Not enough emphasis on defense in Michigan practices?

Submitted by Erik_in_Dayton on January 15th, 2010 at 10:04 AM

I occasionally check in on gobluemichiganwolverineblogspot even though the grammar and syntax my head hurt, makes.

They posted this in the not too distant past while arguing that Coach Rodriguez doesn't place enough emphasis on defense:

"We have told the story multiple times of Coach Robinson trying to use a coachable moment to teach a defender and then get shut down by Coach Rod. The same thing happened to Coach Shafer. Why so? The philosophy has been that the defense exists to improve the offense."

I'm wondering what people think of this. Do these guys have much credibility? Has anyone heard anything similar or contradictory? I'm a huge Coach Rod fan, so I'm not looking to bash him here...



January 15th, 2010 at 10:50 AM ^

...Do get in on some practices. One of them is a writer for Scout as well. Another is supposedly a high school football coach in Ann Arbor. A lot of the articles that you can read on scout show up on that blog. They know what they're talking about for the most part, and the things they've been wrong on are understandable. Vlad should've been the starter this year at safety but was held back by lingering injury. They've been right about most of the things they predicted for last year, and what they were wrong about... well hey, they're predictions and psychics don't actually exist. These guys are really pretty supportive of Rich Rod most of the time, and seem to be very upfront and honest. It's not like they are anti-Rich Rod. In fact, they've said a lot of times on their blog they're very happy with Rich Rod and think he'll be successful. They really just seem to call it like they see it. If they have something like this to say, it's probably b/c they actually observed it.

los barcos

January 15th, 2010 at 11:33 AM ^

gbmw is a big joke on this blog because apparently their careers as "janitors" or "bricklayers" arent up to snuff with what wla says is acceptable. the bottom line is they are an unofficial blog with some limited access to practice and they make predictions about the team. when they're wrong, people here like to jump down about "no sugarcoat". people tend to forget alot of blogs merely make predictions, and arent right most of the time (brian, IIRC, said at the start of the season LB would be the group with the most depth....)

as to the original thread, i read GBMW and this is not the first time they have mentioned this incident. they have said it a few times. my take: judging by how poor the defense has been, and with only Limited Improvement (and sometimes regression) in most areas, its definitely within the realm of possibility.

also remember, the members of this blog who will get up in arms over this, denying the allegation because GBMW was wrong about khory and vlad, probably have even less access to practice. its all a matter of who you believe, i suppose.


January 15th, 2010 at 12:17 PM ^

for your opinion or insight. Not trying to start a fight, but what is wrong with telling people you like what they do, if, in fact, you like what they do? If a person with a question started out with my subject line, do you think the question would be answered?

I think this blog is offbase at times. (I hope that doesn't cost me.) I think statistices are manipulated to support a desired outcome, rather than an objective outcome. But I like the blog, and I like to consider differing opinions. And I don't have my own blog. If I don't like a blog or website, I guess I can always stay away.


January 15th, 2010 at 4:01 PM ^

you read the post? I guess I assumed (mistakenly, as it turns out) that readers took in more than headlines - that readers actually digested content. And I thought one of the desirable traits of a post was a catchy subject line. The post is in no way derogatory and the headline did not reference the content of the post being replied to. But, I guess I should have understood some people stop reading at the end of the subject line.

Are you taco from the other board?


January 15th, 2010 at 12:17 PM ^

"... gbmw is a big joke on this blog because apparently their careers as "janitors" or "bricklayers" arent up to snuff with what wla says is acceptable..."

Has WLA said that? If so, I have to laugh. I've been wondering why the site appears to have been constructed and maintained by a couple of middle-school kids.

As the original poster said, it sometimes "make head hurt" (or something like that). Still, I have seen some good stuff there after doing some filtering.

los barcos

January 15th, 2010 at 2:58 PM ^

they have never said it to my knowledge, but i know they like to make fun of the intelligence level of the writers, and point to their profession as an example. i know "dex" wrote some threatening email a while back to the lines of "kill yourself now" or something equally offensive.


January 15th, 2010 at 4:15 PM ^

1. coachbt is an assistant to the assistant coach at a shitty ohio high school that hasn't won more than like 3 games in a decade. EXPERT.

2. eroc lays bricks in real life, and lays brick of shit prose on the internet.

3. maizeman cleans RR's piss overspray off the floors of Schembechler Hall

4. kill yourself


January 15th, 2010 at 4:24 PM ^

FWIW, the "WLA" doesn't say anything. MEMBERS of the WLA say things and have opinions.

But, yeah, we're all pretty much in agreement that the website is designed by a 3 year old, they present opinions like "Rich Rod needs to understand that recruiting better defensive players will result in a better defense" (except with more typos), and none of them are real insiders, they just happen to work in (maizeman) on (eroc) or around (coachBT) the stadium.

It's also unlikely anyone in the WLA would use the phrase "Unacceptable" in anything but extreme hyperbolic fashion. Doctor, lawyer, bricklayer, janitor, what-the-fuck-ever, we don't care. The fact that they have a collective understanding of the internet on par with the chair of commerce Ted Stevens (the "intertubes are clogged" guy), well, that shit is really funny.


