Has there really been improvement from 09 to 10?

Submitted by ChalmersE on
Rich text editor, edit-comment, press ALT 0 for help.

Let me preface this post by stating that I have been a big Rodriguez booster from the time he was hired.  However, I must admit my support has wavered  and I am now approaching ambivalence on the issue of whether he should be rehired.  That said, one of the things that Brandon said he looks at is progress on and off the field.  I'm not sure whether any of us know what's up off the field -- other than we've put the NCAA and Freep allegations behind (for the most part) -- but on the field, I'm not sure whether there's been any progress from last year to this point.  Yes, Michigan will finish the regular season at 7-5 or 8-4 and that is indeed progress when compared to 5-7.  Also there is no doubt the offense is dynamic and exciting, and there's no telling what the numbers would be if the defense was even barely adequate.  That, of course, brings us to the defense.  It's hard to believe, but it's actually worse than last year.  I know there are excuses including Woolfolk's injuries, but they're just excuses.  That brings us to comparison of game results.  I've essentially broken things down into three categories: better result, same result and worse result.  Let's take a look. 

Better result:  Connecticut over Western (because of the quality of opponent.  UCONN, believe it or not could still win the Big LEast.);  Purdue (although some might quibble, since we could have won last year and needed a late TD to secure this year -- against a team that was clearly worse than the 09 version).

Same result:  Notre Dame (last second winning drive); Indiana (ditto -- arguably worse but I'll call the same);  UMass-Del State ; Bowling Green-EMU; Illinois (we should have won last year, without a bounce to Hemingway, we lose this year).

Worse result:  MSU (we were one play from winning last year on the road); Iowa (we had the ball with a chance to win on the road); Penn State (the result was similar, but we were playing a team with more injuries than we had); Wisconsin (at least were competitive in the first half last year -- on the road).

Thus, one can make a case that the team overall is performing the same as last year.  What does this mean?  Perhaps nothing, but Dave Brandon has said he looks for progress in making his decisions.  Absent a win over OSU, has there truly been progress?

MGoBoard

OSUMC Wolverine

November 23rd, 2010 at 9:21 AM ^

No signs of improvement for next year......lets see, we will return 18 or so starters depending on who you consider starters this year due to injuries, position changes, etc.  In comparison, most of the upper half teams in the Big Ten will be losing half or more of their starters for next year.  I believe TUOOS has 12-13 senior starters and of course the chance of Junior defections and the others are in similar situations.  We stand to make great strides next year as our teenagers mature and the fact that we will be returning largely intact.  Just think, in another year or two, our starters will be old enough to celebrate their victories with adult beverages.  This team is so young its rediculous.....it will come.

Joined: 09/06/2008

MGoPoints: 4403

the_dude

November 23rd, 2010 at 9:22 AM ^

Of course there's been improvement in pretty much every measurable way.  The offense is better, we've won more BT games, we won three road games which didn't happen last season, and we've got a QB who is a perfect fit for this offense for the first time and he'll be here for two more seasons.  The one thing I think all of us will agree with is the fact we aren't as good as we want to be, ie competing for the conference title.  The one area where we've seen absolutely no improvement is the defense.  I think that's why those of us who support Rodriguez based on what he's been able to do with the offense expect the team to have competent defensive coaching next season.  Let's see what transpires once the season is over.

Joined: 09/01/2010

MGoPoints: 2040

Wolfman

November 23rd, 2010 at 9:33 AM ^

I think the biggest problem most fans have, and I include myself in this, is forgetting at times that RR wasn't faced merely with restocking the offense with players matching his scheme - and he's found what he needed in year 3 in that regard as to promise of a much brighter tommorow.  He also was tasked with restocking the roster to get our overall numbers up, and the fact that this depletion of numbers occurred at Michigan is something I still fail to understand.

With the unacceptable number of defenders he inherited, during his short tenure here, we've always been faced with the very real fact we're always an injury away from starting a h.s. kid. The fact this has come to happen all too often is no surpise and we shouldn't be shocked at our defensive production based on what we have at this point.

