Was the cupboard bare?
Many questions have arose about recruiting and other issues in regards to our defense. Rivals wrote a great article breaking down recruiting of the 3(4) most needed/inexperienced positions. These positions being quarterback, defensive tackle, and defensive back. It also talks about all the "safeties" moving to linebacker, which is also hurting us at linebacker position. Just found this a great read and did not see this on here yet.
http://michigan.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1010774
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:15 PM ^
This was a great article, and it really made me think that are strongest players are only as strong as our weakest on the field (excluding b.g lol). Those are 3 key positions we are lacking at..
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:21 PM ^
I liked the reference to Feagin as a "heavily discounted Mallett."
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:56 PM ^
in the same way Del Taco is a heavily discounted Rattlesnake Club or a refrigerator box with a smattering of graffiti on the inside is a heavily discounted Metropolitan Museum of Art.
I'm not a huge Mallett supporter, but the guy had a cannon. Feagin's arm was, well, heavily discounted.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:25 PM ^
..especially "one dollar arm, ten-cent head." Its sorta like an inverted form of mock-heroic satire.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:24 PM ^
Read Misopogon's diary and you know where Jonathan Chait got his article idea from......save your money and donate here....the info is much better!
November 4th, 2009 at 1:40 AM ^
My thoughts exactly! The only difference between Misopogon's diary and Chait's article is that Misopogon's analysis is way better.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:43 PM ^
The exact reply I was going to have. Good article, but I think we have debated this question into the ground over the past few weeks.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:44 PM ^
I think if we would have gotten a coach that ran a pro set offense we would have won about 7 or 8 games a year over the next few year until they could build up again through recruiting. Since we went the way of the spread (which i think is a very good thing) we're experiencing more pain. The cupboards weren't necessarily bare with pro set players, but they are bare with spread players. I think once RR gets the team built up the average highs are higher than we would see with pro set offenses. It seams like few teams are able to sustain success anymore with a true pro set offense. We'll get there and be greater than ever, it is just a more painful transition than anyone wants to go through.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:31 PM ^
There is no way any coach would have "won 7 or 8" last year with a pro-set and the personnel RR had to work with. Ryan Mallett was gone no matter what. The only question is if the highly-rated QB recruit who decommitted (sorry, don't remember his name) when Carr left would have stayed. That may have gotten them to six wins in a pro set.
RR, however, can still win 7 or 8 this year.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:57 PM ^
Sorry, but I think the idea that *any* coach could have coaxed 7-8 wins out of last year's team, with Threet / Sheridan at the controls, is, well, ridiculous.
QB excepted, what exactly do you mean by "pro set" players?
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:47 PM ^
I think that article really points to the inconsistency of Lloyd Carr's last few recruiting classes.
Look at a few of the guys he offered full ride scholarships to:
David Cone. Case closed. What in the world did Lloyd see in this guy that would lead him to believe he could lead the offense of the winningest college football program in history? Did Lloyd see "star" in Cone? Was he thinking he found a hidden gem?
Johnny Sears...come on man. A pot smoking criminal from California. Really Lloyd, is that who you want representing the winged helmet?
I just so crazy because in the same time frame he brought in several of Michigan's all time great: Mike Hart, Jake Long, Chad Henne.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:37 PM ^
Honestly, don't blame Carr for Sears unless you intend to blame Rodriguez for Feagin. Often, recruits just don't work out when they get to college. It sucks, but it happens.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:53 PM ^
This article highlights a lot of things that scares me about Rodriguez's job security. I think, if given the chance, he'll do very well. But the defense is so bad, so young, and so thin, that I'm afraid he won't get the chance to.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:11 PM ^
Are you really that afraid for his job security given this quote:
“I don't think it's fair to coaches to bring them in and say, 'We're going to give you three years,’” Coleman told the paper. "When (former Michigan basketball coach) Tommy Amaker came in, we stuck with him for six years. It just wasn't going to work; it wasn't the right fit. But it wasn't a rushed decision.”