January 15th, 2010 at 4:21 PM ^

They have been made fun of numerous times because of their absurd grammar, use of caps, and pet phrases like no SUGARCOAT, not because of "what the WLA says is acceptable" (Huh?). There was a phase where that was funny, then like all humor, it played out. It had nothing to do with what they do for a living or the WLA. 99% of the people who criticized them did it light-heartedly.


January 15th, 2010 at 10:47 AM ^

by the media at practice. Last year, you never heard about the defense at all or you heard "and the defense had a couple of stops in a scrimmage."

Don't trust the media as the only source of your information and practice doesn't really matter anyway. It's all about production on the field.


January 15th, 2010 at 10:21 AM ^

They probably only wrote that so if the defense is bad again they can say something like "coach rod BAD for DEFENSE and also whole PROGRAM. WE sAid this in JanruARY. WE ARE SO SMRT. no SUGARCOAT."


January 15th, 2010 at 10:30 AM ^

Last year GBMW was rumoring that Khoury was supposedly pushing Molk at center, which turned out to be complete bunk after Khoury never saw the field after Molk's injury.


January 15th, 2010 at 10:23 AM ^

They don't have access every day of practice for the entire year. Taking one story out of context and extrapolating is like assuming your friend is a terrible driver because the only time you drove with them they got into an accident.


January 15th, 2010 at 10:24 AM ^

Call me naive, but I think most of the defensive struggles had to do with a total lack of system continuity. That said, I will be very afraid if the defense doesn't take some serious steps forward in 2010.


January 15th, 2010 at 12:37 PM ^

where 3 DCs in 3 years will turn out to be a blessing in disguise once the guys finally get to settle down, because they've had such different philosophies and techniques thrown at them. Maybe perspective will give the upperclassmen (I usually hate this next phrase) a higher defensive IQ. But it's a pretty wild hope


January 15th, 2010 at 10:27 AM ^

I'm not sure I believe that. Maybe they saw it once or twice, but I would imagine there was a good reason. Maybe they were strapped for time and needed to get all the plays at a scrimmage in.

These are also the guys who wrote a piece on why RR to Tennessee makes sense and they wouldn't be surprised if RR's agent was one the first people to give a call to their AD. Brilliant.


January 15th, 2010 at 10:36 AM ^

if people actually send these guys questions or do they just make them up??? because it doesn't make sense to send them questions when they could just send them to brian and get far better insight...


January 15th, 2010 at 1:40 PM ^

The emails that get sent in generally don't contain the same weird grammatical or syntax errors of GBMW. This isn't to say that they're error free, but that the errors vary wildly.

Coachbt is supposedly a coach, and they're supposedly "insiders". Some info they report wouldn't make it onto Mgoblog because its just so bizarre, random, or unsourced.


January 15th, 2010 at 11:00 AM ^

is a legit DC (obviously, he is a terrible HC).

Why would he stick around at Michigan if he was just there to act as a practice dummy for RR? Why would any good/ known Defensive coach go to Michigan?

This, plus the fact that our D was terrible last year and cost us a few games means that RR has to understand the importance of Defense.


January 15th, 2010 at 11:51 AM ^

There's a slight difference between making a mistake and doing what GBMW claims he did. I haven't heard anyone, not even the most die-hard RR supporters, ever claim that he hasn't made mistakes. But do you really think, given how terribly our defense has played over the last 2 years, that he would actually sabotage it further? I just can't see that happening


January 15th, 2010 at 11:18 AM ^

Having attneded 3 practices last year the practices were always divided up evenly. Whenever there are drills both the offense and defense are going. When they scrimmage everyone has a chance to work. The things I did notice is that Gerg is usually the only voice the defense is hearing while they are on the field. While the offensive coaches are constantly chirping at offensive players. I believe this is because Gerg brought in a new defense and tackling system. He possibly did not want the wrong information being conveyed to the players.

This was consistant last year during spring and fall practice. I have a feeling this year will be different since the staff has learned his ways as well as the players.


January 15th, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^

Oh and as far as shutting down coaches that has to do with pacing. They want the pace to be hellish. So they don't want coaching on the field, they want it off to the side. Get a fresh body in there and coach the offender somewhere else. I think this goes back to my earlier point that Gerg wanted to be the guy to coach them not his assistants. So coach Rod had to move things along.

It isn't because the defense doesn't matter it is more about recreating game conditions on the field


January 15th, 2010 at 11:53 AM ^

The three guys that make up gobluewolverineatthelocalblogspot are Maizeman, coachbt & eroc.

Maizeman was an "insider" for GBW but was kicked off of the site for lying about access to practice.

Eroc, IMO, is a little slow.

coachbt has been a High School coach for about 70 years. He has some good information but nothing more than most people who follow football. His only "inside" connection is access to one practice a year.

Yes, they make up questions on their blog. Did you notice they never have any responses from readers?