Not a reason to keep RichRod
Obviously, we're seeing a number of arguments to either keep or fire RichRod at the end of the season. On both sides, there are some valid points. Without addressing the overall argument of whether he should be kept or fired, I do want to put an end to one point suggested by the keep-RR crowd that pops up from time to time. It is some version of the following:
We have to keep RichRod because if we switch to a pro-style offense, all our players will flee and we'll have to completely rebuild with years of doom to muddle through.
1. Who said that the next coach has been determined? We might run a "pro style", we might run a "spread" or we might run a combination of styles. There are not just two offenses in college football.
2. Even if we were to switch to a "pro style" coach like Harbaugh, there need not be a major drop-off for a number of reasons. First, Harbaugh has recruited a number of our current commits (roughly half the class). Second, Harbaugh even recruited Tate (thus eliminating the "but the QB" refrain). Third, Harbaugh has recruited a top-10 class. You think he wouldn't be able to recruit at Michigan at least as well as a non-legendary school like Stanford?
3. Even assuming a drop-off on offense, does anyone really think Dave Brandon is going to bring in a coach whose defense is as bad as RichRod's?
To finish, let me drop this quote from our current recruiting class's star recruit, Dee Hart, discussing the possibility of RichRod losing his job:
"I liked Michigan either way and if he were to leave it wouldn't affect me because I think I can play in any offensive system," Hart said. "So it really wasn't my concern."
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:03 PM ^
yeah, since the offense doesn't look any different this year than it did last year... think before you post.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:07 PM ^
Think before I post? What are you talking about?
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:08 PM ^
The players have to start learning the offense sometime and you can't practice two offenses. You either implement or you don't.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:23 PM ^
Blueblueblue-This response is to your 6:50 post. This might be buried under the other responses. I wasn't a fan of Coach Rod at first. Many reasons and one of them was my frustration with why he couldn't win with any players. I always thought that a good coach can adapt his scheme to his players. After looking into it more, he just didn't have the skill players to succeed on offense in any scheme.
I think Coach Rod can adapt, he just needed better players. Now. he has them. Just my humble opinion.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:46 PM ^
Year 1: 7-5
Year 2: 9-3
Year 3: 6-6
Year 4: 11-1 (Probable)
So, do we want to be competing for a B10 championship next year or in 2? Do we want to compete for a NC as soon as next year (if we can have a below average defense or better) or wait for 4?
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:53 PM ^
We are not guaranteed to follow that trajectory, with or without RR. Why are people acting like success is obviously around the corner if he stays? Returning starters does not guarantee great improvement. Charlie Weis always seemed to return 20 starters, yet churned out 6-6 records every year. He, too, couldn't seem to figure out the defensive side of the ball and kept changing coordinators. How exactly are we different?
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:20 PM ^
I'm just pointing out that it takes time. A new guy isn't going to come in next year and win 9-10 games with these players. If it is going to take time to build the defense, we might as well stick with an offense that is working and is only going to get better. Charlie Weis had 5 years and had time to implement the offensive philosophy before he left. Denard is still playing with a limited playbook. It's working...mostly...but it can still work better when we add variety to what he can do.
Either way we are getting a new DC. Why should we scrap everything that is working because of the stuff that isn't working? That doesn't make sense.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:34 PM ^
I think you mistakenly left of the words "we hope" after "get better". Again, the DC should not be the scapegoat for the team assembled by RR with the coaches selected by RR running a scheme chosen by RR.
By the way, the non-punting special teams suck as well.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:17 PM ^
not coming to Michigan.
Next...
Players want to go where they can develop and win. Talent is always available for winners.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:17 PM ^
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:21 PM ^
As one of the announcers during the PSU game noted, most of Denard's gaudy stats came against cupcake opponants. I do not believe that we would suddenly have trouble with these teams if there were a new coach. As of now, our offense still has struggled against the only two quality defenses that we have faced. What would be different? As for the defense, it couldn't possible be worse than it is now, and a new regine might be able to get more out of these players.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:28 PM ^
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:32 PM ^
But as we know, that was more a function of Carr being very conservative than anything. When his teams needed to score, they scored.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:39 PM ^
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:48 PM ^
I don't think anyone is pining for a coach as risk-averse as Carr was. There aren't many coaches like that anymore. Nowadays, punting from your opponent's 35 is pretty rare.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:44 PM ^
how many times his last four years did they score enough to beat OSU. How many times did they win in South Bend. How many fourth quarter collapses were there when we up by 7 or more points? They scored when they needed to?
