RR and the defense

Submitted by Ziff72 on

I'm treading lightly here, because I know the 2 letters are a powder keg.   No hidden agendas here just looking for some insight, actual facts or good rumors.   Hopefully Bacon's book will clear all this up, but in the mean time I need something clarified that keeps getting thrown out there in these arguments that I'm not clear about.

What is the source of the thought that RR meddled in the defense with Greg?    Just curious if I missed an article where RR discussed this or if this was generally accepted insider info or just the internet saying RR used the 3-3-5 at WV so he must have forced it on Greg because Greg never ran it before.

Like I said I don't want to stir anything up just looking for some info, because the only thing I think I really know over the past 3 years is that Schaffer, the assistants and the players were all on seperate pages that 1st year and that RR went with the players and the assistants wishes at the end of the year and Schafer was soon gone.

I hear this brought up a lot and for me it just doesn't add up that a guy that professes to concentrate most of his time on the offense, would keep  meddling with the defense especially after seeing the results.   I could see a scenario where he became so frustrated and desperate that he meddled midstream and made it worse, but I'm curious if we know this or just speculated enough to make it true.

Any good info would be appreciated.

Ziff72

April 5th, 2011 at 2:28 PM ^

I don't understand.  This thread has no pro or anti RR in it.   I asked a question to a theory that I think has been overplayed. 

Let's just say the same thing over again a million times and make it come true.

Brian had the post up yesterday so I thought it was relevant.  I put a disclaimer in the 1st sentence, but I'm sure you didn't even read it,  you just saw my name and the title and put up your glass half empty post.

 

Ziff72

April 5th, 2011 at 2:48 PM ^

I like what you did here Magnus.  I take you to task for your post and you just post back with fisking something else.  You must have been a killer in debate class.

Admit I won the coaches being involved in the defense argument.....waiting...ok done.

I'm not defending RR either approach was a failure.  People can't have it both ways though.  Either he meddled to much in the defense or he neglected it.  Can't be both.   When GR came in in 09 we ran very little 3-3-5 so RR left him alone for the 1st year but meddled the 2nd?  I just find it interesting why things that don't seem to make sense we're done instead of just saying these successful coaches suddenly turned into morons when they stepped on Ann Arbor soil. 

King Douche Ornery

April 5th, 2011 at 4:39 PM ^

Are asking a question no one here can answer.

I think you knew it was a rhetorical question from the start.

Magnus

April 5th, 2011 at 5:40 PM ^

What don't you understand?  Forcing Shafer and Robinson to run the 3-3-5 is meddling to the nth degree.

You're asking message boarders if they were flies on the wall when Rodriguez/Robinson were discussing whether the MLB should be playing at 2 yards depth or 4 yards.  I don't know why Kenny Demens was only 2 yards deep.  Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass.  He was, it didn't work, and that's on Rodriguez.

The answer to your question is obvious.  The question is rhetorical and redundant.  I don't need to write a 10,000 word tome to explain why this thread is dumb.  You finished your retort by asking another silly question, to which you received a concise and pointed answer.  You can accept it, or you can start another thread asking questions about the Rich Rodriguez tenure.  You will probably do the latter, and you will probably be met with much resistance.

Ziff72

April 5th, 2011 at 7:00 PM ^

Why so terse?   Wouldn't you like to know why Demens was lined up 2 yards behind the line?  

I would like to know why things happened instead of just saying they were dumb.  Call me crazy, but I  think it more believable the coaches at Michigan had a reasonable plan that went wrong instead of just saying it was dumb.      

Augger

April 5th, 2011 at 11:45 AM ^

I think the general theory is that Robinson never coached a 3-3-5 at any point in his 20 some year career. Even when he came in, he told folks he was planning on going with a 4-3 Under type defense. Combine this with the fact that all his assistants are 3-3-5 guys held over from West Virginia with closer ties to Rod then to him and you have some pretty strong circumstantial evidence of either the head coach messing about, or the assistants completely undermining the D-coordinator...Not to mention the 3-3-5 making bizarre appearances at completely inopportune times throughout the last 3 years...e.g. Purdue in year one.

