in town for free camps
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.