And by the "whole Harbaugh affair" do you mean the three consecutive years JH interviewed with the pros, indicating that he wanted to be an NFL coach and that it was pretty much going to happen no matter what?
What a minute ... are you suggesting taking a reasonable, wait and see approach before making a definitive declaration? I mean, sure, I don't think it's been tried, but why not?
#4 Duke, #7 Kansas, # 12OK, #21 UK and #23 FL lost to unranked teams. That's 20% of the top 25 going down, with #6 and #24 needing OT at home to win, not to mention the Purdue and MSU games. So the OP's point kinda stands, figuratively, that is.
Not sure what Michigan has to do with this, but Michigan is 28-11 under Harbaugh. Zona is 17-21 during that same span. So not exactly similar.
The last coach b4 Rodrigues was Mike Stoops. Stoops went 8-5, 8-5 then 7-6 before being fired after starting 1-5 his last season. RR went 7-6, 3-9 and 7-6 his last 3 seasons. So not sure why you think he was better than other UofA coaches. Looks like he was even worse than Stoops.
He had 1 good season out of 6 in Arizona. He never loss less than 4 games in a season. He struggled against ASU. His defenses were consistently terrible. Not sure what there is to defend here.
Also an interesting fact, he was 43-35 at Arizona (24-30 in conference). He finished 7-6 this year, with a loss to Purdue in the Bowl. Since leaving WV, he's 58-57 overall, with a 30-48 record in conference. That's .... not good.
this had nothing to do with liberals. Instead, it was a corporate move to try to prevent stupied internet memes, and instead, the right wing fever swamps took it and ran with it.
best reply in the thread because it's the most instructive. The Nats sidelined Strasburg, who went on to be an oft-hurt decent pitcher, despite having his arm babied (He's having his best season this year, 4 years afterwards, but he is now again on the DL).
Futures are unpredictable. You have to try to win now, because you never know what the future holds.
a huge pick-up. If he played C, that would have Newsome at LT, Braden at LG, Raulerson at C, then Cole could play either RT or RG, and either Kalis or Magnuson would move to back-up.
Second half. If you watched it, you would know we adjusted. 3 drives, all of 10 plays or more. We just didn't get it into the end zone. So yeah, there's that
written by Brian had a different view of how Borges should game plan.
"and their reliance on man coverage should simplify a lot of Robinson's reads. ND will almost certainly use T'eo to spy Robinson so that they don't give up a ton of easy scramble stuff, which means more man free. Gallon, Gardner, Funchess, and company will have to beat their opponents; Borges will have to exploit the man to man that should be coming, and the line will have to give Michigan time.
Oh, right, and Denard has to keep calm and throw accurately. No big deal.
ND will try to get their front four (or three) to the QB, use Te'o as cleanup, and give their guys simple assignments. Michigan will try to block, read, and rub those guys. Funchess will be huge, as he's going to get those corner and wheel routes against linebackers and rookie former WR safety. But it's really all on Denard. Time to step up."
After the game, when Denard did not step up, Brian blames Borges. Seems a little off to me, and slightly unfair.
Kept thinking about that during the game. ND was probably the better team the last 3 years, certainly last year, but we kept stealing wins at the end. Today, felt we were the better team, just killed ourselves. In addition to the 6 to's, we had 5 trips to the red zone, and got a whopping 6 points. Just hitting field goals would have won us this game
Wisconisn for their game, but leave OK at #5? They were tied at half at UTEP and they were up a field goal after 3 quarters. They didn't put the game away until a long td with under 3 minutes to go.
It started late, so no one saw it, but it wasn't a top 5 performance
because of recruiting. With PSU getting hammered, it's really UM, and OSU getting top recruits. Neb and MSu will also get their share, but in the 15-25 range, and then blech. We cannot consistently compete with top programs with mediocre recruiting.
And yes, Wisconsin is missing from this list. They don't recruit much, and they never play tough out of conference games either, until they lose in a bowl game. I don't see that changing any time soon, either.
would benefit from more compensation. But if you professionalize the business and start paying, wouldn't schools then be able to cut players (yes, SEC does but most don't right now). How much would back-ups make? Would they lose scholarships if they underperform? Would their salaries be reduced if they underperform?
What would the market be for a a redshirt frosh lineman at a MAC school? Would MAC schools even be able to pay these guys? How about Boise State?
The whole idea that "paying players" would be simple seems fraught with problems.
excellent misdirection. It's interesting that you talked about my grammar and Casteel, but not the inconsistency of you touting RR's record, but then claiming the inability to review his defensive record because of a lack of expertise.
Like I said, it's been fun watching you flail, in order to not come to the conclusion that just about everyone else has, from fans to players - RR did a poor job coaching. I look forward to your response about my punctuation
I mean, you can't judge whether the worst Michigan defense ever was bad? Really? Here's a hint - it was bad. There were ample statistics showing it was poor, and now players confirm it was poor. It's fairly obvious to anyone, that it was poor. But it's fun watching you turn yourself into a pretzel in order to not criticize your beloved RR.
