Yahoo! released on of their typical, preseason, best-of lists. MSU comes in at #9 and OSU comes in at #6. I'll leave the rest as a surprise.
Yahoo! released on of their typical, preseason, best-of lists. MSU comes in at #9 and OSU comes in at #6. I'll leave the rest as a surprise.
No surprise, Rich Rod didn't make the cut.
Maybe it is just too early for me to understand your nonsense and irrelevant comment.
If it's still too soon, I suggest counselling.
It is virtually always somebody who wants to trash Coach Rodriguez.
Don't for a moment think that there is a cadre of people just dying to talk about Rodriguez and nothing else. You see me responding to these things. You almost never see me starting them.
I'd just like to prevent people like some that I see on this thread from making asses out of themselves with the stupid stuff we hear being said and written about Rodriguez. Makes the rest of Michigan fans look bad when the stupid ones may be seen as representative. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. A paraphrase of Newton's Third Law.
Now, as for the OP and the List; it is strange, to say the least. I would have guessed the Maxwell Club Coach of the Year would be on it, particularly insofar as his staff is so well-regarded, and so clearly shares in the success. This was about "staffs."
Why Texas? Mack Brown is a great recruiter in a recruit-rich state, who has become a notorious under-acheiver.
Why Va. Tech? Even Hokies fans arenn't all that enamored of Frank Beamer.
Why Ohio State? On paper, it looks like a great staff. But they don't have a single game under the belt(s) yet as a group. What is there to go on?
Wish I could upvote you more past 5. Best response I heard in a while. Succint and hit the nail on the head.
When RR gets the five years that Bo himself used to say every coach needed to fully install his system and fill his depth chart with the right kind of players, you might see him in the top ten. RR now has the same luxury, at least staff-wise, that Brady Hoke has: a school that paid enough for him to bring his favorite DC along.
In four years, he will have the other luxury that Hoke had last year: a roster full of upperclassmen assembled by RR. Brady Hoke did a great job last year, but he wasn't exactly walking into a "cupboard is bare" scenario, and he did get somewhere around twice as much money to pay a DC.
I'm trying to figure out why there are neanderthals in the fanbase who still have to make it a "Hoke vs RR" scenario, when neither coach would even bother with it themselves. Both are very good coaches with different strengths and weaknesses.
Why can't people just be happy with Hoke instead of whining and complaining about RR?
Lose big in year one was unacceptable to the Michigan fan base. Even Bo won a conference championship in his first season. We were all excited about the RR hire but he burned a few bridges by not embracing who he had on the roster. For example, Steve Threet should never have been asked to run a spread option.
Steven Threet wasn't a good quarterback in a pro style offense 2 years later, so I don't know why you think the spread was the problem. Threet's problem was accuracy, and that wasn't the fault of the offense.
Threet should never have needed to be asked to run any offense as a redshirt freshman. That was the problem. Signs point more to Threet just not being a great quarterback in any offense, not just the spread
I agree that steve threet shouldn't have been forced into playing time in '08 but running a pro style offense would have suited his abilities much more than a spread option. you don't put a square peg in a round hole. Especially when that square peg is balsa wood.
There's an obvious rejoinder: why should Rodriguez necessarily force himself to try and coach an offense with which he had no familiarity at all? He made GERG do that, after all, and it was a disaster, partly because GERG is GERG but partly because that's what happens when a coach spends his whole career coaching one thing and then is forced to coach another.
What's the proof, that any particular defensive decision was "forced" on Greg Robinson? In answering, if you can, be very specific. Was there ever a time where Robinson said, "I can't run that defense; and I disagree with our running it. Because it is a bad defense for us and/or our current personnel and/or the kind of opponents we face in the Big Ten..." ?
What exactly did Rodriguez "make" Greg Robinson do, and how did he make him do it?
I can't believe I'm about to respond to this, but I will anyway. Do you realize that you've designed your demand so that it's literally impossible to answer "yes" to and therefore is pre-emptively constructed to "prove" you right?
Try using the logical side of your brain instead. It goes like this:
-- Greg Robinson had never in his life run a 3-3-5.
-- Greg Robinson ran a 3-3-5 at Michigan.
-- Either Greg Robinson decided to run a 3-3-5, or Rich Rodriguez told him to. We can rule out possibilities such as "Tony Gibson or another subordinate told him to." I shouldn't have to include that, but I will. Elimination of all other possibilities as too absurd to consider leave us with either it being Robinson's idea, or Rodriguez's.
-- It is very rare for a coach to make sudden, wholesale changes to his philosophy. In fact, my original post (which DEFENDED Rodriguez, and you'd have noticed that if you weren't so laser-focused on pouncing on every word that might even be marginally construed as RR criticism) was based on the premise that coaches don't do that.
-- Therefore, accepting that premise, we must logically conclude one thing: Rich Rodriguez told Greg Robinson to run a 3-3-5.
What you wrote:
He made GERG do that ...
Then, for good measure, you used the word "forced." Your words. Not mine. All I asked is why? What basis for those characterizations?
