"The worst team that I ever covered???"

Submitted by gustave ferbert on

per Angelique Chengelis on "A View from the Backfield."  Wow

 

Even worse than the 3-9 team

 

Princetonwolverine

November 30th, 2014 at 10:57 AM ^

The 3-9 team had reasonable excuses. First year of a regime change blah blah blah. This team not so much.

Tater

November 30th, 2014 at 11:04 AM ^

To be fair, Hoke was retained for the same record that got RR fired.  DB used "direction of the program" as an excuse for firing RR, but RR won more each successive year while Hoke lost more each successive year.  I know this has been said numerous times here, but it seems like people tend to forget sometimes.

ifis

November 30th, 2014 at 11:18 AM ^

After last year, as evidenced by recruiting. Rodriguez lost confidence for the future, as evidenced by the gaping hole in this year's graduating class. Just to be clear, I am refeing to Hoke after last year, not this year.

Maize and Blue…

November 30th, 2014 at 2:57 PM ^

the process had something to do with the gaping hole in this year's graduating class.  How many of Hoke's guys stayed around from his first class? Technically 10 guys commited to Hoke and Barnett quit, Tamani Carter and Rawls transferred, Bryant and Poole medicalled, and Clark got kicked off the team.  But sure it RR's fault. Just like it is RR's fault that Jake Fisher decommited and Kris Frost decided on Auburn after the coaching change.

severedirkitis

November 30th, 2014 at 11:19 AM ^

Exactly what I keep telling my brother-in-law....RR record improved every year, exact opposite for BH.

A team with a 3rd year starting QB should not be as offensively inept as we were this year.

I didn't like RR anymore than most of the others on this board, but I will admit that he wasn't given a fair chance.  I'm glad to see him doing well at AZ. 

Blue2000

November 30th, 2014 at 2:39 PM ^

RR won more each year because it's nearly impossible to not win more after winning 3 games in year 1. 

While that's true, the weight of the evidence from both before and after his Michigan tenure confirms that RR's teams were also winning more games each year because he, unlike Hoke, is a competent football coach.  What do you think Hoke's record would have been after three years if he'd faced the headwinds that RR did in 2008?  Conversely, what do you think RR's first-year record would have been had he inherited a junior-year Denard and an offensive line chock-full of guys who'd go on to play in the NFL?

gobluesasquatch

November 30th, 2014 at 3:31 PM ^

I am beginning to believe that most of this board has forgotten the RichRod years. Now living in Arizona, let me explain one common theme of Rich Rodriguez. Anytime things went wrong for him in a game, he had that look on his face like he was about to wet himself. Go watch the Pitt-WVU game in 2007 when Pat White got hurt. The whole game he looked like, "What do I do, what do I do? Why is this happening to me ..." Which is what he constantly seemed to say during his years at Michigan (per JUB 3 and Out). 

The 2008 and 2009 teams were god awful and worse in many ways than this team. In 2009, when we lost, we got wacked, and weren't even in the games. Revisionist history sucks, and Angelina should know better. 

Blue2000

November 30th, 2014 at 4:19 PM ^

I am beginning to believe those who hate RichRod have forgotten that he had a coaching career outside of 2008-2010.  Now living on planet Earth and with access to both the internet and basic cable, let me explain another common theme of Rich Rodriguez: when he's not facing the mountain of shit he had to deal with at Michigan, his teams win a lot of games.  That 2007 WVU team you reference won 10 games with him at the helm, and an 11th (a BCS bowl) after he left.  (Yes, it suffered a disappointing defeat when its best player got injured.)  His Arizona team just won 10 games, the best for that program since 1988, when they won 9.  He's had success everywhere he went except for Michigan, but yes, please keep telling yourself that the problem was him, and not the program, notwithstanding the fact that Hoke received far more support than Rich Rod did, inherited a better team, and has still driven this program into the ground.  

This season's performance, relative to expectations, is far more disappointing than 2008's.    

SGBlue

November 30th, 2014 at 6:01 PM ^

My god...the excuses that people on this board make for that guy. A real leader overcomes the "mountains of shit" and perseveres. As the guy you responded to pointed out, RR gets the deer in the headlights look when something adverse happens. He's at a good place, where the pressure isn't very high, and he can have the occasional good seasons (yes, this is his first very good season...8 wins is just OK). He couldn't cut it in AA...why people can't get past that is beyond me.

McSomething

November 30th, 2014 at 7:40 PM ^

The reason so many feel compelled to come up with a "list of excuses" for the guy is because people still refuse to acknowledge the man is a damn good coach, and not all of the issues from 2008-10 were the fault of Rich Rodriguez. If those around here don't want to see people post the list of reasons why it wasn't entirely on him, then they should really wake the fuck up and realize it wasn't.

Blue2000

November 30th, 2014 at 8:30 PM ^

A real leader overcomes the "mountains of shit" and perseveres.

That's what RR did.  His teams improved record-wise every year, and notwithstanding everything he had to deal with, he was able to build a team that, in what would have been his fourth year, was so talented that not even Brady Hoke could screw it up on the way to 11 wins and a Sugar Bowl victory (yes, Mike Martin, RVB, and David Molk were awesome, and were recruited by Lloyd Carr).  Brady Hoke has had, from the outset, far more support than Rich Rod ever did, an extra year to recruit, no bullshit "NCAA allegations," and has built far far less.  

