Jim Harbaugh transition easier then you think?

Submitted by The program on

QB - Michigan has a pro style QB in Devin Gardner (6-5, strong arm, will sit in the pocket) remember he turned Josh Johnson into a pro QB at San Diego.  If Tate transfers and Denard switches positions depth becomes an issue but other wise good.

RB- Mike Cox is a big back who can run and I think would do very well in a pro style system (I know he has not played much but has looked good when he has played and according to reports by rivals is the fastest of the RBs) not to mention that Denard might switch to RB and he would do well in any system.

WR - We are loaded with 3 guys that might play at the next level and would fit in any system (Roundtree, Stonum, Hemingway), plus lots of long term depth.

TE- We have two coming back (Koger and Moore) and given some time he might get get one or two Freshmen in this class not to mention that Watson might move back (if he is given a 5th year by the coaches) Overall they will be ok at this position next year but depth will be a major issue.

OL- The linemen are going to have to get bigger and stronger but there is a lot of experence coming back (4 guys with over a year of starting experience and by all accounts Barnum and Schofield are going to be good), though once again long term depth is a major issue.

DL- We return 3 starter that played in a 3-man front although Roh is undersized for a 3-man front.  Overall DL should be a strengh but  we have major depth issues. 

LB - We don't have a lot of 3-4 outside LB who have played but guys like Ken Wilkins, Jim Ryan, and Brandon Herron played similar rolls in High school and could transition well.  Guys like Kovacs and Cam Gordan may be asked to pay LB,  With Demens and Mike Jones I think we are ok up the middle but depth is a major problem at the two MLB spots

CB/S - We have a lot of expernece coming back given how many young players have gotten to play this year. Then with Troy and JT coming back I think this could be a position of strength. I could see Troy and JT at the corners (although I personally think the D is at its best when Troy is at FS) Ray at FS and Carvin at SS.  Depth at CB should be good although there could be a lack of depth at FS.

Special Teams - They have a really good punter, Stonum is a soild return guy and my hope would be that they let Odoms returns punts.  As far as the kicking game goes lets pray they get a good freshman; otherwise I think Ryan Van Bergen [Ed-M: RVB can kick?] gives us the best kicking option.

Offense overall- There is a lot to work with although building depth at both OL and QB will be very important to long term success.

Defense overall – Yes the D is bad but remember that Stanford’s D last year ranked 90thin the nation (not much better than ours) yet Vic Fangio (Stanford’s Defense Coordinator) has this years team ranked 24 and while there D is very disciplined  and tuff they do not have many athletes in the front 7 and still made major improvements.

Comments

profitgoblue

November 29th, 2010 at 11:36 AM ^

I was unfortunately born with some kind of birth defect - I am unable to refrain from and/or avoid reading articles, messages, blogs, threads, posts, etc. that involve Michigan football.  So I would appreciate it if people show some respect and stop posting anything that bothers, upsets, annoys, insults, or in some way has a negative impact on me.  Please only post things that I agree with and/or learn from in a positive way.  Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Communist Football

November 28th, 2010 at 11:35 PM ^

For trying to make this argument.  I appreciate your sincerity.  I think, for better or worse, you've strengthened the case for the opposite view: replacing Denard with Devin will be a tough sell.

Other similarly oriented posters have suggested Tate will replace Denard as starting QB, but then again you have the problem of benching the 2011 Heisman front-runner.

Simply put, any transition to a pro-style offense will result in the marginalization of Denard, which will be a highly controversial move.  If Harbaugh is brought in, and he keeps the spread offense intact: what was the point of hiring him?

All the more reason to keep RR, and force RR to fire the entire defensive staff, and give the new DC total control over the defense.

ATLWolverine

November 28th, 2010 at 11:53 PM ^

...that being said, I think the OP (and most replies) gave up on one idea far too quickly: Is it so wild to think that Denard could be utilized as more of a Vince Young-type pocket passer, instead of a spread-option built around the QB-iso? His deep ball is shaky, but his short passes are there, and his intermediate range frozen-rope throws are a beauty when they're clicking.