Because essentially he had to build a team - not a program, we have one of the best in the country- he went about it like most sensible coaches would, again imo.  He recruited both sides of the ball but we witnessed an insane amount of decommits, among them significant losses at the DT position and the failure of a 5* recruit to progress there which may be one of the primary reasons we're playing with three defensive linemen, instead of what many fans would hope for.  

The only position I haven't seen true freshman play on defense this year was in our lbing corp, a position where we've lacked producers since '06.  Our secondary is filled with 18  year olds, a walk-on who would be much better with experienced talent around him due to his football IQ and a RS freshman who was on the other side of the ball last season.

Given these inarguable truths, realistically about the only place we could have expected improvement this season was on the offensive side of the ball. Well, if you  can say there's no improvement there, you haven't been paying attention. 

The fact we've won two more games this season with the defensive short-comings outlined above = major improvement.  Next season these young men on that side of the ball will be a year older, wiser, bigger and more experienced. We should have real lbers with Demens and Fitz and those being red-shirted, among them one of the best athletes on the team, Furman. 

If you want to measure progress in terms of Ws, then yeah, we've improved by 2 to date. But you can't ignore the fact that the defense in back of the DL is almost equally young and inexperienced as was the offense in 2007. They are being coached and taught daily and next year there simply has to be improvement for no other reason than what they'll have learned this season, combined with the aforementioned growth in other areas.

Yes, I think significant improvement has been  made.

Joined: 07/23/2008

MGoPoints: 8259

Wolverine96

November 23rd, 2010 at 9:33 AM ^

A win against OSU will go a long way to showing true progress with this football program.

1 win in three years against MSU, Iowa, Wisconsin, PSU and OSU is not acceptable.

Joined: 08/28/2008

MGoPoints: 1627

Wolverine96

November 23rd, 2010 at 9:57 AM ^

At the end of the day it is about wins and losses.  And to only have one win in three years over those teams does not cut it.  Frankly, we were uncompetitive in the majority of those games including this years contests.   So, while progress may be evident in certain areas it is not translating to wins against the top half of the Big Ten. 

Joined: 08/28/2008

MGoPoints: 1627

BiSB

November 23rd, 2010 at 10:35 AM ^

So, while progress may be evident in certain areas it is not translating to wins against the top half of the Big Ten. 

I have important news, and I'd like you to sit down before you hear it:

We haven't been in the top half of the Big Ten in the last 3 years.

Progress means just that; getting better.  In 2008 Michigan lost to top teams, lost to decent teams, and lost to Delicious Snackycakes (Toledo?!?!?).  In 2009, Michigan lost to top teams, lost to decent teams, and beat Delicious Snackycakes.  In 2010, Michigan has lost to top teams, but has beaten decent teams and beaten Delicious Snackcakes.

If this was the top of the hill, I'd be very unhappy.  But Michigan is still going in the right direction overall, and as long as the trend is upward, I'm supporting RichRod. 

(The problem people seem to have with GERG isn't necessarily that the defense is bad; it;s that the defense is NOT trending upward.  It is trending downward in a mortifyingly hilarious fashion, and has shown almost no signs of improvement despite positive signs from Vinopal, Box Safety Cam Gordon, Demens, etc.)

Joined: 08/15/2009

MGoPoints: 46071

El Jeffe

November 23rd, 2010 at 11:48 AM ^

Thank you BSB. I've been making this point for weeks. It's like the internet isn't a good place to convince people with force of logic or something...

Anyway, two points.

  1. I continue to be dumbfounded by the incapacity of some posters to understand that believing there has been progress is tantamount to believing this is the best it will get. I truly don't understand this lack of understanding. So when people say "ooh, how far our standards have fallen, we used to be upset at a 7-5 record," it makes me want to go mental. Yes, 7-5 (or 8-4 plzkthx) > 5-7, but no it is not where we want to be.
  2. One thing I always wonder about when people say our defense is not getting better is that is it not also true that offenses are getting better as the year goes by, both between teams (e.g., Wisconsin > UConn), and within teams (Wisconsin in week 10 > Wisconsin in week 1)? This is not to excuse our defense, but just because your defense isn't shutting teams down in week 10 doesn't mean it hasn't gotten better. To know that we would have to have much better data that probably don't exist, like % of missed assignments or the like. Giving up 48 to Wisconsin certainly feels worse than giving up 10 to UConn, but I'm not totally sure that's true.

