We will reap if we do not faint
That said, we must bring RRod back for 2011. Here's why:
Whether or not we should have hired RRod is a completely different question than whether or not we should keep him for at least another year. I think firing him now would only make the disaster complete. Yes, watching our current D is a miserable experience. But what the offense has accomplished this year has been truly remarkable. Next year we return Denard as a junior, all but one O-lineman, all but one receiver, all RB's, plus we add Demetrius Hart. Is now really the time you want to pull the plug on the RRod era? We are finally on the verge of seeing his offensive masterpiece fully staffed and implemented, after three years of suffering, and we want to fire him now?
This would be a critical blunder. The offense hasn't been perfect this year - turnovers, penalties, yada yada. But just look at the limitations they have had: a defense that can't get them the ball, lack of a true home run threat at RB, and just plain youth. Next year they feature mostly upperclassmen (at last!), led by a pre-season Heisman candidate.
Yes, the defense must improve, but if they can just improve to "average" it will make a quantum difference in wins and losses. Ditching RRod when we could be on the verge of becoming Oregon would mean that the last three years would really have been for nothing.
We will reap if we do not faint...this hasn't been the quickest or surest path back to glory but we are committed to it. RRod can still make this hire a good one. Tell me, is there anyone else in the country that would have a better chance of making us a thresher next year?
I think not. The defensive side of the ball can be fixed without getting rid of RRod. Next year is the make or break...go blue and go RRod.
November 21st, 2010 at 1:41 AM ^
and people panic. i really don't get it
November 21st, 2010 at 1:48 AM ^
you are referring to me or those who want RRod's head. My faith being shaken has to do with our having to say "but the D is so young" AGAIN, for the third year in a row.
<br>
<br>I do think we will reap soon enough if we keep course, however. RRod's WVU days seem to indicate that RRod teams will have good D when they start upperclassmen.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:52 AM ^
and the defense was terrible. And this defense has plenty of upperclassmen and/or guys with significant starting experience. The seconday is the one part that lacks experience, but unfortunately for us, the entire unit stinks. The defensive issues are much more than an issue of experience.Coaching is the issue.
November 21st, 2010 at 9:06 AM ^
Agreed there are plenty of 4th and 5th year seniors on the D-line and in the Linebacking corps and they looked just as bad if not worse than the secondary yesterday. If those players can't execute on the fundamentals and can't tackle that says something about how poorly they are being coached. Something has to give, whether it's a new defensive staff that has greater autonomy or a wholesale change, but this is ridiculous. The players are playing hard and look like they're leaving everything on the field, so let's get them coaches who can honor that effort.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:15 AM ^
about how poorly those positions were recruited prior to RRod. I still see a lot of underclassmen playing significant time there, if not as starters.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:12 AM ^
We unfortunately have more true freshmen playing in the secondary this year, that doesn't mean we were deep and experienced last year. Remember having to decide whether TWoolf should play corner or safety, based on where he could best minimize the damage that was seemingly inevitable? When has RRod ever had a fully loaded team starting mostly upperclassmen on both sides of the ball? I would like to see this b/f we pull the plug. No one can compete with a high school all-star team for a defensive backfield.
<br>
<br>That said, I did mention that this is what has shaken my faith. Yes, every coach does need to have the chance to get his own players in the system but the real disaster is that he has had time to do this and it still seems like it will be years before our D is really good again...
November 21st, 2010 at 2:03 AM ^
I think that if we played a close game, the reaction might be different. After barely getting by bad teams like Purdue, Illinois and Indiana, we needed to show that we can compete with solid teams. This game, especially with Wisc laughing as they ran it down our throats, showed that we aren't so close to being competitive with the top half of the conference. That's a big problem that won't be rectified by our defense getting a year older. That's not panic; it's just reality.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:18 AM ^
take whatever stock necessary in the fact that UM won that game far more handily than it looked on replay (to me at least). if you don't think that the 'problem' won't be rectified by the fact Martin will be playing, the d-line will be a year stronger and hopefully placed in better placement... i don't know what to tell you. lots of missed tackles today
November 21st, 2010 at 2:38 AM ^
Yo want us to believe something that all available evidence says won't happen--improvement by UM's defense. It has, in fact, worsened over Rodriguez's tenure here. SO why then should believe that it will improve?
You have to provide facts to support your thesis that it will improve. Something, anything, of substantive value.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:55 AM ^
We get TWolf and Williams back as well as 10 starters and every back up (minus Ezeh? Is there another senior backup I am missing?). Our offense returns 10 of 11 starters and for the first time we won't have a first year starter at QB, cutting down on turnovers which put our defense into shitty situations. Our numerous freshmen will be a year stronger. Our numerous freshmen will have more than 1 month on campus before they are put directly into our 2 deep. Martin will be at full strength. Those are all facts.