Is it so crazy to think that he couldn't adapt to becoming more of a pass-first QB? I have a hard time believing Harbaugh would instantly replace Denard with Gardner. His rush yards would come more on scramble plays, and also keep him healthier, though of course he wouldn't be able to reach his full offensive potential in such a scheme. However, that's a far cry from turning him into a RB.

I'm not advocating Harbaugh or saying RR should stay at all costs; just noting that whoever is our coach next year, they would be foolish to overlook Denard at QB.

ATLWolverine

November 29th, 2010 at 12:01 AM ^

has a better throwing mechanic, but is it just me when I think that he throws balls up for grabs all the time? Literally at least 2x a game? It seems like he's the master (I mean that as a compliment) of the broken play, but he doesn't seem to be able to consistently execute the offense like Denard, even when both are passing.

Topher

November 29th, 2010 at 12:01 AM ^

I think people are really getting carried away with the "Jim Harbaugh pro style offense" mania. I am not sure he'd immediately switch into an I formation, drop back game.

After an abortive first season on offense where he tried a conventional West Coast offense, Harbaugh retooled Stanford around what he had: a super power running back (Toby Gerhart) and not a lot of athletic ability on the line. They beefed up the linemen to be tough and physical and rode Toby for two seasons and about 3,500 yards.

There isn't a "Jim Harbaugh system," Harbaugh has tweaked his offense to adapt to whatever talent pops up - these days, a tight end has stood out, so he's been throwing to him lately.

Jim has tons of well-connected coaching buddies to give him good advice, so I'm sure he could run whatever system he wanted were he to wind up in Ann Arbor. In particular, over the past couple years I think he has broadened his thinking vis a vis the college game and has dialed down the NFL-style schema. The transition difficulties would be ones of coaching style, not of X's and O's.

AMazinBlue

November 29th, 2010 at 12:32 AM ^

than going the other way.  Less split-second reads for the QB, potentially simpler blocking assignments for the line and I think Tate would rather not run as much anyway.

The most important thing is that JH would have the foresight to not revamp an offnse without the players to do so.  Being flexible with the talent at hand is vital in a transition.  That is one thing the current staff failed to understand.  I think 3-9 could have been avoided, maybe only 5-7, but still better.

tlh908

November 29th, 2010 at 12:41 AM ^

Thanks for the arguements to keep RR by highlighting how good his team will be next year. Why let Harbaugh reap what RR has sown? If RR deserved to be fired then next years team would full of holes with no upperclassmen.

NateVolk

November 29th, 2010 at 8:41 AM ^

I think people want to generally see a top flight coach at Michigan and are just saying that this team will be fine during a transition. Rich is a coach that is in over his head and honestly doesn't appear to even recognize it. The beating after beating by competent league opponents don't seem to sink in.   The recruiting is still 2 and 3 star guys who are mostly undersized.

I guarantee that Harbaugh would come through the door and immediately take radical steps in recruiting to line up impact back 7 defenders with size and explosiveness.  We haven't recruited anybody like that in 2.5 classes with Rich.  4 and 5 star linebackers would be back on our radar instead of ceding them over to Michigan State.

They might even listen now that we have a guy who has lead Stanford's defense upward in all statistical categories 4 straight years.

The offense would be refocused on efficiency with a premium on playing chain movers AND the current explosive speed guys. We'd probably see more of Cox and Hopkins then we have. Probably more Koger too.

The special teams would be immediatly scrapped top to bottom. 

All new coaches across the board and no cronies. Jackson might be retained.

The difference in emphasis wouldn't be immediately perceptible to us.  

The idea is to have it show up on Saturday with tough competitive efforts and wins now against teams that are currently blowing us out at will. Our rivals.

 

Great post by the OP.