BTW, if your lack of expertise prevents you from commenting, however did you manage to extol the virtues of RR's previous coaching endeavors? After all, you're no expert, so how could you evaluate whether he has ever done a good job or not?
Are you an expert in media? If not, how can you comment on the FREEP?
It's amazing that you're lack of expertise prevents you from commenting on the defense, yet you can actually comment on the motivations of Jeff Casteel, and why he chose not to come to Michigan.
The truth is, this was a simple post. Martin pointing out that RR's staff did a piss poor job. It confirmed what was plainly obvious to anyone. But you tried nuance in order to deflect what we all know - you're repeated defenses of RR lacked merit. He did a poor job coaching at Michigan. I know it hurts, even moreso to have it confirmed by a player, but there it is.
quite well. And what I read is a guy deperately trying to apply misdirection because his thesis (RR is a good coach that was sabotaged) is being severely undercut.
What difference does it make if MM was saying that Robinson sucked or Shafer sucked or both sucked? Either way, it's on RR for doing a piss poor job with the defense. Why parse it, other than to deflect blame. Martin said he learned nothing from the previous defensive staff (or staffs). Who cares which person he was blaming, since they were both hired by RR? Either way, the outcome is still the same - RR did a poor job. End of story, Section 1 go cry while wearing RR pajamas.
This was very simple for anyone who can read - a Michigan player indicting the former coaching staff. No need for you to trash the current staff (and let's just both agree that your "manbauw" thing was snide, so save the "Where did I attack the current staff" nonsense).
Simple question - do you agree with Mike Martin that the previous coaching staff did a poor job? If yes, then there is no reason to comment on MM's "moaning" or argue with other posters. All of whom seem to be in agreement with Martin. If not, then well, we now know exactly where the "dumber" parts of the board reside.
not sure about dumber, but you have certainly contributed to making it redundant on many occasions.
It's amazing how you managed to take a very simple thing, and once again try to make it about the FREEP. Mike Martin, Michigan football player, said he received little to no coaching on the previous coaching staff. This is not second hand info, or wild speculation about a secret cabal. This is about a coaching staff FAILING to do the job they get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to do.
The defensive coaching staff failed. That falls on RR. Not the FREEP, Lloyd Carr, Braylon Edwards, or any of the multitude that gets you riled up.
Now, you can still hold onto your thesis, that RR was treated unfairly, and still admit his defensive coaching staff was a miserable failure. Those two aren't mutually exclusive. But you can't, because that would mean admitting something - that despite the unfair treatment, he wasn't particularly good at his job at Michigan. And that is simply impossible for you to do, despite the ample evidence that built up over the three years, and from the mouths of Michigan football players.
feel better, think of it this way - by the end of the season, the kids had dead legs. It's not surprising, considering we were really only 6 deep (Vogrich and McLimans rarely played or Affected the outcome) and were lead by a true frosh who had never played that many games before.
This team was really laboring down the stretch and was unlikely to go much further. So stop worrying about what if
that you would suggest a policy of engagement. Just wondering - you must have a serious porblem with the reported NDA forced on Shafer when he resigned then, right?
I mean, it's a major part of RR's tenure. His first major hire, self destructed before 1 season, ousted only to find success elsewhere. Yet there's nothing about in the book, and Shafer can't comment on it. I'm sure you're outraged about the lack of openness on this subject.
completely glosses over the disaster of the defense in 2010, and the blame that was put on being "too young." The idea that these freshman would suddenly make a difference under RR, when previous freshman struggled to the point of disaster, is belied by the facts.
I would also point out that while wins increased from 2009 to 2010, the kicking game and defense got worse. If your expecting things to continue on a trend, did you expect them to further degenerate as well?
We will never know what would happen under RR with this team, but i think we can say with certainty that more defensive freshman would have made a difference for his team. It didn't in the past, not sure why you would expect it to make such a difference in the future.
hilarious. All we heard in 2010 was "What do you expect from this defense, they're so young." Now the excuse is ... wait for it ... RR didn't have 3 more freshman on his defense? Can someone just pick an excuse and stick with it.
As for the interview, this is the problem with RR in a nutshell. He probably should have avoided the interview, and he definitely should have ducked the question. he could have said "I am really proud of the players, and thought Coach hoke did a great job with them. Wish I had that opportunity, but I'm excited about coaching in Arizona now"
It's easy and non-controversial. But he simply us unable to do it, and will continue to make these blunders. Until he realizes he doesn't have to answer every question, and say everything that pops into his head, he's going to be a pr disaster.
I know why you sigh so much. It's because it must be exhausting to be so much more insightful than everyone else.
You're right, what was so different from anything we'd done all season? I mean, so what that we ran Denard 27 times? and so what that it was by far our most efficient offensive performance of the season. I'm sure that came from dumb luck, not extra gameplanning. And so what that on the HBO special both sides claimed that they gameplanned all season for that one game. I'm sure Hoke and Borges didn't do that at all. It was just sweet fortunate that this was their offense's best performance.
The only thing we did differently was let up long pass plays (no one calls you a "glass half full" guy, do they?)
