New Wojo article: somewhat surprising
Wojo's latest article makes a pretty bold statement that I didn't expect to see from him before the osu game.
http://www.detnews.com/article/20101124/OPINION03/11240324/1131/sports0…
I'm interested to see the response, since his writing is usually well-taken around here.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:09 AM ^
We will not be "elite." I think at best we sneak into the top 25 by year's end. Our D and ST will continue to hold us back.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:40 AM ^
While it certainly isn't guaranteed, ST is something more susceptible to a "quick fix" in the off season. (New kicker, iffy kickers going to kicking camp and ironing out their inconsistencies, one of our slot-type ninjas settling into reading return lanes with the experience, ect.). I would like to think the D will improve just with the added size and experience, but something with that many variables is harder to assume. Has anybody done the stats on Wisconsin to see if their kickoff squad is especially bad, or was it us starting to find better rhythms/returners?
November 24th, 2010 at 2:07 AM ^
I didn't think so. But when people asked the "How many wins..." question, I thought if we only had 7, then one better be against osu (or at least, State). That opinion obviously doesn't mean much, but I felt that a 7-win season without some big wins would not feel like a whole lot of progress.
I still think he should be kept, but it's definitely a gamble either way.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:09 AM ^
1. Our defense is beyond atrocious.
2. We lost to MSU, so losing to OSU would mean going 0-6 against MSU and OSU over the past 3 years.
3. We have yet to beat a team that finished the season ranked in the Rodriguez era.
4. The Penn State loss was unacceptable given Penn State's depth issues and Penn State's ability to run all over us despite having a poor rushing attack. If Rodriguez is going to lose games that he should win, then he'd better win some games that he should lose.
5. Rodriguez has failed to fulfill expectations for the third year running and the Ohio State game is the last chance he'll get this season to reverse this trend.
I personally don't think this is a must-win game for Rodriguez, but it is certainly reasonable to think it is, even if you didn't think so at the beginning of the season.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:28 AM ^
1. We kind of knew that defense was going to be bad before the season started.
2. Every team's streaks have to break sometime. Usually in a transitional period. We are not a invincible team with angels in the endzone protecting our streaks against rivals. Shit happens.
3. It isn't our fault that ranked teams in the beginning didn't finish ranked.
4. Almost agree with you, but no one expected to get McGroined. Why did we get McGroined? Look at #1
5. Most expectations at the beginning of the season were 7-5 or 8-4 and a bowl. Expectations met.
6. It has only been 3 years for RR. Charlie Fupa got 5 at ND and that was without real progress. 2008 (3-9), 2009 (5-7), 2010 (7-5 or 8-4) with a sick nasty offense, 2011 (???) with a sick nasty offense and a better defense. That kind of looks like progress.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:35 AM ^
The preseason consensus on the D was that it would be about as good as last year's. I don't remember anyone predicting that it would be the horrible nightmare that it is. Even if someone did, that hardly exonerates the staff. It's their third year. In year 3 you should not be at the very bottom of the national rankings in one phase of the game (and if that weren't enough, we're last in the country in kicking, too).
Our gross mismanagement of the defensive side of the ball will cause heads to roll. The only question is whether it's only GERG's or if it's also the man who hired him.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:40 AM ^
Honestly, the only difference between this year's D and last year's is Brandon Graham. We miss his beast and have been kept from progressing anywhere else by departure/injury/unjust universe.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:54 AM ^
Donovan Warren, Steve Brown, Troy Woolfolk were arguably our 2nd 3rd and 4th best defenders, or am I forgetting something? The defense obviously shouldn't be this bad, but c'mon.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:20 AM ^
No, I agree. Had we notn been come down with Angry God-itis this defense probabaly would have been near or maybe even a little better than last year's (which is still awful).
