Lloyd Carr Coaches Michigan Hockey

Submitted by Blazefire on April 8th, 2011 at 12:19 PM

“Okay, boys. We have a one score lead. I want you to run up the middle three times and punt. We’ll play solid prevent, and then we’ll do it again, and again.”

As fans, we remember this as the most irritating trait of Coach Carr. His endless focus on reducing variance and stalling his way to wins was infuriating. We recall the many games against Tressel and our bowl opponents that this strategy cost us. We remember punting from the 40 on 3rd and 2. We remember that fourth quarter field goal when M was up only 3 that we just knew would come back to bite us.

What we forget is that in the years Lloyd had a satisfactory defense, it worked. It worked to the tune of an 88% winning percentage. It worked to the tune of 5 Big Ten titles and a National Championship. And it didn’t work because Lloyd was lucky. It worked because he knew exactly what he was doing. I mean, seriously, I assume that nobody who knows anything about college football would ever question whether Lloyd Carr had a plan. At times, certain coaches seem to be winging it, throwing things out there just to try to find a magic formula. Not Lloyd Carr. Even during losses, he was always in control.

Last night, the ghost of his coaching career possessed Red Berensen. Shawn Hunwick stopped 40 shots, and Michigan spent the final two periods of the game playing prevent. Defensemen flew all over the ice, clogging lanes and disrupting flow. When Michigan did obtain the puck, we made three rushes up the middle and punted, clearing the puck from about center ice and setting up the defense again and again.

“Make that lead hold up, boys! Drive them crazy!”

Just like a Lloyd coached game, UND had chances, and plenty of them. But what they got very little of was the break away, one on that makes goalies around the world wet themselves. Most of their good chances erupted from a pile of bodies, more of which were Maize and Blue than Green and White.  But it was always in a pile of chaos that’s hard to take advantage of.

“We’re gonna out-execute them. No mistakes. Do it right every time.”

As fans, like so many Lloyd coached games we watched, a lead felt an awful lot like a deficit until a kid named Scooter buried an empty netter with 35 second to play. We spent most of the night screaming at the TV, “Cmon! Get it going on O! Get some shots! Generate some pressure!”

Red knew though, as Lloyd did, better than us. UND was, and is, an offensive juggernaut that will make you pay for your mistakes. But discipline, quality play and the refusal to make any of those mistakes will drive your opponent crazy. They continue to push, waiting for that moment when you dedicate four to their end and they can put out a two on one break. Don’t give it to them.

Does it always work? No. Can you do it with just anybody? No. You need a star, too;  someone to make a play when variance does overwhelm discipline. It’s important to recognize those stars. They’re the guys that make Lloyd and Red’s brilliance work. Lloyd had Charles Woodson. Red has Shawn Hunwick.

But that’s all part of the plan. Play clean. Play smart. Execute. Get your stars in position to pick up the slack and win the big ones. Stymie everyone. Be solid. Be stoic. Be brave. Be Michigan, and you will be a champion.

We Salute You, Coach.

Comments

coastal blue

April 8th, 2011 at 12:44 PM ^

But amazingly dumb.

Michigan HAD to play like that last night. Why? Because North Dakota was a far more talented team. This happens ALL the time. Did you ever watch the Red Wings in the 1990's? All of the goalies who had Hunwickesque against Detroit to extend a series or win a series? Irbe, Khabibulian, Casey, Brodeur, Roy...a hot goalie matters in hockey. It's a position that can swing the talent difference more than maybe any other in any sport.

Michigan was just like any EPL that stumbles into a one goal lead against Chelsea or Manchester United: Sell yourself out and defend like mad.

The knock on Carr is that he played that way when his teams had equal or greater talent. There was very little difference in talent level between Michigan and OSU from 2001 to 2007. Yet Michigan's record was 1-6. Why was that? Because of Lloyd Carr being outcoached by Jim Tressel.

If Red Berenson had UND's talent, he would not have played like that last night. Your analysis is completely false.

Blazefire

April 8th, 2011 at 12:48 PM ^

or even imply that he would've played like that no matter what? No, no I did not. I said he had the plan to make it happen. Because he KNEW THATS WHAT WAS NEEDED.

Try reading what is written rather than what you want to read. I said EXACTLY what you're saying I should have said.

coastal blue

April 8th, 2011 at 1:07 PM ^

Lloyd Carr did not always know what was needed. He was not always in control. That's why he had a 1-6 record against Tressel. Why we lost 3 straight Rose Bowls. Why we lost to Appy State. Why Oregon destroyed us 39-7. Why almost every single year we would lose to a team we were better than to spoil our chances at a title.

Even when he had more talented teams, HE PLAYED THE SAME WAY. He didn't ever change up his strategy. Except for maybe the 2008 Capitol One Bowl.

He is the exact opposite of Red. Red saw the only way to beat UND was to play conservative, because he identified the talent gap.

Lloyd could have had the 2010 Canadian Olympic team and would have played exactly the same way Red played it last night.

You are wrong

Fresh Meat

April 8th, 2011 at 1:19 PM ^

I think you are right.  Yes, that was a Lloyd Carr style of game, but not for the same reasons.  Carr never opened it up, even when he had better talent.  And again, I agree that the only time we saw Carr cut it open was against Florida in his last game.  Carr played that way ALL the time, it wasn't a strategy for a particular game.  Red, on the other hand, employed Carr ball for one game.  There is definitely a difference.

That being said, I enjoyed the read, it was well written.

Michichick

April 8th, 2011 at 1:30 PM ^

Last night actually reminded me of the 2008 Frozen Four semifinal vs. Notre Dame (the original ND) in Denver. We were #1 in the country/overall tourney seed, and had some major firepower in (Hobey Baker winner Kevin) Porter, Kolarik, Palushaj, Pacioretty, Capporusso, Hagelin, Turnbull, Rust, plus a young but good defense in Mitera, Summers, Llewellyn, Langlais, Kampfer.  The talent comparison wasn't even close. Yet ND met the puck at the blue line every possession and frustrated our skaters. Got in the shooting lanes for the first two periods and prevented our stars from working their usual magic. Of course, Billy Sauer's meltdown didn't help either.

Last night was Michigan's reversal of fortune. Our defense defused N. Dakota's offense the entire game in much the same way that Notre Dame had done to us in 2008. And Shawn Hunwick's MVP performance was the antithesis of Billy Sauer FF 2008. So we catch some good karma this time around.  Here's hoping for #10!

ryebreadboy

April 8th, 2011 at 4:04 PM ^

I agree with every single word of this.  Lloydball made me throw things.  If the prevent works from the 30, it'll work from the 40, frickin' go for fourth and 1.  He had Mike Hart, for God's sake.  That Florida game was incredible and also made me incredibly angry, because you got to see what Michigan could've been if Lloyd would've opened up the throttle more often.  The strategem in this hockey game was calculated to attempt to negate ND's offensive skills.  I can't blame them for leaving a wing hanging back in defense, especially with the huge perceived advantage (and probably actual advantage) to ND.  Calculated strategem vs. Lloydball conservatism?  I'll take the former any day.

