Blowout Loss Argument(this post is not about RR)

Submitted by Ziff72 on February 4th, 2011 at 4:13 PM

EDIT-  This post has nothing to do with RR it has to do with being negative about 2011 team because of the score of last years games.  That is why I said "I'm Done", but I am sorry I ever included his name, because of it instantly invalidated the rest of my posts and comparisons to other teams.  Sorry. 

I'm done fighting about Rodriguez, but I've seen this on several different posts and it needs to stop.  The total score of a particular game or season  has very little relevance to the next season or game.   There are so many variables in a game or season that if they played a 7 game series like they do in basketball you would see all sorts of crazy score combinations.   Stop using the scores of games this year as a basis for a team's progress next year.  Did anybody see the NE-Jets series play out over the course of the season?  

Arguments I see. 

1.  Mich is not close to being good because we lost by wide margins to good teams.

2. This team has no hope because the defense is terrible it'll be another 3 year rebuilding project.

To these people I ask do you not watch college football?  It took me 5 minutes of my memory bank to find these. These are the year before seasons before these teams had great success.   I'm sure people have many more examples.

07 Alabama loses to Louisiana Monroe at home and unranked Miss St at home on it's way to 6-6.  Next year they are undefeated playing in SEC Champ game before they lose to Florida.

09 Mich St-  Our own fucking rival come on.  Lost to Central and lost to Penn St by 28 and had a defense get torched by Minnesota Wisc and Tex Tech.  This year 11-1 defense improves by 50 spots.

08 Wisc- Bielema and Chryst were getting skewered.  They lost by 41 to Penn St, 22 to Iowa, 29 to Florida St.  

07 Iowa- Signature losses were by 18 to Indiana, 20 to Penn St, 26 to Purdue and 9 to Western Michigan....FIRE FERENTZ!!!!

08 Nebraska- Defensive Genius Pelini gave up 52 to Missouri and 62 to Oklahoma.

09 Auburn- Yes your NC lost by 21 to LSU and 21 to Arkansas

09 Arkansas- Lost by 28 to Alabama, 13 to a crummy Ole Miss team and gave up 52 to Georgia trying to replace Matt Stafford.

05 Michigan- Remember that 7-5 team that took a lot of shit oh yeah they were 11-0 heading into Columbus in 06.

Don't be fooled by simple arguments.  Everyone looks at the Gator Bowl and sees the final score and says see we got humiliated blah blah blah we gave up 50pts yada yada.  Sure we lost,  it was a bad performance, but if RR was just trying to save face he could have Lloyd balled that game and had a completely different score.  RR went for it on  4th downs trying to come back that back fired and gave MSU great field position.  Who cares about the final score.  It is about wether it was a win or a loss, I was glad he was trying low percentage plays trying to win instead of just trying to save face.    People bring up the fact we scored 14pts in that game, but how close were we to scoring 35-38?  Pretty fucking close.  Missed fg, RR dropped pass, Hemmingway overthrow, passed up fg etc..   We're not 38 points worse than Miss St.  We play that game 10 times and there are wild swings in what the outcome would be.

From the very 1st play a game unfolds differently every time.  Some games have quick scores that get teams out of gameplan.  Some have turnovers.  When teams get way up sometimes they start coaching to the clock and let teams back in it.  Sometimes when you have a young qb(hint hint) you get down and he starts forcing it and it gets worse. You never know.

Next years Michigan team will have a very experienced offense with a new coordinator so expectations are everywhere.  Could be even better or maybe a slight step back  The defense will be better, this is not debateable.  The question is how much.  This will all lead to great debate for us for the next 7 months.  This is what MGOBLOG forum is about, but please stop with the lame Wisc beat us by 20 last year we can't compete you are better than that.

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

Brewers Yost

February 4th, 2011 at 5:06 PM ^

Ziff72: "RR went for it on  4th downs trying to come back that back fired and gave MSU great field position"

Michigan was 0 for 5 on 4th down conversionss that game (gator bowl):

1st: MSST 33 in the 2nd quarter; score 24-14 MSST

2nd: MSST 12 in the 3rd quarter; score  38-14 MSST

3rd-5th: Score was 45 to 14 MSST before the third attemp. They scored their final TD after the 3rd failed attempt.

As you can see your statement is incorrect.

Ziff72

February 5th, 2011 at 9:38 AM ^

How am I incorrect?  We went  0-5 on 4th downs.  We gave then the ball on our side of the field that lead to a direct td and we failed deep in their territory.  If we convert 2 of 4 and punt on the one in our territory The score is 45-28.  If we made our fg it is 45-31.   