November 21st, 2010 at 7:57 AM ^
t woolf seems to get better the longer he stays out of the lineup. I am rooting for him to make a full recovery but he wasn't that good when he was healthy. If you're referring to Mike Williams making us stronger, you must be joking. He was terrible when he played and wasn't going to see the field this year anyway.
I am hopeful one year and ten to fifteen pounds will help our young defense but I don't have any facts to base that upon. Other teams do more with less and I haven't seen any improvement from the beginning of the year-that's what is most concerning. Fifteen bowl practices and another spring session won't help if the coaching is substandard.
November 21st, 2010 at 8:48 AM ^
i thought williams' career was over due to too many concussions
we will have mike jones back
November 21st, 2010 at 11:09 AM ^
Who is Williams?
November 21st, 2010 at 1:55 PM ^
Sorry, meant Jones.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:11 AM ^
for saying what I've been thinking all along. At least the MGoBoard is holding its act together better than after PSU...I thought it was 2008 again for a couple of days back there.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:27 AM ^
We got rolled by a mediocre Penn St. team. I don't know how people didn't see this coming This year's Wisconsin team is Rose Bowl bound and they would give fits to even good Michigan teams of yore.
November 21st, 2010 at 9:38 AM ^
Ron Dayne never rushed for 100 yards against Michigan. Two Wisky players did it yesterday.
Also, Wisconsin went to the Rose Bowl after the 1998 and 1999 seasons....Michigan beat them both years.
I agree that this is a really good Wisconsin team. I'm just saying that it wasn't that long ago that Michigan was able to compete with them at their highest level.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:10 AM ^
Is that supposed to make me feel better?
November 21st, 2010 at 9:30 AM ^
....that they lost to the # 9 team in the country (although I remember when Michigan could routinely beat Top10 teams, particularly at home). It's more that their best win is against the # 41 team....and that one took three OT's at home. A win over MSU and/or Penn State would have gone a long way towards making this a better season.
November 21st, 2010 at 9:45 AM ^
Come on guys. We were favored against MSU. We nearly won at their place the year before. They had beaten Wisconsin who were all convinced was no good and previously MSU barely squeaked by Notre Dame. Yet the game was over at halftime against us.
There are two areas where the hardened "Rich needs another year" people keep losing me:
1. The trashing of Harbaugh. Which has basically ceased save the nit picky complaints about him discussing how we channel jocks to general studies. The fact that it has ceased on a basically pro-Rodriguez blog tells you all we need to know about Harbaugh's qualifications. "Impeccable" and "perfect for this situation" are descriptives that spring to mind. I doubt it is even an option, but it is cool to let people dream. A coach of that caliber, an alum, recruiting like that, taking on all comers and expecting to beat down rivals, then doing it, looks mighty good right now.
2. The idea that because we aren't supposed to win these games against quality opponents it is not fair to criticize the head coach or make him accountable when we get rolled off the field in all 4 games. Then they immediately brand people who question this direction as deserters or accuse them of going off the deep end.
This is a program that currently creates no fear in opponents. We act like these established Big Ten programs are going to fall off the map when they have a few guys graduate and we'll assume power in this imaginary vacuum. There is no evidence in style of play or w/l results to assume that will happen. People are totally justified in being concerned and doubting.
Here's hoping that Rich really knows what he is doing to build a serious winner at this level. The progress from his first team is commendable and encouraging, just as the continuous crash and burn against good programs is discouraging.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:15 AM ^
November 21st, 2010 at 1:54 AM ^
do you guys think our OL and DL will continue to put up more weight this off season?
November 21st, 2010 at 11:18 AM ^
I don't necessarily think the lines will get much bigger, but the LB's and secondary will. That would go a long way towards being able to stop the power run game.
November 21st, 2010 at 12:14 PM ^
rushing 3?
November 21st, 2010 at 1:57 AM ^
November 21st, 2010 at 5:45 AM ^
November 21st, 2010 at 2:03 AM ^
I think you give anyone a head coaching job and they need to get their players into the program, ex. Dantonio. Not really a valid agrument.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:48 AM ^
Saban won 12 games his second year, Tressel a NT, Carr a NT in his third, Dantonio won 9 his second season, Meyer a NT in his second..great coaches win and win almost immediately.
