What I've learned the last three years
I'm just going bullet point this because I really don't have the energy or desire to weave this into four or five paragraphs
- For all the data mgoblog has analyzed, we've been very wrong at times with using models to extrapolate what the future might look like. I feel at times we've fallen in love with the data, that it somehow puts us above the Freep/MLive/97.1 crowd. But here's the thing - it doesn't matter. You could make a decent arguement that Rich is unlucky, that the outcome would have been different with a competent defense..again though, it doesn't really matter at this point. It's over.
- Same goes for recruiting. The community has very strong feelings towards counting recruiting stars. Yes, there is measurable correlation between highly ranked recruits and program success, but it is not as strong as people perceive it to be. Look at the performance of non-aq teams this bowl season.
- I've very worried was to whether Michigan, as an institution, would be willing to pay 3 to 4 (5?) million/year for a head coach. Michigan has been notoriously cheap with how it pays coordinators/personnel. Well, it's time to open up the wallet. We will see if they are willing to pay market prices to get who they want.
May you live in interesting times. Go Blue
January 1st, 2011 at 9:25 PM ^
or something like that.
January 1st, 2011 at 9:39 PM ^
These are the times that crush men's souls, put them in a blender then burn them up. "Try" is far to mild a term for what these times are like.
January 1st, 2011 at 9:26 PM ^
I'll try and only post this once more, but seeing as it's the main argument in his favor it probably won't be. The head coach is responsible for bringing talent onto campus. He has failed to do that, leading to the most ragtag defense in Michigan history. He's not unlucky, he has failed to perform his job.
January 1st, 2011 at 9:35 PM ^
Since I just went into it in way too much detail in another post, I'll just tell you to look at the freshmen/sophomores currently on the roster (the list includes 4 of our 5 leading tacklers) and the guys Rodriguez has signed the last two years (and has on board this year despite the swirling controversy). Then look at all the awesome guys we have in the junior/senior classes he inherited (trust me, this one won't take nearly as long).
If you think Michigan's problems on defense are the result of poor recruiting and not a complete lack of talented, experienced players then you don't know very much about football or the current Michigan team or both.
Go look at the depth chart by class and picture a game between the underclassmen and the upperclassmen. When you realize that the underclassmen would win 100-0 because the juniors/seniors don't have a quarterback or a secondary, that should tell you something about what kind of difficulties the head coach is facing.
January 1st, 2011 at 9:46 PM ^
He's had three. He left his team and was on our sideline for the Capitol One Bowl. His job started then. It's not like the previous coaching staff recruited no one and left him with only that time.
"If you think Michigan's problems on defense are the result of poor recruiting and not a complete lack of talented, experienced players then you don't know very much about football or the current Michigan team or both."
I'm confused, how else do you get players then?
January 1st, 2011 at 9:54 PM ^
If you think Michigan's problems on defense are the result of poor recruiting by Rich Rodriguez, then you don't know what you are talking about.
Teams win with juniors and seniors. The juniors/seniors on this team are guys that were not recruited by Rodriguez. Blaming Rodriguez because that group doesn't contain many good football players (I count three on defense with Mouton, RVB, and Martin) and the defense as a whole isn't very good as a result requires a Gary Busey-like relationship with logic and the space-time continuum (just hoping he'll post here).
January 1st, 2011 at 10:04 PM ^
Do we need to post the list of everyone that has not made it here or left since he came? This is where my post stems from, and here we come back to it. Even if he's not responsible for the defense or special teams as many people here believe, he sure is hell is responsible for that roster. People talk about attrition, but this was just ridiculous. He hasn't even gotten his own guys on campus. Do you think he offered Vinopal and accepted Jordan Kovacs onto the team in hopes of making a secondary around them? Or might it be because there's no one else here?
January 1st, 2011 at 10:14 PM ^
I respectfully disagree. Which defensive players recruited by RR do you think will be "elite" by the time they're juniors/seniors?
Reminds me of a John Cooper quote, "If a dog's gonna bite, he's gonna bite as a pup"
January 1st, 2011 at 10:31 PM ^
that Mike Martin guy comes to mind. 6 freshman were out there on D. All of whom will be more useful than Obi Ezeh.
January 1st, 2011 at 10:35 PM ^
Of those 6, how many remind you of Mike Martin when he was a freshman? Or Graham? Or even Leon Hall? It's not that they won't get better, they will. It's just how high is their ceiling?