 

blueheron

November 29th, 2010 at 9:42 AM ^

"The recruiting is still 2 and 3 star guys who are mostly undersized."

Such as?  Also, where do you think that matters on the field?  Just askin' ...

"I guarantee that Harbaugh would come through the door and immediately take radical steps in recruiting to line up impact back 7 defenders with size and explosiveness."

How long before they'd be contributors?  There seems to be the expectation that, as 19-year-olds, they'd be just fine against the mostly-upperclass teams that led the conference this year.

"We haven't recruited anybody like that in 2.5 classes with Rich."

2.5?!  He was hired roughly one month before signing day.  He did very well to mobilize some snake oil prior to that point.  Please.  That was mostly Lloyd's class.  (Of note, that means Mike Martin should be counted on that side.)

Also, are all the defenders from '09 and '10 destined to be undersized losers?  I doubt it.

NateVolk

November 29th, 2010 at 10:50 AM ^

Brian stated recently that it was half Rich's class and that he completely ignored defense with his half. 

The impact guys like Davis and Thomas are passing us on the way to East Lansing.  Desmond Morgan? I am sure he is a great kid and a good player, but is anyone else troubled that our biggest competition for him are MAC schools?  Frost has serious potential but the best we have gotten out of him is a game of footsy.

I think the recruiting has been very good considering the losing and off field problems.  Crawford was likely a step up.

Just like the 7 wins against stems and seeds has been good considering we won 3 and lost at home to Toledo in 08.

Even if these guys can play, what evidence have we seen that they can be coached up on defense? Mike Martin and that is about it.  

ChasingRabbits

November 29th, 2010 at 12:39 PM ^

Your assumption that Harbaugh would instantly turn every in state stud blue is way off.  This would of course be because they used to be before RR?  Perry, Rojo, TJ Duckett, Rogers?? 

and then there is this:"The impact guys like Davis and Thomas are passing us on the way to East Lansing."

Davis? the three star Detroit PSL LB?  The 5* Detroit PSL products take several years to learn football before they make any impact.. Golston anyone? and yet he is your poster child for where RR is losing out?  Not to mention the fact that all the Detroit guys who went to State were going there no matter who was coaching UM because their coaches had the red ass for UM because to past players.

your whole assumption is faulty at best.  And your Yost quote to end it all is awsome considering you seem to have turned tail and fled...?

blueheron

November 29th, 2010 at 2:02 PM ^

"Brian stated recently that it was half Rich's class and that he completely ignored defense with his half."

Whatever -- I don't agree.  Make it 30% or so and I'd be on board.  I do agree that he would have been smart to recognize some holes on defense.  (Aside: His '09 class on that side will haunt the program for a few years.)

"The impact guys like Davis and Thomas are passing us on the way to East Lansing."

If what's been rumored (about Detroit SE and Ren) is true, I don't see how RichRod could do anything about those particular cases.  Related: Check out MSU's class so far this year.  A 5-er and a pack of 3s.

beastcoastinc

November 29th, 2010 at 2:18 PM ^

...the players we have had that transferred as well...Warren stays and Woolfolk is healthy, do you think this team looks different?  What if Dorsey makes it onto campus?  Kinard?  Ezeh and Mouton play like they should've played as 3 year Big 10 starting lb's?  This defense last year was looking like it had a lot of potential and it just fell apart. 

Question is, does that fall on Rich Rod?  Warren and Woolfolk don't.  Unhappy players that wanna leave becaue they are making headway on the depth chart can't be his fault either.  Dorsey...it's not his fault he wasn't on campus.

BostonWolverine

November 29th, 2010 at 4:22 PM ^

"what evidence have we seen that they can be coached up on defense?"

Craig Roh. Next question.

The long answer:

Then we have Kenny Demens, who's been quite good in his first real action. With Martin, that makes 3. Then we have Kovacs who is smart as hell, but not as physically gifted. Then we have Rogers, Mouton, RVB - Carr guys. Now we're at 7. That leaves: Courtney Avery, Ray Vinopal, Cam Gordon, Thomas Gordon and Carvin Johnson - with Jibreel Black on spot duty.

