landing spot. will be interesting to see how he does.
Will we be happy going back to "the way things used to be?"
included the Flying Wedge and the Single Wing. Bo ran the triple option until the early '80s. Football is constantly changing and evolving. There is no "the way things used to be" option, ever.
I'd be ok going back 13 years or so.
Who is to say a pro style means we don't win the conference?
I don't want to imagine it. I want to see it.
I'd love to be able to pick any down lineman and read him almost the entire game. Read option, Veer, Inverted Veer, Midline, Inverted Midline. I know it sounds like a lot, but its basically the same read on different linemen. Back DE, Back DE, Front DE, Back DT, Front DT. The first 2 let you choose which way Denard goes and makes the read for LBs harder.
I'd also love to see the pitch come into play. It's a relatively simple concept to add and it can be combined with other plays in so many ways.
Anyway, I really hope they start adding some of these plays to the playbook for next year or the bowl game. I don't want to imagine it's awesomeness any longer.
Unstoppable by Brian Kelly... lol
Now, imagine those three guys in a LEER jet- fucking incredible right?
correction, hart in the backfield
What would be nice, if this scenario happens, would be if the new coach tailors the offense around the personnel he has. Keep some of the offensive assistants to ease the transition. Don't shoehorn Denard into a pro-style offense.
I would imagine that he'd be shoehorned into a receiver/tailback spot in a pro style offense.
Well, maybe the run 50% spread with read option, and 50% under center with some triple option and whatnot.
You folks need to stop using false dichotomies to make your point. There does not need to be a pro-style and a spread that are mutually exclusive - there are plenty of programs that run schemes that overlap these categories.
If that happens, I imagine he'd transfer. He's a good enough talent to build an offense around. You can always change the offense after he graduates. Bo didn't have a problem altering his offenses to fit his QB's talents.
Call me crazy (my doctor does) but I'd be content keeping Rodriguez around just to watch Denard for a few more years. His play alone is spectacular (even against MSU and Iowa) and its kept me excited about the team notwithstanding the losses/setbacks/disappointments. Denard is such a great story - the change from last year to now - that it would be heartbreaking to see him transfer. Heartbreaking.
Oddly enough, I watched Andrew Luck take a zone read keeper about 45 yards for a TD on Saturday.
I get the feeling Denard would stay at QB with most any coaching change. Most coaches realize what a special talent he is.
Luck has excellent passing skills though. Denard's ability to read a Big Ten defense is still quite limited.
and a waste.
Why can't we run that offense we ran against florida in coach Carr's last game, that seemed to work well.... A little mix of everything.
A "SYSTEM" is not needed ever. Evolution is needed.
We are 9-4 or 10-3 on most years, usually a top 15 team who finishes in the top 3 in the conference.
Right now that sounds pretty fucking good.
And I'd be fine with them now. So to answser your question, yes. Our team was representing our school well, had a reasonable chance to win all of the games they played and they made new years bowl games most years. I don't really know how you could ask for more.
Don't lose to Appalachian State and become the laughing stock of college football.
Don't lose 4 bowl games in a row, 3 of those being Rose Bowls.
moron if you're really complaining about too many rose bowl losses.
id take a rose bowl lose any day over rich rods philosophy of not going to bowl games. period.
As would I, but its all relative. I wasn't in this community back in those days but I certainly remember the ardor of "Fire Lloyd" after the Horror and embarrassment of Oregon.
Even with the successful 2004 season, everyone was outraged when we lost to a meh OSU team. 2007 was a let down when we lost to OSU thenas well.
When times are bad, we do nothing but complain. When times are good, we still find ways to complain.
not-going-to-bowl-games philosophy? Shit how did I not know this?
This changes everything.
You mean, when we used to beat MSU on a regular basis and when they did win it was rare or surrounded in controversy?
Yeah, that'd be great. Losing to that bunch is supremely annoying.
Let's not sugar coat the past or pretend every U-M defense in the last 15 years was comparable to 1997 and 2006.
The present sucks (obviously) but the reasons are pretty obvious to anyone paying attention (basically zero experienced talent on defense). The very near future, on the other hand, is still very bright.