Joined: 07/07/2008

MGoPoints: 27329

El Jeffe

November 23rd, 2010 at 3:53 PM ^

If someone at NDNation or RCMB was drawing the kind of sober, eyes-wide-open conclusion that I am drawing, namely that 7-5 (probably) > 5-7 > 3-9 and that this constitutes (1) progress, but (2) not the desired endpoint, and if "we" mocked him or her for that, then I would say that "we" are a bunch of douches.

Joined: 07/07/2008

MGoPoints: 27329

teldar

November 23rd, 2010 at 10:13 AM ^

I know there is significant negative connotation with unacceptable, and I do understand that it entails quite a bit of entitlement, but the lack of wins against any quality opposition in 3 years is not really acceptable, due to the defensive disaster this team has become.

The facts are that RR pretty much ignored the D his first year and is insistent about shoehorning his assistants in a defensive staff and that he has required 2 new DCs so far to use a system they are not familiar with, again with assistants they have not been familiar with. This has been unacceptable. It is inappropriate and unprofessional and it shows in the results.

Do you feel that his handling of the defensive staff HAS been acceptable? I really do not.

I understand attrition, to some extent, and injuries. But was there more he could have done to keep players? We don't know. His attitude seems to be, if you're unhappy, get the hell out. That's not good when you're down below a skeleton crew. Do I think a different coordinator and assistants would have done better with the same players? Maybe not. However,  maybe there would have been some more progress for the non-underclassmen if we didn't have a revolving door for DCs. Unfortunately, I feel GERG is so bad, the only way to fix the D is to hire another DC. And a bunch of new assistants. 

Joined: 07/14/2009

MGoPoints: 8220

CompleteLunacy

November 23rd, 2010 at 12:22 PM ^

That I'd rather have a hard-ass coach than a "player's coach". He's not there to hold your hand everytime something goes wrong. Could you imagine Bo doing such a thing? Quite the opposite, I seem to remember a similar scenario where a bunch of players were unhappy at how much of a hard ass Bo was and left when he came here as coach. And look where it got us.

You are right, the lack of wins against quiality opponents is not acceptable...but it's not the only measure of improvement, and considering where we started under RR (3-9) to now, it may have been unrealistic to assume we'd be world beaters this year. Would I have liked to see at least 1 quality win? Absolutely...and we still have one more shot (for the love of all that is holy BEAT THE BUCKEYES DAMNIT!). I predicted 8-4 before the year began, and while 7-5 is relatively disappointing to that prediction I cannot ignore the upward trajectory this team overalll is on, in spite of probably the worst defense in Michigan's history.

Next year. We need to be beating some quality opponents next year or else RR will likely be gone.

Also, thank you for being a sane person in your argument.

Joined: 11/13/2010

MGoPoints: 12910

teldar

November 23rd, 2010 at 4:16 PM ^

I just don't know that he's going to be able to do it trying to half-ass control the D the way he has been. 

And I do agree there's been progress. The record indicates it. But I don't see it getting a whole lot better unless the D gets figured out. He needs to get his head out of his ass and decide if he wants to be looking for a job along with all of his friends next year. 

I was trying to get to the idea that nobody was going to make things great immediately. But he certainly hasn't helped himself with his desire to keep his friends employed by hiring a DC who is willing to not have any control.

We need a DC who can and is allowed to make his own decisions. 

 

Joined: 07/14/2009

MGoPoints: 8220

Bosch

November 23rd, 2010 at 9:35 AM ^

Michigan got worked at MSU last year, but managed to push it into overtime due to some conservative MSU play calling late in the game. 

This year's game was two endzone picks from being a very different outcome. 

The scores do not tell the whole story.