I think everyone in any position of power realizes that Rodriguez isn't running a potential Big 10 championship contender into the ground. Growing pains suck, but hey, we get to play with the cards we were dealt. Let's just look for progress and not expect a miracle fix.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:37 PM ^
It's reassuring to hear that, but god forbid RR's tenure here is anything like amakers.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:42 PM ^
I don't give much credence to that quote. I don't think that Coleman is like an owner (where a vote of confidence signals bad things to come), but at the same time, the expectations for football are higher than basketball and I doubt the same patience that was shown to Amaker will exist for Rodriguez.
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:07 PM ^
I understand there really aren't any facts to this besides the ones that have already been said. So everything we all are saying is just e-pinion.
That being said, I think we have gotten too obsessed with the OMG fire the coach movement in pro and college sports. I like to think the people in charge of the head coaching staff have a long outlook on the issue and a firm grasp on the cost/benefit analysis of their decisions. Unless RR does something really bad off the field (major violations, felony etc.) or fails to improve on the field, I like to think that there would be a huge negative to a firing now or a few years in the future.
If 2-3 years from now we still suck, maybe a firing may be in order. For the near future I just see a lot of upside in keeping him. Firing him would lead to another few years of bloody transition unless there was some internal Lloyd transitional coach-in-waiting (which there isn't). For better or worse we have had a major transition. I think Mary Sue and Bill Martin are willing to give him a reasonable shot (4-5 years). If he starts sputtering Amaker style then he'll get the plug. Barring that, I hope we see the improvement sooner rather than later.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:11 PM ^
Didn't Mary Sue Coleman just refute the idea that he won't be given a chance?
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:33 PM ^
I happen to know that Lloyd is quite fond of those with mad flow.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:39 PM ^
Rule #1: Don't talk about MGoPoints
Rule #2: Don't dis the Coner.
His vids and attitude are worth a scholarship.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:23 PM ^
Very interesting article, I obviously realized the lack of depth at the QB position (although Mallett would have been sufficient in a pro style system). The defensive back and defensive line situations are just scary. I remember when we could stockpile talent at those positions, seems like every year U-M had a lockdown corner or two and a great d-line.
Things might not improve on the defensive side of the ball until 2011, and a lot of that is not Greg Robinson's fault. Seems like he has almost nothing to work with especially after losing BG and possibly Warren.
Interested to see what happens with the QB position over the next two years. Obviously Forcier appears to have the "it" factor, and should only improve with experience. DRob certainly needs to develop a passing game, he seems to have one hell of an arm but not enough knowledge yet of the playbook/passing game. Devin Gardner next Vince Young?! Ha I can only hope
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:38 PM ^
I just wonder if Forcier's injury to his shoulder/arm wasn't more serious than we have been told. Since he got hurt he doesn't seem to play like he did previous to the injury. I don't mean just the passing but the decisions and running. Just don't seem the same.
As for the defense I think a lot of the problems are on the coaching staff. You coach to take advantage of the players capability. So you don't have barnburners all over the place; you should put in defensive schemes that allow for that. I just don't understand playing 10 yards off a wide receiver at the LOS.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:49 AM ^
I have to say that I must be living in a different world than most people. It seems to me that it may not simply be that Forcier was "more injured than we thought". There is another possibility, that being that he is struggling more lately because we have played far better teams over the last month than we did in the first 4 games. He played well against meh teams and has struggled mightily against the good ones. Most players have a tougher time playing against better competition, no? He is a freshman who has made freshman mistakes, and if you thought he was going to play as well all year as he did against WMU you were seriously kidding yourself.
Also, to think that most of our problems on D is the coaches fault is borderline insane IME. They have put schemes in place to TRY to take advantage of what abilities our players have. The problem is they still fail to execute. Is Stevie Brown still at safety? There is one change. Has our starting 11 on D consistent throughout the year regardless of what the previous game shown? Not even close. They are constantly making changes to try and find the right players and schemes to get this D on track, the problem is, most of the players are not playing up to their previously supposed potential. Can't blame that on Gerg or any other coach IME.