Aug

Blue boy johnson

April 5th, 2011 at 11:44 AM ^

Staler than the staliest thing ever encountered. Ziff you knew this when you started this thread. Talk about this shit with your dog, he will listen all day, and never rebut you, plus he has just as much inside info as the rest of us.

michgoblue

April 5th, 2011 at 11:46 AM ^

I don't profess to "know" what happened, but there were a few things that lead to the conclusion that RR (either directly, or indirectly by allowing his D assistant coaches too much authority over the DC) meddles in, and harmed, the D:

1.  GERG never ran the 3-3-5 before.  Ever.  RR and his coached did.  It doesn't take a large logical leap to figure out who made the decision to run the 3-3-5.  Forcing the DC to run a formation he does not know can never be a good idea.

2.  Terminology - there was some GERG statement from when he was hired (before he went on media blackout) where he alluded to having to learn a whole new lingo.  Spur, bandid, etc.  This was the same terminology that RR and his staff used at WVU.  If the DC is first learnign the terminology, it is likely that he is being fit into an existing scheme, rather than being given autonomy to run his own scheme.

3.  Observations - I think that game was PSU, but there was one point where GERG was addressing some of the D players in the huddle on the sideline and RR came running into the huddle, almost threw GERG out of the way, and started yelling at the players.  The dynamic, more than anything, made obvious, the power dynamic on the D side of the ball.

 

Ziff72

April 5th, 2011 at 12:28 PM ^

1. We didn't run WV's 3-3-5 ever as Brian has painstakingly pointed out.  So I wonder why not if RR was so gung ho for it?

2. Nice Clue. That is telling as we like to say here.

3. Don't remember it.  If it's the one I'm thinking of RR said he was just trying to fire them up, nothing scheme wise.

03 Blue 07

April 5th, 2011 at 5:23 PM ^

False on point 1. Found it:

Michigan coach Rich Rodriguez ran a 3-3-5 during part of his tenure at West Virginia, but Robinson said the entire coaching staff was on board with the change. In the 1990s, he said he ran a similar scheme as defensive coordinator with the New York Jets and Denver Broncos.

Source: http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/michigan-defensive-coordinator-greg-robinson-talks-3-3-5-defense/

EDIT- this is a reply to the post above Ziff72's, and the others, who have said GERG "never ran the 3-3-5," or wasn't familiar with it, etc., prior to coming to Michigan.

Wolverine 73

April 5th, 2011 at 11:47 AM ^

it's over.  RR isn't coming back.  niether is Gerg or Schaefer.  for whatever reason, it was a disaster.  it doesn't matter what the reason was.  hopefully, Hoke and Mattison usher in a new era of swarming, effective Michigan defense. 

chewieblue

April 5th, 2011 at 11:54 AM ^

of the three year defensive debacle was rolling Courtney Avery up onto the LOS, into the boundary against Wisky only to have the poor kid see Gabe Carimi pulling at him and to be splattered for all the world to see.... TD!     I don't care if you've had a 3-3-5 forced on you, that's just bad coaching and/or scheming.

Let's just all be happy GERG is gone.

chitownblue2

April 5th, 2011 at 11:57 AM ^

It's an inference. Greg had never coached a 3-3-5. Nor had Shafer. RR's defensive assistants had. Then, miraculously, Gerg and Shafer started coaching a scheme that they had never, ever, run. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Demanding "evidence" from situations you know won't yield it is pointless.

Ziff72

April 5th, 2011 at 12:34 PM ^

Was I demanding?   Just trying to get more understanding.

Your point is a good one as other have brought up.

My point is that we never ran the 3-3-5 as described in videos or run at WV.   If RR really wanted that defense and not just be multiple as he stated why did he not have the team run the 3-3-5 as WV does.  Brian has posted endlessly that we were not doing anything like WV had done previously other than line up with 3 lineman and 3 LB's.  

For me it just doesn't add up.   If RR wanted the 3-3-5 so bad why would he hire guys that didn't run it? 

acs236

April 5th, 2011 at 1:21 PM ^

This suggests to me that gerg, et al. didn't know enough about WVU's style of 3-3-5 to run it properly.  I suppose it's possible they Michigan was trying to run some other 3-3-5 and doing that poorly, but why assume they were not trying to run the same 3-3-5?

Ziff72

April 5th, 2011 at 2:31 PM ^

Brian has about 7,684 posts up about how we look nothing like the WV 3-3-5 ran.   Our dline and LB did not line up anything like WV does.  

That's why I assume.

RR ran it at WV and brought some defensive assistants. If they wanted WV's defense I'm pretty sure they could have looked at tape and at least lined up correctly.