The Gordons are redshirt freshmen. The other 3 are true freshmen. That's one year of action (and not even a whole year, at that). How can you give any evidence supporting that they CAN'T be coached up? It's not like they're Obi Ezeh.

Also, in this post you say the recruiting "has been good considering the losing and off field problems," when in your previous post, you lament (erroneously) the fact that we're relegated to "2-3 star" players who are "undersized."

Pick a position and stick with it, because right now you're just talking yourself in circles.

BostonWolverine

November 29th, 2010 at 9:25 AM ^

The recruiting is now 3 and 4-star guys, one of whom would be a 5-star if he were an inch or two taller. Also, there are more 4-stars on our radar. Site Ray Vinopal if you want, but that was last year, and he may be small, but I love the way he plays. A guy like that is good for a team.

Also, 4-5 star linebackers? Need I remind you that David Harris was a 3-star and stalwarts like Jeremy van Alstyne and Jim Presley (academics) and Chris Rogers (transfer) and Cobrani Mixon (transfer to Kent State) were all 4-star linebackers recruited by Lloyd Carr? How'd those guys turn out?

Not everyone is gonna be Lamarr Woodley or Brandon Graham, sure, but those guys aren't every year guys. They come around like the Olympics: every two years, but there's still a decent chance they won't be any good.

snoopblue

November 29th, 2010 at 12:42 AM ^

Harbaugh is a good coach, offense isn't the problem, he'll make it work. 

What I am worried about is if he is the next coach, what will happen with defe nse?

Stanford had a top 40 defense in the Pac 10, how would that transfer to BigTen?

At WVU, Casteel still has a top 15 defense, but that is in the Big (L)East

Would Harbaughs entire staff come? His DC?

Do they all have buyouts, a Michigan clause?

SO MANY QUESTIONS

SanDiegoWolverine

November 29th, 2010 at 1:13 AM ^

And something I haven't heard anyone bring up around here is Jim's ambitions to be an NFL coach.  Coaching at the NFL level is still seen as the ultimate test and with his brother already as a successful coach how long would it be until he left for the NFL anyways?  Do we really want to cycle through head coaches like Notre Dame?

Mhpangr

November 29th, 2010 at 12:58 AM ^

If you want to convince people with your posts... please make sure that you use correct grammar in your title so you may be taken semi-seriously.  /lecture

bluebyyou

November 29th, 2010 at 4:24 AM ^

A good coach will work with the talent he has at hand and slowly change the system over time to reflect personnel.  This is one reason why RichRod had at least one strike against him when he came to Michigan.  While it is arguable whether Mallet (and Manningham and Arrington) would have stayed with a new coach running a pro-style O, they sure as hell were gone with the spread that was implemented when RichRod came on board.

Another thing to consider with Denard -  Denard is not a big QB, unlike several of the other good spread QB's in the country.  He has been significantly dinged all season.  I have felt all year that we were lucky Denard didn't lose very significant time from a more serious injury this year and wouldn't bet against that happening if the same or substantially the same style of play is continued for the next two years.

Changing the style of play is the price you pay when you change coaches.  If that is a reason not to make the change, just appoint RichRod the coach for life.  Unlike some folks on this board, I look at this O and wonder just how good it will be down the road. Denard fumbles with great regularity in spite of having played two full years at this juncture - perhaps this will change in the future, perhaps not.  Roundtree drops passes with great frequency and has played three years.  Some players drop passes - Braylon Edwards anyone? Experience sometimes makes a huge difference, sometimes not.  Some players seem to be frequently injured. Mike Hart and Chad Henne were very good as freshman starters.  I often wonder about some of the smaller, theoretically athletic guys that RichRod seems to like and  have concerns as to whether they will ever match up to the bigger, athletic talent other teams bring to the table.

