RichRod speaks at length; takes a jab at DB
Rich Rod spoke in depth with Dennis Dodd of CBS. (Link: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/14640415/rich-rod-we-thought-it-was-just-getting-ready-to-take-off?ttag=gen10_on_all_fb_na_txt_0001)
Most of the things are stuff we've heard him say before..."we were almost there; lots of drama; took longer than I expected." Something new that I hadn't heard him say was a critique of Dave Brandon and his position to make the decision that he made:
"Were you treated fairly by Dave Brandon?
Rodriguez:"To say publicly how I was treated would be self-serving. Everybody says three years is enough time. If you don't know all the factors maybe you make that conclusion. If you're here in the middle of this for three years fighting all the battles. ... We'd like to be able to finish the job. I can't sit here a month later and say this and that should have happened.
"What I am going to do to make sure the next job I get, we win the national championship and everybody is pulling in the right direction. Dave's been on the job -- what? -- nine months? He knows the business world. I did the best I could to tell him or show him what was going on in the football program. I tried to show him as best I could. He wasn't involved in athletics [before getting to Michigan]. I've been a head coach in Division I for 10 years and coaching for 25. I know college football."
(Note: Brandon played defensive end under Bo Schembechler at Michigan. He is also a former Michigan regent. Brandon came to the school after serving as Domino's Pizza CEO.)
That's an interesting place to needle Brandon on. I don't think it's fair to say he "wasn't involved in athletics." As Dodd points out in his note, he did play for Michigan and as a Regent from 1998-2006 he undoubtedly was involved in athletics at least little bit. Seems like sour grapes to me.
February 4th, 2011 at 1:26 PM ^
Curious- do you think that we go 9-3 next year with Hoke as our coach? Would we have with RR? Do you think (and I realize that this is hypothetical) that if RR stays and hires a new DC and lets the DC actually run his own show* that we go 9-3 next year also, or higher/lower? I think the "on track to the NC" is definitely pushing it, but I kind of wonder if we blew it up in year 3 when we were set to break through. With our returning players and the development we've seen on offense, I feel like 9-3 is the expectation next year, with either RR or Hoke as the coach.
Obviously, we'll never know, but one of the things that Brian has pointed out was that we seemed to have a ceiling under Lloyd and running the pro-style sets, etc.; we were consistent, but weren't going to be able to "break through" to the NC level, and undergoing the change with RR was going to be painful, but get us to a place with a higher ceiling. It seems like we kind of couldn't stomach it, fired RR, and decided the old way was better. Which I can understand; going 3-9, 5-7, and 7-6 is enough to test anyone's patience. And I realize we went 11-0 to start 2006, but in the end when facing top-flight competition, we faltered (and that was following "the year of infinite pain," which may also be an agrument regarding a team "turning the corner" in a year)
*(I know that this is a stretch, given what we seem to know about RR meddling on the defensive side of the ball with schemes and such, but it's possible if it was "you're fired or bring in a DC and let him do his thing")
February 4th, 2011 at 2:23 PM ^
One issue I've have with your logic is using '06 OSU as 'faltering.' They lost by a FG to the number one team in the country on the road, the day after one of the biggest icons in program history died. A frustrating loss to be sure, but to sell it as some huge let down is misguided.
February 4th, 2011 at 7:58 PM ^
No offense but watch that game again. We were never really in it. The whole game you could feel OSU was going to win.
February 5th, 2011 at 6:53 AM ^
This "Lloyd Carr ceiling" of three BCS bowls in his final five years? Heavens, how horrible!
February 4th, 2011 at 3:40 PM ^
Are you unable to understand the distinction between "being on the right track to an NC" and being "one step away from a NC?"
February 4th, 2011 at 11:50 AM ^
Seriously? I wouldn't have had a problem with keeping RR for one more year before making that decision, but we got blown up by every good team we played. We weren't even competitive against good teams. We lost by 17 to MSU, 20 to Wisconsin, 30 to OSU, and 38 to the other MSU. I'm not saying we could never win one with RR, but losing by that much to good teams means youre nowhere near a NC.
February 4th, 2011 at 1:02 PM ^
were pretty competitive against MSU. Three turnovers, two in the endzone, spelled doom.
Reality is that Michigan was playing well on both sides of the ball to start the season and then got progressively worse after the ND game, particularly on defense. It's not a coincidence that our defensive depth also started to skydive during and after the ND game.
February 4th, 2011 at 1:16 PM ^
teams simply adjusted to our D (or lack of it) and our O better than we did evolving on both sides of the ball. That falls on RR.
February 4th, 2011 at 1:59 PM ^
I mean, we did seem like a one-trick pony, really (cough, Denard). We didn't have options B and C on offense it seemed like at times, although Denard's passing on those absurd play actions could be considered option B. We also didn't run the "constraint" plays- bubble screens- enough last year, it seems like. As for defense, uhh, we kinda(?) had an option A: "don't let them get behind you and hope like hell that our DL gets home and/or the other team fails to execute." God knows we didn't have a plan B or C on defense.
