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 8:12 PM ^
but OSU's talent advantage comes from 6 consecutive 10 win seasons. Tell me how many teams can say that to a recruit? Michigan will be right there if they are winning but for now we have players that can play for almost any other big 10 team. Look at recruiting rankings, teams like Wisconsin, Iowa, MSU and Penn St have players just like the ones we have, but they have had consistent development of these players allowing for them to have good defenses.
November 21st, 2010 at 6:17 PM ^
a valid illustration to me at all. If you KNOW the wine is bad, then you know it can't get any better. With very young players who are thrown into action with high school bodies and without having been through spring practice, we can't know yet what kind of vintage we have.
November 21st, 2010 at 6:28 PM ^
A bad wine doesn't get good. It doesn't matter how old it gets. If the wine (aka young players) had so much great potential, we would have been fighting other major programs for them. Other than Cullen (I've gotta imagine a couple others as well), it seems like we just grabbed a bottle from the bottom shelf at the party store and said, "We can coach 'em up!"
It's not just "young" players; it's players not good enough to eventually start at Michigan (in the days when our defense was strong). There will indeed be a couple who reach that point, but look at Rogers (who isn't young). He's a deep sub forced to start because of attrition, poor recruiting and injuries. I worry that the "young" players are just young subs and that we're years away from having an even decent wine. Our current wine comes in a paper bag.
November 21st, 2010 at 6:53 PM ^
I get that. I confess that I've been worried about this at a deeper level as well...that maybe this isn't as simple as "is he a good coach or not?". He is a good coach, and I think that is beyond doubt (25 year track record of success b/f Michigan). However due to mistakes made early on (DC/scheme incompatibility, recruiting players who were unlikely to qualify academically, etc) the D has been so bad that perhaps the brand is toxic on that side of the ball and blue chippers are scared away. If so then maybe it can't be fixed with current staff in place...one of those situations where things don't work out for a very capable and talented coach, due to a number of circumstances, some his fault and some not.
<br>
<br>Man, I really want RRod to just tear it up next year and exact sweet revenge on the B10. It wasn't long ago that Auburn fans were protesting their transition to the spread and calling it "sissy ball" on local talk radio. Those vibes have died down of late.
November 21st, 2010 at 3:02 PM ^
Well, yeah. But it's going to take a lot more to shut down enough teams to get to top 20. Someone in another thread stated Auburn might be a better example. Their D is pretty bad. Oregon's, overall, has not
November 21st, 2010 at 12:57 PM ^
Amen. Offense alone will not do it, and I don't think it's unreasonable at all to be skeptical of the abilities of the current defensive coaching staff to put together an average, let alone very good defense. At the very least, we need a DC who leaves the stuffed animals at home.
November 21st, 2010 at 6:13 PM ^
but neither is it unreasonable to look at RRod's WVU days and think that he will be fine defensively once the DC/staffing issues are figured out and the pond is fully stocked again.
November 21st, 2010 at 6:23 PM ^
The defense has been bad since RR got here (even though it was supposed to be the strength of the team in year 1). We've lost 25% of RR's defensive recruits (for non-injury reasons)...and he has placed his recruiting emphasis on offense. So, when exactly will that "pond" be stocked?
November 21st, 2010 at 6:40 PM ^
I've got nothing to answer with on this one. I am frustrated with this too.
<br>
<br>I remember in 2008 when we had the worst Mich D ever, thinking "Well, he needs time to get his guys in there."
<br>
<br>Then in 2009 we had the worst Mich D ever, AGAIN.
<br>
<br>Now in 2010 we have the worst Mich D ever, YET AGAIN.
<br>
<br>Any news on that corner who left USC and played at a JC this year (name escapes me)? If we can get him at least both corners will be solid next year...
November 21st, 2010 at 6:09 PM ^
We run the same offense as Oregon and currently are close to running it as effectively as they do. It's more than obvious that the D is not close to being as good as theirs, and yes we all know that we can't win without one. But an offense that can light it up like that...we're close and I want to see it.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:40 AM ^
I have a question about posters who say youth is the main issue holding the defense back. You would probably agree with me that a above average/good defense is quintessential to winning a conference title, and that with more experience we will get better. But my question is this, what confidence do you have that the coaching staff will be able to coach them right? It seems like there's quite a few fundamental mistakes that are made b/c of bad coaching. Whether this is RR or the other WV crew or GROB, or whoever...bad coaching with experience is still a bad defense. That said, there's no question we need a good, new defensive staff that RR will leave alone.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:51 AM ^
What fundamental mistakes are you talking about? Are you under the impression that:
missed tackles by true freshmen won't get any better as they get older?
Bad angles by true freshmen won't get any better as they get older?
Missed assignments won't get any better as they get older?
These coaches aren't perfect and I agree it has been a rough year for our defense, but more times than not, they have put the players in the right spot but they haven't made the play. This is probably not a great example (as the announcers said the Wisky Oline had some crazy amount of starts....like 125 or so), but we had 9 in the box pretty much the entire 2nd half, you know, when they ran it all but 1 play, and yet we still couldn't stop the run. What on earth do you want the coaches to do...put 11 in the box?