We lose by 14. 

bryemye

February 4th, 2011 at 5:15 PM ^

It's not worth the effort dude. It's just not. There's just zero point to arguing anymore even if you're right.

There's nothing to argue and nothing intelligent to say about the coming year because we don't have any meaningful data. There's no reason to rehash the Rodriguez era for all it could have been or should have been or whatever. Buckle your seat belt and see what this staff does.

CompleteLunacy

February 4th, 2011 at 5:16 PM ^

I flat out disagree with you. Flat out. It's not simply the 5 losses were blowouts (and they weren't all blowouts anyway), it's that they were all bad. Really bad. As in, the team got down early in the 1st half, and either tried it's best to salvage the game but come up short because LOL at our defense -or- just flat out caved in for the rest (looking at the last 3 games there). When you combine that with the numerous close calls against mediocre teams, and well, it's a very legitimate argument. At least in my mind.

If it wasn't a legitimate argument, RR might still have a job right now. 

Regarding your point about the defense, how do you know it would have improved drastically next year? You don't. A year of experience SHOULD help, but if teh issues run deeper than that (and I most certainly believe they did...), then would it have really improved to the point where Michigan was a legit B1G title contender? Or even a legit good team? '

 

bryemye

February 4th, 2011 at 5:17 PM ^

Rich Rodriguez got fired because the atmosphere surrounding the program had become absolutely poisonous. End of. This argument about how much margin of victory/loss matters or whatever else as it affects the future of the team is silly and oh god forget it.

Blue Mind and Heart

February 4th, 2011 at 5:50 PM ^

he failed to field a winning team, if you define winning as beating your rivals and being in contention for Big 10 and national championships.  And that is how most Michigan fans would define winning pre-RR.  

The whole poisonous atmosphere stuff is more of a internet focused issue.  It disappears pretty quickly once you log off.  Sitting in your seats and watching your team fall out of contention by half time in all the meaningful games, that lingers and causes coaches to get fired...deservedly.   

NateVolk

February 4th, 2011 at 10:27 PM ^

There are so many factors that play into a coaches' overall record at mid-major or small schools that make it dangerous to judge their ability on W-L.  You have to look beyond the numbers.

Go look up the guys like Mack Brown, Don James, Ara Parsegian, Gary Moeller, Gene Stallings, and Gene Chizik. Study their records at previous small school stops.  It meant nothing when they moved up to a big program. The analysis coach to coach runs a lot deeper.  

Thankfully Brandon looked beyond the numbers with Rich and saw that the 7-6 from 5-7, from 3-9 was also specious evidence of pending greatness. My cousin likes to throw perfectly good McDonald's cheeseburger into his back seat in the wrapping to eat later when he is really hungry.  It is then a lousy cheeseburger (which he made lousy)  but I guess it is way better than nothing when you are hungry.  

There is no genius involved with making good into worse then improving from lousy, if it doesn't give you better than the original.  There is, however, a monster buy out and a gig doing signing day analysis on the internet.

BigBlue02

February 4th, 2011 at 11:29 PM ^

Your last paragraph is funny considering Hoke took 5 years to get Ball State better than the original. They were 6-6 the year before he came in and then proceeded to win 10 games the next 3 years. Apparently he should have been fired then.

Also, Mack Brown coached at North Carolina before Texas....that isn't quite Ball State or San Diego State.

Eye of the Tiger

February 6th, 2011 at 1:23 AM ^

You haven't coached the University of Michigan.  As such, you could not given the AD a compelling reason to fire you.  I can think of one subject of conversation here who has.  

Basically, the argument put forward that "win/loss records don't matter because Brady Hoke is 47-50 and got hired" is just plain silly.  Hiring decisions are based on all kinds of intangibles, as well as win/loss records.  Firing decisions are almost always based on the coach not meeting certain benchmarks within an allotted time.  For example:

1. Not winning more than losing

2. Not beating archrivals enough times to satisfy alumni and boosters

3. Not perceived as making enough progress to justify salary

4. Not meeting established expectations for success

If Hoke performs similarly in the next 3 years, I expect him to get the boot too.  Since I'm a fan and alumnus of the University of Michigan, and not a coach or offensive philosophy, I really hope that doesn't happen.  

bronxblue

February 4th, 2011 at 6:19 PM ^

"If it wasn't a legitimate argument, RR might still have a job right now. "