Also, though irrelevant to this thread, I pray to God that manball will not equal Lloydball.  I'm all for a good defense, but I want to see Denard in that end zone fourteen times per game as well.

JBE

April 8th, 2011 at 4:44 PM ^

Lloyd did open up the throttle in that Florida game, but their defense was awful, and I doubt that open style would have been as successful against some of the B1G defenses as it was in that game. It would have been successful, but Florida made it look like gangbusters. I remember reading Henne's lips after a long drive, and he said something along the lines of the UF secondary didn't know what the fuck they were doing.

umchicago

April 8th, 2011 at 7:46 PM ^

henne engineered many comebacks when lloyd opened-up the offense.  msu could attest to a few; penn st among others.  even navarre had a huge 2nd half to win at minny when we were down huge.

lloyd squandered way too many first halves with his run, run, pass on 3rd style; keeping lesser opponents close.

M-Wolverine

April 9th, 2011 at 11:04 AM ^

If you really think all the teams you mention "had just the same talent as us", you're either delusional, or weren't paying attention.  Ohio State? Offensively, maybe. Take a look at the draft records of defensive players from 2001-2007. OSU has been a defensive beast for years, since Tressel locked up Ohio. Heck, even in the Cooper days, we were more often than not beating a team with more talent than we had. They just have a better recruiting base. To think otherwise is denial.

The 3 Rose Bowls? You mean we had equal talent to USC? Who had top recruiting classes just about every year, and filled the NFL Draft annually? That's just cosmically stupid. And Texas is a horrible example, because besides being loaded with talent, basically beat by the Heisman winner (who are usually pretty talented), that was an offensive battle, back and forth. It undercuts your point entirely.

Oregon? Sure they weren't as talented as we were. They were only on pace to be the National Champion when their going to be the Heisman winning QB got injured.  That was the best team in the land that no one knew about at that point playing a team that was still in shock.

App St, sure, shit happens. That's not even the worst upset MICHIGAN had from 2007-2008. Name me a team that hasn't lost to an inferior opponent at sometime. Tressel does it almost annually. USC certainly has found some PAC-10 dreg to lose to. Heck, lets be honest, it's been happening to Red for a decade, bringing in super talented teams to the Tournament, but not winning it. Even he still talks about his '97. 

So, no, you're pretty much completely wrong.

coastal blue

April 9th, 2011 at 3:31 PM ^

When it comes to Lloyd Carr.

I'd argue with you, but it's pointless as you are so far in denial over a man who clearly was not a big game coach and consistently cost his team accolades over his career it's laughable. To say that Tressel had more talented teams than Carr in their 7 seasons of competition is complete delusion. To say that the 2006 Michigan team wasn't as talented as the 2006 USC team is the same.

The one thing I will say is this: When Lloyd Carr took over Michigan, we were in competetion with OSU for being the #1 team in the conference. When he left, there was no competition. OSU was #1.

That is all.

M-Wolverine

April 9th, 2011 at 4:26 PM ^

Is you have no argument to stand on, so you're giving up. I don't blame you, not having any facts on your side. When ten years of NFL drafts destroy your assertions on talent, I can understand why you'd go off feelings more than reality.
<br>
<br>Michigan was coming off 2 8-4 seasons when he took over. Michigan didn't get all that much worse; Ohio State got better. And as recent events have further illustrated, by cheating. That you can't see these nuances shows who's wearing the blinders.

coastal blue

April 9th, 2011 at 5:59 PM ^

I will get drawn into this because Im pretty sure you're the type of moron who gets off on feeling superior to people because of a meaningless points total under your name.

1. In college football, to compete for a national championship in almost ALL cases, you must finish a regular season with 1 loss or no losses. In the BCS era, Michigan managed this one time under Lloyd Carr. In a conference where there is only 1 team with the clout that rivals Michigan - OSU - Michigan only ever came close to playing for a title one year, 2006.  Why was this? Because Carr's teams didn't just lose one game to teams they should have beaten, they lost to several almost every single year. Yes, upsets happen. But there is a difference between an upset that is mainly bad luck or a particular player having the game of his life and being outcoached or outschemed (Appy State specifically. That upset NEVER should have happened). You say Red has lost games with more talented teams. Yes this is true. And you saw why two nights ago. As I've already posted, a far less talented hockey team can win because theyir goalie stands on his head. As I already said, there is no position in sports that can swing the talent gap more than a great keeper. It is far more difficult for a football team facing a talent gap to succeed because such a position doesn't exist. This is obvious if you know anything about sports, so I can see why you missed it.

2. Which "upset" in 2007-08 was worse than Appy State? This doesn't even really matter, but I would love to hear it. Do you mean Toledo? Because something tells me a MAC team beating a 3-9 Big Ten team isn't even in the same realm as losing to a 1-AA team when you are ranked #5 in the country. In the same vein, acting as if Oregon's 2007 was more talented than Michigan's 07 team is ridiculous. That team was Dennis Dixon, as his injury showed. They destroyed us because Michigan under Carr had no chance at shutting down a mobile quarterback. Because, you know, we never adjusted to the novel, modern idea that quarterbacks could use their feet. So please, shut up.

3. Yes Michigan was 8-4 their final two years under Moeller. However let's look at each team's previous 4 seasons before Carr:

1991: UM 10-2 OSU 8-4

1992: UM 9-0-3 OSU 8-3-1

1993: UM 8-4 OSU 10-1-1

1994: UM 8-4 OSU 9-4

So, wow, what does that look like? Looks like the two teams are neck and neck with one another. In fact, man, look at that, they basically have the same record the year before Carr took over, which you failed to mention. So, idiot, it looks as if Michigan and OSU were pretty much equals at the point Carr took over. And, once again, when he left, there was a clear #1.

4. Talent

How do we measure this? NFL draft picks? Recruiting class numbers? All-Americans? All-Big Ten? I guess there is no sure way, but let's put it all together and see what happens.

From the 2002 draft to the 2008 draft, OSU had 44 players drafted. Michigan had 35. So there is an advantage to the Buckeyes, but is it really such an advantage that Michigan should go 1-6?

Recruiting Rankings (Rivals): Michigan's average recruiting rank from 2002 to 2007 was 11.5. OSU's average recruiting rank 15.8. However, this included a 2003 year in which OSU had the 42nd ranked class in the nation. I threw that year out, which dropped OSU's average rank to 10.6. So advantage on talent coming out of high school, slightly Michigan.

All Big Ten: I could only find from the years 2004 to 2007. In those 4 years, Michigan had 22 first-teamers and 15 second-teamers. OSU had 22 first-teamers and 12 second-teamers.  Once again, slight advantage Michigan.