A coach needs time if he is taking a Wisconsin circa 1990(Alverez) or a school like Eastern Michigan which has no recruiting base, no tradition, no fan support. Basically, you have to build the entire program which slows the process dramatically. That is not so at UofM where you have everything you need right off the bat to win 8 games. Facilities, fan support, brand recognition, tradition...UofM is perfectly set up to be an instant winner which is why so many have issues with RichRod. He frankyl ,looks like a guy in over his head at the high major level.
I think if he is to survive that he surrender the defense entirely to the new DC.Scheme, coaching staff, size of players, etc. That is the only way UofM can have a good defense under RR because he clearly has no clue what to do on that side of the ball.
November 21st, 2010 at 3:03 AM ^
Since when is a team that loses 9 out of 11 starters on offense (including 5 NFL draft pics, one of those being the leading rusher in Michigan history, one of them being the leading passer in Michigan history, and another the 1st pick in the draft) and also loses something like 5 out of the top 6 tacklers on the defense "set up to be an instant winner?"
As a side note, in the 2001 NFL draft, Lloyd Carr had 3 guys drafted in the first 18 spots in the draft. In the 4 classes that RichRod took over, he is going to have 1 (and a whopping 2 if you count Mallett).
November 21st, 2010 at 9:25 AM ^
or a school like Stanford.......
To me the arguments to keep Rich are compelling if there is no chance to get the hottest coaching name in America: Jim Harbaugh.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:35 AM ^
I'm not on either side of this argument (not smart enough), but the Tressel and Carr arguments in particular don't work - *lots* of talent for both of those guys on both sides of the ball, talent that they inherited. We can see from this year's senior class that - for whatever reason - the cupboard was pretty bare...
November 21st, 2010 at 1:12 PM ^
Here are the records of coaches in their first three years at historically dominant Division I programs
Bob Stoops at Oklahoma coming off of a 5-6 season under John Blake
1999: 7-5
2000: 13-0 (National Champions)
2001: 11-2
Nick Saban at Alabama coming off of a 6-7 season under Mike Shula
2007: 7-6
2008: 12-2
2009: 14-0 (National Champions)
Pete Carrol at USC coming off of a 5-7 season under Paul Hackett
2001: 6-6
2002: 11-2
2003: 12-1 (National Champions)
Urban Meyer at Florida coming off of an 7-5 season under Ron Zook
2005: 9-3
2006: 13-1 (National Champions)
2007: 9-4
Mack Brown at Texas coming off of a 4-7 season under John Mackovic
1998: 9-3
1999: 9-5
2000: 9-3
Jim Tresell at OSU coming off of an 8-4 2000 season under John Cooper
2001: 7-5
2002: 14-0 (National Champions)
2003: 11-2
Bo Pellini at Nebraska coming off of a 5-7 season under Bill Callahan
2008: 9-4
2009: 10-4
Michigan obviously belongs in this group. Lloyd Carr coming off of an 8-4 season under Gary Moeller:
1995: 9-4
1996: 8-4
1997: 12-0 (National Champions)
I don't dislike Rich Rodriguez, and I want him to win. The simple fact is, however, that he hasn't (3-9; 5-7; 7-5*), and as the above records amply demonstrate, you can field a winner, a national championship team no less, in your first three years.
I take no pleasure in writing this, but right now Michigan is Minnesota under Glenn Mason:
1997: 3-9
1998: 5-6
1999: 8-4
November 21st, 2010 at 6:34 PM ^
so apparently you agree with the first part of my argument that the spread was not the shortest and surest path back to glory. But now that we are three years into the transition do you think that, from where we stand right now, firing RRod will be the shortest and surest path back?
<br>
<br>RRod is a good coach and I want to see what he does with juniors and seniors starting on both sides of the ball. If at that point we are still bad THEN fire him, but not before.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:38 PM ^
that it would be the shortest and surest path back. I'm just running out of patience. Every team has injuries. The recruiting, attrition and poor play are on the coaching staff. Just looking at the other program records cited above, I'm of a mind that if something good were going to happen, or something other than a middling Big 10 team were going to happen, it would have happened by now, and it hasn't.
For yet another example of how the right person at the helm can make a difference, look at Greg Robinson's last gig: Syracuse. Syracuse was absolutely terrible under Robinson and did not so much as sniff a bowl let alone a winning record. Robinson's replacement, Doug Marrone, suffered a huge amount of attrition and inherited some inferior Big East talent. Yet in year two of his tenure the Orange are 7-4 and bowl elligible.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:27 AM ^
Ditching RRod when we could be on the verge of becoming Oregon would mean that the last three years would really have been for nothing.
Oregon's the #1 team in the country. We're an average team that just got destroyed at home (for the third time). We won't become anything resembling Oregon without figuring out two of the three phases of the game.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:33 AM ^
Phase One: Score
Phase Two: ?
