similar to this year when we collapse down the stretch
"Mass exodus" is redundant. By definition, an exodus is massive. Either "mass departure" or "exodus" would work.
This is what I find so frustrating (annoying, actually) about the situation under RR: games against cellar-dwellers like Indiana and Purdue USED TO BE automatic W's, under RR...eh, not so much.
Indiana and Purdue have improved.
IU's offense was able to move the ball and score on a lot of teams this year. They almost knocked off Wiscy 31-28, got screwed against Iowa but still scored 24 pts the refs didn't overturn, and hung 20 on PSUs D). Their defense was worse than ours though.
This year Purdue beat OSU and Michigan (their first win in the Big House since the 60s?) and took Oregon down to the wire in Eugene. With one or two additional defensive stops, we win that Purdue game but they're weren't exactly a cream puff even though they had a lousy record.
Indiana seems improved, but Purdue has actually performed worse the past two years than it did over the previous decade (which makes our losses to them that much more frustrating).
Logan- '09 OSU and '00 U of M (among others) would like a word with you about counting Purdue as an automatic "W."
i totally agree with Luginbill, but unfortunately he isn't the arbitor of RR's future. i hope the new AD is mindfull of the time it takes to completely tear down one type of system and install another. Luginbill and us fans might know that RR needs at least 4yrs, but it's not up to us.
this is nitpicky but, tom luginbill works for scouts inc not scout.com
When Michigan can notch 200 yards rushing, minimum, every game, and field a good-great D, we will be a powerhouse. A simple formula for success, but watching the O Line get pushed around at MSU left little hope for the win.
First game without Molk.
Granted, of the 5 starting lineman, we could probably afford to lose Molk LEAST...but someone's going to be banged up by the time we play MSU, right? It is just a given. It's not like it's unforeseeable.
We can hope they do a bit better working second-stringers in this year than last.
After Graham and Forcier, Molk was the player we could least afford to lose last year. I still firmly believe we would have gone 7-5 with Molk in the line-up.
i agree with luginbill's point about 3 yards and a cloud of dust being big ten history. that meme is pretty much history, unless you are wisconsin. the big ten had some of the earliest spread offenses in the country with the mid 90's purdue and northwestern teams. in this past decade, you saw ohio state, michigan, penn state all adopt the spread after spending most of the decade running successful pro-style passing offenses. one thing that wears me down is the insistence that big ten football is a "3 yards" conference.
i think that his points about young talent and RR's success being tied to how long he is allowed to stay have been saliently made on this site, previously.
for the use of saliently
Year one no offense returning, but seven back on D (not all bought in to the program) and a new D coordinator. Year 2 O is stronger even with a true freshmen QB, not much back on D and facing the 3rd D scheme in three years. QB hurts shoulder game 4 and center is basically lost for year.
Year 3 O should be very good barring any significant injuries, D should improve with many players returning and second year in the same system. Biggest question to me is how the extremely young secondary holds up. On the bright side, Penn State, Illinois, ND, and Purdue will all have first year starters at QB and Pryor isn't exactly the greatest passer.