Toughness Today
Presenting for discussion ... *not* a Freep article:
http://detnews.com/article/20110524/SPORTS0201/105240331/1131/sports/Fo…
Comments:
* To some degree, I believe in all this "toughness." I don't think it was lacking under the prior regime, but there are worse things to emphasize. I won't be surprised if it improves.
* Navarre (who, to be fair, has always seemed like a good guy) seems to be equating toughness with the pro-style offense here: "We're going to have a fullback in the game, the quarterback's going to be under center." I do not agree. John does not seem to believe that spread teams can be tough.
* More from Navarre: "I know they're doing a lot of mental toughness things they've been doing for years that we got away from a little bit." Where's the evidence for that?
* We've seen Griese's comments about "effort." I wonder if he watched the Oregon game in '07?
With all the obvious targets (defensive coordinator position, etc.) provided by the RichRod regime, why is it that we continue to hear about things like "toughness" and "understanding the rivalry?" To me it's evidence that a bunch of brains locked up when Rodriguez lost too many games. If Griese et al. would restrict themselves to GERG, academically shaky recruits, etc. they'd sound a lot more reasonable.
I'm not sure where Navarre has been but the most effective NFL offenses (Colts and Patriots) never have their QB under center. I think he should be less concerned about the formations. Like others mention above, toughness is a character attribute and is not schematic.
I think that the "toughness" he talks about is, to a degree, just physicality. We can agree that I-formation, HB running behind the FB is a more "physical" approach than the read-option, which is more about deception, without making value judgements about the efficacy of either.
I agree that those traditional formations appear to be more physical approaches but I submit that the formations speak more to mentality than actuality. "Toughness" is simply a mentality. People either have it or not. Handing the ball off to a fullback on a dive play is arguably no more "physical" or "tough" than running a reverse with small wideouts that are running their a--es off. I guess what I'm saying is that its all relative. But I understand the argument on both sides.
Then I'd argue that you're choosing to read "toughness" in a different way than how he clearly means it.
Isn't that the point of these kind of discussions? Someone says something then some agree and other disagree. Its just an "argument" with no right answer. Navarre uses the word "toughness" in one way and I submit that it can mean something different. If he didn't mean it in the way I submitted, then maybe he should have chosen his words more carefully or explained his use of the word better.
P.S. I never cease to be amazed at the current rating system. You and I are having a completely collegial discussion yet I am deemed "flamebait" because I am taking a devil's advocate stance and arguing it intelligently without bad-mouthing anyone. The mob is a fickle bunch!
This, I guess, is in response to the somewhat snarky "How does Navarre know what happened, I thought all the players didn't come back to see what the team was doing."
John Navarre actually played in both Alumni Flag Football games organized under RR. Here are the 2010 rosters:
http://www.maizenbluenation.com/2010/04/2010-alumni-flag-football-game-rosters.html
So - he did, probably, see what the team was doing at some point.
John Navarre definitely did not play in it.
our Big Ten record under RR speaks to his teams toughness.
I think Tate Forcier throwing a game winning TD pass with a bum shoulder is indicative of toughness. Denard Robinson returning to games after being constantly injured is indicative of toughness. Vincent Smith returning to the field 6 months after an ACL tear is indicative of toughness. Mouton making a game winning sack after one of the worst and most embarrassing UofM defensive performances is indicative of toughness. The fact that our kids could "show up to work everyday" even with all the distractions and play football is indicative of toughness.
Kudos to Chitown for investigating Navarre's visits here.
This article is just a small slanted piece aiming to incite people to read it. The Detroit News needs to make money to survive and this helps. This isn't an in depth analysis of toughness between the RR staff and Hoke staff. Imagine writing a two page paper on Plato's Republic and claiming it indicates Plato supported authortarian regimes. Regardless of whether that is true or not, a two page paper cannot possibly hope to prove it or even shed any light (no pun intended) on the truth of the matter.
RR supported toughness: as an earlier poster mentioned he had his "Hard Edge" campaign. That being said as Navarre points out, the schematic change, especially for offense, requires bigger and stronger players. Whether they are tougher or not depends on the definition of toughness. Yes, a fullback can run over people better than using a second running back as a blocker. Physically, Hoke's team will be tougher (that could still be debated). Mentally we don't know. Yes, the team lost big in the big games against tougher teams, but we have had a young and less-than-usually talented Michigan team. Confusion doesn't necessarily mean toughness, we could have been out-coached or out-manned. We say Zach Novak is tough because he plays with grit and passion. He isn't tough because he is big, or he always shows up in the tougher games and never gets blown-out. The kid gives all he can give, and sometimes that is not enough, other times it is. Same thing with all sports.
