Meyer a Rodriguez Redux?

Submitted by Blue Blue Blue on November 24th, 2011 at 8:17 PM

Here's an idea:


let's hire a very well regarded coach, who runs a system completely different from ours.

lets give up our power I system for the spread.

our new guy is an offensive guru, the defense will take care of itself

will the in-house power structure accomodate getting away from the style of play we are accustomed to?


Rodriguez then.


Meyer now. 


Tell me the difference.



November 24th, 2011 at 8:21 PM ^

Two differences:

I think Braxton Miller can work in Meyer's offense from day one.

Meyer is unlikely to face the same sort of backlash from Ohio loyalists that Rodriguez saw here.

Meyer's success is not a slam dunk, but Rodriguez's struggles have no bearing here.


November 24th, 2011 at 9:28 PM ^

Well, UM (ntUM) won't face a backlash for two reasons. One big reason is that Ohio has already lived through Luke Fickell and can see that promoting from within isn't going to work (I mean, even a Buckeye can see that Bollman has no business moving into the HC spot).

But second, and more important, is the fact that a great many folks in Ohio don't care about anything but winning. They'll pay players, they'll cheat in classes, they'll lie to the NCAA, and they'll never, ever admit they did anything wrong, even when their head coach is caught lying about player eligibility and NCAA compliance. Does that sound like a program that will let personal loyalty (however misguided or not), tradition, character, and a sense of history interfere with a new coach riding wild?


November 24th, 2011 at 10:15 PM ^

OK, then you tell me another significant game that RR has coached in and won.  Louisville?  Cincinnati?  Rutgers?  Notre Dame?

I'm not anti-RR.  I hope that he has success at Arizona.  I'll admit that after watching him in A2 for three seasons, I don't think that he's an elite coach....possibly not even a very good coach (game management was often very questionable, fundamentals were significantly lacking).  It's simply not a coincidence that Michigan has had such a dramatic turnaround this season in the area of turnovers, scoring defense, fourth down conversion....things like that.  A better coaching staff is in place and that has made all the difference.


November 25th, 2011 at 11:46 AM ^

Beat a ranked Georgia Tech and other ranked Big East teams. Lost to the #2 team of Miami by a couple points. Can't really remember much else. Had plenty of good games within his conference. I know the Big East isn't great but there was a surge in the Big East when RR, Petrino, and Ray Rice were in the Big East and it reasonably competitive. Given the state of the Big Ten the last 5-7 years, I don't think that you can ignore wins within a perceived weaker conference because that applies to the Big Ten and Michigan. Besides Florida in 2007, we haven't really had a marquee win in a couple years.

Also, I don't disagree that the overall coaching staff is better now, especially the d-coordinator, but there are a lot of other reasons the team has improved. For one there hasn't been a horrendous amount of attrition. There has been growth from a lot of positions and more experience as a team. Obviously that wouldn't account for the entire incredible surge by the defense, but that is part. I think it is tough to measure RR completely on his time here due to the numerous factors playing into our failure. Also, if we are questioning game management, I think this coaching staff has issues too, mainly around two minute drills and clock management (T/Os particularly). I'm sure it something that will get smoothed out with more familiarity with the team and more experience in the system.


November 25th, 2011 at 7:22 AM ^

If so, that wouldn't undermine my argument, since my comment was NOT that ALL SEC defenses perform well every EVERY game during EVERY season. Had I posted that, then he would have proven me wrong. As it stands, though, all he posted was a LOGICFAIL
<br>Me: "Most As are also Bs"
<br>Him: "Here's an A that's not also a B, so you're wrong"


November 25th, 2011 at 12:50 PM ^

....this is algebraic equivalent of your implication:

RR played against conference A's defenses.

Meyer played against conference B's defenses.

Conference B's defenses are better than A's so RR could not have had the same success as Meyer.


While there is no argument against the SEC being a stronger conference than the Big East, whether or not RR could have found success coaching in the SEC is certainly debateable.  Although my example is "a small sample size," it is still relevant to the question.  RR's team competed against, put up 38 points against, and beat then SEC champ Georgia. 

What exactly did you offer?  Oh yeah.  The SEC is a better conference than the Big East.  What a revelation!



los barcos

November 24th, 2011 at 11:37 PM ^

you posted the score to one bcs game to prove....what? that the big east has legit defenses? that the sec does not? im not really sure what the point was that you were discrediting.  but, yes, i am saying one game on the grand scheme of things is fairly meaningless.  boise state has beaten oklahoma, utah has beaten alabama, toledo beat michigan. what does that say about the respective conferences? next to nothing.


so yes, forgive me for missing the point of your post.