So perhaps the talent level between Michigan and OSU wasn't EXACTLY even, and OSU holds a slight advantage, but in no way should it have created a 1-6 gap between the two teams. For you to say Lloyd lost ground on OSU because he didn't have the talent is wrong on every level. You wanted the numbers, you got them. Your post now seems as amazingly dumb as the original.

5. I also want to address the Texas game. You say throw it out because they had Vince Young and won a national championship the next year? What?? We had control of the game. We were up by 10. We lost. Lloydball.  The 2006 USC game...Perhaps USC had more talent than Michigan, but it was not such an obscene difference that we should have been completely uncompetitive and need a late touchdown to make the score look even remotely acceptable. In 2003? Sure. 2006? Not so much.

Finally, I just want to say this: The original post is stupid. It tries to compare Red Berenson's excellent game plan against a superior opponent to Lloyd Carr's lifetime game plan against every opponent. The point is, Red adjusted to give his team a better chance to win. Lloyd simply lived and died by his game plan, which was good enough to win 75% of his games, but cost us many opportunities to have far better seasons than we did.

In short, you are an idiot. Did I mention this enough? Please understand this is my last word and if you have any understanding of finality, you already had yours.

M-Wolverine

April 9th, 2011 at 11:36 PM ^

Is full of shit. And isn't it funny how it's never anyone with any amount of points who claims superiority of any sort because they have points? Please, show me examples. It's almost always guys with inferiority complexes over meaningless points. But as bitter as you are, I'm sure you have all sort of inferiority complexes that you are compensating for. 

First, almost everyone loses "enough games not to play for the National Title". Only two teams do it every year. And with less than a handful of exceptions, there aren't teams that go back again and again. Twice is pretty much the max. You want an example for Red? Look at tonight. There was no goaltender head stands, no outrageously lucky play. We got outplayed, by an inferior team. Does it mean Red has no mojo anymore, and should be canned? Hell, no, it's sports, it happens. Something you'd think YOU'D understand.

But since you've already shown you know little about football, it's not shocking. Toledo was far worse. Pay attention. App St was ranked in the Sagrin ratings right in the middle of college football teams, over half the Bowl Subdivision teams of the time. Toledo was such a bad team they were the bottom of the MAC and rankings, and got their coach fired...AFTER beating Michigan. The numbers say App St was far better. The results say they were better. Only your slanted bias says otherwise.

Oregon was the best team in the country. They had a great RB, as well as their QB. They beat USC, and were headed to the title game. You can play "they were a one man team", but one man can make a difference. See Vince Young. See Denard Robinson (without him, what are we, a 4 or 5 win team again?). They beat us because they were the better team. Should should admit that it happens sometimes. Lord knows it has enough over the last 3 years, you should be used to it.  They gobsmacked us because Hart was still banged up from the week before, Henne got hurt, and the team wasn't into it, because they had undergone the most critical, hateful week in Michigan sports history, from assholes like you.

And for someone who throws around idiot a lot, you don't seem very smart. You think Football is a zero sum game. That somehow Lloyd is supposed to make OSU stay bad, only playing them once a year. Yet your stats show theme losing 4, 3 (and a tie), 1 (and a tie), and 4.  Not too good. Must be because Lloyd stopped beating them 4 times in a season. Or wait...I'll say it really slow, you so....you...can...understand......OSU got better....Michigan can't stop OSU from recruiting better, and not losing games they probably shouldn't have (by your reasoning), but did anyway.  If OSU gets better, they lose less games, and lose to us less. They've done this by amping up their cheating to new heights. But how Lloyd was supposed to make the Buckeyes lose to MSU, Wisconsin, Iowa...well, you've come up with a new one there!

And again, numbers aren't your strong suit. I hope you're in the remedial class in your high school. Draft numbers are fine. All major programs have players that will get shots in the NFL. But how HIGH were they drafted?  I mean, if you have the same number, but all yours are taken in the first round, and all his are in the 7th, well, that's a good thing, right? From 2002 to present, OSU has had 13 1st round picks, Michigan 6. Over double (it would seem obvious, but with you, well....).  The numbers aren't great for 2nd and 3rd round comparisons either, but I'm not going to do all your homework just because you're really bad at googling. And that's what we're talking about...how they are seen to have done after their playing career. Recruiting rankings mean nothing. In fact, if they were ranked high, but didn't pan out later, you're actually making excuses for Lloyd, because he took guys everyone thought he should get, but had bad luck in that they weren't all they were cracked up to be. (If you can find a LONG list of guys who struggled because of Carr's coaching, but tore it up in the NFL, please feel free). I don't really feel like adding up a decade's worth of All Big Ten teams, so I'll just give that to you as a measure. But then you are leaving out OSU's national Championship team, which probably did pretty well, as well as a number of Big Ten winning OSU teams over the longer time period you're bitching about. But whatever. But since you seem to struggle on the numbers, I'll let you have one. 

Unfortunately, you're reading is almost as bad as your math. I didn't say excuse Texas because they won the National Title. (though they were a great team). I said we lost in a game that was to the last second, in an offensive showdown (because that's what you're bitching about, right, offense, not defense?), to one of the best players in college football history, who did the same thing to an "unstoppable" USC the next year. "Lloydball" is just a term for the ignorant that don't actually pay attention to what really happens so they can still complain.

And USC...you REALLY haven't been paying attention to college football for a decade, have you? Most dominant program of the decade (big cheaters, but yeah). Well, USC over the same above time period has had 14(!) 1st round picks...and tacked on 17 more second rounders. They've been dominating your recruiting rankings (obscenely, with classes of #1++ for years), and the draft in ways rarely seen. Just because a team lost a few games to lesser squads (like USC did every year.....must have coached Lloydball too...), didn't mean the talent wasn't there. And you face a more talented team against a team that really didn't want to be there, because they felt like they should be going someplace it, it shows. And that's typical in bowl games. Teams that unjustly get bumped down to a lesser bowl, or don't get the prize they thought they deserved often aren't as motivated for the bowl game, and lose. I guess all professional coaches aren't good at their job. Or, maybe, they're coaching college kids.

And I'm saying, great coaches don't always succeed. They are other guys out there trying to win too. They're not all stupid. Red had a team ranked double digits higher than the one he played tonight. He didn't win. Did he get outcoached? Was his scheme piss poor compared to UMD's coach? Should he be ripped viciously like Lloyd is? No, because it's a game of many variables, dealing with bounces, and kids, vs. other kids and coaches who are trying their best too. No one wins as much as people like you want, and those that even come close are almost always cheating their asses off. And one in a great while a historically great one comes along, and manages to do it over a long period of time.