It's a good thing Hoke can't fool you. We're just dumb sheep, impressed by his language and silly wins. But not you. You see right through the rhetoric.
So what he was named Coach of the year? And that it was the third time in four years (3 different conferences) that he won COY. You, Coastal Blue, can see right through it and you are not impressed. The press, everywhere, are just gullible idiots.
And so what that the players claimed his emphasis on the game helped. And that there is historical precendent. Or that you even admit that focusing on the game can help. In this case, in this instance, it's all just Hoke pulling the wool over all our eyes. He deserves no credit for this. Luckily, we have you to help us see it for the baloney that it is.
I'll end this with a Go Blue, and maybe a little Bear Down for you as well.
I would argue that there are certain things Michigan fans expect from their team.
beating their arch-rivals is one, but playing fundamentally sound football. Playing good defense, getting a lot of hats to the ball, not getting blown out. These too are things formerly associated with Michigan football, and these materialized this year. There were plenty of UM football teams under Carr and Mo that lost to rivals, but still played Michigan football. So even if they lost to ND and OSU, they would have still been learning Michigan football if they did all the other things.
However, if they got blown out of those games by 20 points or more, then no, then no one would be saying they were learning what Michigan football is.
We've had a definitive style of play for close to 40 years, and that changed the last three years. This team played a lot more like the teams of the previous 40 years, being lead for the most part by their defense and a strong runnning game. Doesn't that sound like Michigan football? Why the need to downplay it?
"it does not guarantee wins or automatically improve performance. But how could you not believe game planning and thinking about one opponent all year long will only affect your performance if you're an underdog?"
That answers your questions. Focusing on a game does not guarantee a win, but if you have two exact same teams (A & B), but team A spends extra time on the OSU game and team B does not, I would argue that Team A would have a better chance to win the OSU game. You argue that their chances do not improve, and they have the same chance to win as Team B (unless they are an underdog or both teams are fighting for the BCS or whatever odd twist oyu keep coming up with). This is not logical. In fact, it makes no sense whatsoever.
So every scenario you keep coming up with (Why didn't we beat MSU, etc) is answered. Emphasizing a game doesn't guarantee a win, but it is obviously better to constantly prepare for a game than not. That has been born out historically, and again this year.
It seems relatively clear that emphasizing and putting extra attention on the game has benefits. You've admitted as much. Why you insist that only doesn't matter in this instance, I have no idea.
"it does not guarantee wins or automatically improve performance. But how could you not believe game planning and thinking about one opponent all year long will only affect your performance if you're an underdog?"
That answers your questions. Focusing on a game does not guarantee a win, but if you have two exact same teams (A & B), but team A spends extra time on the OSU game and team B does not, I would argue that Team A would have a better chance to win the OSU game. You argue that their chances do not improve, and they have the same chance to win as Team B (unless they are an underdog or both teams are fighting for the BCS or whatever odd twist oyu keep coming up with). This is not logical. In fact, it makes no sense whatsoever.
So every scenario you keep coming up with (Why didn't we beat MSU, etc) is answered. Emphasizing a game doesn't guarantee a win, but it is obviously better to constantly prepare for a game than not. That has been born out historically, and again this year.
It seems relatively clear that emphasizing and putting extra attention on the game has benefits. You've admitted as much. Why you insist that only doesn't matter in this instance, I have no idea.
but you're not being logical. You're being evasive and constantly changing your argument to save face.
In your first post, you said this "We won because we had a better team." That does disregard placing emphasis on the game. Not a lot of wiggle room there, though you do riggle out of it in a later post.
You subsequently morphed your argument later to say that placing emphasis does have some effect, just not in this type of game.
"The whole emphasis on The Game only comes into play on the actual field in two scenarios: A talented underachieving team needs a goal since their season is shot (Michigan in 95' and 96') or when the two teams are highly ranked and playing for Rose Bowl bids, BT titles, etc."
This makes even less sense. You emphasize the game from the beginning of training camp. We have no idea what the team would look like at the end of the season. Few people would have assumed that OSU would end up 6-6 and Um at 10-2.
it does not guarantee wins or automatically improve performance. But how could you not believe game planning and thinking about one opponent all year long will only affect your performance if you're an underdog? Either it affects your performance, or it doesn't. It wouldn't only matter if you're an underdog.
And your last sentence is even sillier. Why would it matter if only both teams are playing for Rose Bowl bids? Wasn't Michigan playing for a possible BCS birth? So playing up the rivaly would have only helped Michigan if OSU also came into the game ranked? How does that even make sense at all.
You seem to be going out of your way to evade giving Hoke's strategy credit, yet still allowing credit for others who employed the exact same strategy.
It did not. If you rewatch the game, the pass to Miller was on 3 and 6 with 1:48 to play. Miller scrambled for the 4th down conversion. The following series featured a sack on 1st down, and short pass completion on second, and spike on third and Avery's interception.
So now you're not arguing that it can be helpful, but should in fact make the team win by 20 plus points. Sorry man, but that's ridiculous.
