Not a reason to keep RichRod
Obviously, we're seeing a number of arguments to either keep or fire RichRod at the end of the season. On both sides, there are some valid points. Without addressing the overall argument of whether he should be kept or fired, I do want to put an end to one point suggested by the keep-RR crowd that pops up from time to time. It is some version of the following:
We have to keep RichRod because if we switch to a pro-style offense, all our players will flee and we'll have to completely rebuild with years of doom to muddle through.
1. Who said that the next coach has been determined? We might run a "pro style", we might run a "spread" or we might run a combination of styles. There are not just two offenses in college football.
2. Even if we were to switch to a "pro style" coach like Harbaugh, there need not be a major drop-off for a number of reasons. First, Harbaugh has recruited a number of our current commits (roughly half the class). Second, Harbaugh even recruited Tate (thus eliminating the "but the QB" refrain). Third, Harbaugh has recruited a top-10 class. You think he wouldn't be able to recruit at Michigan at least as well as a non-legendary school like Stanford?
3. Even assuming a drop-off on offense, does anyone really think Dave Brandon is going to bring in a coach whose defense is as bad as RichRod's?
To finish, let me drop this quote from our current recruiting class's star recruit, Dee Hart, discussing the possibility of RichRod losing his job:
"I liked Michigan either way and if he were to leave it wouldn't affect me because I think I can play in any offensive system," Hart said. "So it really wasn't my concern."
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:14 PM ^
Notre,
and Dame.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:18 PM ^
"The Hell with Notre Dame" - Bo
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:23 PM ^
So no good program ever fired a coach? Just how did all these coaches wind up at their current schools?
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:33 PM ^
Michigan wasn't very good. In eleven seasons, Bump Ellott's record was 51-42-2 overall and 32-34-2 in the Big Ten. This what happened next:
Schembechler later recalled that he remained loyal to Elliott when he took over as Michigan's head coach in 1969. When Schembechler won the Big Ten championship in 1969, he said, "I made certain I let everyone know I won with Bump's kids. Bump was a man of great class and he showed it to me again and again in that first year, never getting in the way, always trying to be helpful, always trying to encourage me."[49] After Michigan won the 1969 Ohio State game, the team presented the game ball to Elliott, and Schembechler noted that "I don’t remember when I felt happier about anything in my life."[49]
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:37 PM ^
Great story and thanks for sharing. Will tell it to my kids one day when I talk about Michigan football.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:20 PM ^
Heck, when Bo was hired, at the presser, Bo sat on one side of Canham, Bump sat on the other. Bump gets a bit of a bum rap. The assumption is always that Bo took over a losing program, that the '68 team was downright terrible, etc. etc. Michigan finished 2nd in the Big 10 with an 8-2 record that season...
Seems to me Rich Rodriguez (and this fanbase) could have learned a lot by seeing your post 3 years ago. The way Lloyd Carr has been treated in this situation has been nothing short of incomprehensibly embarrassing.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:26 PM ^
However, this is part of the package we got with RR. He is who he is. I wonder why Lloyd feels more kinship with Kirk Ferentz.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:35 PM ^
Yes, Lloyd has been treated very badly and so has Coach Rod. I don't blame Lloyd for anything to do with the current football state, it was in the past. Love the guy, just wasn't a fan of his coaching in the end. He deserves the respect for all he has done for the University.
I hated the Coach Rod hire at first, not knowing better, but his treatment was awful. Sure, he has made mistakes but he never had the support he needed.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:37 PM ^
I definitely think it was a major mistake by RR to fire Carr's entire staff (save Fred Jackson). When you're walking into a program that's experienced such sustained success, why tear everything down? My guess is we'd have had fewer transfers, and more guys buying into the program right away, if more of Carr's assistants had been retained.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:49 PM ^
Not sure if that was a major mistake. I think he should have kept some of those guys if not all. But, you know a team leader with always want his own team. See this all the time. You just don't know who you can trust. I am not sure you can blame him for that. Other things yes.
November 2nd, 2010 at 8:05 PM ^
That was too bad, but I think it's the rule far more than the exception. I'm open -- honestly -- to a data-driven response proving I'm wrong.
Just out of curiosity, who would you have kept? Not Andy Moeller, I hope. :) Vance Bedford would be an obvious choice.
November 2nd, 2010 at 8:41 PM ^
I think it would have been nice to keep three or four just to maintain continuity. Bedford definitely would have been one, and maybe Stripling (not that Tall is bad, but Stripling was very good) on D. Probably Campbell on offense.
I understand why RR brought his guys over - like Carr, he's loyal to his assistants - but I think that made the transition more difficult for the players than it could have been otherwise. It may have hurt our in-state recruiting ties as well (though it has led to new ones in Florida and elsewhere). Also, it probably alienated Carr somewhat. It can't have pleased him to see the staff he assembled jettisoned.
