Wisconsin is good. After this past weekend, they are still good.
Everyone knew Wisconsin was a very good team going into the weekend, but what was troubling is that UM let another 'big" B10 team rushing out to a big lead, then just run them over in the second half as the offense finally came alive. I would actually be okay with the outcome if the halftime score had been 24-14 or something like that. Wiscy is very good, but this offense does have a penchant to disappear early in games, and with this defense that simply is not possible.
WE SHOUD BE UNDEFEATED RIGHT NOW...wait, what?
Yeah, Wisconsin is good. But are we? If we aren't, when are we going to be? At what point should be we expect to actually be competitive with good teams?
OH MY GOD DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY FRESHMEN WE HAVE IN THE SECONDARY??? STOP HATTING!! WE MAY NOT COMPETE FOR A BIG TEN CHAMPIONSHIP TWO YEARS AGO OR LAST YEAR OR THIS YEAR OR NEXT YEAR BUT 2012 WE COULD MAYBE POSSIBLY GET THIRD IN THE BIG TEN!!!! SO STOP HATING!!!
OMG ALL THESE HATERS EXPECT THAT JUST BECAUSE "WE'RE MICHIGAN" WE SHOULD BE IN A POSITION TO WIN THE BIG TEN ONCE A DECADE. LET ME GUESS, NOT WINNING A BIG TEN CHAMPIONSHIP FOR A DECADE WOULD BE "UNACCEPTABLE" - THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT....IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AUTOMATICALLY, PATIENCE!!!
Chill out y'all I'm just havin fun
You're hurting my ears dude
just imagine what LLOYD could do with all the talent on this team........
they probably wouldn't let appalachian state score 38 points or anything!
And if we aren't competing with the best teams in the league, everyone will be pissed and Rodriguez will be fired. If you don't think it is going to happen that is fine, but nobody is asking you to wait any longer than next season so stop pretending they are.
Nobody supporting the coaching staff is going to do so indefinitely. However, those paying attention to the state of the program know that you don't go from 3-9 to Big 10 Champs overnight. You're free to blame Rodriguez for 3-9 if you want to, but at that moment our program was completely broken. Everything since has been an improvement (maybe not as good as you would like it to be, but certainly better than 3-9) and all indications (19 starters returning next year and only one key contributor lost on either side of the ball) point to continued improvement next year.
It is going to happen whether you want to wait another offseason for it or not.
Two years ago, when "everything was completely broken" (your words, not mine), we went 2-6 in conference play.
Two years later, we're 3-4 in conference play. Two of those wins were extremely tight games that could have gone the other way. The other was also pretty close and required a TD in the final two minutes to ice it. Conversely, each of our four losses was by double-digits, and in each one, we trailed by 20+ points in the second half.
Are we really making great progress, or are we barely treading water? How likely is it that we go from three consecutive losing conference seasons to winning the Big Ten title? It takes a major leap of faith to assume something like that will happen. Something tells me, unfortunately, that by the time next year rolls around, we'll get more of the "What were you expecting?" threads by midseason, and the prove-it year will get pushed back to 2012.
Nobody said we would be good this year. No one is saying we won't get better next year. You have invented an argument to pretend your patience is being tested that doesn't exist. It doesn't take a major leap of faith to assume a team that returns 19 starters and all but two quality contributors will continue to improve. It does however, take a major leap in logic to pretend we aren't loads better than we were in a season where we lost to TOLEDO. 3-9 TOLEDO.
I'm sorry you're upset. No one else is happy about losing, even to good teams.
But again you show the fallacy of your argument by pointing out the three losing seasons in the Big 10 (and a third is still not guaranteed, though I certainly don't expect us to beat OSU). They have nothing to do with what happens going forward. They are a sunk cost. The question is, can we go from 7 wins to 9+. Since the team has made a two game improvement each of the last two years Rodriguez has been here and since we return basically our entire roster in tact and since we've just seen a team make an even bigger leap this year in our own conference (State is +4 in wins already this year) there is plenty of evidence to support the assumption.
Either you can see that or you can continue to fume about 3-9. Either way we'll know in about 12 months.
with the haters, just start to look forward to next year. They'll have to decide whether they want to root for the team or sit on their hands as the games unfold. If we go el foldo next year, cool--RichRod tried. I will never understand hating him for it, though, until the day I die.