Further, he stressed the game at the beginning of the year, not just the past week. Were we considered massive favorites before the season began? C'mon, you're really stretching it here.
Those 8-4 teams that beat Cooper didn't always blow them out either.
Bottom line, players felt putting emphasis on the game helped. History shows that putting emphasis on the game helps. No one said it guarantees wins or leades to 20 point blowouts. So yeah, Hoke stressing the game is better than RR not emphasizing the game.
in the rivalry, there is ample evidence that placing emphasis on the game helps. Bo did so in 1969, and no one would argue that UM was a more complete team that year. Cooper undersold the rivalry, yet how many times did an underdog Michigan team win those games. And when Tressel took over, the most famous action he took was making that statement about Michigan during the halftime of the basketball game. That year, 2001, a terrible OSU team beat a favored Michigan team in Ann Arbor.
You quickly dismiss emphasizing the game as something that can have a strong effect. I think history says otherwise
you argue that the fact that RR put less emphasis on the game is a better approach? John Cooper did that, and I don't think it worked out well for him.
traditionally, Michigan coaches have stressed the OSU game as the biggest game of the year. Bo certainly did. Maybe it isn't the best approach, but it worked out better this year.
I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.
He had a lot of things transpire, but nothing approaching defamation. And he can regain his reputation without being overly dramatic. Win some games out in Arizona, and he's back.
As for openness, it can be a double edged sword.
3 & out helped in some ways, and skipped over some obvious negatives (very little on Shafer firing and Gerg hiring). RR controlled a lot of that narrative.
He did not control a lot of the narrative during his time at Michigan. Openness hurt him - I don't understand how that can argued. Lobardi quote, groban story.
Gerg wasn't his first DC. Funny how people just skip over that. RR didn't even give Shafer a hole year to prove himself (funny how folks claim RR didn't get enough time to prove himself, but RR had no problem dropping his DC after 1 year). Shafer has done well at every stop as a DC, except for Michigan.
The defense was a disaster because RR refused to let a DC hire his own staff and run the defense the way it should be run. No quality DC was going to come to Michigan while RR was here, no matter how much money he was allotted, because RR would not provide him with the autonomy needed to hire his own staff and run the their own type of defense. But don't let that get in the way of your fairy tale
that the win yesterday would help us move on, but apparently some aren't quite ready to let it go. And though this won't help, your commentary was so wildly misleading it could be a political commercial.
To say "out of this crater, his teams got better every year" is a lie. We were 9-4 before he got here, he went 3-9 his first year of coaching. He was the crater. 3-9 is not better than 9-4, no matter what universe you live in.
One can forgive him for struggling that first year, and you mention the challenges he faced. But it is not ironclad that any coach would have gone 3-9 that first year. I would remind you that this year, Hoke and Mattison took a defense ranked 108th and made them worlds better. While last year folks marinated in the excuse of "youth," Mattison & Co managed to accomplish their turnaround this year with two freshman lbs and a true frosh corner, and they turned out to be among the best players. Good coaching can do wonders, and to gloss over that disaster of a first year is either a sin of omission or a blatant attempt to deceive.
There is nothing to admit about RR. Seems like a good guy, did some good recruiting (though there was plenty of bad, and plenty of attrition, all of which Hoke & Co. managed to overcome). It will be interesting to see how he does in Arizona. But he did a poor job coaching here. Any simple review of his work on defense and special teams would leave even the most casual observer to that conclusion. That is what needs to be admitted, and no amount of spin is going to change that
my math is off, but giving up 51 points after 5 games is more than a 20 point improvement. We gave up 10 to UConn, 24 to ND, 37 to UMass, 21 to Bowling Green and 35 to Indiana. That's 72 to Indiana and Umass alone. We're giving up 15 ppg less
Yes, NCAA folks make a lot of money. And so do coaches, etc. But here are some things that don't get mentioned
But let's cut through the bs, as the author did.
These kids essentially sign a 4 year contract (at most non-SEC schools anyway). In return for playing football and putting in the time, they get the chance at an education.
On signing day, thousands of kids sign these contracts, and very few of them are A.J. Green. FOr a majority of them, this is a great deal. For a few, they have to put off future earnings in order to live up to the contract they signed.
These young men sign that contract of their own free will, knowing the risks and rewards that are involved, as well as the tough work. To pretend after the fact that it's exploitation, or that they should get more, is in the author's words, indefensible nonsense.
They get the benefits of a college degree, with no debt, plus training towards their ultimate goal. It's by no means an easy thing, but I don't pity them or feel bad for them. If they don't want it, no one says they have to take the scholarship.
Recent Comments
And by the "whole Harbaugh affair" do you mean the three consecutive years JH interviewed with the pros, indicating that he wanted to be an NFL coach and that it was pretty much going to happen no matter what?
He's a great guy that really loves Michigan football.
No hamstrings were harmed in the filming of this putout.
What a minute ... are you suggesting taking a reasonable, wait and see approach before making a definitive declaration? I mean, sure, I don't think it's been tried, but why not?