"The present sucks (obviously) but the reasons are pretty obvious to anyone paying attention (basically zero experienced talent on defense). The very near future, on the other hand, is still very bright."
Sorry, but this argument is, to me, very very thin. A lot could happen between now and this magical next year in which everything improves, next year being the "bright" to this years "dark". In this world, we only have players improving, nothing else occurs.
Look at what happened between last year and this year, or last year and the year before - attrition, poor recruiting, injuries, staff changes, and so on. Hang your hat on the very unlikely chance that none of that happens again, that all we see are these young flowers blossoming, butterflies flittering about, birds chirping, bunnies hopping about in the continual sunshine. But for me, its a fantasy. It may happen, but chances are it's not even close to reality.
If you think a team returning 20 starters getting better is a "fantasy" that is fine. I'm sure there will be bumps in the road between now and next fall. I'm also sure we'll have more than enough to win anyway.
I don't see how giving a guy one year with his own players and a little experience on both sides of the ball is too much to ask. If the team isn't cracking skulls next year, then by all means fire the guy. But he deserves a shot.
most of the departures we have seen were related to lack of playing time. i think its safe to say that starters will return.
Yeah, the only "departures" I can think of involving starters was Warren going pro early and Wilfork doing his exploding ankle trick.
Look, every team in America has their areas where losing a starter is detrimental. We just got unlucky that the player we lost, we lost for the whole season, he was one of our best defensive players, and was at a position with the least depth.
One of the biggest differences on defense between this year and next year is that next year we'll have depth (and experienced depth) at about every defensive position. If we have a major injury it will still hurt, it always does, but it won't have the impact that losing Woolfolk did this year.
Yeah, the only "departures" I can think of involving starters was Warren going pro early and Wilfork doing his exploding ankle trick.
Don't forget Boren, Mitchell, Mallett, Arrington, Threet and McGuffie.
"But he deserves a shot."
I think we just have to agree to disagree at this point in the debate - I feel he has had his shot. I don't measure what "his shot" is entirely in terms of time, but also in events. Couple the time that has passed, with what he has produced in that time in terms of wins, perceptions, and so on, and I think we have our answer. Of course, if he wins 3 more games, I can see giving him another year. Any less, I would disagree.
If you think playing with the rosters we've had the last three years counts as "a shot", then your perception of what it takes to field a successful college football team is pretty warped. We were short ten scholarship players last year and fielding a true freshman QB. This year we have one healthy upperclassmen on the entire roster in the defensive secondary. Teams don't recover from that kind of stuff. The examples are plentiful and the counterexamples are non-existent.
Next year Rodriguez will have his own team with three full years of recruits and no gaping holes on the depth chart. I'm willing to bet the results look nothing like the last 2.5 years.
If my argument "makes no sense" to you, then there are other reasons for not carrying on. I can make sense of yours, and argue the points. But it seems we are not having the same conversation. Good luck with your predictions.
We were short ten scholarship players last year and fielding a true freshman QB. This year we have one healthy upperclassmen on the entire roster in the defensive secondary. Teams don't recover from that kind of stuff.
But aren't these issues of RR's own making? How many guys have transferred out of the program since he arrived? We somehow lost both Mallett and his replacement (Threet) to transfers. We lost Boren over a trivial issue (he wanted to drive a snow plow to make a little money). We lost Turner and Emilien even though it seems like the secondary could use them. After a while, when you keep on losing players to other programs, it's hard not to conclude that something is wrong. These are not normal levels of attrition. If they result in us forever being a young team, well, those are the breaks.
From losing Mallett and Threet, we have Denard, Tate and Devin.
We lost Boren because he was a lazy sack of shit.
Turner burnt out.
Vlad never got over his knee injury.
Losing Threet had nothing to do with adding Tate or Denard - we were always going to bring in two QBs that year, and in fact, we had two committed (Tate and Beaver) when Threet transferred. All Threet's transfer ended up doing was force us to play Denard as a true freshman instead of redshirting him.
How long are we going to keep up this line on Boren? He's a four-year starter at two different programs (Michigan and OSU). If he's so lazy, how was he able to win a starting job at OSU? For some reason, neither Lloyd Carr nor Jim Tressel ever seemed to have an issue with him. Does it make sense to assume that RR was 100% in the right about Boren?