 

Looking at the "closeness" of wins or losses isn't the right metric - for example, MSU won a couple of really close games on the way to 11-2, but were shellacked in the two games they lost.  They could have easily been 7-6.  What you need to to look at is, on whole, was the team improving, and I think it was given realistic expectations.  It was an incredibly raw defense that played basically the last half of the year without their best defender - Martin - anywhere close to 100%, and with true freshmen across the board.  Now this year, with so much experience coming back, I expect the defense to take a step up and Mattison/Hoke will be deified even though some improvement is just natural.  But this offense put up historically great numbers with a first-year starter at QB, no real RB depth, and good-but-not-great WRs.  To me, given how bad this defense was going to be, that qualifies as improvement to me.  The fact some of those losses were not close doesn't mean that much to me. 

RR was fired because the environment surrounding the program was toxic and Brandon thought Harbaugh was available - when that changed, I think the wheels had been set in motion and Brandon figured it was a good enough time as any to change the coaching staff.

Ziff72

February 5th, 2011 at 9:45 AM ^

I gave 7 examples from the last few years of similar circumstances.  Yet you don't give any of them even a mention or a thought.  You are not a glass half empty guy you are a man I bet that little bit of water is probably poisoned guy.   Everyone acts like we were 3-9 last year and have 5 remaining starters.

Again.... 7-6 22 returning starters including Heisman contender.   Think if we were Iowa, wouldn't we all be thinking big sleeper next year?  Man we don't want to play them.

goblue_56

February 4th, 2011 at 5:29 PM ^

excellent argument.  while i can't see us improving as dramatically, a better year is sure to come. hopefully 2012 will be the breakout year especially with that schedule. cheers

AZBlue

February 4th, 2011 at 6:52 PM ^

I saw a post about those who say we will suck THIS year because we were blown out so much last year.
<br>
<br>I saw very little defending RR - more about the potential for next

BigBlue02

February 4th, 2011 at 11:35 PM ^

Sure, but now your point is different so you look like you have no point.

You say we started to get beaten badly on a regular basis under RichRod. I pointed out that we have never had only 7 draft pics in a three year span like we have the last 3 years. You make an entirely different point about the defense.

Also, I would think the lack of upperclassmen who are talented (you know, the basis of my entire point) has something to do with the defense getting worse.

unWavering

February 5th, 2011 at 1:03 AM ^

Are you fucking kidding me?  If we had a lack of talent in 2008 (which we didn't, on the defensive side of the ball) RR's job would have been to coach the current guys and recruit more talent to that side of the ball.  He didn't.  And that's largely why he's gone.  

Get over it, RR is gone because of BAD coaching decisions, not the least of which was completely neglecting the defensive side of the ball.

EDIT:  And the notion that a lack of talent in 2008 translates to a close to last place D in 2010 is ludicrous.  My original point was that RichRod lost more games by a wide margin than ANY other previous M coach, and he managed to do that in 3 years.  You don't think he did anything wrong in that stretch?  You can't just hide behind your "but there was no talent" bullshit.  Richrod did NOT deliver a D that was even MAC worthy in his 3 years here.  That is pathetic in its own right, and on top of that, the trajectory was downward.  There is no excuse for that.

BigBlue02

February 5th, 2011 at 5:21 AM ^

Feel better? Just so you know, you sound like an asshole.

1st off, RichRod delivered a defense much better than MAC defenses as we kicked the shit out of MAC teams. Unless you want to say Lloyd couldn't deliver a D that was DII worthy. Second, you didn't say a single thing that could be considered a counterpopint.  Please tell me how poor defensive talent in 2008 wouldn't translate to a poor defense in 2010? You realize those are the young talent that should be starting in 2010, right? Instead, we had 1 senior contributor to the defense and 1 injured DB that would have started. You tell me if the talent was up to par?

You also didn't even mention the fact that since RichRod took over, we have had an unusually low number of players drafted. That would be the guys Lloyd left him with. Name the last time Michigan had less than 10 players drafted in 4 years (which it is looking more and more like that will be the case after Schilling is drafted this year).

You also realize that RichRod's first full class of recruits are true sophomores and redshirt freshmen, right? I guess if you want to tell me he didn't recruit any talent, go for it. You just sound bitter. Especially when you say I can't hide behind my "there was no talent" bullshit and then stop the argument. Please, tell me of all the talent. Tell me of the amazing 7 guys drafted in 3 years, 1 of them being a punter. Please tell me how that means we were talent heavy. You realize that Lloyd had more players drafted in his last 2 classes than will be drafted in the following 4 classes combined, right? No, you're probably right. We had a bunch of studs. Considering we have had 1 guy drafted above the 3rd round, I am going to disagree. So will every NFL team, but what do they all know.