So, if you think that flaccid attempt at logic was reason for me to shut up, your rebuttal should pretty much stop you from posting for the rest of your life, anywhere. Because you were pantsed pretty bad, again, and you were found...lacking. So save your "I never liked Lloyd and the spread was the answer but I'm still too butthurt to admit I was wrong after completely getting faced for wishing Lloyd was gone and then dreaming of a year like the ones he put up in his bad years" for your moronic drinking buddies. You lost the argument, the battle, and the war.

coastal blue

April 12th, 2011 at 10:01 AM ^

For someone who only wants numbers, you didn't disprove any facts i gave you, although, unlike you I can concede when I am wrong about something and first round picks would be weighted more than latter round picks.

After that you just blabbered on with your extremely biased opinion and never even attempted to argue any of the numbers with anything but saying I was wrong.

In the end you attempted to copy my finale in my post, but since I already did it, it sounded pleasantly lame and made you look pathetic.

You also do not understand that football and hockey are different games. The ice should be a dead giveaway, but you are a blathering idiot so I can understand how you could become confused.

Finally, you never even argued the main point of all of this, which you failed to get from the beginning because your emotions get the best of you whenever someone brings up the name Lloyd: That the analogy of the main post was wrong.

In the end I hope you had fun with your tantrum.

M-Wolverine

April 12th, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^

Please understand this is my last word

 

Just admit you can't help yourself. You're chain is easier to yank than a yo-yo. Which is kind of the way your arguments go. Kind of like saying you can admit you're wrong, but I can't (even though I said I'd give you the All-Big Ten numbers as a valid point), but then in the same breath say I didn't disprove any of your numbers wrong...as you're admitting the draft numbers were wrong.

Football and Hockey are different games. Coaching isn't that different. Strategy might be, but what makes one a good coach doesn't. And don't feel bad that I'm just rebutting the tantrum you've had for years and years...angry about the highly successful Coach Carr years not going your way; angry that no one saw the genius of replacing him; angry that you were wrong about the new heights we'd reach; angry that you were so wrong that people who actually know things about sports saw your dream had to end; angry that everyone else can now see you were wrong, and aren't siding with you; and angry at yourself, that you can't admit how wrong you've been about, well, everything.

I'd say being that embarrassed would be enough for anyone to "finally" give up (again). But I'm guessing that you're not going to be able to stop yourself....but that's ok. Try enough times, and you may come up with an argument, rather than lame insults.

coastal blue

April 13th, 2011 at 2:43 PM ^

I realize I haven't given this my full attention and you feel some sense that you are correct. This is a horrible error that must be corrected.

Two things before I begin:

  1. Pretty much everyone sided with me. No one even cares about this anymore except you and I. No one has even commented on a single post we have made back and forth. Once again, judging from your virgin proving point total, you have a false sense of your own importance on the internet.
  2. I like Lloyd Carr. I think he is a very good coach, but not a great coach.

I concede a mistake: ceding you a point.

Let's go over, step by step, why you are incorrect:

1. You agree with the original post. Only in the broadest sense is this comparison of Lloyd Carr's coaching and Red Berenson's coaching in the North Dakota correct. It would be like saying every coach who has ever drawn up a conservative game plan owes it to Lloyd Carr. The difference is, Red's plan was drawn up to give his team the best chance to win. Lloyd's game plan was his only game plan and many times cost his team victories, style points in the rankings and a better season than they ended up with. If Lloyd Carr was a small school coach with inferior talent, who consistently got the best of bigger more talented teams, then yes, the comparison would work. However, in the second half of his career - which is the argument here - Lloyd almost never beat teams in which he had A. more talent B. equal talent or C. comparable talent. In fact, in which games from the time Tressel – the last 7 years -  took over, when did Michigan ever upset a team that could be considered more talented? I can name twice: 2005 Penn State, possibly 2008 Florida. Thus, the entire idea that Red Berenson pulled a Lloyd Carr is ludicrous. Beating teams with more talent because he devised the proper gameplan was not Lloyd Carr’s specialty. You are an idiot.

2. Your last post gives away your idiocy: That coaching in many sports is similar. Holy. Shit. Coaching in football on game day is so much more hands on than hockey. Not even that but also basketball and soccer as well. Unless you are Peyton Manning, coaches are constantly involved with what goes on on the field. Even a small child could identify this. Hockey players are given a strategy and coaches can tinker from time to time, but it is a free-flowing game. That is why it is far easier for a coach to cost his team a football game than a hockey game. How anyone could not see this is truly beyond me. Oh wait. You are an idiot.

3. Appalachian State vs. Toledo. You proved this wrong when you brought up Toledo firing their coach. Why did they fire him? If the Michigan game had been a huge upset, then they would have kept him. It wasn’t. It was just a mediocre win over another bad team. But hey, this is your logic: 3-9 Toledo beating 3-9 Michigan (is it even possible to upset a 3-9 team??? Once more, your incredible LC bias is seeping through) is a bigger upset than a Michigan team, laden with NFL talent, a team that would finish the season 9-4 and ranked #16 in the country, a team that finished 6-2 in a BCS conference, a team that beat Florida led by the Heisman trophy winner 41-35 and could have scored 50, losing to a 13-2 I-AA team at home to start the season. You may say “Yeah, but SAGARIN!!!”  -you know because computers always do a great job at ranking where football teams should be ranked -  but let’s look at Appy State’s results in comparative years to BCS competition. You know, on the field stuff. Stuff you wouldn’t understand, because you’ve clearly never played competitive sports at any point in your sickly pale existence.

2005 (12-3) lost 38-6 to Kansas

2006 (14-1) lost 23-10 to North Carolina State.

2007 (13-2) won 34-32 over Michigan

2008 (11-3) lost 41-13 to LSU (and before you get all excited about LSU, they finished 8-5 that year)

Michigan finished their season ranked higher than all those teams. Appalachian State made the finals in 2005, won in 2006 and 2007 and lost in the playoffs in 2008. Their record was similar in all 4 years. Yet the only game they ever came close to winning was the Michigan game, which they did. Michigan finished the season ranked higher than any of those teams. Kansas finished 7-5, NC State 3-9, LSU 8-5. In short, Appalachian State, in the real world Neo, not the Matrix, was a far bigger upset than Toledo. You are an idiot.

4.  Your excuses. You have an excuse for every single loss. Yet what you don’t see, is packaged together is the reason why Lloyd Carr was not a good big game coach. Every single game, you put together a package of exuses (including Appalachian State, which right there is a giant red flag about your credibility). The problem is, there is hardly any evidence that Michigan could win those games. In his last 7 years, Michigan was 3-11 in games against Ohio State and bowl games (because if you beat OSU at Michigan, your season is saved. If RR had got 3-0 against the Buckeyes and had the same record, he would still be here. That game holds the stakes of the postseason). If you want to make comparisons, Red Berenson is 7-7 in his last seven years of the NCAA tournament. If you want to go further, I couldn’t find the exact results of the last 7 years of CCHA tournaments, but Michigan has won it 3 times, giving him 6 wins in the semi-finals and finals and 4 losses. Thus, Red is over .500 in the semi-final and finals of the CCHA tournament. Coupling that together – I didn’t count the previous rounds of the CCHA tournament to be fair – Red is at least 13-11 in his last 7 years in meaningful postseason play. So in games that matter, the results skew greatly in Red’s favor. I don’t even care about this argument, because as I’ve said above, I like Lloyd Carr. The point is, it was time to move on. Even Lloyd grasped it and thus you should have too. But then again, you are an idiot.