Three years into the program, I have not convinced myself that we will win more than eight games next year.  When RichRod was hired, the mantra was that three or four years into the program, we would be playing for the NC.  If you think that is going to happen next year, you are watching a very different team than am I.

harmon40

December 1st, 2010 at 7:45 PM ^

specifically regarding defections.  3 of 4 returning starters on the O-line bolted as well, one for the NFL, one for our most hated rival, and one just quit football. 

A few points of respectful disagreement:

-Denard's injury and fumble problems should be lessened next year if we get more out of our RB's.  Denard should get fewer carries and have more room to manuever when he does carry it.

-Roundtree is a RS soph and has played in games only 2 years

-Henne and Hart were great as freshman but had a solid team around them (including a senior Braylon Edwards for Henne to throw to) which wasn't trying to learn a new and unfamiliar system for which they were not recruited or suited

-The offense, with all its limitations, still ranked in the top 10 nationally.  Imagine what they can do if they limit the penalties and turnovers next year

-Denard, with all his flaws (20 turnovers), still shattered team, B10, and NCAA records this year.  Many RBs have won the Heisman with the rushing yds/TDs that Denard has this year.  He's a committed film room guy and workout warrior and I'll think he'll be even better next year

-Offense returns all but one starter and also brings in D Hart

 

 

 

Tater

November 29th, 2010 at 6:49 AM ^

A good coach will work with the talent he has at hand and slowly change the system over time to reflect personnel.

We've been hearing variations of this quote from the anti-RR crowd for three seasons now. The simple truth is that RR had no "talent at hand" in some crucial positions; therefore installing his system in a halfassed way would have simply gotten halfassed results.

Speaking of "talent at hand," ASU is 5-6 right now with Steven Threet at QB, and his backup has played a lot better than him. Nick Sheridan proved that, while he may be a great coach someday, he isn't physically able to run the offense on a major college level.

Basically, at ASU, a fourth-year junior Steven Threet isn't doing as well with an offense that RR detractors say he should have installed for his transition as Michigan is doing now without him. And Sheridan played one series last year and is now on fast track to coaching.

It's bad enough when OSU and MSU fans pollute mlive and A2 dot com with this tired, oversimplified lie; seeing it on mgoblog is even worse.

bluebyyou

November 29th, 2010 at 8:06 AM ^

I would remind you that Ryan Mallety was the QB waiting to take over the helm when Carr resigned.  I have heard stories that he was unhappy with the program and would have left anyway.  I don't know if that is true or not. What I do know is that Mallett left shortly after RichRod came on board, followed thereafter by Manningham and Arrington, both of whom declared early.  Neither Threet nor Sheridan were ever expected to run the program - Mallett, the five star who has lived up to his billing was the heir apparent. 

And fuck you and your non-Michigan fan comment.  Because someone might not agree with your position, you brand them as another non-Michigan fan?  That shows a level of ignorance and arrogance that makes me hope you don't or didn't attend the same University that I and several generations of my family have attended for undergraduate and graduate school.  Michigan taught me to respect other people's position and to disagree respectfully.  Obviously, that is a lesson you have yet to learn.

My support of RichRod had been unwavering until the PSU game.  It has since changed. I understand why someone might want RichRod to stay one more year, but I also can understand, and now line up with those who have a contrary position. Greg Robinson was RichRod's hire and the bulk of the personnel problems have come from RichRod's recruits.  If you think things are rosy, we aren't seeing things the same way.

ToledoBlue

November 29th, 2010 at 12:44 PM ^

While Ryan Mallett was the "heir apparent" his dream school was Arkansas. Unfortunately Mitch Mustain signed first so he went with us. As we all know what happened with Houston Nutt and Mustain, it's no surprise that when given a chance to leave he left for his dream. Add that with the fact of a new coach that doesn't care for statues in the qb department and the writitng was on the wall that he was gone. Yes I completely agree Mallett was light years ahead of Threetsheridamnit. He would have worked out the first year or so but as soon as they tought dilithium how to pass he would have been benched. Just my epinion

blueheron

November 29th, 2010 at 9:07 AM ^

In support of Tater, look at what's going on at Florida with Golden Boy Urban Meyer, who is America's Finest Coach according to many college football fans.