November 25th, 2011 at 6:47 PM ^

artds said:  "The SEC has legit defenses. The Big East does not. Therein lies the difference."

The implication of his comment is that RR would not have had success against SEC defenses.  Although my sample size is small as you were kind enough to point out, what sample size is there to suggest that RR would not have had success in the SEC? 

I do not know how RR would do in the SEC.  The 2006 Sugar Bowl result does not convince me that I do know, but it does convince me that ardts has absolutely no idea either.

You are forgiven.


The Barwis Effect

November 25th, 2011 at 4:47 AM ^


1987 Rose Bowl
73rd Rose Bowl Game

How that turn out for Ohio State?  

Bowl games are a completely different animal than conference games.  Not only do you have to game plan against an opponent for which you have no frame of reference, you also have to deal with other factors not typically present during the regular season (i.e., a long layoff, how your team handles the distractions of the bowl, your team's motivation for playing in the bowl).

Bottom line?  It's dangerous to put too much stock into bowl game results.


November 25th, 2011 at 1:31 PM ^

Your example is terrible.  

In that bowl game, Cooper not only beat Michigan; he beat the Big 10.  When he went to OSU, he had considerable success against Big 10 schools.  He had OSU in line for National Championship game appearances on multiple occasions.  In the end, he didn't beat the only team he needed to. 

Second of all, I wasn't trying to prove anything other than there isn't a metric to suggest that RR wouldn't have had success against SEC defenses.  He was 3-0 against the SEC at WVU, including a game in which his team put up 38 points on the SEC champ's defense.  Even so, I fully agree with everyone that the result of one game does not prove that RR would have had sustained success in the SEC...... but what are you, or anyone else, offering to suggest that he wouldn't?

Zone Left

November 24th, 2011 at 8:22 PM ^

OSU has run a lot of spread since 2006 with Troy Smith. Meyer always had killer defenses at Florida and I don't think the cupboard is anywhere near as bare as it was for Rodriguez.

Furthermore, Meyer has OSU ties and isn't going to piss off a lot of the fan base with miscontrued comments early on. He's been through that fire already.


November 24th, 2011 at 9:41 PM ^

Actually, Meyer (and UF) had killer defenses 3 of his 6 seasons. Not coincidentally, those were the 3 seasons that UF went 13-1 and won 2 MNC's. The other 3 years, when the UF defense was merely "OK", UF went 9-3, 9-4 and 8-5.

For all the talk of Meyer's offensive genius, UF was only great when their defense was great. When the defense was average to good, UF was, well, average to good. Meyer's success (or lack thereof) at OSU will probably be determined by the success of his defenses as well.


November 24th, 2011 at 8:23 PM ^

Rich Rod runs an Option which needs small, quick players everywhere for it to be successful including smaller, more agile offensive linemen.


Meyer (under OC Dan Mullen, I honestly don't know what he's going to do now), when he had Tebow at their apex, ran the Power Read Option offense, It involved having a QB running between the tackles and an RB always running off tackle.


So there are subtle differences between offenses. But, hey, Meyer was succesful in the damn SEC. RR was in the Big East. The SEC doesn't even belong in the same sentence as any other conference at this point.



November 24th, 2011 at 9:12 PM ^

I meant at West Virginia..... as it was in response to the Big East versus SEC comment.

I certainly agree that there is no comparison between the conferences, but it is worth pointing out that RR did have success against schools in the SEC including then champ Georgia in the 2006 Sugar Bowl.



November 25th, 2011 at 10:32 AM ^

it was his team which he recruited and developed. The bowl game was played using his offense with his play book and his players. While he may not have been the actual dude to do the game management, I think it would be safe to consider it his team even if he wasn't on the side lines.

To say he was not a primary contributor to the outcome of that game would be ignoring the facts.


Cville Blue

November 24th, 2011 at 8:24 PM ^

But Meyer is a more proven coach than RichRod was when he came here. There may be some growing pains Meyer during he transition.

It is good for us and the B1G for TSIO to be a great team.

I'll take Hoke and can't wait for Saturday and the future.


November 24th, 2011 at 8:27 PM ^

I do see your point, and have thought the same reason myself. Why did he have such success at Florida? I would say the defense that was pretty damn stout, and Tim Tebow. The only reason he had either of those is because of a defensive coordinator that happens to be on our staff.