Bravo (Dicaprio slow clap gif.com)
what literally means, especially because
#4 Duke, #7 Kansas, # 12OK, #21 UK and #23 FL lost to unranked teams. That's 20% of the top 25 going down, with #6 and #24 needing OT at home to win, not to mention the Purdue and MSU games. So the OP's point kinda stands, figuratively, that is.
Says hello from about 2 feet above the rim
Not sure what Michigan has to do with this, but Michigan is 28-11 under Harbaugh. Zona is 17-21 during that same span. So not exactly similar.
The last coach b4 Rodrigues was Mike Stoops. Stoops went 8-5, 8-5 then 7-6 before being fired after starting 1-5 his last season. RR went 7-6, 3-9 and 7-6 his last 3 seasons. So not sure why you think he was better than other UofA coaches. Looks like he was even worse than Stoops.
He had 1 good season out of 6 in Arizona. He never loss less than 4 games in a season. He struggled against ASU. His defenses were consistently terrible. Not sure what there is to defend here.
Also an interesting fact, he was 43-35 at Arizona (24-30 in conference). He finished 7-6 this year, with a loss to Purdue in the Bowl. Since leaving WV, he's 58-57 overall, with a 30-48 record in conference. That's .... not good.
this had nothing to do with liberals. Instead, it was a corporate move to try to prevent stupied internet memes, and instead, the right wing fever swamps took it and ran with it.
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/250125546/espn-robert-lee-virginia…
best reply in the thread because it's the most instructive. The Nats sidelined Strasburg, who went on to be an oft-hurt decent pitcher, despite having his arm babied (He's having his best season this year, 4 years afterwards, but he is now again on the DL).
Futures are unpredictable. You have to try to win now, because you never know what the future holds.
very few redshirt this year. Can already hear Brian cringing
a huge pick-up. If he played C, that would have Newsome at LT, Braden at LG, Raulerson at C, then Cole could play either RT or RG, and either Kalis or Magnuson would move to back-up.
our guys will practice catching the ball on the run? Or is this a sneaky commentary on our QB play?
Second half. If you watched it, you would know we adjusted. 3 drives, all of 10 plays or more. We just didn't get it into the end zone. So yeah, there's that
written by Brian had a different view of how Borges should game plan.
"and their reliance on man coverage should simplify a lot of Robinson's reads. ND will almost certainly use T'eo to spy Robinson so that they don't give up a ton of easy scramble stuff, which means more man free. Gallon, Gardner, Funchess, and company will have to beat their opponents; Borges will have to exploit the man to man that should be coming, and the line will have to give Michigan time.
Oh, right, and Denard has to keep calm and throw accurately. No big deal.
ND will try to get their front four (or three) to the QB, use Te'o as cleanup, and give their guys simple assignments. Michigan will try to block, read, and rub those guys. Funchess will be huge, as he's going to get those corner and wheel routes against linebackers and rookie former WR safety. But it's really all on Denard. Time to step up."
After the game, when Denard did not step up, Brian blames Borges. Seems a little off to me, and slightly unfair.
Kept thinking about that during the game. ND was probably the better team the last 3 years, certainly last year, but we kept stealing wins at the end. Today, felt we were the better team, just killed ourselves. In addition to the 6 to's, we had 5 trips to the red zone, and got a whopping 6 points. Just hitting field goals would have won us this game
Wisconisn for their game, but leave OK at #5? They were tied at half at UTEP and they were up a field goal after 3 quarters. They didn't put the game away until a long td with under 3 minutes to go.
It started late, so no one saw it, but it wasn't a top 5 performance
because of recruiting. With PSU getting hammered, it's really UM, and OSU getting top recruits. Neb and MSu will also get their share, but in the 15-25 range, and then blech. We cannot consistently compete with top programs with mediocre recruiting.
And yes, Wisconsin is missing from this list. They don't recruit much, and they never play tough out of conference games either, until they lose in a bowl game. I don't see that changing any time soon, either.
would benefit from more compensation. But if you professionalize the business and start paying, wouldn't schools then be able to cut players (yes, SEC does but most don't right now). How much would back-ups make? Would they lose scholarships if they underperform? Would their salaries be reduced if they underperform?
What would the market be for a a redshirt frosh lineman at a MAC school? Would MAC schools even be able to pay these guys? How about Boise State?
The whole idea that "paying players" would be simple seems fraught with problems.
excellent misdirection. It's interesting that you talked about my grammar and Casteel, but not the inconsistency of you touting RR's record, but then claiming the inability to review his defensive record because of a lack of expertise.
Like I said, it's been fun watching you flail, in order to not come to the conclusion that just about everyone else has, from fans to players - RR did a poor job coaching. I look forward to your response about my punctuation
cop out, man!
I mean, you can't judge whether the worst Michigan defense ever was bad? Really? Here's a hint - it was bad. There were ample statistics showing it was poor, and now players confirm it was poor. It's fairly obvious to anyone, that it was poor. But it's fun watching you turn yourself into a pretzel in order to not criticize your beloved RR.
BTW, if your lack of expertise prevents you from commenting, however did you manage to extol the virtues of RR's previous coaching endeavors? After all, you're no expert, so how could you evaluate whether he has ever done a good job or not?