What basis for those characterizations? Do you know how boss-subordinate relationships work?'
You don't have a story, a quote, an eyewitness account, or even a confidential source deep inside the coaching staff who is an impeccable source but you can't say who it is. What you've got is nothing, which is what I thought all along.
Rodriguez=boss. Robinson=subordinate. Therefore Rodriguez "forced" Robinson to run a defense that Robinson was unqualified to run. It's not that just any doofus on the internet could make that claim; this one came from you.
So basically, you've decided to be the Semantics Troll. Shouldn't have expected any more than that, really.
If n people are reading this discussion, including you and me, the number of them that think you're completely off your rocker is n-1. The whole rest of the world can see what I'm saying plain as day, and you've only managed to convince yourself.
He's got most of the negative point/banned users beat.
you do realize that everything you say can be trumped by one little explanation: If RichRod didn't want him running the 3-3-5 all he had to do was tell GERG to do something different. In that sense RichRod is 100% responsible for the bum ass defense we played the three years he was here...
Look, I'm not anti-richrod any more than you are but what I find ridiculous is your desire to constantly defend the man and fight the good fight long after reason has left your side... Just take a deep breath and let it go. We both know that RichRod is an excellent offensive coach whoul could have done better here at Michigan had the situation been different, but the situation wasn't different and he failed miserably. We wish him luck at ASU and hopefully he does just fine...
Who could have told us what the interactions between the defensive coaching staff was during those three years...
It wasn't written. It wasn't written that "Rich Rod forced a 3-3-5 on Greg Robinson." And of course it also wasn't written that "Greg Robinson claimed to be a master of the 3-3-5 to get the job." We don't know, from Bacon's book.
So without that, naturally, I'd like to know how anybody else outside of the program would know. And be able to make such dramatic claims as Rodriguez forced it; or that Rodriguez made Robinson do it.
Is a whole other story.
What can be said is that either Rich, his boss, told him to do it, or that Rich was so hands off with the defense it was coaching malpractice. You can pick which is worse.
Neither did Hoke and Co. This sucks.
First off--we all obviously think that Hoke and Co should be on the list. But I find it interesting that the article mentions that they rankings are based on the coaches past accomplishments along with how the team is expected to do this year. While you have to take past accomplishments into account, much of that is based on the resources that your particular school provides. Also, a guy like Spurrier really hasn't done much in the last decade. As for expectations this year---so if a coaching staff is expected to have a down year talent-wise, does that must mean they are not as good of coaches as they were when they had success with more talent?
I completely disagree with the Spurrier comment. Making South Carolina a consistent competitor in the SEC would be like making Illinois a consistent competitor in the Big Ten. South Carolina is not Florida. And the piece was not about his failure in the NFL.
Spurrier hasn't done much in the last decade? 20-7 in his last two seasons with USC (the other USC) with a SEC East Championship to boot. USC is a TOUGH place to win -- competing with Florida, Clemson, Georgia, Tennessee, Georgia Tech, Florida State, etc. for recruits isn't easy. Plus, Columbia is a decent college town but it's definitely not Gainesville or Athens.
As a GT grad...uh, thanks for putting us in that category :)
Opening up against VT... that's tough, and could pretty much impact the entire season. Interesting match up.
GT recruits pretty decently (well, has anyway)...and offers a lot of the same players.
but I don't have a problem with them not being on here. Mattison is one of the best DC's in the country, but Hoke is relatively unproven and Borges' record is mediocre. I to think Borges has shown signs of flexibility/improvement, and if Hoke keeps recruiting like this there will be no questions. Our positions coaches also seem fantastic imho, but i doubt they looked that closely at that.
In sum, whatever man.
Yahoo < Google
Clearly. However, I still use Yahoo! as my home page. Their search engine feature may suck, their writers for the most part may write on a 4th grade level with content to boot, but for the longest time, they have had the best damn landing page on the whole interwebz.
Lewan omitted from his OL list and now UM left off this list. If the VaTech staff is so great, who called the fake punt, 4th and 1 into the center of the line, ... The VaTech staff made numerous mistakes that (thankfully) snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Credit to the UM staff because the team played with poise and control in spite of the pre-game injuries. So who's staff is better?
Beamer is much more accomplished than Hoke. Maybe not better in the long run, but Beamer has a better resume.
You're basing your opinion on one game. I love Michigan's staff, but to say Coach Hoke and Co. are more accomplished (what the article is partially looking at) then you need to take off your maize and blue glasses.
First off, it's debatable that one staff outcoached the other in that game. When the game between two almost evenly matched teams comes down to a missed field goal by one team followed by a made one by another in OT, clearly it was even coached. Also, not only are you basing your opinion on one game, but you'd be hard pressed to find many people who are know anything about college football who'd say U of M has a better coaching staff than VaTech.