As for Turner and Vlad, again, we're only getting one side of the story here. And even if they're lazy or whatever, I wish we still had them around.
to 8-1. They didn't fill the weaknesses with free agents. And they don't have a bunch of superstar freshmen that came in and performed.
Yes, but they were also probably better than their 6-7 record suggested last year. If I'm not mistaken, all of their losses except PSU were by single-digit margins, while they had few close wins (unfortunately one was against us). And despite all the close losses, they still managed to go 4-4 in conference play.
We simply haven't been very competitive. When you lose by 17, 10 and 10 points consecutively (and the latter two required comebacks to even be that close), you're not that close to being a good team.
are fair points. But the change in this year's MSU team is significant. It is relative. Starting from where we are now (compared to where MSU was last year), and with an MSU-like schedule next year, with the same level of improvement through experience and the return of Woolfolk, we could see a 9 or 10 win season. If there isn't that sort of improvement, hand me your extra pitchfork.
We should totally hire Dantonio.
One factor was the return from injury of CB Johnny Adams, who missed all of last year after a solid freshmen season. He's a good player and its been like adding a free agent, when you think about it.
We can only hope that Troy returns healthy and has a similar impact. The secondary was an Achilles Heel for MSU a year ago, so one key player returning like that could see our own secondary have a uptick in play.
that most of the 'future is bright' folks appear to conviently forget that there are teams on the other side of the ball that have kids that improve too. And coaches that study tape and adjust.
In order for the future to truly be bright, eventually there is going to have to be some tangible evidence that shows up in the win column. It's not unfair to expect to see that at some point during a 3 year tenure.
Pointing out that things haven't always been perfect doesn't amount to "disrespecting the tradition."
Acting like 5-7 or any of the other problems this team has faced happened in a vacuum doesn't make you a detractor, but it does make you an uninformed reactionary.
We actually had 40 consecutive non-losing seasons (1968-2007), and all but one was an outright winning season - we were 6-6 in 1984. We really took that for granted. A lot of us (myself including) had literally no memory of U-M being bad. I wish that were still true.
We were consistent, but I was getting the feeling that we were limiting ourselves to live as a big fish in the Big Ten but not compete at the national level. All we ever heard about was how we play for Big Ten championships. I wanted change so we could step up with a modern offense to be a national contender. When Michigan won national titles by the bunches it was because our coaches were innovators, not just better at doing what everyone else was doing. It's painful now, but I don't want to go back.
The fact remains that we were far closer to being a national champion then than now. To believe that this program has a national title in its future requires a massive leap of faith. We're having a difficult time even making a bowl.
You are distorting history. Look at the total defense rankings:
And with Rodriguez:
You are irrationally allowing the rare bad games (App St., Oregon 2007, etc.) to cloud your judgement. Michigan always had above average to excellent defenses prior to Rodriguez.
this is very skewed..in 2008 the O was so horrific the D was always on the field. As long as The whole Defensive staff is fired, Im Ok with RRod sticking around.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that RR is the one who hired these apparently incompetent defensive guys in the first place. Why assume that he'll get it right this time? He's already had two DCs in three years.
If you look at the MSU wins since 2000, in 2002 (coach about to get fired) and 2006 (again, coach about to get fired) we blew them out. Other than that, the games were nail biters. They were closing the gap, but because we eeked out these wins against "little brother", everyone was overjoyed. Would I take those close wins? Yes. We may have beaten them regularly, but they weren't beatdowns like we had in the 90s.
But we're still losing to OSU every year. It's not like we've gotten anything in the exchange, record-wise.
but we are laying the groundwork for dominance against them and the rest of NCAAF.
Michigan is fun to watch on offense. Even a roster with Henne, Hart, Long, Manningham, Arrington, Breaston, etc. there were plenty of games that were not as fun to watch. I know that is subjective and yes, I miss the long pass.
However, this is exciting and continued growth.
Comparing OSUs' offense and ours; Michigans is gaining momentum and is looking to be exciting for years to come, whereas the Bucks are a Pryor one trick pony. Their future doesn't look that bright.