5. The Talent Gap. This will also combine some aspects of the above. This is where I made a mistake. I conceded that you might actually be right about something. It’s laughable that I even came to this conclusion considering you might be in the running for least intelligent creature to ever use a keyboard, but I suppose everyone makes a mistake from time to time.

Your argument is somehow that Michigan was so out-talented in games against USC, Texas, Oregon and Ohio State (even in the years OSU was 7-5 and 8-4) that it makes perfect sense that Michigan lost all these games.

Let’s start with the OSU-Michigan argument and where I was wrong. You stated that 1st round draft picks should be weighted more than other draft picks. At first glance, this would be correct. On second thought, it is completely incorrect. In fact, weighting the draft pick rounds is just as incomplete as using recruiting rankings. By your logic Ted Ginn Jr. is more talented than Mario Manningham. AJ Hawk is more talented than Lamarr Woodley. By your logic, Mike Hart and Troy Smith count minimally as talented players to both Michigan and Ohio State. Vernon Gholston was a #5 pick who doesn’t even play, yet according to you we should weight him more than Steve Breaston. Much like high school recruit rankings, the NFL draft is wildly erratic. Yes, first-round draft picks have a higher tendency to pan out, but so do higher ranked recruits. Thus, for you to discount (which, by the way, you brought up while you fellating USC and then discounted later, because as always, you are an idiot) recruiting classes while holding the NFL draft as gospel, makes you a hypocrite. In your warped little Madden 2001 World, Tom Brady is sitting on the bench, never to play a game.

The only fair comparison is the one I presented: All-Conference teams. Actual play against similar opponents. Michigan held a slight advantage in the four years documented. What was their record in those four years? 0-4. So that really just ruins your pathetic argument that it only includes 4 years. At best, you can come to the conclusion that OSU enjoyed a slight talent advantage over Michigan in the Tressel era. This does not excuse 1-6. As always, you are an idiot.

Furthermore, I enjoyed listening to you blubber about why Michigan lost other games. Poor little Michigan. Jesus, give me a break. We lost to good teams, when we were also a good team. The ONLY game in which we came to points of contention that you could argue a team enjoyed a significant talent advantage over Michigan is the 2003 USC game. USC was a national championship caliber team. We were in a tier below them. Texas 2004? Vince Young tipped the scale, but here is what is hilarious: in the recap this exact quote “Michigan was vulnerable against mobile quarterbacks all year” appears. In 2004. So the reality is, Michigan got ripped up no matter who was running at the QB position in 2004, not just by Vince Young. Meanwhile, 3 years later, Michigan was still vulnerable against any and all mobile quarterbacks. No adjustments. After Vince Young, there wasn’t any kind of talent gap. In fact, going down the line, Michigan probably contained an overall better team, that with a better plan to stop a one-man offense, could have easily put the game away when they led by 10 in the 4th quarter. I bet you can’t even name another member of the Texas offense. And Steve Breaston had a record-setting day, so if you’d like to say Vince Young is all that matters in that victory, it’s just as easy to say “Man, I can’t believe that Michigan got a record-breaking performance from Steve Breaston and lost.”

Finally, let’s get to the 4 games stretch in 2006-07. This is where you get truly pathetic. You claim that Michigan’s teams were at talent disadvantages against OSU and Oregon (led by 6th round quarterbacks, who according to you aren’t even remotely talented). In 2006, Michigan was not at a talent disadvantage against Ohio State. Don’t even try to sell that bull shit. No one is buying it. In fact, Michigan losing this game is one of the main reasons Lloyd had to go. How you could not get a team with that much talent to beat their biggest rivals with the extra motivation of winning it for Bo leaves me incredulous. How we didn’t come out like Alabama against Auburn this year in a game in which we had everything to play for speaks loudly for Lloyd’s inability to rise to the occasion. In the 2007 Rose Bowl: seriously? Using your precious draft picks (minus your idiot opinion that Mike Hart is a terrible running back), Michigan went 13-13 with USC in picks in 07 and 08. This was a winnable game. Of course as a USC player stated afterwards, Michigan didn’t run anything out of the ordinary and were thus easily beatable. That falls on the coaching. It also falls on coaching to motivate your team. But hey, the players weren’t motivated and that gives you an excuse and you love those right?  You are an idiot.

Finally, against Oregon. You blame the aftermath of the Appalachian State game. Christ.  I am so glad I never had the type of soft-minded individual you must be as a coach at any point in my life. After a loss like that, the coach needs to get his team focused. Michigan, getting ripped apart for 32 points in the first half of what should have been a “prove-it” game, was lost. You can blame injuries, but those happened after things were already getting out of hand. The fact is, Lloyd made no adjustments from the week before to handle Dennis Dixon. Hell, he made no adjustments from 04’ against Vince Young. Oregon was not more talented than Michigan. They had a great spread quarterback (who in your opinion sucks because he wasn’t drafted in the first round. Once again, you are an idiot) and good running back in Jonathon Stewart. Their defense gave up 25 points a game and allowed single digit points twice: Michigan and Washington State. Let that soak in for a second. Michigan (who had Henne, Hart, Long, Manningham and Arrington to combat whatever offensive talent you want to state for Oregon) was manhandled offensively and defensively by a team with a spread quarterback. Again. Not a team that had more talent. A team that Lloyd Carr could not adjust his gameplan too. Again. But hey, it’s okay because according to mental midgets such as yourself, everyone was still in shock over the week before. Once again, you are an idiot.

6. I stated Michigan and Ohio State’s records beforehand to show that Michigan and OSU were not so different. Then you blabbered on, in your attempt to be condescending, that OSU got better. Guess what little guy! You were right! Ohio State did get better! They got a better coach. A coach who owned Lloyd Carr. I’ve already showed the talent gap is, at best, minimally slanted in OSU’s favor. And really, it didn’t matter whether OSU was 7-5 or 11-0, they still beat Michigan under Tressel. I’m not even sure what you are trying to prove: Obviously, Michigan can only cause OSU one loss a year. Did you state this because you needed to see it on paper because your brain can’t comprehend such a complex thought? However, under Lloyd Carr, they were only able to cause that one loss once in seven attempts. This caused the scale to tilt in OSU favor. If you look at what Lloyd left Michigan with, he left the team worse off than when he obtained it. He didn’t let it get that noticeably bad on his watch, but he certainly jumped ship right before things went to hell. Thus, he allowed Michigan to get worse while having the same level of talent as his main rival, proving my point and proving, once again, that you are an idiot.