Beamer is a legend. No D-1 coach right now has been coaching longer than him or has as many wins as him. Matter of fact, he has more career wins than our beloved Bo as well as our hated Woody. Also, Bud Foster is really one of the best d-coordinators out there. Taking off my Maize n' Blue goggles for a second, he very well may be superior to Mattison. To for one second think that Hoke and Co. deserves to be on that list over Beamerball is really shortsighted. It would be an outstanding success if at some point we could look back and compare Hoke's current staff's accomplishments to Beamer's. Good thing is, with that way his U of M tenure started, we may get that chance...
A coach of near legendary level, and one with some great assistants. I know we got a lot of "we were so awful in the Sugar Bowl!", but I don't think that's really giving credit to someone as good as Bud Foster with a month to prepare. I know there's some "why can't we get over the hump" fatigue at VT (from their fan reaction after the game), but they're not going to do better than that staff. It happens a lot with success. So they definitely deserved to be ranked up there.
Having said that, for one game, they didn't have their best in-game day. They did make a couple of glaring errors that seemed odd even in layman terms. Michigan very much staying in what they were capable of. Doesn't make Beamer et al. bad....it just wasn't their best day. It happens.
My initial reaction to this was rage: "We beat VaTech in the Sugar Bowl last year, with plenty of help from Beamer's HERP and DERP! This list is crap and biased!" But, I suppose with only one year under our belt (11-2), any statements made about our coaching staff are very premature. We'll see how things go with Hoke's second squad.
However, I can't see how my argument holds when a COMPLETELY unproven Urban Meyer & staff at OSU (0-0) is #6.
Football season rapidly approaches. Starving journalists will write articles. All the articles. Regardless of whatever crap they contain. Any press is good press.
unproven you say! Bowling Green, Utah, and Florida would like a word with you lol...like it or not, Meyer is a PROVEN coaching commodity.
Were with him at any of those locations?
At first I thought what was Urban and his crew doing there also, mainly because he spent the last two(?) years away from football, but he has always done really well at every stop. He might have fallen off a bit at Florida and been outshined by Saban and Miles but he still won two national championships there. His assistants don't seem to be slouches either.
Texas is the one that really makes me wonder. Granted apparently his new assistant coaches are hot shit, but Mack and Texas have fallen off the last couple of years.
At the end of the day, this is a pointless and very subjective list composed during the offseason to give sports fans something to argue about. If Hoke and crew do well this season, maybe they will be on this list next year. Regardless, I prefer Big Ten champs, National Champs (probably still a few years away), and the critical impact Hoke and crew have on these kids' lives over Yahoo Top Ten lists.
announced their top 10 Most Constipated Coaching Staffs in NCAAF and Dantonio and his staff was awarded the blue ribbon. Congrats to Coach D and staff.
I heard it was him and Brian Kelly in the final 2 but they had to go with the one with the best scowl.
Like a couple other posters said, my reaction was first annoyance and incredulity with this list but I have to say that I agree with some (OK State, South Carolina and, it pains me to give the Grouch credit, MSU). But how is Texas that high when EVERY season they have a Top 5 or Top 10 recruiting class and had miserable seasons the past couple years. I understand Mack Brown won the NC several years ago (with a freakishly talented VY) but their performance the last two years should boot them off this list until they prove they deserve it. Also, what about TCU? They are a Texas coaching staff much more deserving than the one listed at #4.
Am i the only one who is a little ticked off that those two programs are so highly regarded? I feel like they SHOULD be good since they oversign so heavily...
Like others, I was a bit irritated at first, but if we frame it as a list based on resume, then several of these guys clearly belong here, I would think. I also thought about what some of these coaches have been able to do at various schools when it came to improving their outlook. A few examples that came to mind:
Frank Beamer took over a somewhat moribund Virginia Tech team in the 1980s and, although it took him about five or six seasons to get them started, he turned them into a presence in the ACC with some level of bowl appearance for the last twenty years.
Mack Brown turned an awful North Carolina squad into a decent team as well, at least for a time, and he's taken Texas from historically average (with flashes of above average to good) at best to three Cotton and two Rose bowls in his time there (of course, the last couple years haven't gone so well in Austin).
Even Mark Dantonio might have an argument here, at least if being something of a turnaround artist is among the criteria (noted that he does not have the seniority as an HC that some others on the list do) - he took over a program that was fragmented and a broad parody of itself and turned them into a team that won 11 games in consecutive seasons. They may not repeat that performance this year, but the contrast from the Williams-Smith (and three games of Watts) era is profound.
Mike Gundy took over the middling Oklahoma State program that Les Miles left, oddly enough, and has turn them into a Big 12 favorite as well. Les Miles even improved on Nick Saban's performance at LSU a little bit, at least in the consistency department.
Brady Hoke has won "Coach of the Year" in 3 different conferences. His track record turning around already sunk programs is impressive. Maybe not Saban/Meyer impressive but still an accomplishment. Couple that with Mattison's resume and even Borges has been part of winning programs, I don't see how they don't belong somewhere on the list.
That hurt my feelings.
Billboard material. As if Al or Greg give a shit. They know what they are and why they do with what they have will be enough to prove their point.