February 4th, 2011 at 11:57 AM ^
February 4th, 2011 at 12:02 PM ^
Fuck yes I believe we weren't on the track to a NC. We were 7-6 this past season and we were very lucky to have two of our wins. We also got worse as the season went on. And much of your so called "unmitigated shit" that he had to deal with was brought on himself. Signing players that were never going to qualify, practicegate, inability to field a defense, ect.
February 4th, 2011 at 12:13 PM ^
Ugh...
February 4th, 2011 at 12:09 PM ^
You've got to be joking right? Did Michigan look anywhere near the level we need to be to win a national title? Michigan made improvements against lousy competition the last three years. Against good teams we looked just as bad if not worse as in 2008.
February 4th, 2011 at 12:22 PM ^
Our defense was so poor that we had to beat Indiana two years in a row on the last drive of the game.
I'm sorry, but there was no NCAA championship in sight with RR at the helm.
February 4th, 2011 at 1:30 PM ^
If RR had a decent D, he probably goes 5-7, 7-5, 9-3 and still has a job. The Penn State game may have been the first nail but watching Wisky drive for 9 minutes without a pass when our team still had a chance to win was the death knell.
February 4th, 2011 at 2:39 PM ^
I have a really hard time believing that we were "on track to win a NC" when we not only went 6-18 in conference play under the man, but finished his third season (when we allegedly showed improvement) losing by 20, 30 and 38 points in our last three games. You can't tell me that this team was buying in to what RR was selling by the end of the year - certainly not on the defensive side of the ball.
February 4th, 2011 at 11:46 AM ^
He has a right to be pissed, but he'll be alright. He's too good a coach to down for long.
February 4th, 2011 at 11:46 AM ^
This doesn't bother me at all, but not being competitive at all against good teams after 3 years is not going to help you. Going 0-6 against our 2 biggest rivals and getting demolished in our bowl game isn't going to help you keep your job.
February 4th, 2011 at 11:53 AM ^
He went 2-4 against our two biggest rivals. Considering his predecessor was 4-9 against Weis, Willingham and Tressel, it isn't too bad a performance.
MSU only became an "important rival" because we lost to them and people were looking for reasons not to see the positives in 3<5<7 because they were mad about the losing and blamed the coach from the get go.
February 4th, 2011 at 12:13 PM ^
You really think that State isn't one of our top two rivals? I hate me some ND as well, but State is, of course, the in-state rival. Further, how exactly does it boost your pro-RR argument to note that State only gained importance as a rival because RR lost every game to them? How bad does a coach have to be to allow a non--rival to pop back into the picture?
February 4th, 2011 at 12:36 PM ^
But it's not like we were head and shoulders above state before RR was hired.... If you remember, we had to post a pretty significant comeback in the final 7-10 minutes of the 4th quarter to beat them in '07... WITH Adams, Henne, Hart, Long, Manningham, Arrington and others that were not around the next year.
'You really think that' we were gunna beat state with Sheridan in a new system? Please.
February 4th, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^
State doubled us up in RR's third year. Third year. Doubled our score.
But you want to go back to RR year 1? Ok...Toledo. Did they have more talent than us? Was the game played on our home field? Enough with the excuses.
February 4th, 2011 at 1:00 PM ^
Did Appalachian State have more talent than our 2007 team?
February 4th, 2011 at 1:07 PM ^
They sure didn't. That was one terrible loss without doubt, but the 2007 team turned things around and ended up winning 9 games and beating Tebow in the bowl game. RR's team ended up losing 9 games and watching the bowl games from home - breaking the nation's longest bowl streak.
February 4th, 2011 at 3:56 PM ^
team was full of NFL talent. In fact, they arguably had more NFL talent at the skill positions than any team they played that year, including Florida and OSU.
The 2008 team? NFL talent? Stevie Brown, Brandon Graham, and Zoltan Mesko.
February 4th, 2011 at 5:27 PM ^
This is a no excuse zone.
February 4th, 2011 at 6:47 PM ^
explain to me the difference between excuses and reality. The two get mixed up so many times I can't tell anymore...
February 5th, 2011 at 9:58 AM ^
When you post like this, you sound like you're playing "Calvinball" and just making up "zones" to disqualify data that doesn't fit your predetermined conclusion. Similar to a certain TV pundit that only sees other people's "spin."
February 4th, 2011 at 12:54 PM ^
It's OSU and Notre Dame. Then Sparty, and only because they're in-state. Sparty is like every other BigTen school that thinks they're our rival (Illinois, Wisconsin).
I'll admit, Sparty is particularly annoying right now, but that doesn't make them the top rivalry.
February 4th, 2011 at 2:41 PM ^
MSU is a conference game. That alone makes it a bigger deal than ND. You can lose to ND and still win the Big Ten. It's much harder to do so when you lose to MSU.
February 5th, 2011 at 9:59 AM ^
And which one has more implications for the program's brand nationally? ND or MSU?