7. UM vs. UMD: Was this a disappointing loss? Yes. Do all coaches have disappointing losses? Yes. However, over the second half of his career, Lloyd Carr has had far more disappointing losses than exhilarating victories. That is the difference between Red and Lloyd: Red won a game to get to this point. Lloyd would have lost the ND game.

In short, you’ve been handled. Anything you want to add, feel free. I’ll give you slight credit: you made me care enough to argue to win a point that I was already correct about. Please note, you were never right about a single thing in your entire analysis. I think you should take pride in the fact that you failed so completely. It was truly spectacular watching some sensitive old Lloyd supporter think he was in a Lloyd/RR argument and completely miss the point. Well done sir, you are indeed a loser.

P.S. I really am sorry that you had to be destroyed at the only thing on earth that probably brings you joy.

M-Wolverine

April 14th, 2011 at 12:42 PM ^

 

I know, I know, you say you're done, again and again...but either you don't have the will, or courage of your convictions to do so.....or just can't helped getting having your pants pulled down publicly, revealing to all your tiny intellectual weenie. Which isn't a surprise, since you seem so stuck on points, or your lack thereof. They really mean nothing...you don't have to feel bad because you don't have any. That doesn't make you stupid. You do that all on your own. But continue to let it give you an inferiority complex. That says far more about you thank anybody else. But, speaking of Internet self-importance....BOLD doesn't make what you say any more correct.

1. You should be careful who you call an idiot when you write things like - 

 

 

Lloyd almost never beat teams in which he had A. more talent B. equal talent or C. comparable talent.

 

So teams in which he had more talent (worse teams), equal or comparable (like teams)...leaves only teams with...more talent. So you're saying the only teams we beat were teams with more talent, which you then say we only did twice. But wait! If we didn't beat teams where we had more talent...that means we lost almost ALL of our games. I didn't know we went winless the last 10 years.

Really, learn to write before you start name-calling. Like I said, you don't need any help making yourself look stupid.

And when, as you say, "you're more talented than everyone else", there aren't lots of opportunities to pull an upset. Other games, off the top of my head we weren't favored in...2003 vs. Florida, then 2003 vs. Ohio State, 2006 ND was supposed to waste us, as was Penn State in 2007. Oh, but you said more talented....funny, how teams we weren't supposed to beat, but that we did are suddenly not "more talented" but all the teams that upset us, and went on to do well, the Wisconsin's of the world and Iowa's couldn't have a more talented team, that specific year.  And you can cherry pick years (I have years Red didn't have the best seasons to pick from too, but they wouldn't show the whole record either), but he was 19-8 vs. Top Ten teams.  So he won far more than he lost vs. the teams you say he NEVER won against.

2. So wait....by you're logic, Red deserves no credit for his game plan against ND...because once the game started, he had nothing to do with it. You can't have it both ways. Either Hockey coaches can't lose games as much as a football coach, and thus they can't win games as much as football coach, or they get credit for preparing a team, so they have to take the blame too. Showing logical inconsistency is far more a sign of an idiot than just having someone call you it. Especially considering the source.

 

3. 

Stuff you wouldn’t understand, because you’ve clearly never played competitive sports at any point in your sickly pale existence.

That meme? Boy, you ARE compensating. I've been around more athletics, and Michigan athletics than you will be in your lifetime. I'm sorry you go through life wishing you were a great athlete, and wishing you were smart. But save your transference for your shrink, and stop using ad hominem attacks for your lack of argument. 

No one ever said App State wasn't a big upset. So was Stanford over USC that year (actually a bigger point spread in that game...but those Vegas guys, they know less than the computers, right?). But if you don't like all that analytical stuff, you can just do the eye test. If you had money to put on the game (you know, imagining things) with App St playing Toledo, who would you bet on? Toledo would have gotten killed, and you know it. 

Guess what? Both teams in 2007 and 2008 underachieved, for various reasons. A Top 25 team lost to Top 50 team. A team that was probably Top 80 (because, even if their records were better, I would hope we were at least better than a lot of those small schools and MAC type teams) lost to a team well over 100 in the rankings. Both got beat by teams about 25-30 worse than them. We've lost to Big Ten teams that were lower ranked than that App St team, before Lloyd, after Lloyd, and during Lloyd. We've NEVER lost to a team as bad as that Toledo squad. But then we've never fielded a team as bad as 2008 either, you're right. Great example of how things were so bad before.

4. Excuses....you mean like what we had with Rich for 3 years?  Oh, wait, those were looking at shades of gray..giving REASONS. I know, actually looking at the situations, and individual results is difficult for you, but it's what thinking people do. Try it sometime. 19-8 vs. the top ten. "Not a good big game coach". Great argument. Really.

And I'm not really sure how comparing OSU and a bowl game...quite often the 2 toughest games we play each year....compare to 7-7 in the Tournament, when that means you beat the team you play first, who is almost always inferior to a Michigan Hockey team, and then lose the second, who is either equal or better to you (with variance for some years having to play a great team in the first round, and others having 2 games against lesser opposition). So really, you should find more compelling stats if you're trying to make an argument...is that what you're doing? It's so hard to tell when it's so poorly thought out....

5. Not sure where I said I discounted recruiting rankings....Just saying if it's equal at one end, but not equal at the other end (as OSU), then there's an obvious lean to that direction, because 1=1 and 2>1, 3>2.  And with USC, you have the disparity in recruiting, on the field, and draft results. The fact that you're still even debating them is sad. And you're right, not all drafts are equal...but much like recruiting, high rankings/drafting are a pretty good sign of overall body of work. Teams that recruit the best generally are the best. If anyone's being hypocritical, it's you for rightly pointing out that issue in the draft, but ignoring it in recruiting rankings. I thought it was pretty much agreed we had a high number of people that didn't pan out, so that if we did get the same amount of talent as say, Ohio State, it didn't matter, because their success rate with those players was better, and thus, they were more talented. 

USC was a National Championship "caliber" team for most of the '00's. Including both times we played them. The first time, they WERE the National Champ. There's a difference there.

And Texas? You show your ignorance. One man team? They had the best running back in the country (and top draft pick), Cedric Benson, who we completely shut down. They were multi-pronged and dangerous. We chose to shut down the running back, which is basic defensive philosophy. We couldn't do that and contain Vince Young too. Guess what? That one man team (WITHOUT Cedric Benson) couldn't be stopped by USC, defending champ, and the team some were calling the greatest of all time. It's not as easy as saying "Oh, we should concentrate on stopping a mobile QB"....almost nobody could. (They also had a great LB, who's name escapes me at the moment...and their Tight End wasn't bad).