Can we dispense with the teenybopper lingo and stop calling anyone concerned about this program a "hater?" In no way, shape or form do I hate the man coaching the team. I'd love for him to win big here. I'm just concerned that it may never happen.
you say we went 2-6 in the B10 2 years ago?
so that means we won as many big 10 games this year as in the past two years combined, right?
sorry, I'm not a math major... but everyone can find and/or isolate statistics to support or debunk an argument.
But if/when we win big next year I will demand that you drink an enormous bottle of purple Hater-ade to celebrate.
To be a punishment.
No punishment. Just one big party when we're back on top.
Purple. Sign me up...
population. And--though you may not count yourself as one--there are lots of haters out there.
........4 losses to teams with losing records. In 2009, we had 3 losses to teams with losing records. This year, we have 0 losses to teams with losing records. We are improving. This wasn't a case of a new coach coming with talent galore all around but the new scheme kept them from success. This was a case of a new coach coming into a situation where overall talent had been waning for years, especially on the defensive side. Sure, we had a few really good players, but not a whole team full of them.
Guys like you seem to try and fit RR and UM's situation into other schools situations and wonder why we didn't have the success they had. Our situation was quite different than theirs. I'd rather be patient with RR, knowing the success he had at WVU, than just can him after 3-4 years because we haven't been as good as we were once perceived to be.
Along these same lines, I am wondering when the last time there was three 10-1 teams in the Big Ten?
We have 4 losses right now.
2 of those losses are to 10-1 MSU and 10-1 Wisconsin, and SURPRISE those were the games where we weren't competitive.
Iowa and PSU were games that we could have had a chance in if we had just started a little faster than we did or had a defense that was middle of the pack.
We may lose our 5th game next week...to yet another 10-1 team.
IMO, there is no shame in 3 of our 5 losses.
And I personally think that next season we could have a good shot to beat the Iowa and PSU level teams as long as we show marginal improvement and don't wait until the 2nd half to start playing football.
Would a 9 win regular season be enough progress for you skeptics out there? It would be for me.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I wanted to rephrase.
So think about it this way:
If prior to the season, I told you we would play three 10-1 (possibly 11-1) teams in the Big Ten, would you have predicted that we would win any of those game? Would you predict that we were anywhere near the same level as those teams?
I wouldn't have. In fact, I would have expected to be manhandled by such quality opponents.
Then what if I told you that we would play two toss-up games against middle of the pack Big Ten teams, one at home and one on the road. How many of those would you have expected to win?
I probably would have said I would hope for a split.
Okay, so we lost ONE game we shouldn't have and we weren't competitive against 11 win teams. Is that really a surprise to anyone?
If it is, I think you were deluding yourself.
So here's where we are as a program: Rich Rodriguez is finishing up his third year in the program, and we're not compettive with about half the conference's teams. Why exactly should we have faith that he's the guy, going forward? Did you expect things to be like this three, two or even one year ago?
What do you define as competitive? Last year the team took Iowa and MSU to the wire, and played OSU tight. I think all this shows is that the B10 may very well be the best conference in America, and that UM happens to be experiencing such a rash of injuries that they could not compete. Let's say next year MSU and Wiscy revert a bit, PSU's lack of solid recruiting and concerns about JoePa hurts them, and UM goes 9-3 or 10-2? Does that count as progress, or does it mean the team just got lucky and beat a couple of powers on a down year? I think you have to look at where the program has gone since RR showed up, and we've seen progress. Sure, it was from a pretty low point, but I honestly think UM was headed for a couple of down years (maybe not 3-9, but close) under Carr, and RR's cultural shift just accelerated that downfall.
but injuries are not a very good way to rationalize a poor season.
every team has to deal with injuries.
PSU, Iowa, and Purdue come to mind...
Last year the team took Iowa and MSU to the wire, and played OSU tight.
Last year, MSU went 6-7. Playing a seven-loss team close is not an accomplishment. (And you can't seriously be suggesting that we should ever take solace in a loss to MSU.) And the OSU game was a lot like our big games this year - we never had the ball with a chance to tie or take the lead in the second half.
