Will we be happy going back to "the way things used to be?"
November 2nd, 2010 at 4:37 PM ^
Did I say the offense was the reason to fire him? Nope. But I did say that we can quickly build a potent offense - thus eliminating the chicken little excuse #1 of those who prefer RR.
November 2nd, 2010 at 4:13 PM ^
This is one of the very strangest assertions that people make about the Rodriguez offense: that stud athletes are passed over in recruiting for (presumably) less-studly sorts. It makes zero sense to me. If Rodriguez had a choice between some 5-star freak to play, for example, RB, why would he pass on that kid to take some marginal 3-star project? If he really would, then he should be fired within the next nanosecond.
November 2nd, 2010 at 4:36 PM ^
You missed the adjective, "pro style". We have missed out on a number of recruits because they want a pro-style offense. It's not that RR passes them over; they pass him over.
November 2nd, 2010 at 4:57 PM ^
And if UM were running a pro-style offense[1], athletes like Denard Robinson would go somewhere else.
[1] By which I assume you mean "pro-set", since there are very few college teams that actually run anything approaching an offense used by any pro team.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:27 PM ^
So what's the problem with trading RR recruiting classes for past Michigan classes. I'd rather have a top-5 class than a ~12-20 class.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:59 PM ^
I don't understand where you're going with this. What "problem"? I'd love for Michigan to have the #1 recruiting class every year (with the caveat that star rating and class rankings aren't completely determinant with regard to on-field success, blah, blah blah).
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:14 PM ^
You worried that we'd lose a Denard-type player if we ran a pro-style offense (or "set" or whatever you'd like...I'm sure you get the point). I was merely saying...so what? We lose Denard but get a top class overall? I'm fine with that.
November 2nd, 2010 at 8:15 PM ^
denard is a once in a lifetime player..IMO. he's on track to run for 1600 and throw for 2200. As a sophmore. The better the D gets the better his production will get.
November 3rd, 2010 at 12:44 AM ^
November 2nd, 2010 at 10:45 PM ^
My point is that with regard to recruiting, every scheme has pluses and minuses. I'm not worried about losing a Denard top player. I'm just saying that while a pro-set offense is an attraction for some very good players, it's a negative for other very good players.
Anyway, you can investigate your pro -set offense == top recruiting class theory pretty easily. Top recruiting class in 2010? Florida. Who run a spread.
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:15 PM ^
According to Rivals, it was USC...and three of the top 5 run pro-style offenses. Top players will want to go to top schools, so maybe RR has put us in an even bigger hole there.
November 3rd, 2010 at 9:42 AM ^
And according to Scout it was Florida. ESPN also says it was Florida. Where they run a spread. There are plenty of programs with top 10 recruiting classes over the last few years that don't run a pro-set offense. 4 of the past 5 national champs ran a spread, and, not surprisingly since top players want to go to top programs, those schools have all recruited well in recent years. The idea that spread offense == poor recruiting just isn't borne out by the data.
November 2nd, 2010 at 3:37 PM ^
there will always be whiners in our fanbase.
The dude who sat next to me, gave up his season tickets about 8 years ago, stating "I will never buy season tickets as long as Lloyd Carr is the coach"
I really wonder where dude is today.
November 2nd, 2010 at 4:08 PM ^
I think Devin would start because his size and speed is very similar Luck. With regards to Denard, I would love to see him turn into a Randall Cobb type situation like at Kentucky, a kinda do-it-all guy wildcat, jet sweeps, receiving, return game. I also think if Harbaugh came in, with our talent at receivers like stonum, roundtree, junior, koger and upcoming ricardo our passing game would be amazing. If Harbaugh came i think he could bring some recruits from stanford like sarao and vaughters those guys are beasts!
November 2nd, 2010 at 4:13 PM ^
a program that wins 80% of its games over several decades, with the occasional down season balanced by two great ones, a program that is dominant in the conference, that represents the university with class and integrity, that recruits want to play for, that leaves us complaining when we don't win 10 games. Sign me up.
November 2nd, 2010 at 4:29 PM ^
If the bottom does fall out, and we do go back to a pro style, its going to be more rebuilding. Right now we have a bunch of ninjas, and to play under Harbaugh's scheme, we need to go back to big OL's and WR's and overall bigger stronger core players. If we do fire RR, we need to bring in someone who runs a spread! I think eventually we can get back to a smash mouth team, but that'll take 4 or 5 years. I can't wait any more, I WANT WINS!
November 2nd, 2010 at 4:42 PM ^
Harbaugh coached for University of San Diego (not a D1 school) and won two national championships with undersized quarterbacks who could throw and run. Not the same offense we run now, but also not the real straight back pro offense. I think Devin Gardner could run it.
November 2nd, 2010 at 4:46 PM ^
Maybe I should make this a separate thread since folks seem to continually grasp to this false assumption...going to pro-style (assuming that's the change) is NOT necessarily "more rebuilding". Roughly half of our current commits have offers from Harbaugh. Tate was recruited by Harbaugh. A good coach can win with the players he has and adjust his scheme where necessary.
November 2nd, 2010 at 4:40 PM ^
If winning is the "old way", the answer is yes.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:27 PM ^
9-3, 10-2, 8-4 does not equal greatness. RR has that potential with this offense. I don't want to settle for Dantonio.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:45 PM ^
So what does 3-9, 5-7, 5-7 (or 6-6) equal? Is that greatness? I don't know that I want that type of greatness.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:47 PM ^
I always used to wonder how once dominant programs fell off the table. UCLA basketball was always the top example of this. How were they irrelevant for so long, given what they once were?
There were football examples of this too -- SC, Bama, etc. I started being aware of UM football in '71, so I basically had a 36 year run of not knowing what the "other" thing was like.
This is our turn. I'm not saying that's okay, or even that it was inevitable. But getting back to the top isn't at all automatic. It's probably easier to stay there than to fall off and climb back.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:03 PM ^
Over 4 years, averaging 9-4 wins you get an overall record of 36-16. Is it better to go 9-4 each year or go 13-0 one year and 8-5, 8-5 and 7-6 in the other three?
I'd take the scenario with 13-0 and live off that glory for the other three years. I'm not sure what supports this, but it feels like with the occassional "perfect storm" of some special athletes like DRob, the RR scheme is capable of having great years in between relatively crappy ones. On the other hand, the pro-style would probably results in a steadier result.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:20 PM ^
Unfortunately, I don't think anything supports that other than blind faith.