January 2nd, 2011 at 12:11 AM ^
Mike Martin is a Lloyd Carr recruit. He committed in June of 2007.
January 1st, 2011 at 10:33 PM ^
But was a whole, while there may be some individuals who are really good players, overall, the talent level on both sides of the ball is down. Lewan, Molk, Robinson, Martin...they all look like studs. But most of the others don't look like even freshmen with lots of upside making freshman mistakes. They look like ok Big Ten players making freshmen mistakes (which makes them bad). The whole idea was that scheme could overcome talent deficiencies, but instead of smaller but faster on defense, we've gotten smaller and just as slow. That's been the hidden failure of the last 3 years. Sure, they're young. But they're young and not very good. We've all watched enough football to know what a stud freshman looks like. Or sophomore. I was less worried about a lot of the stuff than how our recruiting was going down every year along with our record.
January 1st, 2011 at 10:36 PM ^
Black, Roh, Demens (not an RR recruit but still a sophomore), Gordon, and Avery are guys who have all impressed me with their play so far. I see no reason not to be high on guys like Washington, Ash, Robinson, and Furman. I'm also guessing we'll see a few quality contributors out of this recruiting class. Since that adds up to basically all the spots on defense and I left out a few 4-star guys, I'm not too worried about the future on that side of the ball.
Go look up what all those guys on the 2006 defense did as freshmen and I bet you won't be too impressed either.
January 1st, 2011 at 10:23 PM ^
Focusing on just one aspect of RichRod here ... there are several others.
- - -
At the risk of splitting hairs, Rodriguez has had two years and about a month. Aside from some '08 snake oil, he's had basically two recruiting classes, not three.
January 1st, 2011 at 10:41 PM ^
At the risk of splitting hairs, Rodriguez has had two years and about a month.
January 1st, 2011 at 10:46 PM ^
won't let me post my comment with the quote.
If you count the Carr/Rodriguez class, three are on campus now.
I would agree that RR does not have a full roster of "RR" players, but do you really see the underclassmen becoming championship contenders next year?
January 2nd, 2011 at 1:07 AM ^
The apologist logic doesn't explain why the current D was filled with true freshmen. Where were Richrod's sophomores? Nowhere.
January 2nd, 2011 at 9:22 AM ^
Ha -- I wasn't asked about specifics. Now that you mention it, I agree that the '09 defensive recruiting class will haunt the program for many years.
In my prior post, I was addressing the "three years of recruiting classes" claim. See?
January 1st, 2011 at 9:28 PM ^
-data just don't be selective, don't skew it to what you want it to say because its very easy to do, look at everything that effects what is being measured to draw your conclusions
-Offer lists are always better indicators, imo. Defensive player from texas with 2-3 stars and offers from the other texas schools, sign him up, love him already
-I would think brandon will have some donor backing and school backing to get what he needs to get this done. The stadium is beautiful, that alone will be a nice bargaining chip.
January 1st, 2011 at 9:30 PM ^
Agreed, I would much rather have an "anonymous" three star with offers from the likes of a Florida, Alabama, Texas, Notre Dame or USC then a four star with offers from the likes of Rutgers, Louisville, Sparty or Florida International.
January 1st, 2011 at 10:33 PM ^
January 1st, 2011 at 10:34 PM ^
Florida, USC, and Texas are good??
Sammy Watkins a 5* WR just chose Clemson had offers from evereywhere.
You clearly dont pay too much to recruiting.
January 1st, 2011 at 10:38 PM ^
Over the last ten years, the last 3 years, and in two of the 3 cases, this year. Florida just beat Penn State who wasted us. And how is a recruit who WENT SOMEWHERE ELSE a defense of our recruiting? You clearly don't pay too much attention to logic.
January 1st, 2011 at 10:54 PM ^
Exception =\= rule.
January 1st, 2011 at 11:10 PM ^
January 1st, 2011 at 9:36 PM ^
I'm guessing we're still going to see charts, and reference rankings, but at what point, when they're wrong time and time again, do we start questioning how the data is collected?
And that's been the problem with recruiting too. It's not the OMG don't believe 3* vs. 5* thing...it's who else is offering the players we're getting? Are we fighting OSU, Florida, Texas, USC for most of them (like we used to), or are we battling West Virginia, Cincinnati, Clemson and Purdue for them?
And we better have money somewhere to spend on a coach, or we'll be losing a lot more money.