Regardless of the circumstances, the tragedy will be if he can't figure out how to field an even average defense. If he can, the wins against OSU will come and in bunches.
Really? Name me another coach who started out 4-16 in his own conference and then kicked it into high gear.
I was willing to believe that propanganda for awhile, but at this point I simply can't. Getting dominated by a bad PSU team in year 3 is not a necessary step toward dominance. It's a sign of being a bad team.
more dominating offense than what we have now. Unfortunately, RRs' team is like Dr Jekyll & Mr. Hyde. We have a good offense and a very poor defense.
We don't have a bad team. '08 was a bad team. It seems that these kids, even though they still comment about the tight knit family unit and working hard together, will continue to battle until the end. We had a fighting chance against Iowa last yead and this one as well. We could have won the PSU game if Gerg or RR had planned on lining up and hitting a cocky freshman QB right in the mouth. (instead, we let him sit back and gain confidence with easy passes and simple plays) I would have even accepted a 15 yrd personal foul penalty if one of the guys sent a personal note directly to his numbers and we instilled a little bit of intimidation.
RR needs to retain his calm confidence in the offense and FOCUS the rest of his energy on trying to field a defense.
That said, I can't come up with a coach that fits your criteria.
We're a long way from agoundation of dominance. And this defense isn't close to that. Winning 1 or 2 Big Ten games a year isn't any foundation for anything. We're setting up a foundation for scoring meaningless points after we've gotten our asses kicked.
And it boggles my mind that you can basically say "if our coaches hadn't screwed up and coached better, we have won more games" as a defense of the groundwork they're laying.
...The groundwork to which I am making reference is our offense and how it has improved and will continue to develop and dominate.
Regarding PSU: Yes, our coaches blew a perfect oppertunity to expoit a green QB and instead they let him run a simple offense, letting him get confident and comfortable. They know our strengths and weaknesses; yet they couldn't even get the defense ready for screens? I will hang that loss on the coaches.
then the team is bad, regardless of how good the offense has been. I get that.
I'm just not willing to turn my back on that offense and say let's dump this thing and start from scratch. If we're scoring 31 points while being "dominated" then I would love to see things when we're playing even with teams.
...if Lloyd was still grumbling on the sidelines. We just never seemed to have an answer for Tressel. I just don't think any coach, including Harbaugh, was going to come in here and suddenly turn the tide on them.
But I do feel that this offense is capable and we just need the other side of the ball to grow up and have the coaches put them in positions to succeed, if that's possible.
When we lost to MSU 4 times, than when we won 6 in a row, which would have been 8 but for a massive cheating. I mean, really? In real game, no extra seconds, time 8-0 < 6-4?
The reason we were playing coaches who were getting fired was because we were getting them fired for not beating us (sometimes right after the game. See: 2002) now we're getting their coach a lifetime contract.
I think that the change we were so eager for a few years came true when we had the whole country getting Denarded. How exciting was that! The style of offensive play that RR brings to the table is in my opinion, much more enjoyable to watch that the predictable Carr & Tressel ball. If we want to beat OSU we need to do so by outworking them and running a better system. Both of which I still believe we have in place with the current administration.
Although I lost faith for a few moments Sunday morning all it took was flipping through an old SI "Season Preview" issue from August that had us predicted to go 5-7 to come back down to earth and be happy with 6 or 7 wins and a bowl. That being said, we need to be competing for Big10 championships within the next two years or RR has lost me.
With all the wins.
Michigan is a top 5 program historically. To not be able to return to that would be a disappointment. I think it's fair to say that if we had, or will have, a defense that compliments our current offense then winning 75% of our games could be considered a "down season".
I believe that any coach can do that here if they put in the right amount of time on the recruiting trail and have the right coaching staff.
The "fans", with the exception of a small group of grumpy football eggheads, couldn't give a crap about scheme or offense style or whatever. All they care about is winning.
For proof of this, btw, listen to 5 minutes of radio callers moaning about how Rodriguez's offense won't work in the Big Ten. These people *think* that they're complaining about scheme, but they're not because unless they've got their heads in the sand up to their asses, it's obvious that Michigan has a really, really good offense this season. What they're really complaining about is the absence of winning.