November 24th, 2010 at 2:58 AM ^
why I said kind of. The defense was the same minus Graham, then T-Wolf going down, and J.T. Floyd going down forcing the move of players to different positions than they were originally supposed to be red-shirted for. I guess we can argue this till we are blue in the face. We can all agree our love for Michigan and the joy a Michigan win would be this weekend. No matter what any of us say it won't affect DB's decision. Agree to disagree.
osu sucks. Go Blue.
November 24th, 2010 at 3:29 AM ^
I agree with you that we all love this team (sometimes too much) and we all just want to fuckin' beat Ohio St.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:03 AM ^
Why do so many people think replacing GERG is the answer? Aren't the position coaches even the least bit culpable? Do you think they'd jump up and support a new scheme if another DC with no (or limited) 3-3-5 experience came in? I have a feeling these guys (and RR) are the ones calling the shots, not GERG. GERG is handcuffed. Sure, he may not have been the right guy for the job, but to ignore the performance of the other coaches is silly.
I'll say it again -- word around the campfire is Gibson should not be coaching college football. He may be a good recruiter, but he's not a good secondary coach.
November 24th, 2010 at 3:23 AM ^
1. This defense is not merely bad, but atrocious. This is at least partially attributable to the coaches for a variety of reasons (inability to develop any sort of secondary depth through preventing attrition and successful recruiting, inept institution of the 3-3-5, inept playcalling, inept coaching in general, FIRE GERG, etc.).
2. I'm talking about a significant losing streak to our top rivals, not protecting a winning streak. There's a big difference.
3. The point was that we have yet to beat a legitimately good team in the Rodriguez era...
4. My main issue was with Royster running all over us when the PSU rushing attack isn't good and our most experienced position groups are the DLine and Linebacking corps.
5. If you expected 8-4 or 7-5 with a win over MSU or OSU, then expectations have yet to be met.
6. And keeping Weis for five years really did wonders for Notre Dame. And consistent progress on offense coupled with consistent regression on defense indicates that our ceiling is ultimately perpetual mediocrity (albeit exciting mediocrity).
Keep in mind that I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. I believe Rodriguez should come back. However, I think that we've been engaging in groupthink to the extreme on this issue and I find that to be both irritating and pointless.
November 24th, 2010 at 7:49 AM ^
but I am not in the mood to argue today so I will touch on the one I absolutely agree with....#1.
The defense being this bad 2 years into a DC's term is not just partially attributable to the coaches, I would say it is completely attributable to the coaches. I have been a big supporter of Gerg since he came (mostly due to blind optimism) and hoped beyond hope that he would be the answer. Two years in it is clear that he isn't.
We can all throw the reasons for this around (young, inexperienced, injuries, etc etc etc) but in the end they don't change anything, they are our reality right now. IMHE, looking around college football I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a coaching staff to be able to have their team (whether young and inexperienced or not) showning improvement by this point in the season.
That improvement would look different depending on the team. I have not expected our team to jump from the 100's in D to the top 50. I am simply talking about some improvement. We should be seeing guys tackling better, taking better pursuit angles, knowing there assignments in zone coverage. These are simple fundamental things that we should be seeing improvement in by this point in the season.
To my knowledge (and eye, which granted is not as good as the likes of Brian and Magnus) we have not seen improvement in these, the fundamental areas of the game. That tells me that all the valid reason for our defense being poor aside, this defensive coaching staff has failed in developing what we have available on our roster.
Again, I am not saying anyone should have expected this staff to field even an average defense. It is perfectly reasonable, however, to have expected to see improvement at this stage, and to me we simply haven't.
Bottom line for me is that we should keep RR around and get a completely new defensive coaching staff. If RR won't dump his WV cronies, then I guess he may need to go as well.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:12 AM ^
We haven't beaten a real ranked team. Wisconsin was in the top 10, but only won 7 games. They weren't very good. And ND is ND. Overrated every year. Not beating a top 25 team in 3 years is bad.