Iowa, I'll give you. But this raises the question of how we were able to be competitive with them last year, on their home field, but not this year. We've been told that this year is supposed to represent progress from last year. Where is the progress against good teams? Just like last year, we've lost four games by double-digit margins. The only meaningful difference I see this year is that we've managed to win all the coinflip games (4-0 in games decided by seven or fewer points) whereas last year we went 2-3 in them. But is that progress or just statistical variance?
first year starting QB. In the games this year against MSU, Iowa, and PSU, it was youth driven mistakes that killed drives in the first half. We also had those against every team we won against, with the difference being that the mistakes weren't quite as costly against them. One could say that our teams were very competive in the second half of every loss we've had this year. Look at the opposing teams in the losses. Other than PSU, they were all led by experience laden teams that just don't make the small mistakes, and coupled with our patchwork secondary and lack of beef on the DL, their offenses were successful quite a bit more than ours was. On O, other than Schilling and Dorrestein, everyone is back. One year older. Less youthful mistakes will be made. We should be in every game we play next year, regardless of how good or bad our D is.
In addition to the three 10-1 teams, Iowa won the Orange Bowl last year and returned a large portion of that squad. Not exactly your average 7-4 team. Compare that to the Pac 10 which has just 4 teams with a winning record and will finish the season that way assuming Oregon St. loses to EITHER Stanford or Oregon in their last two games (the Big 10 has eight teams with a winning record overall).
We've lost to three legit top-25 teams and split between a much improved Illinois team and a PSU team that are both likely to finish 4-4 in the conference. With the roster situation still what it was going into the season nobody can really complain about the record this year.
Let me preface this by say I am very catiously optimistic, but it gets really old hearing the excuses. I'm sick of the excuses. Why can't we just say, yeah, they came out this year and beat crappy teams they were supposed to and lost big to the good teams. The most disappointing thing is that we haven't even made any games against decent opponents within reach. Excuses are like a-holes....you know the rest.
The only thing more annoying than "fire Rich Rod!" posts after a terrible performance are "what are you complaining about, we all knew this would happen" posts after a terrible performance. (As though the predictability of our terrible defense somehow makes it all OK).
I don't know about you, but I didn't predict that Wisconsin would rush the ball for all but one play in the second half, and we still wouldn't be able to stop them a single time. Didn't see that one coming.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I expected this to happen or that I am happy with the results. But do I expect the 7th best offense in the nation to put up one more score than they average against one of the worst defenses in the nation? Probably. I bet we would all be really upset and SHOCKED if we played Oregon and let up 58, right? The OP was made because I don't think we give Wisconsin enough credit. Just because I point out something obvious doesn't mean that I am happy with the results. Also, I don't give a shit if you complain. Go for it. I just want you to see exactly what you are complaining about. A team averaging over 40 a game scored 48 on us. I guess that is a great reason for a meltdown. Continue panic mode.
You act like this happened in a vacuum. The "meltdown" concerning what has happened to Michigan's defense is based on what has happened over the course of the year. Individual games just add more dirt to the mountain.
I just don't understand what the point of your post is. Yes, Wisconsin is very good. That does not change the fact that Michigan's defense is historically bad. Are you saying we shouldn't panic about this? If so, provide a reason that it will get better. Saying that "Wisconsin is really good" is only relevant if you're trying to downplay how bad our defense is.
And while I don't dispute how good Wisconsin is, this lauding of our opponents to downplay our own failings has occurred throughout the year. First it was about how UMass, while only a Division I-AA team, was so much better than many Division I-A teams. (Check out U-Mass's record lately? They're freaking 5-4, not even a top 20 Division I-AA team). Then it was Chappell being the next coming of Drew Brees. (Indiana has no victories in the Big 10). Next it was McGloin being a hidden gem. You would think that Michigan has played nothing but top 10 offenses all year.
I just want it to stop. Yes, other teams are good. We know. But our defense sucks, sucks, sucks, shows no signs of getting better, and it is perfectly appropriate for the fanbase to be upset about that.
Our defense sucks. Everybody knew they would suck when they looked at the roster going into the season. They have sucked all year in every single game they have played. Nothing has changed. Why has this happened you ask? Because we have the most inexperienced defensive roster in major college football. By a lot. Feel free to say "Nuh uh!" but I will ask that you actually provide evidence to back up your claim. Just saying, "We must have talent and we should be good no matter what and other teams must have similar issues" isn't going to cut it.
