Randy Edsall and Brian Kelly v. Rich Rodriguez

Submitted by artds on July 29th, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Our first two opponents’ coaches are a combined 0-5 against Rich Rodriguez.

Here are a few points regarding their previous meetings.

Randy Edsall v. Rich Rodriguez

  • Randy Edsall is 0-4 against RR
  • RR’s teams have outscored Edsall’s teams 175-51

    • 2004 27-6
    • 2005 45-13
    • 2006 37-11
    • 2007 66-21 (U Conn was 9-2 going into this game)
  • RR’s teams have scored 17 rushing TDs against Edsall’s defenses in just 4 games (plus another 4 TDs passing)
  • Except for when they scored on the 2007 game’s opening possession, Edsall’s teams have never led RR’s teams

Brian Kelly v. Rich Rodriguez

  • Brian Kelly is 0-1 against RR (2007)
  • The game was played in Cincinnati
  • The final score of the game was 28-23
  • Cinci never led during the game and only pulled within 5 after a late 4Q TD
  • RR’s squad put up 295 rushing yards and 4 rushing TDs against Kelly’s defense. White ran for 155 and Slaton had 103. White also threw for another 140.
  • Cinci was 10-3 that year and finished ranked #23.

Just 35 days to go until the execution begins, bitchiz!!! Errr, I mean, "Go Blue!"

Comments

Blue-Chip

July 29th, 2010 at 3:43 PM ^

I like the history RR has against Edsall and crew, but my one fear is how ground based that success was.  Unfortunately, M enters the season with a log jam at running back.  Will we have one or two featured guys to lead that attack against UConn?  I hope somebody emerges early and the dominance continues.

the_white_tiger

July 29th, 2010 at 3:50 PM ^

UConn struggled against good, mobile QB's last year, and obviously they struggled against WVU (especially when RR was there). If our defense doesn't completely poop itself, we should probably win this game.

WichitanWolverine

July 29th, 2010 at 5:07 PM ^

Michigan TO margin last year, by my best calculating abilities (including TO on downs, excluding missed field goals):

ND: 0

Indiana: -1

MSU: -1

Iowa: -3

Illinois: -6?!? (3 fumbles lost, 3 failed 4th down conversions)

Purdue: -1 (including an onside kick recovered by Purdue)

OSU: -4

Indiana's the only exception to the rule, and barely.  If we can secure the football, we will be great this year.

NOLA Wolverine

July 29th, 2010 at 6:16 PM ^

You can't count turnover on downs as a turnover when you're using that number to indicate our "luck" in that game, that's like adding "turnover by foot," you just end up with even more odd numbers. I would say same goes for interceptions, but Phil Steele includes them. If they can hang onto the football they'll win the games they're supposed to.

restive neb

July 29th, 2010 at 4:39 PM ^

While the turnover situation looked like a major reason for the loss, OSU's game strategy was ultra-conservative, and made the game appear to be closer than it was.  With fewer turnovers, OSU would have opened up their offense.  Michigan was overmatched in that game, but OSU's conservative approach made Michigan's defense look better than it really was.

MGoObes

July 29th, 2010 at 4:53 PM ^

it makes it seem as though ohio st didn't lose to purdue, nearly lose to navy, and struggle offensively throughout the entire season. they weren't an offensive juggernaut that could score whenever they wanted and they weren't moving the ball that well on us in the first half . they didn't move the ball that well for the game. why do you think if we hadn't turned the ball over the would've all of a sudden blown us out? that just doesn't compute

joeyb

July 29th, 2010 at 5:02 PM ^

I copy and pasted this information on another thread so I won't do it here, but go look (on ESPN) at their play calling after they went up by 11 in the second half.

Rush, Rush, Rush, Rush, Rush, Punt
Rush, Rush, Rush, Punt
Rush, Scramble, Rush, Rush, Punt
Rush, Rush, Rush, Rush, Punt
Rush, Rush, Screen Pass, Punt

Or something along those lines. I think they had something like 2 passes after they took the lead. They were perfectly content with sitting at 11 until we showed any sign of being able to score, which we didn't.

zguy517

July 29th, 2010 at 5:20 PM ^

That pay calling doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the score or who was dominating. OSUs passing game sucked, their running game worked, which are you going to use? Also, why would they be so content with 11 when they weren't the year before? Pryor missed on multiple deep balls in the second half, they took their shots, it just didn't work

joeyb

July 29th, 2010 at 5:36 PM ^

Putting the ball in the air with a young, inaccurate quarterback is a very high-risk-high-reward play, especially on the road. That's why you run the clock out when you are ahead and pass on every down when you are behind. Why take the risk if you think you have the game in hand?

