Does this sound familiar?

Submitted by MacombWolverine on October 11th, 2010 at 7:08 AM

Back in the year 1969, there was a new coach for the football team at the University of Michigan. He was an outsider, from a different state. His team was coming off of a loss to Michigan State University, and the Ohio State University was ranked #1 in the country, on a huge winning streak.

Now, does this sound familiar at all to you? Because it sure as hell sounds like the same position we're in right now.



October 11th, 2010 at 7:29 AM ^

     That class had a lot more senior leadership and well as future All Americans.  They didn't have a great record but they had more talent.  I've wondered if rr would have taken the job if he truly understood the "depth" of our problems.


October 11th, 2010 at 8:54 AM ^

I've said this before, but when I asked him that Q, he punched me in the face.  I then asked him why he did it.. know what he said???

EDIT: With all the snarkiness on the site right now, I want to annotate that I'm simply just messing around.

Gerald R. Ford

October 11th, 2010 at 7:41 AM ^

I am on board, and have been all along.  Every now and then someone brings up another team going through a change so that we can contrast them.  I think that Brian Kelly's story is still too early.  However, am I the only one who is impressed with the Auburn transition?  I don't know much about them, but I think that their transition was quite good. 


October 11th, 2010 at 8:51 AM ^

higher hopes for this season that a "surprise" upset of Ohio State.  Come on man, I want this team to go 11-1, likely, of course not, but an OSU upset just isn't on my radar right now.

It starts with Iowa, then we get a much needed break.

Lets deal with Ohio State in a few weeks.


October 11th, 2010 at 9:29 AM ^

C'mon now...You're comparing the 3rd season of RR to the 1st year of Bo (who went 8-3 his first year with the loss coming in the Rose Bowl).  1st year Bo was nothing like 1st year RR (3-9, no bowl).  Bo's 2nd year, the team only lost one game (OSU).  3rd year Bo's team went to the Rose Bowl again (although they lost).  None of those teams lost to Michigan State.

I'm not going to hang the MSU loss on RR this year though.  The team made mistakes.  It happens.  It's nearly impossible to swallow, but it happened.  Everyone performed below expectations.  In the meantime, however, let's not run with false analogies.  This is RR's 3rd year; not his 1st.  Further, our defense is the opposite of Bo.


October 11th, 2010 at 10:04 AM ^

Plus we're not playing #1 OSU.  OSU won't be #1 by time we play them either unless everyone else in the top 5 implodes or OSU blows the panties off everyone else.

And you could've said this same crap the last two years.

Yes Bo was an outsider, but let's keep 1969 in 1969.

Mitch Cumstein

October 11th, 2010 at 10:19 AM ^

The cupboard wasn't exactly bare when he came in.  The blame Lloyd excuse is overplayed.  If RR didn't think he had enough talent to ever be successful he shouldn't have taken the job.  The second he became the head coach it was his team, his success and his failures.  That bare cupboard sob story is weak.


October 11th, 2010 at 10:37 AM ^

There is enough blame to go around-- LC and RR can each take a bit.

There is no way a person can know beforehand everything about the talent level, work ethic of players on the field (and in the classroom), whether everyone will buy in, etc. 

RR took the UM job because it is better than WV. I can't imagine any coach (esp in the Big Least) turning down the UM job no matter what the talent level is when he arrives.


October 11th, 2010 at 11:40 AM ^

That 9-4 team had Jake Long, Chad Henne, Mike Hart, Adrian Arrington, Mario Manningham, Shawn Crable, and probably a few other elite players I'm forgetting that Rodriguez certainly didn't inherit.  Mallett left before spring practice so he didn't really inherit him either. 

The team Rodriguez actually inherited was not a 9-4 squad, but rather the bag of suck we saw in 2008 plus Justin Boren.


October 11th, 2010 at 12:08 PM ^

You win with juniors and seniors.  Just look at how much high end talent it took to go 9-4 that year.  Rodriguez has had basically zero control over who his upperclassmen have been the last two years.  If you have to play a freshman QB (as we did the last two years), your team will not be very good (hello, Penn State), if you have no experience in the secondary you will not be good at defense (hello, USC, who has way more talent than we do in the back seven and still can't stop anybody), if you are starting true freshmen on the defensive line you will get pushed around by more physical teams (we had to do that each of the last two years), if you have no experienced talent on the o-line your offense will look like a giant clusterfuck (SEE 2008 season). 

Any one of these issues can derail a season and Michigan has had to deal with all of them over the last two years (and is still doing so in the secondary, where we have one healthy upperclassman on the entire roster).  Do you think it is a coincidence that the team keeps getting better (on a team and invidiual basis) as the players Rodriguez has recruited gain experience?  Just because guys are playing "at Michigan" doesn't mean they are good enough to help you win games.  That kind of argument is what is absurd, not looking at the facts and realizing that this team has been woefully devoid of talent in the junior and senior classes that Rodriguez had no hand in constructing.

Mitch Cumstein

October 11th, 2010 at 12:20 PM ^

And I'm not trying to minimize the lack of experience (although on D we do have upper classmen, just not in the secondary).  I just think the complexity of the issue is a lot deeper than "Lloyd left nothing", which is what the original post I replied to implied.  A lot of teams have won more than 3 conference games in 2 years starting freshmen at key positions. 

Blaming Carr for all of Michigan's woes is not only disrespectful to a coach that I thought retired with class and has conducted himself with class since retirement, but also fails to hold the current coaching staff accountable for the current team's performance.  Like I said above, ultimately the team's success or failures lie on RR and his staff's shoulders.  Blaming Lloyd is counter-productive. 