I really won't be happy until we win the Big Ten and the MNC. If it were a perfect world, we would keep RR and his offense and have a big and punishing D.
For some reason, I absolutely love watching RR type offenses opposed to the "boring" grind it out Wisconsin style offense. I literally would be less interested in a team because of a boring offense like that. RR's offensive style makes watching football very exciting and interesting, at least to me.
You have to have the defense to go along with that though, which is the missing piece to this puzzle sans the special teams (field goals specifically).
So, in short, I would not be satisfied with "going back to the way it was". I love Michigan and its history, but I really want to keep this offense. Just please God find us a way to improve this defense. It literally depresses me.
I can't agree with you more on how enjoyable watching our offense is. Nothing makes me smile more that the camera man following the wrong guy! I hope to watch it for many more years. Yes we need some big boys on the defensive side of the ball badly.
"Is that now good enough?"
No it's not. Your scenario would, however, be way better than what we have now (obviously). But we would always strive for perfection. That is why our current situation is so difficult. Perfection is nowhere in sight, and seems quite unattainable in the years to come. At least in your scenario, perfection is in sight, and will seem, with a tweak hear and there, attainable year in and year out. And chances are, we would get there.
This was my biggest problem with the last regime. They always seemed to be capable of becoming a great team, but IMO, did not open things up enough and were far too conservative to get over the hump. Did they beat teams by playing this way? Absolutely they did. I just wished Lloyd would have opened the playbook more like he did against Florida in his final game. That was the most joyful and painful game I have ever watched as a Michigan fan. All I kept saying during that game is, "Why the hell did we not do this more often throughout the previous games/years?"
That was the big risk with RR in the first place -- we were so close to that super-elite status, and rather than get a coach that we thought could give us a bump, we went a completely different direction. Which means to change again means going (again) in a completely different direction -- but from a much worse position than pre-RR. (Okay, I know, it's not a "competely" different direction, but you get the point.)
So, pre-RR, I was kind of unhappy we went that direction.
But from where we are now, with the good offense, etc. -- I think we stay with him because, whether or not we'd be happy going back to where we were, we can't get there from here.
"I thought we played too conservatively and did not possess the killer instinct to close out top games."
Indeed -- that was documented on the 'blog. It appeared that Lloyd was better off *trailing* going into the 4th quarter.
"I have come to appreciate our ability to shut down inferior opponents with our size and execution under Lloyd."
Bird in hand versus two in the bush (or, in the case of RichRod, zero or negative birds) ... also very boring (IMO).
"I miss the Woodleys, the David Harrises, the Rob Reneses, and the Jon Jansens... blue collar instate kids who worked, executed, and led with rage and passion."
Huh? What does state of origin have to do with anything? Does Mike Martin (who meets spec) not do anything for you? Do you not appreciate David Molk's obvious leadership abilities? Stepping back a bit, which players aren't doing it for you?
I agree that the home state of our players really shouldn't matter - but we can't let Sparty cherry-pick the top recruit(s) in the state. A guy like Lawrence Thomas (a Detroiter who grew up rooting for us) should be a U-M lock. Our recruiting base isn't great, but it produces some blue-chippers here and there and we really need to be landing them. Missing out of them just makes our job that much tougher.
we needed to make a change so we can win National Championships again.
Even with a stellar defense, you still have to put lots of points on the board to win against an Oregon, TCU, Auburn or BS-(not that kind of bs, KNOWLEDGE). That means new schemes, dual threat QB's, different tempo on offense (no huddle) and new approaches to TOP. We were slow in understanding this, the Horror and Oregon helped to clarify that for us.
So...no. As painful as it has been, and I didn't forsee it being this bitter of a pill, a change was something Michigan needed to do one way or another. (unless it's ok to simply drive for conference champs and get blown out in a NC game, no rival reference necessary)
It's a shame that the pro-style offense has failed so miserably for teams like Alabama and USC. Just imagine how good those teams could be if they had a spread offense.
Honestly, I don't care what kind of offense we run, and I think it's dumb to worry about the type instead of the results. I also liked the deep ball a lot; it's an all or nothing (or worse than nothing) play, and there's no more exciting play in college football.