Defenses don't improve over the course of a season. Our 2005 defense never showed any sign of getting better. OSU and a mediocre Nebraska team had no trouble moving the ball on them at the end of the year. They returned a bunch of talented players who continued to mature and they got loads better in 2006. That is how it works. Next year this defense returns basically everyone but Jonas Mouton. There are loads of talented freshmen/sophomores on this team who will soon not be freshmen/sophomores and as such will play much better.
This is just what the bottom feels like.
I love the revisionist history.
Everyone knew our defense would be bad. No one was predicting we would be the worst defense in college football.
As far as the "youth" argument, we just watched our defensive line and linebackers, who consist of seniors, juniors and sophomores, get rolled in historically embarassing fashion. The freshman in the secondary weren't the ones getting exploited in the second half yesterday -- it was our more experienced front lines.
So what's the reason that this happened? So many people love crapping on Ezeh and Mouton, and citing them as examples of Lloyd leaving Rodriguez with crap talent on defense. But Ezeh and Mouton have been in the Rodriguez system since they were sophomores. Does anyone think that our linebacking corps would have been this bad, even with the same players, under the Carr regime? And given this team's dismal player development on defense over the past three years, why does anyone expect massive improvement next year? Have we seen massive improvement in the returning players on this year's team?
And why did our defensive line get trucked? There are certainly talented, and experienced, players there, so is it finally OK to say that the defensive scheme sucked?
Our "talented and experienced" defensive line starts an undersized true sophomore at one defensive end spot. The only senior in the first team (Greg Banks) is a first time starter who was a meh 3-star recruit coming out of high school who last year as a junior tied with a bunch of other guys (among them such household names as Jon Conover and Zac Johnson) to be the 23rd leading tackler on the team in a season where he was behind a former walk-on on the two deep. If he leaves the game he is replaced by a true freshman. Van Bergen and Martin are talented and experienced players (and both have played well all year when healthy). Sadly, two guys doesn't make a quality defensive line.
Jonas Mouton's production has improved dramatically this season. In one fewer appearance than last year, he already has more than doubled his TFL's (7.5 compared with 3.0), has 2 more sacks (he had none in 2009), and has made 36 more tackles than he did in 2009. He isn't David Harris, but most people aren't and he's clearly gotten better.
Obi Ezeh continued to not be terribly good at playing linebacker. This wouldn't be an issue if there were any junior/senior scholarship players on the entire roster who could play that position. Sadly, there are none. Eventually Ezeh was replaced by a guy in the middle of his sophomore season. Yet another young/inexperienced player in the front seven.
Other teams aren't running out a team full of freshmen/sophomores and a bunch of default starters. And if they do they suck at playing defense. Good defenses are built with talented juniors/seniors (just look at our 2006 unit for one example and compare it to this unit).
Also, if your secondary sucks, you have to take measures to protect them when say a quarterback is completing every single pass he throws (like yesterday) and that can make you susceptible to the run.
If you are surprised our defense sucks as bad as they do, then you don't know much about how good college football defenses are constructed.
I guess you are right. It is unacceptable to have 4 losses, 2 of which have come at the hands of opponents who are 20-2 and both ranked inside the BCS top 15 and another coming to a team that gave those teams 1 of the 2 losses. UNACCEPTABLE.
Also, to say this post has no point and then say something like "the defense sucks, sucks, sucks" as if we all didn't know that already is idiotic. Saying our defense is not good adds about as much to this board as you say this post does. But go on, tell me how much our defense sucks because I haven't heard that yet on these boards.
My god, do you miss the point. I would never start a thread simply saying "the defense sucks", for the very reason you mention -- everyone knows it already. I only said it in RESPONSE to your post, which seemed to be downplaying the crappiness of our defensive performance by lauding the opponent.
Great point. "I dislike your post. In order to show you that, I am going to post nothing of value and tell you how much I dislike your post." Is that what you meant?
Also, I said in the OP that our defense didn't play well against Wisconsin and called them horrid. I guess if you want you can see that as downplaying the crappiness of our defense. What did you want me to do, say we were fucking god awful horrid? Would that live up to your criteria of describing our defense? The post wasn't meant to downplay the defense, it was meant to point out that Wisconsin is 10-1 and their offense is better than ours. So go ahead and get upset and meltdown if you want. Have at it.
You really have some low expections for this team sir. It's not losing that is the problem. Look at how we lost all those games. Pitiful performances. You think that's acceptable? Well, the majority doesn't think losing that badly is acceptable whether you like it or not.