Breaston had a great day, Braylon had a great day, Henne had a great day. They all had great days, but we were too conservative to beat Texas. You wan't to say we couldn't stop them when we had to, fine. See above. But really we were another half inch of finger from blocking a kick and winning, and then your whole argument goes in the crapper.

Oregon - sixth round QB....who had blown out his knee months before. The fact that ANYONE drafted him after that is a sign of how highly he was thought of, not a knock. Really, think before you type.

And let's see...an OSU team that played in back to back National Championship games, having more talent than us? Call me crazy! And we barely lose the game, at their Stadium, is reason that he "has to go". For someone who likes to knock other people's "sports experience" you show your lack of it, and your complete lack of knowledge of the Michigan Football team, or even human emotions. (The last one doesn't shock me....ok, none of them do). "Get up for Bo"? Are you serious? He died THE DAY BEFORE. That's not a crass rallying point, that's a team still in a state of shock. You love your quotes...read the ones from the coaches and team after. It's hard to think about a football game less than a day after a DEATH. Get some priorities, and a gripe. And learn how to argue without using straw men.

So, USC, that should have been playing for the National Championship (AGAIN), who actually had 15 players drafted in 2007, 2008 - 4 1's, 6 2's, 3 5's and 2 7's, and Michigan's 13 (at least you got that right) 2 1's, 4 2's, 2 3's, a 5, 2 6's, and 2 7's. Close, but definitely a slant to one team. Thanks for making my case for me.

But by your logic, that every team should be up for every game, because that's the coach's job, and you don't mind picking out individual exceptions...well, what happened in the National Title game Saturday? Were we not prepared properly (since that's all that hockey coaches do, so you say)? We came out lethargic, took dumb penalties, looked slow, playing a lower ranked team with less talent...and lost. How could we not be up for a TITLE game? By your logic, it must mean Red is a bad coach, because in that one game his team didn't perform to it's best.  Seeing the flaw at taking one example, and using it as an overriding meme? Probably not.

Oregon- you can say you're glad you didn't have me as a coach, but I guess you're glad some softie like Bo never coached you either. Because Bo believed being tough when things were going well, to keep them from getting swelled heads. But when things are going bad, he knew his team was down, and in danger of breaking, so at those times he was supportive. After losing to ND and Miami in '88, when you'd have had him tearing his team a new one, he said they were going to win the Big Ten. So please, don't question my will. You know so little about coaching, you probably can't potty train a dog. And it's hard for you to say that perception wise (which has never been argued...the argument is that the perception doesn't match the reality), NO ONE has ever had to deal with a week like the media shit storm (which didn't even exist when Bo coached) after the App State week. Losers like you telling the team how awful they are everywhere they went contributed to a down, distracted week.

Not that it mattered. Oregon was the better team. And we were injured. Henne went out, Hart was hurt from the week before, and if you remember, Mario wasn't on the same page as the team, still in the doghouse over team violations. We outgained them the first half, but couldn't score. (If it had been one of Rich's teams, you'd have considered that a victory). And it's great that Doak Walker semi-finalist Stewart was just "good" in your book...and not one of the Top Ten in the nation. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your perception.

6. Maybe that "see it on paper" would be a good idea for you, because you obviously need it. You made the argument that OSU went from 8-4 to 10-1 annually because we didn't stay as good as them. How you expected Michigan to keep OSU from beating the rest of the Big Ten will always remain a mystery, except to the little people talking to you in your mind. Maybe if you wrote it all out it would make more sense. But then, I doubt it.

7. I guess you don't read this blog much, or pay attention to, well anything really, but Michigan Hockey has been filled with far more disappointment than "exhilarating victories" lately. Which, by your logic, means it's far past Red's time to go. (I mean, it's not like we've owned Miami of Ohio in the regular season, either).  Oh, but one game offsets all that with ND. Well, then, I guess you have to rework your logic, and absolve Lloyd of all his failures (who I really don't believe you like, but it makes you sound like less of an asshole to say so, right?) because he beat Florida in the Cap 1. Or you could just admit that coaches, no matter how good a job they do, in one game situations will upset some teams, lose to some teams they shouldn't, and really should be judged for their overall body of work. But then, you wouldn't be you.

 

But please, continue with the insults you use to cover up your lack of an argument. I know, no matter how much you say "I'm done; I'm not saying anymore" (What is this...the 3rd, 4th time?), you'll come back, because you can't handle being made to look so wrong, again and again. So keep up the "idiot" name-calling...it's just reveals your lack of logical skills, and really, ripping apart your points is so easy, I can do it all day, without breaking a sweat.  So start a REALLY narrow post, so you can again show yourself what a big man you are, while showing everyone else you're not.

coastal blue

April 16th, 2011 at 12:13 AM ^

I'll give you my quote, which I admit sounds stupid and I didn't think through, but after that, you were charmin soft and pointless.

At least you got to use some pictures. 

I just wanted you to know that I at least read your meaningless attempt to come out on top so it wasn't all for naught.

I would have preferred the 1st round KO, but I'll accept the fact you hit the floor in the 4th.

Oh...

and...

Idiot.

BubbaT33

April 8th, 2011 at 4:30 PM ^

Listen, they WON for God's sake . . .

Lloyd was a good coach.  His record proves that!  Defense wins . . .

Could you imagine how good we would have been if we had a Lloyd Carr defense last year?

SysMark

April 8th, 2011 at 12:57 PM ^

The difference is Lloyd did it when he had superior talent and kept the other team in the game.  Last night we were outmanned and brilliantly employed the only strategy that could win the game.  The discipline displayed in executing that plan was incredible.

andrewG

April 8th, 2011 at 12:58 PM ^

i was thinking this exact thing (maybe not as deep or eloquent) through the entire 2nd and 3rd period. text i sent to my buddy last night while watching the game: "lloyd carr would approve of this style"

Bronco648

April 8th, 2011 at 1:06 PM ^

Brian mentioned that he thought UND would get frustrated if they found themselves in the third period at a deficit. Well, I didn't see much frustration but I started to see their body language reflect the doubt that was in their heads. To their credit, they didn't turn into a bunch of goons (their fans sure did!!) but they could have. I listened to the post game press conferences and to a man, the UND players gave credit to the UM defense and to Hunwick. They knew all-to-well what had just happened to them yet they seemed powerless to prevent it or explain it. Hockey is just that way sometimes (1980 USA v. USSR come to mind?). That's what makes it so great to watch (and play), especially during the playoffs. I won't equate the hockey team to any of Lloyd's teams but I can see the parallel.

Michichick

April 8th, 2011 at 1:35 PM ^

We are all familiar with Carr's play not to lose style. However, Red Berenson has been at this hockey/coaching thing long enough to be able to identify his team's strengths and weaknesses. Michigan had two weeks to prep for N. Dakota, and UND's Matt Grattin isn't a Hobey Baker finalist (and favorite to win) for nothing. Red is a master of game plans and often changes it up to take advantage of the other team's weaknesses or meet their strengths. Exactly what Michigan did against the Fighting Sioux last night.