It's okay to admit that firing Rich Rod in 2010 for anyone other than Jim Harbaugh was a collosal fuckup from which we still haven't recovered.   

Needs

November 30th, 2014 at 12:02 PM ^

In same boat. Hoke should be fired, but the "improvement" in RR's last year was fools gold. A bunch of marginal close wins (Illinois, Indiana, UMass) and every loss was a blowout where we never had the ball in the 4th quarter with a chance to tie. 

That year was a lot more exciting because of Denard, but this team never quit on their coaches like RR's last team did. 

aiglick

November 30th, 2014 at 12:16 PM ^

My answer to you would be West Virginia and Arizona. It was too early to know if RR's 2010 record was fool's gold or genuine improvement. I think this description is apt for 2011 though. Again, RichRod outside of Michigan has been great. They're in the title game of a much tougher conference in year three. We are not even going to the Detroit bowl game coming from a lousy, rotten, awful conference. Hopefully we get Harbaugh which may be the best of the bunch.

B1G_Fan

November 30th, 2014 at 12:36 PM ^

wouldn't say much tougher conference.

Ohio state ---- Oregon

Michigan state ----- Arizona

Wisconsin -------- UCLA

Minnesotta ------- Arizona state

OSU vs. Oregon is probably a 3 point spread an i wouldn't want to have to call the winner.

MSU probably beats u of A

I'd take Wisconsin over UCLA

And Purdue beats Colorado

I'm not going to go through every team in both conferences but they might be a little better top to bottom but come on.

lilpenny1316

November 30th, 2014 at 8:56 PM ^

In both of those games we moved the ball up and down the field while the game was still in doubt.  Unfortunately our kicker sucked and we had to go for it on fourth down instead of turn to a reliable or at least average kicker.  Plus we turned the ball over deep after marching down the field.  So it's not as if those games were blowouts and then we could suddenly move the ball in the 4th quarter.  

jbibiza

November 30th, 2014 at 12:36 PM ^

What makes you think the majority of this board did not like RR? I would guess that it leans about 70 -30 in favor of the opinion that had he been supported fully by the fan base he would have been a consistent winner here. Was not meant to be but damn... he was the best coach avialable and would have brought us into the 21st century.

jackw8542

November 30th, 2014 at 11:29 AM ^

This team looks disorganized and in many ways very poorly coached, with most of the issues the kind of issues that can fairly be laid at the feet of the head coach.  Hoke seems inadequately aware of what is going on around him (clock management, Morris injury, 10 men on field, the list goes on and on) and seems unable to come up with overall plans that will take advantage of strengths while minimizing the impact of weaknesses (like poor starts and no halftime adjustments). 

Perhaps she meant most poorly coached team.  With RR, the offense usually looked like it was moving in the right direction.  Too many people criticize his offenses against good defenses but overlook the fact that he never even got to the point where he was able to work with a QB for a second year.  Year 1 was Threet/Sheridan, year 2 was primarily Forcier and year 3 was Denard.  My guess is that with RR, Denard would have progressed from year to year, unlike his regression under Hoke.

YouRFree

November 30th, 2014 at 11:54 AM ^

RR's defense shows hopeless sign. Not not to blame him though, AD doesn't want to spend money on the DC he wants.

On the other sides, Hoke was given more resources and money to hire assistant.

He and Hoke share the same flaw though, loyal to his crappy staff.

 

Nepotism is one of Michigan's biggest issues, not only in AD, but in the entire academics (most undergrades probably don't know what I am talking about).

Louie C

November 30th, 2014 at 2:04 PM ^

Yeah. The whole "against good defenses" thing needs to be put to bed. How many drives were killed by turnovers? An ill timed pick in the end zone cost the team the State game in '09, the following year, Denard threw three picks in the red zone. He still had over 300 total yards that game. Tate turned the ball over multiple times in the red zone during the '09 edition of The Game. Regardless of scheme, if you turn the ball over multiple times a game, especially within striking distance, you're not going to win much.

State Street

November 30th, 2014 at 11:49 AM ^

It really isn't about the QB.  We all watch football to be entertained.  Brady Hoke's Michigan football team played quite possibly the least entertaining football I have ever seen.  Tailbacks running into miserable offensive lines.  Throwing deep once per season (if we were lucky).

Rodriguez may have had some poor defenses, but god damn at least football was fun then.  It was exciting.  It was new.  It looked like we were keeping up with the joneses in terms of offensive innovation and cool schemes.

Now?  We don't even snap the ball before there's one second left on the play clock.

Brady Hoke's style of football is dead.  And I'm thankful that I never have to see it again.

Blue2000

November 30th, 2014 at 2:41 PM ^

I don't think she was giving RR's teams "a break."  I think her point was that the circumstances surrounding the two are relevant to a comparison of their overall records.  And she's 100% correct.  Hoke's failure's in year four are far worse than RR's in year 1, which serves as the basis for her conclusion.