Why didn't Urby just "tweak" his offense to make better use of his Pro-Style (there's that @#$%ing expression again) QBs this year?

- - -

Has it occurred to anyone that solidly knowing and using two separate offenses is beyond the cognitive capacity of most mortals?

Separately, to argue that ANY offense could have worked with Threetsheridamnit is silly.  Plenty of people here have done that, though.

UM2k1

November 29th, 2010 at 7:57 AM ^

From the OP:

OL- The linemen are going to have to get bigger and stronger...

Have you (or anyone who spouts this nonsense) even taken the time to look at our OL compared to the rest of the conference?

 

  Tackle Guard Center Guard Tackle Team Avg.
M 6'-8", 294 lbs 6'-5", 308 lbs 6'-2", 287 lbs 6'-4", 305 lbs 6'-7", 321 lbs 6'-5", 303 lbs
OSU 6'-7", 299 6'-3", 320 6'-5", 293 6'-4", 313 6'-8", 300 6'-5", 305
MSU 6'-5", 298 6'-4", 310 6'-5", 285 6'-5", 295 6'-5", 312 6'-5", 300
PSU 6'-3", 298 6'-4", 323 6'-3"286 6'-3", 306 6'-4", 310 6'-3", 305
Iowa 6'-6", 300 6'-3", 300 6'-2", 275 6'-2", 273 6'-5", 295 6'-3.5", 289
Wisc 6'-7", 327 6'-5", 323 6'-5", 313 6'-4", 315 6'-6", 322 6'-5", 320 (!)
ND 6'-4", 290 6'-5", 351(!) 6'-3", 301 6'-5", 295 6'-5", 297 6'-4", 307
Position Avg. 6'-6", 302 6'-4", 319 6'-3.5", 291 6'-4", 300 6'-6", 308  

Moral of the story, our Offensive Line is not undersized, and holy hell is Wisconsin's line huge!

blueheron

November 29th, 2010 at 10:25 AM ^

No @#$%ing kidding ... so am I.  I've already put everyone on notice that I may strangle the next person who says "pro-style" in my presence.  (Aside: Sorry, OP.)

- - -

Why is it that RichRod's detractors so often pull up to the party with truckloads of STUPID when there are so many intelligent ways to criticize the guy?

To take one of many examples, look at his '09 recruiting class on defense.  (It's also true that he's been the victim of some tough breaks.)

Now, some posters here have been reasonable.  Way too often, though, we get something like "WE'RE NOT TOUGH.  WE NEED TO BRING JIMMY HOME TO GET THE TEAM BACK INTO SHAPE."  Oh.  I see.  We're just not tough enough.  Oh.

Fuzzy Dunlop

November 29th, 2010 at 12:10 PM ^

You've repeatedly commented on stupid posters saying stupid things like "WE NEED TO BRING JIMMY HOME!" and "JIMMY WILL TOUGHEN UP THIS TEAM" (using all caps to emphasize the stupidity).  Yet I haven't actually seen a single one of the idiotic posts that you are decrying.  Can you provide an example or two of these unreasonable Harbaugh supporters that you're always talking about? 

blueheron

November 29th, 2010 at 1:25 PM ^

Fuzzy, I used CAPS for emphasis in my post.  Offhand (sorry) I can't provide a specific example of an unreasonable poster.  (I probably spend too much time here as it is.)  You'd have to take it on faith that they exist.

I definitely have seen people commenting on toughness and how Harbaugh would improve the team in the area.  I'm not constructing a bunch of straw men.

- - -

I'll admit that my comments here are focused primarily on what I believe to be unreasonable detractors of RichRod.  He has unreasonable supporters, too, but they've been covered well recently.