November 24th, 2010 at 10:43 AM ^
2. Does anyone have Christopher Lloyd's # for Saturday?
November 24th, 2010 at 11:12 AM ^
1. So, it's OK as long as you know that your defense isn't going to to good? What about building a defense so it actually can be good? LC left this team with three five star defensive players (Graham, Warren and Mounton). Michigan hasn't added a defensive player of that nature since he left. The potentially two best defensive recruits under RR (Dorsey and Turner) are no longer with the team. There's only one four star defensive recruit currently committed at this time. I realize that "stars" aren't everything but they're indicative of a direction.
2. Is it just coincidence that the streaks were broken on RR's watch? Simply happenstance?
3. It doesn't really matter whose fault it is. The final polls give you an indication of how good a team was during a particular season.....much more indicative than a pre-season poll. The fact is that Michigan hasn't beaten a team that has proven itself to be good over the course of a season.
4. See point # 1. RR's resume would be much more attractive if he had beaten PSU or MSU this year.
5. Again, why are expectations so low in Year 3? Why is it considered a major victory to beat Illinois in 3 OT's at home?
6. I think that you're answering your own question here. ND probably made a bad hire when they got Charlie Weis. He certainly wasn't their first choice (sound familiar?) and he might have stayed on too long preventing the team from reaching a higher status. Michigan has a chance to avoid that issue.
I'm not saying that RR should be fired. In fact, if they don't get Harbaugh it might even be a bad decision to cut RR loose. However, I certainly think that it would be reasonable and justifiable if DB chooses to take that route.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:08 AM ^
No, I didn't. I don't think any ONE game is a must-win and I caveated my initial post by saying how we showed up against OSU has a large part to do with it.
Wisconsin, Ohio St, and--as much as it pains me to say it--MSU are all good teams this year, so it's sort of understandable we're young and we lose these games. However, it's the way we're losing and utterly being dominated that is tiring. I know it's a youth thing and it's 18-19 years old vs. 22-23 year olds, but our defensive alignments aren't even giving our players a chance when you have DBs trying to match up against TEs and FBs. Have we just given up and now we're saying we're young so we don't even stand a chance? I'm tired of going into Ohio St. games with little expectation of competing.
November 24th, 2010 at 7:08 AM ^
It's funny how the thousands of preseason How Many Wins threads were so annoying but now 7-5 means RR should be automatically coming back. Before the season started, I didn't expect to beat both UConn at ND. I would have LOLed if you told me Denard would pass for 2,500 yards and set the record for rushing yards by a QB. I didn't expect our most impressive Big Ten game to be a last second win at Indiana or a triple overtime thriller against Illinois. I thought we would be competitive with MSU and I remember Chengelis writing that it was a must win. So much has changed since August that I don't think it really matters what we were thinking then.
November 24th, 2010 at 9:45 AM ^
Frankly, I think a win against OSU would be a big feather for Rich to make a "stay, but lets fix case". I think a close loss or bad loss makes no real difference to where he currently stands. (i.e., at this point loosing to OSU is not a reason to fire him, but beating them may build the case to keep him.)
FWIW, before the season I said bowl game, at least break even Big Ten record and one signature win over a major opponent. (I didn't include MSU as major, and I did include PSU. The definitions flip flopped in season.)
November 24th, 2010 at 9:39 AM ^
Nobody is saying Rich Rod has to win this game, Wojo isn't at least, and neither am I. But we need to see that Michigan is competitive against the Bucks and, with a year of seasoning, will be reasonably close to where they are next year. That means not being blown out.
Believe it or not, most of us are grown ups. We can accept a tough transition. But we need to see steady progress.
I'm a Michigan football fan, not a Rich Rod fan or a spread option whizbang offense fan. I want Michigan to win football games. If they can do that with Rodriguez, great! If not, we need to consider alternatives.
With any luck, the final score will be respectable and Rich Rod will stay and the team will be something like 9-3 next year and we'll all be in a lot better mood.
