Where would this team be with Lloyd Carr
I was just thinking about things there is so much talk about how young and inexperience the team is. In addition to the youth and inexperience, they have a new coach, system, and just about everything else. My question to you is...If Lloyd Carr were still the head football coach at Michigan, what would the predictions be? How much talk around the sports world would there be about the inexperience and youth on the team? Personally I think that we would be predicted to have a "rebuilding year" and go 8-4. So if Carr's team would be predicted to win that many games, why wouldn't RR's team win that many games?
August 24th, 2008 at 5:57 PM ^
Lloyd would probably have either Manningham or Arrington back on the team, he would still have Justin Boren, and possibly two other veteran offensive linemen. He'd have the same exact defense, and depending on the soul-searching that was done, he may still have had a five-star sophomore qb (with big game experience) in Ryan Mallett.
I think that a lot of the predictions of doom and gloom surround that Offensive Line, and Lloyd's would have been a little less decimated. So even with Threet/Sheridan, he'd still have the benefit of better OL protection (in theory).
Regardless, I think Lloyd's 2008 campaign would have been an underachieving season, while the first RichRod campaign will overachieve. Coincidentially, that probably means the same exact record (7-5 or 8-4).
August 24th, 2008 at 6:18 PM ^
i agree with all of your comments. however, if both richrod and lloyd had the same playing field whereby if lloyd was still here and mallet, manningham, etc were gone I still think RichRod would do better. richrod has A LOT to prove and he knows it. lloyd, he'd be at the end of his career and really wouldn't have as much to prove (remember last year's beginning?).
perhaps i'm just being optimistic but richrod gives me a good feeling about the future of our program. this year might have its ups and downs but we'll definitely overachieve.
August 24th, 2008 at 6:56 PM ^
Would this hypothetical lloyd carr team use the offense from the bowl game? If so, I would predict very good things. If he called the games like the rest of last season it would get stale seeing minor runs up the middle.
I am interested to see how mallett progresses at arkansas.
August 24th, 2008 at 6:17 PM ^
August 24th, 2008 at 6:52 PM ^
but the
'puttin on the ritz' scene in young frankenstein is gold, jerry. gold.
August 24th, 2008 at 7:10 PM ^
August 24th, 2008 at 10:55 PM ^
I highly, highly doubt that we would've seen the offense we saw in the Capital One Bowl.
Manningham, I believe was gone either way. Arrington might've come back. I tend to doubt Mallett would've. When a guy like Lloyd Carr says "the only thing I like about you is your potential", those bridges are on fire.
Other than that, it's hard to tell what this team would've been like with LC. Boren and Mitchell and Ciulla probably would've been back, but they'd still be fat and out of shape (along with the rest of the team). Also hard to tell about recruits. If LC stayed, no Odoms, no T-Rob, no Shaw, no Roundtree, no Barnum, no Feagin. Those slots would've been filled obviously (two of them being Wienke and Wilson), but since there's no way to know who would've replaced them...
August 25th, 2008 at 9:14 AM ^
There are way too many unknown variables, so this comparison--while decent bar stool fodder--is like comparing apples to oranges.
While I agree with most of what has already been said in this thread, I would like to reiterate my opinion on one thing: Mallett was gone either way, perhaps more so had Lloyd stuck around. The drum beats of a transfer were pounding all last fall.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:29 PM ^
I tend to side with Wonk's assessment. LC would have had less attrition, but under delivered, resulting in 7-5 or 8-4.
The thought of this team (thin OL and no QB experience) with Carr at the helm is scary. A more straight ahead running game and a 5-7 step drop passing game would have been a disaster behind this OL.
I like to believe that the D this year will be somewhat better than it would have been under the prior regime's leadership, primarily due to gsimms assertion that Schaffer is a better teacher of fundamentals and that the players will be better conditioned under Barwis.