Just read all of my responses. I don't really feel like saying "I am not ok with losing like this" again in another way. It was a good team. We lost. Here is a post to show you how good Wisconsin actually is in case you didn't know. I think you are irrational if you want to meltdown, but go ahead with it if you want. If you want RichRod fired, you are going to want him fired after wins and losses. If you don't want him fired, you are going to look at this as a bad loss to a very good team. A team who is probably the best 1 loss team in the country who will most likely be playing in a BCS bowl game.
Let the Ohio St. game play out first because that is the game that gets coaches hired or fired around here. I expect us to play them tough with a shot to win in the end. Fans that choose to stay the course should not be so frustrated with the rest of the fan base. Some have hated RR from day 1 and will not be swayed regardless of how season plays out. The other half of that faction is unsure and are not going to support RR on faith alone. A victory over OSU would do this program wonders to say the very least.
I expect us to play them tough with a shot to win in the end.
Based on what, exactly? I hope that happens, but what in our performance against other top teams this year leads you to "expect" that to be the case?
It's a rivalry game and I think UM is due to steal one from OSU. Their offense doesn't scare me nearly as bad as Wisky's offense did. Another reason I expect that to happen is I am a Michigan fan and can't help myself. You don't "expect" it to be close on Saturday then go and get a jump on holiday shopping. I will watch and cheer for my team to win, regardless of who coaches them because that is what a fan does.
It's a rivalry game and I think UM is due to steal one from OSU.
That's meaningless drivel. Since when are rivalry games necessarily close? How did the "rivalry" help us the last two years? How did it help UCLA when USC was dominating it for seven straight years? And no team is ever "due" to steal one -- they either are able to outplay the other team, or they aren't -- there are no cosmic forces out to hand us a break.
Their offense doesn't scare me nearly as bad as Wisky's offense did.
Does it scare you as much as Indiana's did? Illinois? Iowa? Penn State? Any of the innumerable teams that have heaped points on us like whipped cream on an ice cream sundae?
Another reason I expect that to happen is I am a Michigan fan and can't help myself. You don't "expect" it to be close on Saturday then go and get a jump on holiday shopping. I will watch and cheer for my team to win, regardless of who coaches them because that is what a fan does.
First of all, screw you for implying I'm not a fan. Each and every game I have an irrational expectation of victory. But I recognize that it is irrational, ie, not supported by any actual data. Which is why I don't go posting "I expect us to beat OSU" in a public forum, and then cite my fandom as evidence.
If we beat OSU, I'll feel 100 percent better about this program. That would be the kind of big step forward that we've been waiting patiently to see. We didn't take that step against MSU, or Iowa, or Wisconsin. At some point we've got to show that we can play a complete game and get that signature win.
the walking stupid to come back out of their hiding for another rousing rendtion of Fire [fill in the blank].
We live in interesting times when those who are concerned about our future with a coach who is 15-20 and 6-17 in conference are the "walking stupid."
doesn't make you stupid. Rehashing the same arguments over a season does. I am concerned but I trust that RR and DB are making the right decisions. We aren't going to be a superior team in 3 years when you completely change the organization. Everyone knows the defense lacks experience, players, and good luck. We have been over this so many times. What are we supposed to do in the season? There is no free agent system in college football so when can't pick anyone up to improve the situation. We don't own a time machine, so we can't send experienced players back or forward to this year and GERG's stuffed animal is obviously not a lucky rabbits foot blessed by a voodoo priest. What in the hell is firing coaches going to do exactly? I would like to hear someone bitching about this constantly to lay down their infallible plan that is better than the one we are on.
Our offense can't work against "tuff teamz"? Tell that to Standford and Harbaugh after Oregon shit kicked them. Or Lloyd Carr after the Horror. Or Auburn and whoever they play. If you have the right personnel, you can beat anyone with any scheme of offense. It is a preference of RR to run the spread. It has worked at every school he has been at so far.
Doesn't work in "Big Ten weather". I am sure it is always sunny in the Pacific Northwest for Oregon.
RR is responsible for the defense too! Well no shit, but do you think he is going to sit back an do nothing about it? Do you think he enjoys constantly losing games because of our lack of defensive competitiveness? What does he have to work with? So when people say next year and 2012, that means he will have to prove himself when recruits are older and have been through Barwis' Bataan Death March of a program. These kids playing defense months ago, were attending a prom. You expect high school seniors/college freshmen to be able to compete with the meat machine in Wisconsin yet? How do they get off stalk blocks when heavily outweighed, out experienced, and out strengthed?