November 24th, 2010 at 6:20 AM ^
in the 3 years, what is the signature win of the RR era? this week could be it. but, if we get smoked again, i can't see keeping rich.
November 24th, 2010 at 8:11 AM ^
I'm surprised how many people didn't get the Mike Tyson reference in regard to "Bolivian."
November 24th, 2010 at 9:23 AM ^
I kind of agree with you on this one, but I doubt it will happen.
November 24th, 2010 at 1:35 AM ^
I disagree.
November 24th, 2010 at 1:57 AM ^
... so my tolerance for bullshit is low and it's been a day full of bullshit on Mgoblog. That being said:
Best post ever.
Thank you, Ernest Hemingway of MGoblog, thank you.
November 24th, 2010 at 1:42 AM ^
Michigan State was 6-7 last year with less room to grow.
November 24th, 2010 at 1:53 AM ^
MSU was unfortunate to be 6-7. They went 2-5 in games decided by single-digits. This year they've simply won those close games.
We're actually fortunate to have the record we have, being 4-0 in single-digit games. How that will translate to next season is anyone's guess.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:04 AM ^
Honest question: do you think MSU last year was a better team than UM this year?
I don't.
Edit: Also they didn't have to play OSU or Wisconsin. Also they simply won one game less, at least. These differences work both ways.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:14 AM ^
MSU beat Wisky this year
November 24th, 2010 at 2:39 AM ^
Whoops and they lost to them last year. My mistake.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:20 AM ^
I'm sorry, but you have to have maize-and-blue glasses on to think that. Again, MSU had a ton of close losses last year. They could have very easily won 3-4 more games. We cannot say that about our team. We've absolutely won every game that was winnable, and lost decisively the other four times. And while MSU's defense wasn't great last year, it wasn't the smoking crater that ours is.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:38 AM ^
It's better than whatever kryptonite-anti-maize and blue tint you're using. Stop assuming that because someone disagrees with you they're unreasonable; it's a tactic you use constantly and it's completely annoying.
That being said, they were last in the league in pass defense. No, they weren't as bad defensively as we are, but they were awful. They also weren't close to in our class offensively.
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume a team that beat our team in overtime last year couldn't beat our improved team this year.
Their close losses fwiw, were to Iowa (good loss) Minnesota (bad loss) Notre Dame (Neutral and a team we beat) Central Michigan (bad) Wisconsin (good). Their close wins were against Purdue (bad) and Michigan (Neutral?).
My point is that they lost two games they should have won and let one team get close to them that shouldn't have. This doesn't make them unlucky, it makes them mediocre. Just like we are.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:05 AM ^
Last year we went 2-3 in single-digit games. This year we're 4-0.
Last year MSU went 2-5 in single-digit games. This year they're 3-0.
We were pretty unfortunate to have our record be 5-7 as they were to have theirs at 6-7.
They are just as fortunate this season to be 10-1 as we are to be 7-4.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:23 AM ^
2-3 isn't unlucky. If you play five close games, odds are that you'll go either 2-3 or 3-2. 2-5, OTOH, is pretty unlucky.
I agree that MSU has been fortunate to be 10-1, but so what? They're still three games better than us. And we've played one more close game.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:41 AM ^
And we're still one game better, at least, than they were last year. So what? Your logic is inconsistant.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:56 AM ^
Our overall record is better, yes. But they went 4-4 in Big Ten play, while we're 3-4 right now. And we're lucky to have achieved this record while they were very unlucky to have achieved theirs. They were competitive with virtually everyone they played, but just had a hard time finishing games. That description does not apply to us.
November 24th, 2010 at 3:18 AM ^
Fact: Michigan is better than they were a year ago. Fact: Last year's Michigan team went into overtime with last year's State team. Fact: Last year's state team lost to Notre Dame, while we beat them. Fact: We have a much better offense, both in terms of scoring average and total yardage, than State had last year.