In the short term, I believe that most Michigan fans would be happy/appreciative. However, unless there is a MNC/several BCS wins sprinkled in with that ocassionally, it would fizzle quickly. Michigan fans are spoiled. We would quickly yearn for more.
Rich Rod is like a raw recruit showing flashes of potential brilliance. He could take us to the top, build a dynasty, and win several championships. I much prefer the high risk/high reward route over the low risk/mediocre reward.
Hell, I would even repeat the experiment with the same variables. Maybe freak accidents don't happen. Where would we be?
Ever stand outside in the cold for a long time, just to go inside and feel the incredible warmth? Is it worth it? Is the feeling of walking back into the warmth greater than the negative feeling of suffering through the cold?
Probably not, but it certainly helps negate it. Once Rich Rod wins, we will all be like caffienated pre-teens on sugar highs. It will be like a full on tantric orgasm. Be patient, grasshoppers.
This is a great question. I say yes. College football saturdays watching Michigan was my favorite time of year growing up. They beat up on the little guys and it was a dogfight against the big boys. They would blow a game here or there but THE GAME was pretty fucking awesome every year. Now I dread it and pray some miracle happens. It would be nice to have more of a perennial top 5 team but very few can claim that. A chance at a MNC once per decade would be sufficient for me at this point (Not that this has ever been the case). Rose Bowls every couple years is looking real, real good.
"We transition back to a pro-style offense with rocket armed QBs, massive O-Lines, feature RBs, big WRs and a traditional tough, physical Big 10 defense."
Please give me your definition of pro-style offense. (Aside: To quite a few people, the presence of pro in the name automatically makes it good. Much better, ha, than a "college" offense.) Denard has a fine arm. So, too, does Devin (perhaps even better). Aside from Henne, who really had a *rocket* arm in the long list of BoMoCarr QBs?
Our current O-line is massive. Do you want to go back to the waddlers of a few years ago? Those are the ones that the Buckeye D-linemen ran around like traffic cones.
Are Stonum and Hemingway not sufficiently big wide receivers?
Have you ever met a coach that has claimed to have a sucky defense as part of his style? Of *course* we'd like to have a better defense. Oh, and what does the Big Ten have to do with that?
"We are 9-4 or 10-3 on most years."
Can that be done only with a "pro-style" offense? The W-L record doesn't seem logically tied to the type of offense.
"Is that now good enough for our fans?"
@#$% no ... they want to go back to the days of the Ten Year War when (provincial) life was good.
This is my biggest fear. I fucking HATED watching us have more talent and lose because we never did anything even approaching offensive innovation. I do hate losing. I just don't want to see us go back to "run middle, run middle, throw fade, punt" football. I like the offense and really I think the defense will get there with time. We have had shitty linebackers, one good lineman, and a bunch of 17 years olds on the defense for a few years in a row now and I just can't see that happening again. Watch us keep RR and then Denard tears an ACL in practice before the season next year... it's basically got to happen right?
Who starts? Tate or Devin? My vote's on Devin.
For the longest time the debate was "will the spread option work at Michigan." Well, clearly it works. So why is the debate still based on spread vs pro-style? The debate should be: can RR field a defense that can succeed in the Big Ten? If not, then he has to go. If RR is fired, then a decision will need to be made that involves this problem: hire a coach with spread offense tendencies with no re-building period or hire a coach with pro-style tendencies but there will be a re-building period. In each case a competent defense will need to be achieved but does anyone want to sit through another 2008?
I don't need to imagine your theoretically really good offense because I see an offense that's really really good right now. Consider this, we are 3rd in the conference in scoring offense, and that's without the benefit everyone else gets of going against our defense. There are many reasonable arguments to suggest that Rodriguez should be fired, the offense is literally the furthest thing from those reasons. (Btw our Rivals average is only .05 lower than the team that has "gobbled up" all the elite pro style recruits and that's before many of our big targets decide)
This is one of the very strangest assertions that people make about the Rodriguez offense: that stud athletes are passed over in recruiting for (presumably) less-studly sorts. It makes zero sense to me. If Rodriguez had a choice between some 5-star freak to play, for example, RB, why would he pass on that kid to take some marginal 3-star project? If he really would, then he should be fired within the next nanosecond.
