Greg Robinson a done deal

Submitted by Anonymous Coward (not verified) on January 20th, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Per Rivals.



January 20th, 2009 at 11:12 AM ^


All right that's out of the way...someone spin it positive.

Super Bowl Rings!!!!!!! Flash em like Fat Charlie Greg


January 20th, 2009 at 11:23 AM ^

GSimmons, are you out there? Any thoughts? Chitown's earlier posting of Robinson's resume suggests middling results.

Also, I assume this means Robinson is willing to buy into a swearing-based coaching philosophy.


January 20th, 2009 at 11:26 AM ^

I'm not particularly happy with this outcome, but I'll go ahead and trust that RRod knows what he's doing. I think most or all of the information I have about Robinson has been dispersed from this website, and there's clearly not a lot to like.

I expect that there's a *LOT* of information not at our disposal that puts this decision into a state where it makes sense. Which it does not from here.

I'll hold off on passing judgment until we hear the reasons for the move from RRod, and until we actually, you know, see what the defense looks like and how it responds in actual games.


January 20th, 2009 at 11:26 AM ^

from five days ago. Whatever he says is not breaking news.

Regardless, if true, I think this means the RR era at Michigan will be shorter rather than longer. With all the dynamic young defensive guys out there, I can't for the life of me figure out why RR would bring this thoroughly discredited guy here; there is nothing in Robinson's body of work that merits this position at Michigan. RR will regret this hire if it comes to pass.

I hope this isn't all about money, or the lack thereof for assistants.


January 20th, 2009 at 11:43 AM ^

"RR era at Michigan will be shorter rather than longer."
"thoroughly discredited guy"
"nothing in Robinson's body of work that merits this position at Michigan."

I think these sentiments are overly harsh. Robinson's credentials have been thoroughly analyzed before, but the overall consensus has been "meh" -- not "thoroughly discredited." Ideally, Michigan would hire someone with significant coordinating experience and with consistently excellent defenses.

The problem is that most such coordinators are either (a) in the NFL; or (b) at similarly prestigious universities. And while up-and-comers may be available, those tend to be position coaches with little coordinating experience, and many on this site have been loath to embrace a position coach as coordinator here at Michigan.

The bottom line is that while Robinson's resume opens the room for doubt, let's not condemn him yet.

chitownblue (not verified)

January 20th, 2009 at 11:44 AM ^

While I'm firmly on record as "anti-Robinson" on the hire, I agree with this. I make no claims to being an expert, or really even knowing what I'm talking about. I'm not going to carve a headstone for the RR era until we see what his results are.


January 20th, 2009 at 11:55 AM ^

Another strike against up-and-comers is that we just had one and the one-year returns were less than inspiring. Not that it's any guarantee that the defense will be better next year with Robinson, but I think last year would make everyone a bit hesitant to try it again.


January 20th, 2009 at 12:41 PM ^

Chitown, I'm not a Rivals subscriber so I guess you're able to see stuff I can't.

Southpaw, I admit to being harsh, but I guess that's my assessment of his record. When I say thoroughly discredited, I'm referring to his horrible stint at Syracuse. There's no way to whitewash it; it wasn't even mediocre. I understand that being a HC is a different thing than being DC, but I'm hardly heartened by the fact that he appears to be a lousy recruiter. I recognize that RR and perhaps other assistants may carry the load on recruiting, but I think it's a major disadvantage if one of your most important assistants is downright lousy at one of the most important aspects of running a program.

If I were a coach at another school competing with Michigan for a top defensive prospect, you can bet that I'd make sure the recruit would know that if he went to Michigan, he'd be playing for a DC who was a miserable failure in his most recent job, and was fired not too long ago for stinking up the joint in the NFL as DC at KC. That may or may not sway a recruit's decision, but it certainly doesn't make recruiting for Michigan any easier.

Obviously both RR and GR have forgotten more football than I'll ever know, and if GR's hired I'll fervently hope that it works out fantastically well for Michigan from the get-go. I'm not going to hold my breath.


January 20th, 2009 at 11:28 AM ^

I'm not elated if it's true, but 2 pretty good defenses in the NFL that won back to back Super Bowls is at least something on his resume.