February 4th, 2011 at 11:47 AM ^
the past is the past, so let's move on... However, he's correct, RR has shown that he knows college football, and in general 3 years isn't enough (look how Hoke finished this year recruiting, he was scrambling and didn't end up with a top class). Hoke's class will be next year, and to expect sophomores to play like seniors is naive.
February 4th, 2011 at 11:51 AM ^
I'd like to agree with RR, but I absolutely cannot.
It doesn't take a seasoned football expert to tell that the defense was headed down the wrong path. Also, recruiting was severely lacking in certain areas. We were poised to take some good players in this class if RR was retained, but I'm not sure if the core of the class was good enough to be successful.
Also, Tony Gibson was/is a terrible DB's coach. The fact that he's tied at the hip with RR made the defense almost impossible to resolve.
RR is a good football coach and man, but the situation here was beyond resolve(taking everything into account).
February 4th, 2011 at 11:54 AM ^
Don't say in Michigan...
February 4th, 2011 at 12:04 PM ^
It wasn't lacking in any particular area of the country.
The defense was just too small to stop guys like John Clay and Brandon Saine. With the exception of a couple guys like Kris Frost, we weren't landing the type of players necessary to make the 3-3-5 successful in the Big Ten.
February 4th, 2011 at 12:09 PM ^
I like to play the "what if" game and imagine Mattison signing on with RR staff.....I know it would never happen......but hot damn that would have been sweet
February 4th, 2011 at 12:34 PM ^
RR+Mattison=NCAA Titles
RR+Gerg=Bottom of the Big10
February 4th, 2011 at 12:49 PM ^
I agree, but could we have gotten Mattinson with RR? Kinda sounded like we couldn't.
<br>
<br>The next question is what does Hoke + Mattinson equal?
February 4th, 2011 at 1:04 PM ^
Obviously Mattison wasn't coming with RR as head coach. That was purely hypothetical.
Hoke+Mattison=Big Ten Championships
February 4th, 2011 at 2:53 PM ^
I question how you can say that RR + Mattison = titles.
First, I would have to assume that Mattison would be hiring a whole new staff for this to be reasonable. But even still, I was not as impressed with RR's offense, when it was shut down by every single good team that we faced.
Borges + Mattison, both overseen by Hoke = B10 titles, and hopefully more.
February 4th, 2011 at 2:10 PM ^
- RR had a different D coach - Scott Shafer. Lots of talent on that side of the ball and yet it was the worst Michigan D ever. Blame Shafer...he's out.
- Bring in GERG - two years - complete failure.
- Meanwhile, Shafer goes off and succeeds at SU.
- If given 4th year, RR under extreme pressure to win against quality teams when he hasn't shown an ability to win big games.
- D talent is still very young without any real playmakers (ok maybe Martin)
NOW, what decent defensive coordinator would accept that job?? Take a job to work for a guy that is dead man walking where there has been a culture of defensive failure for 3 years? Who signs up for one and done? D coordinators are real people who think about families and career progressions. They are not fantasy football players that you simply pick up and plug in. Michigan would never had a chance at a top flight D coordinator.
February 4th, 2011 at 12:10 PM ^
Will Campbell was supposed to be exactly that type of player.
February 4th, 2011 at 12:12 PM ^
The defense was too young.
February 4th, 2011 at 12:18 PM ^
Usually you're a good poster, but you sound exactly like one of the old guys in the crowd who are always negative and never know what they're talking about.
February 4th, 2011 at 12:31 PM ^
I'm not sitting here ready to shout down anyone who disagrees with me, so I don't want to be lumped in with the dahblue's of the world.
I'm not saying that RR was absolutely incapable of ever having success here, but it wasn't going to happen within the necessary timeframe.
Sometimes you've gotta know when to hold em, and know when to fold em.
February 4th, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^
I agree that Michigan and Rich should've separated but not because of the performance, but because Rich was never going to be accepted and it would've been a wound constantly open for however long he was here. I'm just saying, we had tons of starters coming back, a second year starter at QB and a good recruiting class from the looks of what could've been. I just hate when people say 'Rich gets these Florida kids who are so small!!'
February 4th, 2011 at 2:46 PM ^
Any coach who wins will be accepted. RR's problem was that he didn't win, plain and simple. ANY coach whose best record is 7-6, in which the team gets destroyed against every good opponent, will be criticized.
February 4th, 2011 at 2:14 PM ^
"I'm not sitting here ready to shout down anyone who disagrees with me, so I don't want to be lumped in with the dahblue's of the world."
Dude...That is tremendously weak. You bring up my name, insultingly, when I'm not even remotely involved in whatever little spat you're having. You quote nothing I said to prove your "point". Weak. Haterific. Maybe I should post something in a thread where you've commented on nothing I've written and say, "I'm not going to use an avatar of another man with a long cylindrical object in his mouth and randomly insult people like aaamichfan..." Nah, no point in that...
Have a good one, hater.
February 4th, 2011 at 3:47 PM ^
Please.......
This is an issue we actually agree about. However, you've been ridiculous and illogical in past arguments. You've been a hater for as long as I've been on this board, and still are.
The fact that you are so offended by this, after how you've acted in the past, shows just how delusional you are.