BlueVoix

February 5th, 2011 at 2:50 PM ^

"1st off, RichRod delivered a defense much better than MAC defenses as we kicked the shit out of MAC teams."

Yeah!  Except when we lost to Toledo, the first time Michigan had ever lost to a MAC team.  I would have been terrified to play NIU or Miami last year.

"Please tell me how poor defensive talent in 2008 wouldn't translate to a poor defense in 2010?"

His point was the defense wasn't talent-poor in 2008.  It wasn't and it shouldn't have been this year.  Massive attrition on the defensive side of the ball coupled with an ability to recruit defensive players added to GERG meant 2010 awfulness.

Your argument about drafting might, maybe just have something to do with coaching.  Or our decision to go from a pro-set to a read option offense.  The painful transition had something to do with it, but we weren't exactly talent rich either.  That being said, many teams don't have ten players drafted in 4 years and still post better defensive showings than we did.

"Tell me of the amazing 7 guys drafted in 3 years, 1 of them being a punter."

Wait, so we were only three under the total you arbitrarily set, but that's a clear and definite example of our being talent poor?

"So will every NFL team, but what do they all know."

Usually very little about winning at the college level.  But yeah, using this metric, Michigan definitely was just the equivalent of Indiana the last three years.

Eye of the Tiger

February 6th, 2011 at 8:51 PM ^

How many of our most talented defensive players in 2009 and 2010 were recruited by Rich Rod, and not by Lloyd?

Martin?  Lloyd.

Graham? Lloyd.  

van Bergen? Lloyd?

Warren? Lloyd.

Woolfolk? Lloyd.

Perhaps some of Rich Rod's defensive recruits will end up shining with some more experience--I hope so.  But as of right now, I see two that are on the level of these 5: Demens and Roh.  Other than that I see a bunch of transfers, couldn't-meet-lowest-academic-stardards-es, washouts and mehs, who were put in a scheme insisted upon by the head coach that might not have been entirely appropriate for conference even if coached well, but wasn't even coached well by an inept defensive staff chosen by the head coach.    

As a result, our defense didn't improve, or even tread water.  It went from severely underperforming considering the talent level (2008), to terrible (2009) to historically bad (2010).  

Let me repeat that--historically bad.  As in, the University of Michigan has never fielded a defense as bad as the one in 2010.  I don't have the record books handy, but I imagine the 2009 defense is the only one that would give it a run for its money.  We sucked--flat out sucked.  In 13 seasons, Lloyd never fielded a defense that sucked.  Some that underachieved, yes.  Some that were disappointing, for sure.  But none that sucked.  

Yes, all the freshmen in the backfield contributed to that.  No doubt.  But the defense I saw wasn't just suffering from a talent deficit.  Poor tackling, missed assignments, blown coverages, lost contain, confused linebackers, etc.  These are all coaching errors.  

UMxWolverines

February 4th, 2011 at 8:28 PM ^

I remember all of us on here before this season, we all pretty much agreed that the defense would be bad, but by no means should it have been THAT bad. I mean honestly, all the defense was good for was delaying the other team's offense from scoring for a little bit. We were POUNDED in the first half by Iowa, Penn St, Wisky, tsio, and MSU. 

He should have focused on defense first and foremost, but he didn't. He hired a guy, but that guy couldn't do his own thing, he had to do what Rich thought was best, even though he said multiple times "I don't know everything that goes on with the defense." Well, you should have got that figured out first Rich and let the offensive coaches do their thing, they could have handled it.

Now that I look back at it, all of us on mgoblog did a real good job at disguising the crap that was unfolding these past few years. We did a lot of RR defending, and hey,  it was the right thing to do at the time, but shit just hit the fan this season.

Monk

February 6th, 2011 at 11:48 AM ^

I agree in general that blowouts from a year ago don't carry over in college football, but the reason UM got blown out was mainly on the coaching staff who are gone.  The team lacked resiliency when they got down, didn't convert red zone oppys into TDs, could not control the LOS on the defensive side of the ball with six guys in the box etc..

The coaching change is the #1 reason the blowouts won't repeat, followed by maturation of players and some injured players coming back.