Fuzzy Dunlop

November 29th, 2010 at 2:37 PM ^

In hindsight, my post was unnecessarily dickish.  Apologies.  My point, in a less obnoxious way, is that I think you are overstating the volume of "unreasonable" Harbaugh supporters, and the stupidity of their arguments.  Of course, neither of our positions are provable without doing a survey of all posts on this board over the past month, which neither of us has the time or inclination to do (and it was unfair of me to snottily ask you to do it in the first place).

bronxblue

November 29th, 2010 at 12:02 PM ^

Totally agree.  RR's offense works best with mobile linemen, not skinny linemen.  If you can get a 305+ guy running fast, that's a win for this offense.  Personally, I always thought RR's offensive lines required only the best athletes around, and any coach in America would be happy to have the one currently sitting in A2.

Don

November 29th, 2010 at 9:05 AM ^

This is one of the most popular scenarios around right now, and generally is regarded as something RR would do unquestioningly if ordered to do so by DB. I can just as easily see RR telling DB to go piss up a rope (so to speak), forcing DB to fire him. RR collects whatever buy-out money comes his way, and bides his time, along with his WVU buds, until the next HC offer comes along. I don't think he would have to wait long.

bluenyc

November 29th, 2010 at 10:02 AM ^

I so agree with you Don.  I have seen you post this before and wanted to see the counter arguments.  Coach Rod may not have alot of choices right now if he were to leave.  Even though, leaving here would be a black eye, he can always go to a school and have less pressure and show people that a black eye heals. 

He left his school because of loyalty, and I can see it here.  If I were DB, I would let him ride with the horses that he bought to the party.  If things don't work out next year, I don't want to hear well, he had a new DC and DB forced him to get a new DC.  Coach Rod is the leader of the team and responsible for everything.

BleedingBlue

November 29th, 2010 at 9:42 AM ^

"Stuffed Camel"



From the Al Hasa cookbook -a more than 400 page compilation of recipes compiled by the women's groups, and published in 1976. 



This recipe was given by Jo Waters of Abqaiq:



1 medium camel

4 lambs
 

20 chickens (roasted) 

150 eggs (boiled) 

40 kilos tomatoes 

Salt and seasonings 



Stuff eggs into tomatoes, stuff tomatoes into chickens, stuff chickens into lambs, stuff lambs into camel. Roast until tender 



Serves 150 people."

ST3

November 29th, 2010 at 11:51 AM ^

If Harbaugh were to somehow be hired as the next coach, what is to stop the Freep from drudging up the DUI stories? What about the controversial statements he made about UofM academics? What about the fact that Stanford played 1 top 25 team this year? ONE! And they lost to them by 21 points. Their non-conference schedule was Sac State, Wake Forest, and Notre Dame. Granted, they pasted ND, but that was after Mich and MSU beat ND in heartbreaking fashion for the domers. A letdown is understandable, and ND just beat SC by 4 in Los Angeles. Stanford beat SC by 2 at home. I think the Pac10 has 4 bowl eligible teams (minus 1 for SC, schadenfreude lives!), so really, Stanford's signature win is over Arizona. Arizona? Yes, Arizona, a team that barely beat Iowa. Hmmm, the Big 10 has 3 teams in the top 7 today. I wonder how boy wonder would fare against our schedule. Another point, his two top players have been Gerhart (who was already on the roster when Harbaugh arrived) and Luck. Luck is the son of an NFL QB. So is his success attributable to Harbaugh's coaching, or his Dad's genes and tutelage? Harbaugh has done great things at Stanford, but he's not a miracle worker. I am definitely in the give RichRod another year or 20 and see what he can do with a roster entirely of his making.

P.S. Doesn't anyone else remember Harbaugh running the wishbone at UofM? I think he could adapt to our current roster and system.

EDIT: I see Arizona is #22 in the blog poll.