 

M-jed

April 8th, 2011 at 1:29 PM ^

But I'm not sure with the back and forth comparisons with good Lloyd/bad Lloyd. My take is that once we got the lead, Red played the strength of the team in order to win-in this case it's the defense.I don't think it's a "let's not take risks" strategy, but a go with our strength strategy. In the first period when it was tied, it looked like UND had an extra skater out there and I was terrified. As the game went on, i thought we played stronger and smarter and our discipline and fine coaching was apparent in how well we executed our winning strategy.
Again, I think you're saying this but not so sure I'd compare to Lloyd.

justingoblue

April 8th, 2011 at 3:05 PM ^

I'd disagree. I would have to have a stream of it up to tell you specific instances, but we were playing a very very conservative game last night. To me, playing defensive is allowing your defensemen and your one or two defensive minded wingers play their game. The entire plan last night seemed to be focused on always having one of the wingers in a non-attacking, defensive position.

When I was watching last night I thought this contributed to the pretty bad performance on break-outs (though it's understandable given the strategy). For another example, the last penalty kill that we had was the only time I saw a forward deeper than the hash marks in the attacking zone looking to actually get the puck and shoot, as opposed to making a hit.

Kennyvr1

April 11th, 2011 at 2:11 PM ^

A good Lloyd though. I'm sorry if this offends anyone but Lloyd Carr was simply a bad head football coach. May have been a good d coordinator, a good mentor but a good head coach no. I know we won a national title and 5 big ten championships. Blah blah blah. Charles Woodson. Lloyd consistently game planned horribly, his in-game adjustments were non-existent, never had his team prepared to play when they went out west. At one point during his tenure we had almost 40 players in the league, 2nd most of any university yet managed to lose 3-4 games a year to much lesser talented teams...anyone who thinks Lloyd Carr was even a good football coach doesn't know much about football or isn't really paying much attention to the game.

JohnnyV123

April 8th, 2011 at 1:34 PM ^

It's basically been said already but Carr would employ the prevent in the oddest situations. Watching some of the Big Ten Greatest Games I had forgotten how often he used the prevent at the end of the first half.

Michigan would be dominating a game by a couple touchdowns then even though the other team would have shown little sign of life all of a sudden the Mich prevent would get them into rhythm gaining eight yards a play and getting an easy field goal to go into halftime with some momentum.

Does anyone remember the Purdue game where Marlin Jackson caused the fumble late in the game to secure the win? There was a game where we were up by less than 3 yet Carr goes prevent anyways allowing the other team to get into field goal range. Only because of Jackson's great defensive play did we survive that one

As great as his football record was it could have been even better if not for getting his own way.

Red understands the game of hockey in a realistic way and does not have his team try to play outside themselves.

Wolverine In Exile

April 8th, 2011 at 1:42 PM ^

hockey is actually the inverse of football where a solid defensive strategy to limit scoring chances is actually the increasing variance method, i.e. you increase the probability of less skilled play (bouncing puck, fluky thingy) being a deciding moment. Allowing a more free flowing game in hockey is typically where the more skilled team wins.

So I like Blazefire's writing, but I disagree with your basic premise on the basis of a wrong assumption of what constitutes a high variance strategy in hockey.

ND Sux

April 8th, 2011 at 1:54 PM ^

Lloyd Carr...not only as a very good football coach, but as a fantastic human being and mentor of young men. 

His style of coaching made me throw many pillows at the TV, but in the end his record speaks for itself.  The program was in fine hands on Lloyd's watch.  The man deserves a lot more love than this board shows him at times.   

Thanks to the OP for this, and for showing the "plus" side of Lloyd as a strategist. 

EDIT: I had so many chances to use the word "outstanding"!  Epic fail. 

coastal blue

April 9th, 2011 at 3:19 PM ^

The original post is trying to make a correlation between Lloyd Carr consistently underachieving because he played down to his competition by playing conservatively and Red Berenson gameplanning conservatively to better compete against a more talented team.

It makes very little sense.

mtlcarcajou

April 8th, 2011 at 9:59 PM ^

How many times during a Lloyd game did you think, "We should win this"?

How many times last night did you think, "We should not be winning this"?

Last night the plan was excellent, though decidedly risky. The forecheck to their hashmarks, constantly forcing the puck laterally, then up the boards; taking possession into the neutral zone, then a 2-man rush up the wings with a trailer not advancing past the blue line. And diving in front of every shot in the third, from the point on in. You can't play a season like that, inviting waves of pressure with almost no pressure back.

Twice UND broke it in the third, down through our left, almost back-to-back (though the 2nd time looked grossly offside); but we adjusted, forcing them to come up the right, usually into Pateryn. The rest of the time it was daring them to beat us one-on-two, like with their pp's with Kristo ragging the puck until he spun out front. I kept seeing adjustments throughout, fine tuning shift after shift. Not what I'd associate at all with Lloyd's teams, especially as has been pointed out his end of first half 'strategy'.

Happy Gilmore

April 9th, 2011 at 12:33 AM ^

cgoldblue: Michigan was just like any EPL that stumbles into a one goal lead against Chelsea or Manchester United: Sell yourself out and defend like mad.

Dude, nobody watches soccer, nobody gets this analogy...

Rumsey87

April 9th, 2011 at 9:51 AM ^

Lloyd Carr finished his 13 year career 1-6 against Ohio State.  He had one great season in 1997, primarily benefiting from the great defense filled with Moeller recruited juniors and seniors.  In his last season he lost to Appalachian State with the #5 team in the country and several NFL players.  At the end, Michigan was not a national power and had fallen far behind Ohio State in the Big Ten.

Red Berenson, on the other hand, built a program into a national power.  Near the end of his career, his team is once again playing for a national title.

They are really nothing a like at all.

M-Wolverine

April 9th, 2011 at 11:16 AM ^

But let's not get crazy here. He hasn't even won today, yet. But he's spent over a decade finding ways to lose to teams that aren't as good as his in the Tournament since his last title. (And shouldn't lose today, either). If Red was coaching in a sport people actually cared about, there'd have been as many catcalls for his job as there were for Lloyd, because frankly, we've been a more dominant program talent wise than football, and come up short again and again. And they'd have been just as stupid. But it's very similar.  Records 90-98 were outstanding, but '99 through the present have taken a major drop-off (sound familiar?).

Hockey isn't basketball. There aren't as many rounds. When you make the Tournament, and you're good, you should be expected to make the Frozen Four, and win when you get there. Red's a great coach, and deserves to name his own exit time (if ever. He may outlive all of us). But to ignore that it's basically been a program that's been just as "underachieving" as football "has" for the same period of time makes me think you should go back to just reading and not posting.