Look, you can choose to believe whatever you want about their playcalling. If you think that 20-something runs plus the occasional deep ball against single coverage is a legitimate offense with the goal of scoring, I think you are being willfully ignorant. That's your prerogative after the last couple of years, I suppose. I just don't think that running on 90% of your plays is anything short of ultra-conservative.

brad

July 29th, 2010 at 6:39 PM ^

If passing is high risk, so you run, then Michigan holding the ball and scoring a couple more TD's increases M's chances for victory.  We saw TP throw.  He had one pick, and that screen for a TD.  If under more pressure to score in the passing game, there was no evidence in that game that TP could score instead of throwing picks.

They ran all day, just like in 2007, to avoid their own poor QB play.  If M hadn't spent the whole game punching itself in the face, their poor QB play would go on display, and then who knows what would happen?  You can't argue that Pryor would all of a sudden become a good QB under more pressure as opposed to less.

M gave away ten points in that game, OSU's offense scored twice.  If Michigan had avoided all TO's, they probably score about 14 more points, and give up seven less.  That's 24-14 M and Pryor has to pull a win from somewhere Tressel clearly doesn't want him to go.  I argue that he would not have been able to do it.

BigBlue02

July 29th, 2010 at 8:31 PM ^

Thank you. This needed to be said. OSU didn't run up the score last year because they couldn't.  Pryor just doesn't all of the sudden become more accurate when OSU is in a close game. A shitty QB is a shitty QB. They ran the ball because that is what was working.  Unless you're argument is that Pryor would have completed every single pass instead of hitting on half of his passes for 67 whopping yards, in which case I will tell you that your argument is not likely valid.

SysMark

July 29th, 2010 at 6:03 PM ^

I disagree with this argument for this reason.  OSU played conservatively because they were so afraid of turning it over themselves.  They would have only opened it up if the game was even or they trailed in the second half.  Take away the turnover by Tate on our goal line and the whole complexion of the game changes late.  At that point there is no assurance they would have scored at will themselves.  In fact they would have been playing tight and you would have seen a real tense finish either way.

SysMark

July 29th, 2010 at 9:42 PM ^

I was disagreeing with the one I replied to but only partly, which is why my subject line specified "somewhat".  He made the point that we were overmatched and OSU could have opened it up if they wanted to.  I felt we were not that inherently overmatched, and one big turnover by us let the game get away.  Our points were similar.  He felt Tressel was playing conservatively because he was able to.  I felt more that he was afraid of what would happen if he didn't.

Not everything here is a wrong or right, a neg  or a pos...sometimes you can disagree and discuss a point.

KBLOW

July 29th, 2010 at 4:25 PM ^

One big difference in my mind regarding how well (or not) UConn defends the spread is that in this case they've had all pre-season to prep for it, whereas in 2004-2007 they probably only had the usual one week.  

I want RR to have some special mojo regarding Edsall but I think UConn is going to bring their best and be really well prepared.

joeyb

July 29th, 2010 at 5:21 PM ^

I agree to some extent, but how much do you think the playbook has changed in 3 years? They might be able to defend the zone read, but how many plays are we going to have with 3rd and 4th options that haven't been used yet? Once they come out with the scrape exchange or whatever defense they cook up to stop us, how long is it going to take for the coaches to pull out a new play to completely exploit it?

I think what gives us a big advantage this year is that we should theoretically have 2-3x the playbook available to us than last year so adjustments should easily be made. 

MGoObes

July 29th, 2010 at 5:51 PM ^

of preparation point you just made is a false premise. both teams were in the big east as a result both teams scouted each other in the off-season more than they would their non-conference opponents. plus the two teams played each year from 2004-2007, if there were some adjustment edsall would've made to stop this offense surely we would've seen some of it during one of those years

SCarolinaMaize

July 29th, 2010 at 5:01 PM ^

Whether UConn is prepared or not, I have a feeling MI is going to come out with no other purpose than to stomp them into the ground.  This is a statement game and our guys are ready to 'splode on someone.

DeathStar

July 30th, 2010 at 10:29 AM ^

It's one thing to make a sickenlingly gratuitous reference to try and get pos-banged, but to extend it with the disingeuous "Book it" amps you up into the obnoxiously self-righteous category.

Connecticut is going to beat Michigan now because of YOU. And I hope you are happy with that. Book it.