January 20th, 2009 at 11:42 AM ^

I doubt these kids would even know who won the Super Bowl 10 years ago, let alone give a crap about a coordinator who has pretty much sucked ass since then. John Elway, Terrell Davis & Mike Shanahan are the names that they would know or care about. Greg Robinson? Nah.


January 20th, 2009 at 11:56 AM ^

It has a lot to do with the rise of Rutgers and Florida, and I just don't think Robinson is a good recruiter. He lacks the intensity, he's a laid back California type guy. The balance, though, is that Rodriguez is intense. A kid knows he's going to Michigan to win, the Super Bowl rings provide extra motivation.

chitownblue (not verified)

January 20th, 2009 at 11:57 AM ^

Syracuse is one of the most successful football programs in NCAA history (top 25), as measured by win percentage. Pasqualoni, in the 14 years before Robinson's arrival, went to 12 bowls and had a win percentage of over 64%. Why did recruiting to Syracuse suddenly become impossible when Robinson showed up? They seem to be able to recruit awesome basketball players.


January 20th, 2009 at 12:01 PM ^

Exactly my point, Chitown. Those Super Bowl rings don't cover up the fact that he was awful as HC of Syracuse. They sure as hell didn't help to sway recruits while he was there. I doubt that they will help now.


January 20th, 2009 at 12:02 PM ^

I've just had to drive through there a few times and it's not exactly picturesque, but the point of their historical success prior to Robinson is a good one. What happened? Why was there a significant drop off in talent after Robinson went there?

Theory 1 - they were probably marginalized with the rise of parity. The number of competitive programs has increased significantly over the past five years. The talent has to be pulled from somewhere. Syracuse was most likely one of those places, maybe because Robinson and his staff weren't able to sell the school and tradition well enough.


January 20th, 2009 at 11:40 AM ^

It's not about the team who won, Jay. Yes, most of these kids are like "lol elway wut?" but the rings show them that this guy knows how to get them to the NFL. Now, I imagine he's just a horrible recruiter in general because from what I've seen he's a really soft spoken, laid back kind of guy. Combine that with Rodriguez and Barwis, though and that doesn't seem half as serious.


January 20th, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^

why I don't support it. While I grant that there have been all types of successful coaches of different personality types, I don't think a laid back, soft spoken guy is generally who you want for that side of the ball, where passion and intensity are arguably more important to success than on offense. Most, not all (I see you Wade Phillips) DC's are high intensity guys. And I'm of the general opinion that personality match among the staff is important as well, in order to create a common culture. But we'll see, hopefully the naysayers don;t know what they're talking about.

chitownblue (not verified)

January 20th, 2009 at 11:32 AM ^

Clearly, I'm not thrilled, and tend to think it's a bad move. But, here's hoping that my ignorance of football is once again confirmed.


January 20th, 2009 at 11:34 AM ^

Spinners go to work! This guy cannot recruit-this from former Syracuse coach with UM ties. Sure hope he can coach.
Our detractors will have a good time with this. No opponent is wincing over this hire. Grinning, yes, but no wincing.


January 20th, 2009 at 11:39 AM ^

What are the chances that this is NOT true?

I don't know much about this reporter, and while he is an "insider", it doesn't mean he has perfectly accurate information. Chitown, any ideas on the true validity of this claim?

chitownblue (not verified)

January 20th, 2009 at 11:41 AM ^

Rivals track record in terms of being correct when they pass along news is pretty strong. Scout frequently scoops them, but is also wrong about 70% of the time.

In short - when they post something as "certainty" instead of "speculation", I don't recall them being wrong.


January 20th, 2009 at 11:53 AM ^

When Shafer resigned, I posted something like "The unknown can't be worse than the worst defense ever.." or something like that.

So, here we are. Greg Robinson. He definitely has a TON more experience than Shafer did. I think we could have done a lot lot worse here guys. Coached in multiple super bowls, the big 12, the Big East.

I think we need to trust Rodriguez on this one. He did coach against the guy in the Big East for years and I'm sure has pretty extensive knowledge of the guy and what he's done in the past against West Virginia as well as other teams.

For the money the athletic department is willing to part with, this is a great hire. I think we should embrace it and give him a chance to do well. No prejudgement. Trust the ninja football guru. Peanut. Butter. Jelly. Time.