November 21st, 2010 at 10:56 AM ^
He thought our scheme was crap. We have linemen sit back and wait, rather than slanting, and going to the ball. He thinks that expecting just three down linemen against a line of that size is going to have them running all day this week and next. And it wasn't a total trashing of the 3-3-5, but the whole idea of teams that successfully run that scheme are ones that bring a "blitz", though not really if you're only bringing four, but an extra man from a different spot keeping them guessing. He acknowledges it may not always work, and you may give up some big plays, but it's better than getting torn apart all game long up the middle and never making any adjustments, which he didn't see. Taylor even said he could scheme the next game for OSU, because he'd do the exact same thing till we prove we can stop it. So expect Saturday to look a lot like the second half yesterday.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:02 PM ^
I agree to a point, but I would probably be a little happier if I would have seen anything when we ran 4 down lineman. Since nothing really happened running the 4-3, I again ask, when does it become less of a scheme thing and more of a missed assignment/missed tackle thing?
November 21st, 2010 at 5:57 AM ^
This place has turned into an emotional roller coaster lately. Beat the worse team in the Big Ten and Michigan has turned the corner, get trucked by one of the best teams in the nation and God has smite us. Before any legitimate opinions about the coaching staff be cast in stone wait until January when the clarity provided by time allows everyone to remove the inevitable emotions that exist post-game. Please.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:20 AM ^
Oh. What are we supposed to talk about then?
November 21st, 2010 at 7:32 AM ^
The Defense wasn’t young in 2008/2009. There has to be some break down on that side of the ball. Gibson to GERG, whatever, there was plenty of good players on that side to be average. Also M needs to scour the JC’s for a fucking kicker that credits transfer now.
November 21st, 2010 at 7:36 AM ^
Yesterday's loss provides no new reasons for despair. Did anybody think this defense was going to slow down the Wisconsin power running attack? LIkewise, we already knew that Denard needs some more seasoning, including better reads and increased accuracy. We already knew that our kicking game is a disaster. The bottom line is that it was one more game of experience for our young players. That's it. I know it's a bummer, but from the very beginning of this season it has been about next season. The goals have been to do well enough to retain RR, which I think we have done. Next goal was to take the next leap offensively. Check. There was no hope for this defense from the beginning of the season, so the goal was to get promising young guys playing time and experience. Check. That's it, folks. Now, next year, the goal is the B10 championship.
Don't get me wrong, I would love -- LOVE -- a victory over Ohio State next week and believe it is possible. But if it doesn't happen, nothing worthy of despair will have taken place.
November 21st, 2010 at 12:11 PM ^
expect to have 9 guys in the box and still give up 5+ yards a carry. I expected us to be bad, but EPIC FAIL was unexpected. My prediction was 7-5, and from that perspective believe that RRod should definitely get 1 more year (if not 2 to limit negative recruiting) but I would like the entire defensive staff to get swept out of Schembechler hall - tomorrow.
November 21st, 2010 at 9:56 AM ^
RR stays only because the offense has turned the corner, and on any day score on anyone, but the def, everyone involved has to go and that includes friends, family and who ever has an influance on this design of a def, so now RR has to stop Sheilding his coaching friends from WV and get everyone outta here that put that 3 man front bull crap in place....everyone goes except RR
November 21st, 2010 at 12:44 PM ^
I just referred to Taylor's comments on another thread, but your comments are much better in capturing the meat of Taylor's views. I don't know if I've ever heard MT be as pointed in his criticism of coaching scheme and philosophy. He was very careful, as always, to avoid calling out individual coaches and has never even hinted at any feelings of wanting to fire anybody, but his frustration was very evident.
I was very open here last week in my view that RR is essentially a lock to come back next year, based on DB's various comments. I guess I still think that, but I cannot believe that Brandon was at all pleased at what he saw go down yesterday during Senior Day. Given that Brandon is an alumni player for Bo, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he tunes in Sunday mornings just to hear the views of another alumni player who also played for Bo. Brandon has said very recently that he has access to far more information about the state of the program than anybody else, but IMHO that comment was directed mostly at media idiots, bloggers, and garden-variety fans. However, I would be very, very surprised if he doesn't takes the opinions of alum players far more seriously into account, for all the obvious reasons. There's no doubt he's getting an absolute earful this week and next.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:15 PM ^
you've been on the warpath lately
November 21st, 2010 at 2:57 PM ^
He just keeps it real. As real as anybody, on either side.
November 21st, 2010 at 3:00 PM ^
But it was shocking. Because MT is a slappy. I say that in a good way, an honorable way. But it just stood out to me. It was like when I posted that Sam Webb was negative after the PSU game. I mean, these are people who have given every chance....and they have big time questions. Not the whole baby with a bathwater thing, but I don't think anyone is going to be thrilled if EVERYTHING comes back exactly the same next year.