Harballer

April 5th, 2011 at 1:51 PM ^

Well here is a possible scenario:  RR hires Gerg and tells him he can run the defense he knows how to coach.  When results are not immediate (due to talent or scheme or whatever), RR decides to go back to what he and his assistants were familar with in WV and has Gerg implement the 3-3-5.  The only problem is 1. Gerg has never run the 3-3-5 so he is unsure how to actually set up the formations correctly.  2  RR basically let Casteel handle the defense at WV so he was unsure of how to make the corrections as well.  This leads to massive failure, ala the Penn State game with linebackers like 2 feet behind the Dline.

 

Not saying this is true, but it seems like a plausible option if you are having a hard time visualizing what happened.

Ziff72

April 5th, 2011 at 2:36 PM ^

I can go with your scenario except the lining up part.   To believe that GR couldn't figure out how to line up players from looking at a tape is lunacy.  

We'll just have to wait for the book, but football isn't that complicated. Brian never played in his life and he looked at a couple of DVD's and a few youtube clips and knew where to line up the lb's.

Section 1

April 5th, 2011 at 6:09 PM ^

How did that acrylic-fur animal thing get started?  What sort of animal was it?  What was the inside joke?  The players apparently thought it was genuinely funny, didn't they?  Why would none of the players say anything about it?  Has anyone ever reported the real story?

Harballer

April 5th, 2011 at 3:10 PM ^

Well you can only get so much from tape.  He had never run this defense in his entire career.  He doesn't know the little intricacies of it.  He probably got as much out of the tape as he could in the short amount of time he had to install it.  Either that, or Gerg played with his stuffed beaver instead of actually watching the tapes.  Could go either way.

chitownblue2

April 5th, 2011 at 3:22 PM ^

The WVU 3-3-5 was developed and run by a highly successful DC.

Ours was adapted by a multiple-time failure and a few guys that had the highly successful guy's notebooks.

Everyone Murders

April 5th, 2011 at 1:16 PM ^

I'm not as worked up about the OP bringing up this topic as some (if you beat a dead horse long enough, you get dog food, and that's useful), but chitownblue2 nicely crystallizes the "RichRod Defense Problem" .  When Michigan couldn't get Casteel as a DC, RichRod hired two DC's with no 3-3-5 experience, and then told them they were stuck with Casteel's old assistants.

With this mismatch, it's no surprise that the defense was a tad dysfunctional the past few years.  Of course, whether a 3-3-5 is even viable in the Big 10 is another topic.  But it sure as hell wasn't likely to work for Michigan when Robinson and Shafer had never coached the scheme before.

Maximinus Thrax

April 5th, 2011 at 12:12 PM ^

The discussions that pop up here frequently regarding RR and the wisdom or folly of the decisions he made have increasingly taken on pseudo-political and religious overtones whereby most individuals adhere to the positions that they have defended over the last few years, and at times seek to reinforce their opinions with additional data/analysis as it comes forth.  It reminds me a lot of when people justify/criticize Bush for actions taken while in office, or people I knew in West Michigan who analyzed, contrasted, and evaluated Luther and Calvin's approaches to the protestant reformation.  I think that the time is approaching for declarations on the RR era to be classed with politics and religion as things which should not be tolerated on MGoBoard. Sad, but it would probaly be wise at this point, or maybe we could just have a tab at the top called "RR Squabbling Threads"

dahblue

April 5th, 2011 at 12:27 PM ^

It all depends on the point in time at which someone is looking to defend RR.

At one point, the defense wasn't his fault because he was an "offensive genius" and the defense was the responsibility of the DC.  At other points, some folks realized that the head coach is actually responsible for the entire team and decided that RR deserved more time to fix the defense for various reasons (injuries, attrition, new coordinator, second new coordinator, the sun was in his eyes and the dog ate his homework).

Short answer...the players seem to love the new staff; the media loves the new staff; high school coaches love the new staff; recruits love the new staff...None of them seem as concerned about RR as a few remaining loyalists here.  The future will become brighter when you move on as well.

BigBlue02

April 5th, 2011 at 3:43 PM ^

I love how it is completely fine to talk about any prior Michigan coach.....as long as it isn't RichRod. When a valid question is brought up, just get over it and move on. No explanation needed. Just give a short answer that doesn't answer the post and never talk about RichRod again.

dahblue

April 5th, 2011 at 4:17 PM ^

Not sure where you're coming from or going to with this...?