Phase Three: Win
November 21st, 2010 at 2:58 AM ^
Phase Five: Profit.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:47 AM ^
And play on defense.
November 21st, 2010 at 6:25 PM ^
we all know that we can't win w/o defense, no one is saying we can. However it sure does help to be best in the country on one side of the ball and we are not far off from being there. I am just saying that the D can be fixed w/o getting rid of RRod (although not w/o making other substantive changes).
November 21st, 2010 at 6:36 PM ^
Taking a quick look at our offensive rankings - we're #5 in yards and #15 in scoring offense. It seems that if we were an improving offense, that our scoring would be close to the yardage mark. Instead, we have so many turnovers that we aren't scoring those points.
I apologize for not knowing how to embed a chart, but check the links. We're the only team in the top 6 yardage offenses that drops out of the top ten for scoring. Teams like Stanford, Ohio St and Wisc actually rank higher for scoring than yards. It seems like a truly good offense can finish what they start.
We're not that close to Oregon, who can move the ball and score against both good and bad teams.
November 21st, 2010 at 7:05 PM ^
we all know that we leave a lot of points on the field due to turnovers and penalties. I am not saying we are there yet; we are not. Plus, the lack of a true home run threat at RB keeps opposing defenses from truly having to "pick their poison."
<br>
<br>However I still think we're close, and here's why:
<br>
<br>• Denard will be a junior next year and will commit fewer turnovers
<br>
<br>• All key pieces return
<br>
<br>• Demetrius Hart could be the true home run threat, or maybe a healthy Fitz T
<br>
<br>• We have moved it on the toughest defenses we have faced, some of them nationally ranked
<br>
<br>• They have accomplished what they have with shockingly little possession time, b/c their defense can never get the ball back for them. Also, they never have a chance to get a true rhythm going, for the same reason.
<br>
<br>You can say they are not all the way there yet, but you sure can't say they haven't improved over last year.
November 21st, 2010 at 8:53 PM ^
The offense has improved without doubt. We've gone from not being able to move the ball against the worst teams in the nation, to being able to move the ball against the worst teams, to now being able to move the ball against bad teams. We still can't move the ball (in the first half and before we're in a giant hole) against good teams.
Denard is an amazing player. Will he turn it over less in his third year? I sure don't know. His trajectory this season doesn't make that a certainty. I'm happy he's a Wolverine and hope that we continue to let him shine regardless of who's running the program.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:52 AM ^
I tend to think that Oregon executes better on offense and can kick field goals. Their defense is mediocre at best. We could easily be where they are next year.
November 21st, 2010 at 7:58 AM ^
Glad to see you're in your happy place. Can you pass whatever you're smoking?
November 21st, 2010 at 10:47 AM ^
Went from 8th to 11th over the weekend. So you're saying we're going from not top 100 to near top ten next year?
And people plus this?
November 21st, 2010 at 12:21 PM ^
Our stats would be fine if we weren't giving up retarded amount of yards and points against the worse teams on our schedule. Next year we should expect to be able to shut down these teams.
Oregon's D got shelacked against the two good offenses they played. And they have 1 underclassmen starter (zero freshman) and only 7 (3 freshman) in the two deep. Michigan by comparison? 6 underclassmen starters (3 freshman) and 12 (7 freshman) in the two deep. Michigan next year? 2 underclassmen starters and 6 in the two deep.
We likely wont be top 20 in scoring defense next year, but we will likely be able to hold some of the mediocre teams that lit us up to less points. But I fully expect the elite teams to light us up, just as Oregon's D was by Stanford and USC this year...
November 21st, 2010 at 12:34 PM ^
A fine wine gets better with age. A shitty wine doesn't get better just because it gets older. Our defense is a shitty wine. It's made up of a couple of very good parts (Roh, Martin) and a number of parts that would otherwise be sitting on the bench for a capable defense. We need talent and coaching...not just time.
November 21st, 2010 at 1:43 PM ^
Dude the talent is there (save maybe Kovacks). All of these players could be on most Big 10 teams, but they would be on their scout teams. It's very rare for a freshman to be able to make an impact on D and when they do it's from the nickel corner position...
November 21st, 2010 at 2:40 PM ^
It's not that our current players lack talent, it's just that many of them would be perennial bench players (i.e. Rogers) on a well-staffed defense. I don't disagree that they could "be on" on most Big Ten teams, but I don't think many would see any time at the top schools.
November 21st, 2010 at 3:04 PM ^
That will change. It's that of all of them, how many did Ohio State really recruit against us for? Or any other power for further out in the country players? I think they may be young, AND not very good. Maybe Purdue or Illinois level. Maybe better. But not OSU level.