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:36 PM ^
Do you seriously not see the problem in this statement? Ask yourself, if that really would have been a near season high for Carr, why is that the case? (hint - it has to do with defense, running, controlling the pace)
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:45 PM ^
Low yardage has nothing to do with controlling the pace. That's a BS argument. Carr's teams had more chances to accumulate yardage because the defense could actually force the other team into 3 and outs. Our offenses weren't as good under Carr, period. Michigan's offense under RR is doing amazing things despite having a horrible defense that allows the other teams to have a much higher time of possession. The other teams are keeping the offense on the sideline with time consuming 10 plus play drives.
November 3rd, 2010 at 1:36 AM ^
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:21 PM ^
Why does everyone bring back tempo and time of possession as a valid argument? I really don't understand. Also in response to jmblue above I can see Carr being a bit more conservative (had the luxury to do so with killer Ds)...but only so much so. I don't get how our offense is that much more "aggressive" as we tend to run the ball even more than Carr did (running is generally lower risk than passing, regardless of the type of offense).
Here's some tempo free stats for you:
Michigan 2003: 4.25 YPC, 7.39 YPA, 135.64 PE
Michigan 2006: 4.27 YPC (43rd in the nation) , 7.67 YPA (36th) , 143.71 PE (26th)
Michigan 2010: 6.37 YPC (4th), 8.95 YPA (9th), 155.33 PE (19th)
And remember this is with a sophmore first year starter at QB. In 2006 Henne was a junior with a ton of talent at RB and WR. In 2003 Navarre was a senior and had the same amount of talent. Our RBs were much more talented or reliable in 2003 (Chris Perry) and 2006 (Hart) than any of the RBs we have now.
This offense is going to be insanely good and probly the best in the nation once the execution errors get smoothed out.
November 2nd, 2010 at 8:54 PM ^
I think he only looks at the scoreboard. Yea we put of 17 pts against MSU, but I'd be happy with 380 yds of offense on a down day.
November 3rd, 2010 at 1:31 AM ^
November 3rd, 2010 at 8:25 AM ^
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:19 PM ^
7 Freshman and Sophomores on the field most of the time. Has anyone of the brilliant graduates here figured out how that youth ranks us in major college football. I would bet that that is the major reason why we are a bottom defense we have probably the youngest. Maybe I will waste my time and figure it out but since I don't have 500 or 1000 points I cannot post (if I get to 1000 points I will drop off this site)
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:23 PM ^
IMHO, I would think a good coach can do pretty well with good players for any system. There are good players here on offense and I think we can run a pro style and be successful. Of course, we would need some time to transition.
With these players, I think we would do better with the spread than pro, but we would still be pretty good. The key is I think we have some great players on offense.
My vote would be still to keep Coach Rod here.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:27 PM ^
THIS TEAM SUCKS!!!!! When are you people going to wake up? It's gonna take 3-4 years to rebuild what? To rebuild this garbage defense and special teams he has put out for the last 2+seasons?
If the only move made on the defense is to get rid of R. R., it would be addition by subtraction. The experiment is over....let's move on!
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:31 PM ^
You conveniently fail to mention anything about our offense in your logic.....
Why is that?
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:30 PM ^
Our defense consists of almost all freshman and sophmores at the most important positions? How the fuck do you think a new coach is gonna suddenly turn these 3 and 4 star kids into Lock down corners and scary LB's in the big ten?
Take a step back and really think about it...
How the hell are you to say any other coach we bring in will be able to coach these kids up to all star level? You are getting way ahead of yourself..
Give it a rest
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:38 PM ^
Who is this even directed to? It makes no sense. Did anyone say anything about "lock down corners" or "scary LB's"? No. The thread is about an argument regarding change in style....on offense (with a tiny corollary on defense not getting worse). So, calm down, refocus...and "think about it".
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:17 PM ^
It was a response to your original post, but since there are so many replies to other posts it got pushed way down here..
You said "you think brandon would bring in a coach that could have a D as bad as RR"
So i said.. you actually think a new coach is magically gonna teach these freshman and sophmores we have running around on Defense into all stars? There is one problem with your argument.. and all the risk of completely cleaning house on coaches..
What is the gaurantee it works out with our next coach?
If you haven't forgotten RR was one of the hottest coaches in america other than Les Miles when we got him.
Even if we had Les Miles we may have a good D at this point, but it is obvious his teams have major problems on offense.. and he can't manage the end of a game for his life
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:19 PM ^
There is no guarantee that things will work out with the next coach. The same applied to RR. The same applies to the possibility of RR turning it around. All we (actually, Dave Brandon) can do is look at all of the available facts and make the most informed decision possible.