Joined: 04/03/2009

MGoPoints: 8195

El Jeffe

November 23rd, 2010 at 11:53 AM ^

Let me break it down for you:

  • You are allowed to post here for any reason whatsoever;
  • You are allowed to criticize Rich Rodriguez;
  • If you level such criticism like a massive tool, you will be negged;
  • If you use basic rules of logic and decency to criticize, you will not be negged.

This post has been brought to you by the original El Jeffe.

Joined: 07/07/2008

MGoPoints: 27329

El Jeffe

November 23rd, 2010 at 3:57 PM ^

I don't have the evidence to test this claim and neither do you but I think you'd find the following to be true generally:

  • Douchey posts that don't include "supporter of RR" disclaimer get negged;
  • Non-douchey posts that don't include "supporter of RR" disclaimer don't get negged;
  • Douchey posts that include "supporter of RR" disclaimer get negged;
  • Non-douchey posts that include "supporter of RR" disclaimer don't get negged.

Mathlete?

Joined: 07/07/2008

MGoPoints: 27329

Don

November 23rd, 2010 at 9:38 AM ^

but they're just excuses."

You're exactly right!!! Finally, somebody who agrees with me that Jim Harbaugh's broken arm in 1984 should in no way be given as a reason for our 6-6 record that season. That's just an "excuse," and frankly, I think Bo Schembechler should have been fired after that season, because there's no way that injuries to key players should ever be regarded as legitimately contributing to on-the-field problems.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 148278

Njia

November 23rd, 2010 at 11:00 AM ^

This is a little OT, but since you brought it up, do guys ever really grow out of a "middle school brain?" I mean, seriously, what guy - if he's really being honest with himself - doesn't watch late night cable TV for the bewbs? It can't be the acting or plot ....

Joined: 09/15/2009

MGoPoints: 35773

tenerson

November 23rd, 2010 at 9:40 AM ^

You serious Clark?

First, excuses and reasons are two separate things. Woolfolk being injured was probably the biggest hit to this team followed by Floyd getting hurt. We went from having poor safety coverage to having full blown coverage disaster all over the secondary. One player makesa huge difference, let alone two.

Second, I would say with exception to PSU, every conference team we have lost to has improved from last year. MSU is much better, Iowa was better when we played them and still is pretty damn good defense. Wisconsin is better. OSU will be slightly better. On the wins, Indiana and Illinois are both better. Purdue, no. All of this was done while our defense was playing more freshman than anything else. If you look at classificiation, it will show inexperience but when you look at actual experience it will show even more inexperience.

This team also seems to have a different attitude. It isn't last years team. They have been given 4 opportunities to give up. They haven't done that one single time.

Joined: 10/04/2009

MGoPoints: 2371

dankbrogoblue

November 23rd, 2010 at 9:45 AM ^

I think people look at this team and see that it's not where we want it to be and don't think there has been improvement.

Our years under the Rich Rod can be defined like this: 

'08 Unacceptable

'09 Unacceptable

'10 Unacceptable

I would agree with that interpretation even as a firm RRod supporter, but you can't ignore this interpretation:

'08 Epicly bad

'09 Badly mediocre

'10 Mediocre

If we take a step backward before getting to "acceptable" in the Rich Rod experiment, then I will jump off of the bandwagon. For now, RRod decriers will have to be patient.

Joined: 11/12/2008

MGoPoints: 4021

Don

November 23rd, 2010 at 9:46 AM ^

I am as big and strong as Mike Martin is. True, I'm 5-7 and 134 lbs, but forget that—I'm as big and as strong as Mike Martin is.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 148278

ZooWolverine

November 23rd, 2010 at 9:48 AM ^

Didn't really think I'd see it again.  To avoid analysis and logical thinking, I'll just assume both posters are correct and this team is exactly as bad as our 3-9 team in 2008.

Joined: 02/27/2009

MGoPoints: 3698

Blue in Yarmouth

November 23rd, 2010 at 9:49 AM ^

The fact that you even have to ask this tells me that responding to you is an excercise in futility.

Logical, reasonable people can question whether RR is the guy to take us to where we want to be (I believe he is, but that is just my opinion). Some say he is and others disagree and have some valid points, even if I disagree with them.