November 2nd, 2010 at 8:10 PM ^
"The way Lloyd Carr has been treated in this situation has been nothing short of incomprehensibly embarrassing."
I find that hyperbolic. Yes, he has taken some unfair "leaving the cupboard bare" heat. (As if he'd do something like that on purpose ...) As well, I think the crap he got prior to retirement was unreasonable. Incomprehensibly embarrassing, though? I don't quite see it ...
Subsitute RichRod for Lloyd in that sentence and you'd still be somewhat on-target. [*]
* Bando, this does not mean that RichRod doesn't have numerous self-inflicted wounds. Again, it does not mean that RichRod doesn't have numerous self-inflicted wounds. With me?
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:49 PM ^
had wayyyyyy more talent than what RR was left with.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:18 PM ^
Notre Dame has had five coaches in the past 10 seasons. You have to go back to 1968 to find Michigan's fifth coach in the chain. Michigan would have to hire three more HC's in the next six years to be in ND's league. There is no comparison.
November 3rd, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^
impose uncertainty, a constant learning curve and mediocrity? Was it coach 3, 4 or 5?
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:16 PM ^
My argument isn't against firing RR. My argument is against hiring a coach that is going to run a pro-style offense. It will take 3-4 years to rebuild both sides of the ball. If you are willing to give a coach 3-4 years to rebuild, you might as well give RR a year or two to get the defense back up and running.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:26 PM ^
I understand you're typing those words, but what facts do you use to base that upon? You think we'll need 3-4 years to "rebuild" with Gardner throwing to Arnett/Watkins/Roundtree/Stonum with Hart running the ball and Lewan anchoring the left side? I sure don't.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:37 PM ^
The question is do you think that Gardner would stick around? He's not a pocket QB. Tate probably would, but his need to scramble is going to continue hurting his play. What makes you think that we won't have the same attrition of recruits we did when RR came in? It wasn't what they signed up for after all.
Whatever time that you think it takes to get to a winning combination of offense and defense (it won't be a year), wouldn't you be better served to give that time to RR to let his players mature?
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:50 PM ^
So, I'm guessing what you implied is that the transition won't work because of attrition? If I'm wrong, let me know...but for now I'll just direct you to paragraph 2 in the OP.
As for Devin...yes. I do think he'll stick around. Not all coaches require one type of QB to run an offense (i.e. "RR just needs his Pat White"). Devin is tall, fast and has a great arm. I think he'd be perfect for Harbaugh (and vice versa). Arnett would also commit in a heartbeat. he already wants to play with Devin but wants a pro-style offense.
How long do I think it'll take to produce as good of or better record than RR? 1 year. RR has had 3 years. The jury isn't out yet (as noted in the OP), but it doesn't look good for him.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:02 PM ^
Either way we are switching DC. So, I don't get how switching to a new offensive philosophy coupled with attrition is going to get you a better record than the current system which has shown it can move the ball and score.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:06 PM ^
Really? Are you even paying any attention to the arguments against your "attrition" nonsense? Again, the entire point of the OP is so that folks stop with such an unfounded argument. Please re-read.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:35 PM ^
I don't understand how the change in offensive philosophy is the only factor with attrition. I think it is much more than that. Please show me any coaching change at any school (that wasn't a defacto handover) that lacked attrition.
It goes a lot further than that...
Coach's personality, culture of the program, athletic training, academic standards, etc. etc. How many of those who left the program under RR left bc of a change to the spread? IIRC it was a small percentage of the attrition.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:25 PM ^
I don't think the "attrition" argume is nonsense, not because the OP said it was and not because you simply say it is. Case in point - Ryan Mallett. Lets face it - change the offense and kids that signed on to play in the old scheme are going to leave if they have the opportunity and think they can play in the NFL. Why are you so sure that Gardner is going to stay? Maybe come up with facts to back your opinion rather than simply dismissing arguments to the contrary. Explain to me how Denard/Tate/Gardner are not analogous to Ryan Mallett.
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:27 PM ^
Mallett left (we all assume) because he didn't fit the RR offense. He isn't a runner and RR's offense doesn't work without a running QB. Other offenses aren't so limited.
In contrast, Gardner is tall, fast and has a great arm. Might he want to play for Harbaugh, a coach who's about to put his current QB into the NFL (and possibly with the first pick)? Yeah, I think so. Harbaugh lets his QB run and gives him the structure to throw from...why would Devin not want that? He's perfect for Harbaugh - who (as you might have read) also recruited Tate Forcier (a QB who can both run and throw).
You might notice that Devin had offers not just from "spread" teams but also from Iowa, MSU, ND, Wisc. His potential is not limited to one offensive style. That's why he's so good.
By the way, you mentioned a concern that some of our kids might bolt to the NFL with a change in scheme. Who would that be? I love our skill players (those would be the only ones affected by such a schematic change), but NFL players they are not.