October 11th, 2010 at 12:26 PM ^

Obviously if he had stayed and the team kept Mallett, Boren, and a few more defectors things would have gone much differently (I don't know how good that team would have been, but they certainly win more than 3 games).  I think you can separate "Rodriguez got handed a bag of crap" from "Carr handed Rodriguez a bag of crap."  I probably should have made that more clear, but I think my point still stands that no coach could have succeeded any better with the roster Rodriguez actually had at his disposal when it came time to take the field.


October 11th, 2010 at 11:56 AM ^

Whether the cupboard was full or empty makes no difference.  RR gutted our offense and turned it into a serious producer (even with the poor showing against msu) within three years.

At the same time, our defense has gotten worse (now projecting to give up over 5000 yards this season).  So, if a coach can blow up and rebuild an offense within three years (especially such a complicated one); he can be reasonably expected to field a defense that, at a minimum, improves from year to year.

In any event, this thread compares Bo to RR, and I don't think either would say there's any comparison on defense - full cupboard, empty cupboard, whatever. 


October 11th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^

We have one upperclassmen on the entire roster who is healthy enough to play in the secondary right now.  One guy, and he isn't particularly good either.  Rodriguez's two full recruiting classes haven't had time to become upperclassmen yet (the guys you win with on defense). 

How is this all his fault again?  Oh yeah, you are dumb and think the coach should/does control everything no matter what and players have nothing to do with on field success and THIS IS MICHIGAN!!!! so there must be plenty of talented players and making pussy excuses like "James Rogers can't play five positions by himself" is nothing but lawyer talk to justify losing.

Now please go away, we've heard you already and no one is impressed.


October 11th, 2010 at 1:07 PM ^

Thank you for the thoughtful comment.  My argument is "dumb".  Sweet.

So, anyway, you say that RR's first two classes haven't had time to become upperclassmen yet...but those same classes are now a part of a fully functioning offense.  So, your argument is what then?  That a complicated offense can be good with young players but a defense can't be good?  I realize you don't like the facts presented, but that's what it is.

Awesome name-calling aside, RR built an offense in 3 years.  The defense has only gotten worse.  That's a problem even if you prefer to cover your eyes and ears.


October 11th, 2010 at 1:24 PM ^

To go from complete clusterfuck to top ten offense in two seasons is an incredible accomplishment, not the norm.  The offense, like the defense, is only going to get better since they basically lose one starter next year (Schilling and Dorrestein leaves but the latter is replaced by oft-starter Huyge). 

I'm sorry that you are so football illiterate that you think it is the coach's fault when a patchwork secondary (every single starter is a weak link in terms of talent, experience, or both) fails to produce a quality (or even competent) defense.  I'm sorry if you can't see the difference between our offensive roster and our defensive roster.  I'm sorry if you can't see the impact that losing Warren and Woolfolk has on an already depleted secondary.

Everyone gets that you think it is a problem.  We've all heard you and guess what?  Everyone knows the defense isn't very good yet.  Those of us who know something about the game also realize that no defense is good with a roster like ours and that they will improve dramatically over the next two years when the 6 underclassmen who have already started games and the 8 more who have seen the field and the handful of blue-chip recruits on top of all those guys gain more experience.  The problems are obvious to anyone who is paying attention beyond watching the game and looking at the boxscore, and those problems have nothing to do with coaching.


October 11th, 2010 at 3:05 PM ^

I'm sure you're a wizard of defensive coordinator.  It's only politics that have kept you out of a top D-I job.  The rest of us are mere simpletons (or dumb/illiterate...whatever childish insult you throw at the time).

Of course, in a world where logic exists, we have an offense that is excelling (Saturday excluded) because the coach put his everything into making sure he had the right pieces and seeing to it that the players execute properly.  On the defense side of the ball....we don't have the right pieces nor do we have proper execution.  I'm sure our roster (however depleted) contains more talent than Houston, LA-Monroe, Ball St., Troy, Fresno St, etc. (stats are wacky...I'm not sure how an illiterate could find them???).  

The coach chooses his DC's.  The coach recruits the players.  The coach can turn it around, but don't pretend that our defense wouldn't be solid if the coach had made it a priority.  


October 11th, 2010 at 4:43 PM ^

I know you probably missed this since it is on the front page.  Scroll down until you see "This was always going to happen."  Begin reading. 

I will stop calling you dumb when you stop saying dumb things.  I'm sure every single school you mention has more than one upperclassmen on the entire roster who can play in the secondary.  The defense is bad.  This is a fact that no one is disputing.  Saying "I'm sure we have more talent because Michigan is a more impressive name than Fresno State" is not a fact.  That is you spouting off your ignorance in the face of facts merely because things aren't going your way.  Saying the coach hasn't made it a priority (when we have more than twenty quality freshmen and sophomores on the roster who he recruited already contributing significantly to the defense) falls under the same heading.  When an already thin/rebuilding defense loses its two starting senior corners, the results are pretty much what we are seeing.  If you can't understand that, it is your fault, not anyone else's.


October 11th, 2010 at 5:37 PM ^

You should try not being so angry.  Thanks for the highly unbiased Mgoblog "Tila Tequila" link, but I'm not a fan of excuses that last for years.   If you search back, I'm sure you'll also find comments predicting the "no one could expect us to win with this defense" excuse.  You need to step out of your bubble for a moment.  Frankly, no one is even asking for a great defense...shit...It's just a hope for a somewhat decent defense.  That's all.  "Somewhat decent".  Record-setting bad?  It's completely fair to expect better than that.