It's fine to talk about RR.  It's just kinda sad the way it's done with such wistful romantisicm.  Is RR's defensive involvement question a "valid one"?  I sure don't know.  I do know that it's a tired one that seems to revolve around identifying various scapegoats.  I do know that it doesn't really matter because RR's overall performance rightfully earned him a termination.  At least we're no longer seeing the traditional, "He's a stand up guy and I can't wait until he lands on his feet somewhere and blows us out on his way to a national championship" comment in every RR thread!

It seems that these RR threads are the blog equivalent of a stalker's shrine (or perhaps, a dugout shrine to Jobu).  Is "no explanation is needed"?  I don't know...I'd be curious, though, to hear an explanation for the continual infatuation with RR by his loyalists?  No one is clamoring for additional insight into the Ellerbe years...and Ellerbe had a much better record. That's why I say to enjoy the new direction.  The team seems to be in good hands and everyone (ok, nearly everyone) is happy.

BigBlue02

April 5th, 2011 at 5:48 PM ^

Here, how about I put it to you this way:

I seem to have missed all your posts on the thread right below this one entitled "stats don't mean wins." In fact, I don't notice you posting on anything other than why RichRod was horrible. I wonder why?

My point was some of us like intelligent debate and wonder what happened the past 3 years, want clarification on the reasoning of posts of those who disagree with us, think the program would have gotten better as more upperclassmen played under RR, etc... To this, yourself and other people who hated RichRod come up with "get over it. Hoke is here. Support him or get over it. You suck as a poster for trying to clarify anything with regards to RR. He is gone and was horrible. Get over it." But, at the same time, you completely turn the other way and don't notice when people make stupid fucking posts about RichRod failing at Michigan. In short, people who supported RR are completely fine talking about the past and the future of our program, which includes the current and past coaches. People who hated RichRod, such as yourself, only want to talk about why he sucked and anyone discussing otherwise needs to "let it go" or "just accept it." That is what I was talking about. It's ok to have positive discussion about Michigan football.....unless it involves the last 3 years, in which case fuck off and get over it.

dahblue

April 5th, 2011 at 6:06 PM ^

I'm not trying to stop you from "intelligent debate".  I'm just pointing out the sad nature of these RR posts.  Keep in mind that accepting that RR deserved to be fired from Michigan doesn't equal "hating RR".  You'll need to hop over that low hurdle, however, before your debate can turn "intelligent".  In the meantime, do your thing.  You say "potato", I say "obsessing over a former coach and acting like a jilted ex-lover turned stalker".

Section 1

April 5th, 2011 at 6:27 PM ^

I sure didn't write any of them.  I don't recall any recent "wistful romanticized" Rodriguez references.

My only point, all along, was that Rodriguez was treated unfairly.  And, I never felt as though David Brandon made a good case for dismissing him.  I didn't think that there was a good case for dismissing Rodriguez, particularly if Plan B was Brady Hoke.  Most relevant to this thread, I didn't understand how Michigan had failed to attract Jeff Casteel, to compliment the Rodriguez offense, after Casteel has clearly been one of the highest-performing DC's in the nation for the last five years.

I thought those were all relevant points.  They were at least arguable points.  I don't see any "wistfulness" in any of that.

BigBlue02

April 5th, 2011 at 9:02 PM ^

Ha. Yes, You are just an innocent bystander pointing out the sad nature of these RR posts, all the while being unfairly classified as a person who hates RR.

Also, you might want to try and be a little less condascending. Prick.

Edit: This was meant as a response to dahblue.

shawnducati

April 5th, 2011 at 12:31 PM ^

I know this from VERY VERY RELIABLE SOURCES IN THE PROGRAM:

RR forced Schaeffer to run the 3-3-5 against Purdue in 2008 and it was doom.

Schaeffer refused to run the 3-3-5, so RR ran him out..and Schaeff is doing great at Syracuse now.

RR hired a newly FIRED Gerg, and told him if he wanted a job, to come and run the 3-3-5.

He did, and it was the worst ever!!!

Period. That is why Gerg NEVER did post game interviews, cuz he had nothing good to say, and couldnt stand by this defense.

Horrible situation for all!! and it was all RR's fault. 

no, ONWARD AND UPWARD with a new staff that knows that defense wins championships!

sjw

 

 

Ice

April 5th, 2011 at 12:48 PM ^

Who cares who his source is? He probably doesn't have one. RR was a crappy coach while at Michigan and as a head coach he should've been just as involved with the defense. He wasn't, it sucked and he got shit canned. Good riddance.