And if UM were running a pro-style offense, athletes like Denard Robinson would go somewhere else.
 By which I assume you mean "pro-set", since there are very few college teams that actually run anything approaching an offense used by any pro team.
I don't understand where you're going with this. What "problem"? I'd love for Michigan to have the #1 recruiting class every year (with the caveat that star rating and class rankings aren't completely determinant with regard to on-field success, blah, blah blah).
denard is a once in a lifetime player..IMO. he's on track to run for 1600 and throw for 2200. As a sophmore. The better the D gets the better his production will get.
We'll never get another one like him, so who cares if we recruit his style of athlete or not? And even if he is....that's still heading us to losing records in the conference for half his career, so the original point stands it'd be better to have top 5 classes than one great player with lower classes.
My point is that with regard to recruiting, every scheme has pluses and minuses. I'm not worried about losing a Denard top player. I'm just saying that while a pro-set offense is an attraction for some very good players, it's a negative for other very good players.
Anyway, you can investigate your pro -set offense == top recruiting class theory pretty easily. Top recruiting class in 2010? Florida. Who run a spread.
And according to Scout it was Florida. ESPN also says it was Florida. Where they run a spread. There are plenty of programs with top 10 recruiting classes over the last few years that don't run a pro-set offense. 4 of the past 5 national champs ran a spread, and, not surprisingly since top players want to go to top programs, those schools have all recruited well in recent years. The idea that spread offense == poor recruiting just isn't borne out by the data.
there will always be whiners in our fanbase.
The dude who sat next to me, gave up his season tickets about 8 years ago, stating "I will never buy season tickets as long as Lloyd Carr is the coach"
I really wonder where dude is today.
I think Devin would start because his size and speed is very similar Luck. With regards to Denard, I would love to see him turn into a Randall Cobb type situation like at Kentucky, a kinda do-it-all guy wildcat, jet sweeps, receiving, return game. I also think if Harbaugh came in, with our talent at receivers like stonum, roundtree, junior, koger and upcoming ricardo our passing game would be amazing. If Harbaugh came i think he could bring some recruits from stanford like sarao and vaughters those guys are beasts!
a program that wins 80% of its games over several decades, with the occasional down season balanced by two great ones, a program that is dominant in the conference, that represents the university with class and integrity, that recruits want to play for, that leaves us complaining when we don't win 10 games. Sign me up.
If the bottom does fall out, and we do go back to a pro style, its going to be more rebuilding. Right now we have a bunch of ninjas, and to play under Harbaugh's scheme, we need to go back to big OL's and WR's and overall bigger stronger core players. If we do fire RR, we need to bring in someone who runs a spread! I think eventually we can get back to a smash mouth team, but that'll take 4 or 5 years. I can't wait any more, I WANT WINS!
Harbaugh coached for University of San Diego (not a D1 school) and won two national championships with undersized quarterbacks who could throw and run. Not the same offense we run now, but also not the real straight back pro offense. I think Devin Gardner could run it.
If winning is the "old way", the answer is yes.
9-3, 10-2, 8-4 does not equal greatness. RR has that potential with this offense. I don't want to settle for Dantonio.
I always used to wonder how once dominant programs fell off the table. UCLA basketball was always the top example of this. How were they irrelevant for so long, given what they once were?
There were football examples of this too -- SC, Bama, etc. I started being aware of UM football in '71, so I basically had a 36 year run of not knowing what the "other" thing was like.
This is our turn. I'm not saying that's okay, or even that it was inevitable. But getting back to the top isn't at all automatic. It's probably easier to stay there than to fall off and climb back.
Over 4 years, averaging 9-4 wins you get an overall record of 36-16. Is it better to go 9-4 each year or go 13-0 one year and 8-5, 8-5 and 7-6 in the other three?
I'd take the scenario with 13-0 and live off that glory for the other three years. I'm not sure what supports this, but it feels like with the occassional "perfect storm" of some special athletes like DRob, the RR scheme is capable of having great years in between relatively crappy ones. On the other hand, the pro-style would probably results in a steadier result.
Unfortunately, I don't think anything supports that other than blind faith.