Are you an expert in media? If not, how can you comment on the FREEP?
It's amazing that you're lack of expertise prevents you from commenting on the defense, yet you can actually comment on the motivations of Jeff Casteel, and why he chose not to come to Michigan.
The truth is, this was a simple post. Martin pointing out that RR's staff did a piss poor job. It confirmed what was plainly obvious to anyone. But you tried nuance in order to deflect what we all know - you're repeated defenses of RR lacked merit. He did a poor job coaching at Michigan. I know it hurts, even moreso to have it confirmed by a player, but there it is.
quite well. And what I read is a guy deperately trying to apply misdirection because his thesis (RR is a good coach that was sabotaged) is being severely undercut.
What difference does it make if MM was saying that Robinson sucked or Shafer sucked or both sucked? Either way, it's on RR for doing a piss poor job with the defense. Why parse it, other than to deflect blame. Martin said he learned nothing from the previous defensive staff (or staffs). Who cares which person he was blaming, since they were both hired by RR? Either way, the outcome is still the same - RR did a poor job. End of story, Section 1 go cry while wearing RR pajamas.
This was very simple for anyone who can read - a Michigan player indicting the former coaching staff. No need for you to trash the current staff (and let's just both agree that your "manbauw" thing was snide, so save the "Where did I attack the current staff" nonsense).
Simple question - do you agree with Mike Martin that the previous coaching staff did a poor job? If yes, then there is no reason to comment on MM's "moaning" or argue with other posters. All of whom seem to be in agreement with Martin. If not, then well, we now know exactly where the "dumber" parts of the board reside.
not sure about dumber, but you have certainly contributed to making it redundant on many occasions.
It's amazing how you managed to take a very simple thing, and once again try to make it about the FREEP. Mike Martin, Michigan football player, said he received little to no coaching on the previous coaching staff. This is not second hand info, or wild speculation about a secret cabal. This is about a coaching staff FAILING to do the job they get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to do.
The defensive coaching staff failed. That falls on RR. Not the FREEP, Lloyd Carr, Braylon Edwards, or any of the multitude that gets you riled up.
Now, you can still hold onto your thesis, that RR was treated unfairly, and still admit his defensive coaching staff was a miserable failure. Those two aren't mutually exclusive. But you can't, because that would mean admitting something - that despite the unfair treatment, he wasn't particularly good at his job at Michigan. And that is simply impossible for you to do, despite the ample evidence that built up over the three years, and from the mouths of Michigan football players.
Always fun to watch you flail though
yeah, they paid him millions of dollars to do a job poorly. The bastards.
feel better, think of it this way - by the end of the season, the kids had dead legs. It's not surprising, considering we were really only 6 deep (Vogrich and McLimans rarely played or Affected the outcome) and were lead by a true frosh who had never played that many games before.
This team was really laboring down the stretch and was unlikely to go much further. So stop worrying about what if
they were talking to you, not me
but this just seemed way too dark for me. Can't believe the phrase "too soon?" hasn't been written like a thousand times in this thread.
that you would suggest a policy of engagement. Just wondering - you must have a serious porblem with the reported NDA forced on Shafer when he resigned then, right?
I mean, it's a major part of RR's tenure. His first major hire, self destructed before 1 season, ousted only to find success elsewhere. Yet there's nothing about in the book, and Shafer can't comment on it. I'm sure you're outraged about the lack of openness on this subject.
completely glosses over the disaster of the defense in 2010, and the blame that was put on being "too young." The idea that these freshman would suddenly make a difference under RR, when previous freshman struggled to the point of disaster, is belied by the facts.
I would also point out that while wins increased from 2009 to 2010, the kicking game and defense got worse. If your expecting things to continue on a trend, did you expect them to further degenerate as well?
We will never know what would happen under RR with this team, but i think we can say with certainty that more defensive freshman would have made a difference for his team. It didn't in the past, not sure why you would expect it to make such a difference in the future.
hilarious. All we heard in 2010 was "What do you expect from this defense, they're so young." Now the excuse is ... wait for it ... RR didn't have 3 more freshman on his defense? Can someone just pick an excuse and stick with it.
As for the interview, this is the problem with RR in a nutshell. He probably should have avoided the interview, and he definitely should have ducked the question. he could have said "I am really proud of the players, and thought Coach hoke did a great job with them. Wish I had that opportunity, but I'm excited about coaching in Arizona now"
It's easy and non-controversial. But he simply us unable to do it, and will continue to make these blunders. Until he realizes he doesn't have to answer every question, and say everything that pops into his head, he's going to be a pr disaster.
I know why you sigh so much. It's because it must be exhausting to be so much more insightful than everyone else.
You're right, what was so different from anything we'd done all season? I mean, so what that we ran Denard 27 times? and so what that it was by far our most efficient offensive performance of the season. I'm sure that came from dumb luck, not extra gameplanning. And so what that on the HBO special both sides claimed that they gameplanned all season for that one game. I'm sure Hoke and Borges didn't do that at all. It was just sweet fortunate that this was their offense's best performance.