See, I can cherry-pick facts that agree with my point of view too.
November 24th, 2010 at 9:31 AM ^
Michigan State is 10-1 and has beat us 3 straight years. Michigan State program is on the rise while Michigan feeds at the bottom of the Big Ten for the third straight year. Nuff said..
November 24th, 2010 at 10:30 AM ^
Bears eat beets.
November 24th, 2010 at 1:46 PM ^
A: What kind of bear is best?
B: That's a ridiculous question.
A: False. Black Bear.
November 24th, 2010 at 4:08 AM ^
Just because the score says it was close, doesn't mean they were unlucky to lose as many as they did.
CMU (29-27) - CMU scores a TD and FG in the final :32. Unlucky loss
ND (33-30) - ND scores with 5:18 left to pull ahead by 3. MSU fails to score on 2 drives. Straight up lost.
Wisc (38-30) - MSU scores 2 TD's in the final 2 min, one coming on a 91 yard pass play with :15 left on the clock. Straight up lost.
U of M (26-20) - OT. Fortunate win.
Iowa (15-13) - AmeriStanzi to McNutt with no time on the clock. Unlucky loss.
Minnesota (42-34) - Gophers score a TD with 6 min left to pull ahead by 8. There's no drive chart on ESPN so I don't know how many chances they had but 6 min is a long time. Straight up lost.
Purdue (40-37) - Swenson hits the game winner with 2 min left. Fortunate win.
3 of their 5 "close" losses came in games they straight up lost or had enough time to win it (ND, Wisc, Minn). 2 unlucky losses in literally the final seconds of the game (CMU and Iowa). Both wins were fortunate (OT and game winning fg with less than 2 min).
Throw out the 3 straight up losses and MSU went 2-2 in close games. Not as unlucky as you think.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:08 AM ^
This year, MSU is very fortunate to be 10-1. And next year, they will be fortunate to be 8-5. Fortune runs both ways.
November 24th, 2010 at 7:12 AM ^
A fake field goal, fake punt, and blocked punt were the key plays in their wins against ND, Northwestern, and Purdue, respectively.
November 24th, 2010 at 3:08 AM ^
They are fortunate this year that they have 4 away games and don't play OSU.
Fortune IMO has little to do with things. Good teams always seem fortunate. They weren't good last year. They're better this year.
November 24th, 2010 at 1:42 AM ^
November 24th, 2010 at 1:55 AM ^
underpants gnoming the hell out of this whole situation. It seems like a lot of people are treating it as a foregone conclusion that if Michigan fires Rodriguez they'll A. hire Harbaugh pretty much for sure and B. become successful pretty fast.
I don't think either one of those is a guarantee. First, if Michigan does fire Harbaugh, there's no absolute guarantee he'd want to come here (full disclosure: I'm pretty forcefully on record as not wanting him to come to Michigan). I know Michigan is his alma mater, but he has a pretty good thing going at Stanford, and there's a decent chance he'd rather be in the NFL anyway.
Second, and maybe more importantly, there's no guarantee that Harbaugh would be successful here. His resume isn't any more impressive than Rodriguez's was before coming here. If anything, it's less impressive. And for those who think Harbaugh is a "Michigan Man" who runs the right schemes and knows what it's like to coach at Michigan, it's worth noting that, at the moment, Michigan doesn't necessarily have the players to run Harbaugh's schemes, especially on offense. I don't necessarily see any reason to think it'd be any smoother a transition than Rich Rod's was, and I don't see any reason to think Harbaugh would be guaranteed to win.
I think it's a risk that I think should give people more pause.
November 24th, 2010 at 1:59 AM ^
Pure speculation on my part: if RR is fired, it will be because Brandon has already gauged Harbaugh's interest.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:09 AM ^
That didn't work so well for Auburn when Tuberville found out about it...
November 24th, 2010 at 2:16 AM ^
And Auburn is really kicking themselves for losing Tuberville aren't they