The big issue is the journalistic style of the article. It seems to be insinuating RR wasn't as tough. It takes very general comments from Long and Navarre and uses them for a story. Long never played under Hoke, so he might not know how tough Hoke's program is. Maybe he has seen Hoke run his other programs in the past and knows Hoke runs a tougher program than RR. We have to try and piece as much of the context regarding these stories together as we can, which for us fans means we will be left out in the dark often. Sure, Long, Navarre, and Griese know more about football than us, and most likely know as much if not more than us about Michigan football. That doesn't mean what they say is truth. It could be more likely they are telling shades (or reflections/shadows for some more Plato for everyone) of the truth. Griese works a job like all of us, so he can't constantly be monitoring UofM football, and maybe he did visit or not, but I think some people have been pointing out that although they are more qualified than us it doesn't mean we have to belive everything they opine on.
The flipside is kudos to these guys for not going on record about things like this during the RR years, since any bad press was killing us then. As someone said already, they probably didn't agree with everything RR did but kept it in for the good of the program. We need to stop bickering about Carr or RR because we can't change what has happened. Both have left their marks on UofM football for better or worse, and our opinions don't change it. Their influence isn't contained to each other's regime: the players Carr recruited either being hurt, academically ineligible, or leaving made its mark on the "RR era," just as RR's recruited players and coaching style will make its mark on Hoke's era. We have to be as supportive of Michigan football as we can. The last decade wasn't the best for us, but all we can do is look in the mirror and see where we fell short in support of the program and change that for the future.
Sorry I ranted. It has been a long time coming for me. Basic summary, don't worry if the Detroit News thinks we will be tougher. We will have an opportunity to see in the upcoming months.
tl:dr
Typed it up and was like crap. Thats what one gets for Platonic references I quess.
"Toughness" won't get it done anymore without a decent scheme on both sides of the ball. The increment by which any team can "out-personnel" or "out-tough" the other is too small now because of the amount of information everyone now has available.
Everybody has access to the same information in training and nutrition, so nobody is really doing anything "new" anymore. Also, kids now keep in touch with old friends on FB, and know where to transfer if they get homesick or things don't go right for them.
Also, 85 schollies are a lot less than the 115 you used to be able to stockpile. Teams like Michigan could bury QB's who would be stars at the Purdues and MSU's of the world while convincing them they were in the "perfect place" for them. Now, a kid "sees the writing on the wall" after his freshman year and finds greener pastures.
In other words, unless you cheat like Saban, Tressel, or Kiffin, you aren't going to line up against anyone else and say "this is what we're running, but you can't stop us because we're tougher than you" anymore.
Wisconsin totally agrees with this assesment.
I'm hoping that was in no way intended to be insightful, and is actually sarcasm.
I'm morally opposed to the sarcasm tag, so yes, you got it right.
You're a douche.
EDIT: You're right - it definitely should have been an outstandingly funny comment. However, after the immediate fallout from that debacle and the water under the bridge, it just seems mean now. Douche was probably too strong. I hereby amend my statement by deleting it in its entirety and inserting the following instead: "You're mean"
You were right the first time.
I still can't belive he did that at the banquet, but you've got to learn to laugh about it...
You RAISE ME UP!!!!
I have to +1 you for that one. Well played.
is one of the stupidest memes ever, especially when a player's size or the coach's scheme is used to measure "toughness." It's hard to imagine anything more ridiculous.
IMO, two of the toughest players on our team are Martavious Odoms and Vince Smith. They are also two of the smallest players on the team. But watch Smith take on a rushing MLB with a 7 yard head start and stand him straight up or Odoms laying out a safety downfield and tell me they aren't tough, physically or mentally. Lewan isn't tough because he's a massive guy, he's tough because he has attitude and never gives up on a play (to a fault). You can also take a look at Denard and understand what toughness is. He carried a full rushing and QB load last year, played injured and went until his body couldn't take any more abuse.
Those complaining about toughness over the past couple years are really just complaining about losing (hint: additional toughness wouldn't have improved the record, depth and talent would). That or they haven't actually watched any games.
Ahh, Yes. Another pissing match between Rich Rod's Army and Hoke's Heroes.
Les Miles' Turf Eating Maniacs are here too. Don't forget about us.
Both are just convenient, default explanations for why teams win or lose. For some reason it's just not enough for fans or former players to simply say "they weren't talented enough" or "they were too young and inexperienced" or "the coaches didn't know what in hell they were doing."
Bo Schembechler's teams went 2-8 against PAC-10 teams in the Rose Bowl. Does that mean that USC, UCLA, Washington, Stanford, and Arizona State were all tougher teams than Michigan? Did they want it more? Or did those teams simply have more talent and/or better coaching?
Then again those teams did do that new fangled West Coast Offense passing thingy on us. Dirty tricks!
/s
Is my favorite reality competition thing to say. That and "I am not here to make friends" which is immediAtely followed by "why does everyone hate me?!"
Not that I agree with it entirely BUT, when you look at a spread/option based team, they really don't establish anything, other than we're going to get our guys in space and they are going to be better athletes than the guys trying to stop them.
Its like RR on 1st, 2nd and 3rd and goal from the 3 would line his QB up 7yds deep no matter what. To me, thats like saying to the defense, we will not even attempt to try and push you off the line of scrimmage for positive yards. In not even attempting to out muscle the other team it gives the appearance of being more of a lover than a fighter.
Of course all of this is rendered a mute point and not even up for discussion if your scheme is winning "duh".