We have two more games. Get on board and save it for the off season when I am sure DB will surrender to all of our demands.
... but we were non-competitive, yet again, against a legitimate team. We looked like shit out there yesterday. To be very clear, this is NOT an OMG fire richrod post... at all. He's bought himself another year, IMO, and gives us the best chance to capitalize on a potentially Oregon-level offense.
This was a shitty game, and a shitty reminder that we are (barely) a middling football team right now.
Our only hope against OSU is Tresselball and a lights-offensive performance. Probably not going to happen, which fucking sucks, and this realization on Sunday isn't going to make a loss any more bearable.
Also, what the fuck is up with our receivers being so streaky? It's absolutely russian roulette now anytime a ball leaves the hand of Denard Robinson. One second, Daryl Stonum's making legitimately tough catches in clutch situations, and the next, we can't catch a perfectly thrown ball. add in the batted-ball interceptions, and it's incredibly frustrating to watch this team.
Whatever, on with the Buckeyes.
There's some rousing arguments going on, and while heated, it's some fine debate. So I'm going to just have a statement overall here.
There are two games left. It CAN change a decision one way or another big time. Do I see us beating OSU? Bloody no. But if we do...wow, it's just what this season and program needs. The bowl is gravy. However, if we get trucked by an out of character Tressel, and lose the bowl game...at 7-6, and being embarrassed by our big rival...I'm not sure next year is a sure thing yet.
For those who say, what the heck, wait a year, and if it doesn't work, oh, well, start over...with who? I've gone into my distaste for Harbaugh here, but even I have to concede fit. Is there anyone you have in mind in 365 days if Harbaugh is in the NFL and Rich isn't working out? It's a precarious time.
People did say year 2 was when he makes his leap....then it was kinda agreed he should be judges on year 3...what would lead one to believe that (with a schedule not as easy as some act with Nebraska coming in) we wont be hearing "9-3, with losses to MSU, Nebraska, OSU...2012 is the year with a senior QB" (and an impossible schedule)? Different people have said different things, but the Menes for out or keep have both had sliding scales.
The defense will undoubtably get better with age...but how much? Is anyone concerned by the lack of overall talent, that's not only not being disguised by an awesome system (like any problems with the offense) but maybe even hurt by the system? How many defensive prospects have we been going head to head with the likes of OSU...and not West Virginia? Someone asked what the complainers would like to see...well, I'd like to see better recruiting. That's how you fix this. The reason has always been "well it's good with the bad record", but if you can't win more games, it's still a problem. The answer is more dynamic recruiting by either this staff or another.
And just a direct thing - I don't really believe "this offense can't work in Big Ten weather", but after a full week of people saying the offense didn't work, because of the weather, just has my contradiction meter going up. Either it works just as well as Wisconsin's style, and we just played crappy vs. Purdue, or maybe it likes turf and sun. I think the former, but it's not really both.
Could we save the "oh you FIRE RICHROD people" for the -100 posters who are really saying Fire the coach? Most of the people on here are voicing concerns, or not convinced, but haven't called for anything, and probably won't, at least until the season is done.
Wisconsin is not just good, they are very good. We may be good but we are definitely not very good. Wisconsin is in the top tier of the Big Ten. We are in the bottom tier of the Big Ten.
Next week, if we won, it would be a major upset by any standards but if everything goes right it can happen. RR said it at the beginning of the season and his assessment was correct, "We are not good enough to play poorly and win." Simple. Play well and we could win.
I sense nobody here is changing anyone's mind.
On one hand, you have Fuzzy Dunlop and jmblue who, though they don't admit it, seem to have reached a conclusion about whether Rodriguez will be successful. I don't disagree with their conclusion out of hand, or think it's entirely unreasonable.
On the other hand, you have people that will ceaselessly defend Rodriguez to the death. Fine.
Me, I told myself that if Riidriguez got to 7 wins, I'd suport his return for another year, and if he got to double-digits, I's support and extension. Well, he's not winning 10, so, to reamin consistent, he gets another year - where I'll be looking for 10 wins.
Rich can. And his team. Win this weekend, and that will change a lot of minds. Not hardly everybody...but a significant portion.