In any event, do I think a new coach will improve the defense? Yes. I don't think that Brandon would bring in anyone who doesn't have a strong defensive approach. And, anyway, they can't get worse.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:23 PM ^
Well they shouldn't get worse on D considering how much depth and exp we will have.. I def agree that we need a different D coordinator.. and people say RR is too stubborn to do it, well if it means either that or his job, im sure he will be canning some people after the season.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:31 PM ^
What depth are you speaking of? Hasn't RR lost some huge percent of his defense recruits? I also don't like the notion of scapegoating the DC that RR hired (his second) who ran the scheme that RR wanted with RR's chosen position coaches. If RR is excused by the youth of the D, so should GERG (and vice versa).
November 3rd, 2010 at 9:09 AM ^
Just stop.
November 2nd, 2010 at 8:07 PM ^
I'm not gonna argue one way or the other on a coaching change because I have no idea, honestly, but the "they can't get worse" thing has been said every season that Rich Rod has been here. This isn't meant to be against Coach Rod, but against the "it can't get worse" saying. I think we can agree the only time it can't get worse is if the opposing team scores every time they touch the ball. If it were true that it couldn't get worse then I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be much harm in keeping Coach Rodriguez around for another season.
November 2nd, 2010 at 8:45 PM ^
If it were true that it couldn't get worse then I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be much harm in keeping Coach Rodriguez around for another season.
I don't think you keep a coach because it can't get worse. I think when it's that bad, you absolutely make a change.
November 2nd, 2010 at 10:18 PM ^
RR has a proven track record of turning teams around everywhere he's been. it's wrong not to give a coach 4 years.
there's no denying the team is getting better overall each year. the trajectory may not be what we have hoped, but we will be even better next year and still better the year after that if we keep RR. no doubt about it.
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:19 PM ^
I completely agree that there's no problem giving a coach four years (in the abstract). However, I disagree with your statement that the team is getting better overall each year. The offense is getting better, but the defense (whatever the excuse) has gotten worse each year. The special teams have also gotten worse.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:42 PM ^
UM 3 seniors, 2 jrs, 4 soph, 2 freshman (3,2,4,2)
OSU 7,2,2,0
ND 4,4,3,0
PSU 5,3,2,1
Iowa 5,4,1,1
MSU 4,2,4,1
IU 4,5,2,0
Ill 3,5,2,1
I didnt look two deep, nor did I look to see how many are redshirt. UM 2006 = 7,3,1,0
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:07 PM ^
at me from this data is, MSU's defensive experience is pretty close to what we have.
MSU (4,2,4,1) vs (3,2,4,2) us.
November 3rd, 2010 at 6:28 AM ^
that our 3 seniors are Banks, Mouton and Rogers, none of whom would be likely to be playing elsewhere and all of whom were recruited by Carr.
November 3rd, 2010 at 6:37 AM ^
Also Rogers is a converted, backup WR who hasn't played DB before. So even if he's a senior it's his first year at DB.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:48 PM ^
maybe produce a comprehensive statistical comparison of offense's in Michigan history? maybe going back 20-30 ish years? I have a gut feeling this might be one of the better ones in that time frame....the numbers have been really good...is it worth getting rid of a head coach who has proven he will have dominant offenses anywhere he goes simply because he has a VASTLY undermanned defense? I still just can't get past the thought that this team, with any semblance of a d, would be contending for the national title... Lloyd sure never had an offense like this...and I think he had the talent to put up these kind of numbers, but didn't...
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:57 PM ^
We do not have to radically change our offense. RR is not the only coach in the world who has this system. We can hire a coach who will run a similar offense AND know how to coach defense and special teams.
November 2nd, 2010 at 10:21 PM ^
i don't have the stats, but when henson was healthy that 2000 team was the best O i've seen here at UM. and i remember the leach days. i think this O can surpass that team next year.
November 3rd, 2010 at 1:46 AM ^
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:56 PM ^
Keep RR
100% chance offense is even better with Junior Denard, etc.
25% chance that defense climbs out of 9th level of hell into a level where we are merely tortured and not soul-flayed and we sweat out 9 wins
Fire RR
100% chance the offense is worse due to everyone unlearning the last system, players leaving etc. - SEE RYAN MALLETT - See Denard go to Auburn or some other team
25% chance that defense climbs out of 9th level of hell into a level where we are merely tortured and not soul-flayed and we get ?? wins
Look - fire RR now and expect to relive the last two years as the offense goes up in flames with some new system.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:59 PM ^
Except that the programs that have transitioned from spread to pro-style have generally done so pretty seamlessly. The transition from pro-style to spread is the one that's trickier.
But beside all that, who says we need to change our offensive system? There are a lot of spread gurus nowadays.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:02 PM ^
Really spread to pro style has been seamless? Tell that one to Texas or Florida this year.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:04 PM ^
I'm trying to recall...something happened with those teams that might make a big difference in their performance. Wait...it's becoming more clear...I see the names...Tebow...McCoy...