November 3rd, 2010 at 9:07 AM ^
One big difference, at least if we're just going to focus on the QB situation and Mallett. Rich didnt run Mallett off, nor would a new coach run any of these QBs off.
See the difference? Multiple QBs with either experience and/or cant miss guru approval. Mallett left a huge hole at the QB position. Rich has stocked the program with three guys I think we can win with longtern. One might transfer, hell even two might. No way all three go. We're just in much better position to handle a QB transfer, thanks to the recruiting and dvelopment of the position the last couple of season.
If we change coaches, I'm pretty confident that some of the QBs will stay. Really none of us know, but if we do see a transfer on the QB depth chart it wont be nearly the killer situation the program was in when the 2008 season started.
Overall, I really dont think attrition will be as killer with the next coaching change if it happens, but I will outline why elsewhere. Just wanted to get my two cents in on the QB situation. I'd hate to lose any of them, but I dont see a situation where we have a new coach next fall and one of Tate, Denard or Devin arent the starter. I just dont
November 2nd, 2010 at 8:20 PM ^
It must be nice for the next coach to get all of RichRod's kids when they are more than true Sophomores because it must suck for RichRod to not see a Junior out of his 1st true recruiting class.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:55 PM ^
I don't think that Garder would leave. He has the build and arm for a pro-style QB while bringing the speed to the table as well. Any pro-style coach would be able to tweak the offense to his specific abilities. If anything, Gardner would be the best QB on the roster to use in a pro-styl setup.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:09 PM ^
Unless we hire a coach who runs a true spread DG will be our opening day starting QB in 2011 (assuming RR is gone). I have said this a hundred times, Harbaugh (who does not run a meat and potatoes pro-style) would love to have DG. Gardner is very similar to Luck in terms of size and ability to make all the throws, sure he is a mobile QB but Luck is no statue. DG will stay because he will see the ability to play in the NFL under Harbaugh's tutelage. Who wouldn't want to play QB for a 15 year NFL vet who just sent his last protege to league as the number 1 pick?
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:06 PM ^
Are you high? Who the hell says Arnett and Watkins are even coming to michigan? Keep dreaming dude.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:32 PM ^
What makes you think Arnett and Watkins are coming especially if there is a new coach. I would even question if Dee stays committed with a coaching change.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:36 PM ^
You don't think Dee would stay...I don't think you read his quote in the OP.
And why would Arnett come? Well, he said he wants to play with Devin and wants to play in a pro-style offense...and grew up a fan of Michigan. That's why. Watkins...not as much a lock.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:47 PM ^
I think I heard on WTKA from Sam that Watkins likes the spread and he can show off his talents. Problem with Watkins is if you think 50 is cold, then I don't know what to tell you. Unless we speed up global warming, he is probably a toss up. Hopefully, Dallas can convince him that global warming is here.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:52 PM ^
Looks like Arnett did pick a pro-style offense after all...
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:26 PM ^
I wrote further down, but I took too long to collect and type my thoughts, but I dont think it would take 3-4 years to switch to pro style. There would be a transition period but if we hire a good offense coach/coordinator, they would probably run a modified spread/pro style. The key is we do have lots of talent on offense.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:34 PM ^
The evidence seems to suggest that the transition to a spread is longer and more difficult than the transition away from it. MSU, for instance, made a pretty seamless transition from JLS's offense to Dantonio's in 2007. In fact, they've had a strong offense every year he's been there. It's actually been his defense that's held them back (prior to this year).
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:40 PM ^
As you said, it might take a little longer for pro to spread, but if you have athletes and players, IMHO, you can win. Maybe not optimal wins if you recruited the players for the particular system, but close. We just need an adaptable coach.
Still have faith in Coach Rod that he can see this through.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:50 PM ^
"We just need an adaptable coach"
The crazy thing about this is that RR seemed to abandon the underlying reason he adopted the spread - adapting what he was left with to what he had to play against. Apparently, he produced the new system because he had a bunch of little guys on his team who had no chance to win in their league. RR had the keen insight to craft a system that worked more on adapting internally to a play than overpowering your opponent. The system depended on the ability of players to be craft, shifty, and to make intelligent decisions. That is the beauty of the spread - which played to the strengths of the team RR was left with. And they excelled (I can't remember their record his first year).
But RR abandoned what was the real, underlying reason for his success - adapting a system to what he had, NOT in adapting what he had to a certain system. RR seems to have lost that adaptiveness.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:00 PM ^
Wow I thought the "RR should have run I formation with Threet" meme had died a long overdue death. Well RR's first year at WVU, they went 3-8 so he's done this dance before. I want you to show me a system that makes that OL in 2008 with Steven Threet at QB a good offense. The best plan that year was to implement the offense, teach the fundamentals so that by now, the offense could be running at a higher gear.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:06 PM ^
You're right, I forgot that there is only the spread and the I, and never the twain shall meet.