The only thing we did differently was let up long pass plays (no one calls you a "glass half full" guy, do they?)
It's a good thing Hoke can't fool you. We're just dumb sheep, impressed by his language and silly wins. But not you. You see right through the rhetoric.
So what he was named Coach of the year? And that it was the third time in four years (3 different conferences) that he won COY. You, Coastal Blue, can see right through it and you are not impressed. The press, everywhere, are just gullible idiots.
And so what that the players claimed his emphasis on the game helped. And that there is historical precendent. Or that you even admit that focusing on the game can help. In this case, in this instance, it's all just Hoke pulling the wool over all our eyes. He deserves no credit for this. Luckily, we have you to help us see it for the baloney that it is.
I'll end this with a Go Blue, and maybe a little Bear Down for you as well.
I would argue that there are certain things Michigan fans expect from their team.
beating their arch-rivals is one, but playing fundamentally sound football. Playing good defense, getting a lot of hats to the ball, not getting blown out. These too are things formerly associated with Michigan football, and these materialized this year. There were plenty of UM football teams under Carr and Mo that lost to rivals, but still played Michigan football. So even if they lost to ND and OSU, they would have still been learning Michigan football if they did all the other things.
However, if they got blown out of those games by 20 points or more, then no, then no one would be saying they were learning what Michigan football is.
We've had a definitive style of play for close to 40 years, and that changed the last three years. This team played a lot more like the teams of the previous 40 years, being lead for the most part by their defense and a strong runnning game. Doesn't that sound like Michigan football? Why the need to downplay it?
"it does not guarantee wins or automatically improve performance. But how could you not believe game planning and thinking about one opponent all year long will only affect your performance if you're an underdog?"
That answers your questions. Focusing on a game does not guarantee a win, but if you have two exact same teams (A & B), but team A spends extra time on the OSU game and team B does not, I would argue that Team A would have a better chance to win the OSU game. You argue that their chances do not improve, and they have the same chance to win as Team B (unless they are an underdog or both teams are fighting for the BCS or whatever odd twist oyu keep coming up with). This is not logical. In fact, it makes no sense whatsoever.
So every scenario you keep coming up with (Why didn't we beat MSU, etc) is answered. Emphasizing a game doesn't guarantee a win, but it is obviously better to constantly prepare for a game than not. That has been born out historically, and again this year.
It seems relatively clear that emphasizing and putting extra attention on the game has benefits. You've admitted as much. Why you insist that only doesn't matter in this instance, I have no idea.
"it does not guarantee wins or automatically improve performance. But how could you not believe game planning and thinking about one opponent all year long will only affect your performance if you're an underdog?"
That answers your questions. Focusing on a game does not guarantee a win, but if you have two exact same teams (A & B), but team A spends extra time on the OSU game and team B does not, I would argue that Team A would have a better chance to win the OSU game. You argue that their chances do not improve, and they have the same chance to win as Team B (unless they are an underdog or both teams are fighting for the BCS or whatever odd twist oyu keep coming up with). This is not logical. In fact, it makes no sense whatsoever.
So every scenario you keep coming up with (Why didn't we beat MSU, etc) is answered. Emphasizing a game doesn't guarantee a win, but it is obviously better to constantly prepare for a game than not. That has been born out historically, and again this year.
It seems relatively clear that emphasizing and putting extra attention on the game has benefits. You've admitted as much. Why you insist that only doesn't matter in this instance, I have no idea.
but you're not being logical. You're being evasive and constantly changing your argument to save face.
In your first post, you said this "We won because we had a better team." That does disregard placing emphasis on the game. Not a lot of wiggle room there, though you do riggle out of it in a later post.
You subsequently morphed your argument later to say that placing emphasis does have some effect, just not in this type of game.
"The whole emphasis on The Game only comes into play on the actual field in two scenarios: A talented underachieving team needs a goal since their season is shot (Michigan in 95' and 96') or when the two teams are highly ranked and playing for Rose Bowl bids, BT titles, etc."
This makes even less sense. You emphasize the game from the beginning of training camp. We have no idea what the team would look like at the end of the season. Few people would have assumed that OSU would end up 6-6 and Um at 10-2.
it does not guarantee wins or automatically improve performance. But how could you not believe game planning and thinking about one opponent all year long will only affect your performance if you're an underdog? Either it affects your performance, or it doesn't. It wouldn't only matter if you're an underdog.
And your last sentence is even sillier. Why would it matter if only both teams are playing for Rose Bowl bids? Wasn't Michigan playing for a possible BCS birth? So playing up the rivaly would have only helped Michigan if OSU also came into the game ranked? How does that even make sense at all.
You seem to be going out of your way to evade giving Hoke's strategy credit, yet still allowing credit for others who employed the exact same strategy.
It did not. If you rewatch the game, the pass to Miller was on 3 and 6 with 1:48 to play. Miller scrambled for the 4th down conversion. The following series featured a sack on 1st down, and short pass completion on second, and spike on third and Avery's interception.
Check the play by play if you care to.