What is absolutely unreasonable is to try and assert that improvment hasn't been made between this year and last. You have proven yourself to be completely and utterly unreasonable and incapable of rational thought by making this assertion.

Joined: 02/18/2009

MGoPoints: 6522

Njia

November 23rd, 2010 at 10:48 AM ^

But, to be fair, Coach Rod's wins have been OOC (largely). Only 6 in-conference wins in 3 years (so far) isn't going to get it done. The objective around here is to win championships.

Is it the defense? Of course it is. Last year, we had a mediocre offense. A passable defense would have at least gotten us to a bowl game. This year, we have a great offense, but the defense isn't even theoretical (other than one that can be readily disproven).

There is also a huge difference in the level of talent in the recruits who want to play for Michigan on offense versus defense. That has to be associated with both results and coaching. I'm not certain that simply hiring Jeff Casteel is going to solve that problem.

Joined: 09/15/2009

MGoPoints: 35773

El Jefe

November 23rd, 2010 at 10:00 AM ^

Why are people still making excuses for Rich at the end of year 3?  Honestly.

7-4 really?

we beat UConn(6-4), ND(6-5) lost their starting QB for most the game and we won on the possesion, UMass barely (FCS school 6-5), BG( MAC school 2-9), whoever had the last possesion in Indiana(4-7 overall 0-7 Big 10) and at Purdue(4-7 overall 2-5 Big 10) that had no QB or offense whatsoever.

Big Ten record:
2-6 in year one
1-7 in year two
3-5 (hopefully we don't get murdered by O-State) in year three

6-18 overall Big 10 record? Who gets away with having a losing record in their conference and people are not calling for his head yet? I just don't get it.

And this crap that whoever doesn't support Rich is a fairweather fan, get a life.  seriously.  Alot of us supported Rich through thick and thin.  I took alot of shots for that man, but i've come to my senses that he just cannot get the job done in the Big 10.  It makes me sad, I love this offense and the guys on the team are really good kids.  But in my opinion Rodriguez just doens't have it, he doensn't have that edge that it takes to coach the Big 10. 

Hate me, neg me, do whatever you want for it.  I just have to be real with how I feel about everything.

Joined: 11/16/2010

MGoPoints: 59

maizenbluenc

November 23rd, 2010 at 10:42 AM ^

I agree with your fair weather fan comment. While the OP above steers us away from signs of improvement, there are plenty of people on this board who steer totally in the opposite direction.

Somewhere in the middle is me, and a whole lot of other people. People who don't like the results on the field, and are worried that we're still not winning signature Big Ten games, and barely winning some non-signature ones. (Then there is Penn State.) BUT also people who don't swallow the "Rich Rod is responsible for everything wrong in my life" or "head in the sand, la la la / I can't hear you" points of view.

IMO, 2011 will be the real proof of the offense (second year QB). This year's production gives me enough Reason to Believe to stay that course.

Ther real question: In my view, as Head Coach, Rich is at least 75% responsible for the state of the defense -- I'll give him 25% for Carr/English recruiting and coaching change attrition. So, I need Reason to Believe that significant improvement is possible by 2012.

If that can be shown, then I think we continue on with Rich.

Joined: 07/21/2009

MGoPoints: 10630

Steve in PA

November 23rd, 2010 at 10:53 AM ^

Sorry for the bad formatting.  No time for graphs right now.  In no way has the Michigan Wolverine Defense improved since 2008.  Thank goodness for a really bad Purdue team or these numbers would be even worse.

Year     Opponent 3rd Down Efficiency

2008     38.6%

2009     37.29%

2010     41.12%

Year     Opp Pass Completion %

2008     56.59%

2009     60.78%

2010     64.66%

Year     Opp Yards/Pass

2008     7.7

2009     7.1

2010     8.6

Year     Opp Yards/Rush

2008     3.5

2009     4.1

2010     4.2

Year  Turnovers Forced/Game

2008     1.7

2009     1.3

2010     1.5

Joined: 08/10/2009

MGoPoints: 6327