November 2nd, 2010 at 8:23 PM ^
You still didn't suggest an offense that would have gotten us to a bowl game with that OLine and Threet at QB.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:15 PM ^
The offensive line would have had Boren, Molk and Shilling and Alex Mitchell as almost sure starters (Ortman, Moosman, Dorrestein and Huyge would all see snaps ). Brown and Minor were returning at RB. They were injured much of the year but that wasn't part of the equation...just the talent available. Greg Mathews, Junior Hemingway and LaTerrayal Savoy were available at WR.
You're assuming the Ryan Mallett was gone at QB but that wasn't necessarily a done deal. Steven Threet would have served in the role of John Navarre circa 2001. You might remember Navarre as the QB who lead his team to a New Year's Day bowl game in his first season as a starter.
That offense beats Toledo, Purdue, Northwestern and quite possibly Utah.....and plays in a bowl game.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:49 PM ^
You didn't answer my question at all. Not even close. The question was not what offense with players we didn't have on the team would have gotten us to a bowl game, the question was what offense with the starters that RichRod had to work with would have gotten us to a bowl game? This was all in regards to RichRod not forming his offense around his talent. Your argument doesn't really answer anything other than we would have been better had people not left the offense. They did. I'm pretty sure RichRod didn't tell them to leave so he could have Threet play QB.
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:50 PM ^
If the 2008 offense was run in the same style as the 2007 offense, the team would have been more successful and they would have made a bowl game. I'll avoid using the term "pro-style" because there are many variations. We had a 33 year streak indicating that was the case. Teams had to transition all of the time (after Griese left in 1998, after Henson left in 2001....).
You can argue all you want about "ripping off the band" and going straight to a new offense and some of that may be legit. You only asked which offense would have gotten to a bowl game, not which offense was the long term solution.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:23 PM ^
And the "RR finished 3-8 his first year at WVU" meme was paired with the "He finished 9-4 in year 2, so he'll do the same here" meme in 2008.
What happened there?
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:39 PM ^
throw in the center and QB going down in week 4 and you end up 5-7. Maybe do a little research before spouting off. His QB was in his second year in the system at WVU in year two not a true freshman like Tate. I'd say our O is better in year two with "dual threat QBs" unfortunately the D is much worse.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:48 PM ^
The QB did not go down last season. The center did, yes, but losing a single starter (out of 22) to a season-ending injury really isn't that rare. And if we had no D, well, isn't the coach supposed to do something about that?
November 2nd, 2010 at 8:48 PM ^
First off. It was clear that Tate was not 100% in the 2nd half of the season. Could have been his shoulder, could have been his concussion. I don't know if you've ever had a concussion, but you are not the same. It took me a while after my first concussion to actually hit as hard as I could before. In Tate's case it may have taken him a while to be more aggressive and to think faster. Plus, he was a true frosh.
Secondly, this is an honest question that may make me sound stupid, but how is RR responsible for the D. I know, I know he's the head coach, other than that he has proven to be an offensive guy. His def. coaches are responsible for recruiting and developing the players. I just don't understand how RR can be responsible for the D's performance.
Look, RR has proven that with the right players on offense they can do incredible things, and they are proving that quite well, not great and def. not at their highest potential, this year,. How can you fire a coach when nearly all of his recruits are underclassmen??
November 2nd, 2010 at 8:58 PM ^
In football, lots of players aren't 100% healthy during the season. Tate played all 12 games. Yes, his shoulder was iffy, but it didn't stop him from completing almost 60% of his throws. I don't see that as a reason why we lost seven straight conference games.
And as the head coach, RR is responsible for the entire team. It's his choice to spend most of his time with the offense, and that's fine - but it's still on him if the D fails. Maybe he shouldn't spend so much time with the offense. At this point, I feel like Calvin Magee could keep it running and RR might want to focus on D for the rest of the season.
As for firing RR, that still depends on how the rest of this season goes. But if he loses three or four of the next four, I don't see how Brandon can afford to keep him. The fans can't take more 2-6/1-7 Big Ten seasons with losses to every good team. It will be a very uncomfortable offseason if he's retained following a 6-6 or 5-7 season. I don't want to know how ugly it might get just in the stadium if we drop the next two home games.
November 3rd, 2010 at 9:28 PM ^
But you can't fire a guy who hasn't seen the majority of his players develop. We still have first year starters and even first year college students starting in these games. You can't tell me any other coach would turn this program around with what he was given after Carr left. Even if it had been another style like Carr's, it just wasn't working as well, and Michigan needed a change. I just think it sucks for RR to be fired and has only truly had 1 and a half years of recruiting with an empty cupboard of a team handed down to him.