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/playbyplay?gameId=313300130&period=4
So now you're not arguing that it can be helpful, but should in fact make the team win by 20 plus points. Sorry man, but that's ridiculous.
Further, he stressed the game at the beginning of the year, not just the past week. Were we considered massive favorites before the season began? C'mon, you're really stretching it here.
Those 8-4 teams that beat Cooper didn't always blow them out either.
Bottom line, players felt putting emphasis on the game helped. History shows that putting emphasis on the game helps. No one said it guarantees wins or leades to 20 point blowouts. So yeah, Hoke stressing the game is better than RR not emphasizing the game.
in the rivalry, there is ample evidence that placing emphasis on the game helps. Bo did so in 1969, and no one would argue that UM was a more complete team that year. Cooper undersold the rivalry, yet how many times did an underdog Michigan team win those games. And when Tressel took over, the most famous action he took was making that statement about Michigan during the halftime of the basketball game. That year, 2001, a terrible OSU team beat a favored Michigan team in Ann Arbor.
You quickly dismiss emphasizing the game as something that can have a strong effect. I think history says otherwise
you argue that the fact that RR put less emphasis on the game is a better approach? John Cooper did that, and I don't think it worked out well for him.
traditionally, Michigan coaches have stressed the OSU game as the biggest game of the year. Bo certainly did. Maybe it isn't the best approach, but it worked out better this year.
I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.
He had a lot of things transpire, but nothing approaching defamation. And he can regain his reputation without being overly dramatic. Win some games out in Arizona, and he's back.
As for openness, it can be a double edged sword.
3 & out helped in some ways, and skipped over some obvious negatives (very little on Shafer firing and Gerg hiring). RR controlled a lot of that narrative.
He did not control a lot of the narrative during his time at Michigan. Openness hurt him - I don't understand how that can argued. Lobardi quote, groban story.
Control the narrative, or be controlled.
nt
Gerg wasn't his first DC. Funny how people just skip over that. RR didn't even give Shafer a hole year to prove himself (funny how folks claim RR didn't get enough time to prove himself, but RR had no problem dropping his DC after 1 year). Shafer has done well at every stop as a DC, except for Michigan.
The defense was a disaster because RR refused to let a DC hire his own staff and run the defense the way it should be run. No quality DC was going to come to Michigan while RR was here, no matter how much money he was allotted, because RR would not provide him with the autonomy needed to hire his own staff and run the their own type of defense. But don't let that get in the way of your fairy tale
that the win yesterday would help us move on, but apparently some aren't quite ready to let it go. And though this won't help, your commentary was so wildly misleading it could be a political commercial.
To say "out of this crater, his teams got better every year" is a lie. We were 9-4 before he got here, he went 3-9 his first year of coaching. He was the crater. 3-9 is not better than 9-4, no matter what universe you live in.
One can forgive him for struggling that first year, and you mention the challenges he faced. But it is not ironclad that any coach would have gone 3-9 that first year. I would remind you that this year, Hoke and Mattison took a defense ranked 108th and made them worlds better. While last year folks marinated in the excuse of "youth," Mattison & Co managed to accomplish their turnaround this year with two freshman lbs and a true frosh corner, and they turned out to be among the best players. Good coaching can do wonders, and to gloss over that disaster of a first year is either a sin of omission or a blatant attempt to deceive.
There is nothing to admit about RR. Seems like a good guy, did some good recruiting (though there was plenty of bad, and plenty of attrition, all of which Hoke & Co. managed to overcome). It will be interesting to see how he does in Arizona. But he did a poor job coaching here. Any simple review of his work on defense and special teams would leave even the most casual observer to that conclusion. That is what needs to be admitted, and no amount of spin is going to change that
Scott Shafer disagrees with your assessment. Sometimes, breaking up ain't easy, as RR can attest from both sides.
my math is off, but giving up 51 points after 5 games is more than a 20 point improvement. We gave up 10 to UConn, 24 to ND, 37 to UMass, 21 to Bowling Green and 35 to Indiana. That's 72 to Indiana and Umass alone. We're giving up 15 ppg less
and then Denard crushes his soul. Great job, fans and team!
Yakety Sax?
wins the internet
but pretty clearly biased and onesided.
Yes, NCAA folks make a lot of money. And so do coaches, etc. But here are some things that don't get mentioned
But let's cut through the bs, as the author did.
These kids essentially sign a 4 year contract (at most non-SEC schools anyway). In return for playing football and putting in the time, they get the chance at an education.
On signing day, thousands of kids sign these contracts, and very few of them are A.J. Green. FOr a majority of them, this is a great deal. For a few, they have to put off future earnings in order to live up to the contract they signed.
These young men sign that contract of their own free will, knowing the risks and rewards that are involved, as well as the tough work. To pretend after the fact that it's exploitation, or that they should get more, is in the author's words, indefensible nonsense.
They get the benefits of a college degree, with no debt, plus training towards their ultimate goal. It's by no means an easy thing, but I don't pity them or feel bad for them. If they don't want it, no one says they have to take the scholarship.