January 1st, 2011 at 10:14 PM ^
There's not a single player defensive player from Ohio on the Michigan roster that had an offer from Ohio State (or current commits). The only recruiting battles RR won against OSU were for Hagerup and JT Turner. You can argue that UM and OSU aren't recruiting the same type of offensive players, but there's no excuse for not recruiting similar defensive talent.
January 1st, 2011 at 11:09 PM ^
Marvin Robinson too. But your point still stands. Not easy to beat out OSU when your record is 3-13 in the Big Ten in 08 and 09 (which I know is RR's fault also)
January 1st, 2011 at 9:30 PM ^
That there is no such thing as a professional level yahtzee player. i mean cmon!
January 1st, 2011 at 9:31 PM ^
I've learned we can't play defense.
January 1st, 2011 at 9:40 PM ^
........with kids that just got out of highschool. underdeveloped that would have redshirted.
Michigan has been on the recruiting trail of some great football players they just didn't come here.
remember mcphee MS state Def end. He came here he was a juco player now a pretty ggod senior. Dequinta Jones comes to mind been starting at Arkansas since he was a soph. did not redshirt.
January 1st, 2011 at 9:32 PM ^
"I'm just going bullet point this because I really don't have the energy or desire to weave this into four or five paragraphs"
Thank God because I didn't really have the energy or desire to read four or five paragraphs.
January 1st, 2011 at 9:33 PM ^
Humility, Anger Management, Tolerance for Shame/Embarassment, Endurance, and the development of interests outside of Michigan football obsession.
January 1st, 2011 at 9:33 PM ^
- I've grown to hate the 3-3-5
- I understand now more than ever that having good special teams can make a big difference
- I forgot what a made field goal looks like
January 1st, 2011 at 9:43 PM ^
Don't hate the 3-3-5 because of what you have seen here. We don't even run it right. Watch a Jeff Casteel defense it's actually a very well put together scheme.
January 1st, 2011 at 9:53 PM ^
the 3-3-5 the way we have run it, which essentially is rush 3 or 4 players and let our defensive backs try to react to WRs after lining up 10 yards off receivers. They were even playing that far off receivers in the red zone, which is terrible. From what I saw today, the defensive backs just stood there and were forced to try to react to and catch up with receivers who basically had a running start.
January 1st, 2011 at 9:33 PM ^
What has most of the last decade taught us? Save one year, we have not been competitive on the national stage or serious contenders in the Big Ten. The last three years may have been particularly ugly, but this program had been on life support for years prior to RR. It will take a monumental undertaking to bring us back to the prosperity we enjoyed long ago...how about giving Moeller another shot at it? Just not with all the shots.
January 1st, 2011 at 9:39 PM ^
Considering Michigan won 2 Big Ten titles (neither in 2006),
Save one year, we have not been competitive on the national stage or serious contenders in the Big Ten.
is wrong
January 1st, 2011 at 9:34 PM ^
I've learned that divorce, while expensive and at times emotionally painful, can turn out freaking awesome if you somehow hook up with a stripper hot trophy wife who's a lot younger than you are.
Wait a minute....you meant about football? Oh sorry - nevermind.
January 1st, 2011 at 9:36 PM ^
Obviously recruiting rankings have their limitations. There are exceptions every year. Over time, though, the consistently great teams are the ones with the most blue-chips.
January 1st, 2011 at 9:39 PM ^
Michigan has been notoriously cheap with how it pays coordinators/personnel.
I'm pretty sure Bo would say that it shouldn't be about the money.
January 1st, 2011 at 9:41 PM ^
I have learned that - making a 30 yard field goal is impossible
-Gerg is into stuffed animals
- Lloyd Brady has front row seats to every sporting event
- Defense not offense will lead us back to the top
- Recruits whether 5 star or 2, are just freshmen when they show up.
January 1st, 2011 at 9:42 PM ^
I have learned to never OVERestimate the Big Least
January 1st, 2011 at 9:48 PM ^
...Mike Barwis doesn't help football players play good football (he's a great trainer/strength coach but that is not the equivalent a good football player)
...RR is helpless with out Jeff Casteel (Did Jeff even like RR?)
...Greg Robinson shouldn't take all the blame for the poor D. Last I recall, there are those assistants under him that helped to run off another pretty darn good DC who ended up doing more with less at Syracuse.
...RR loyalty to his staff and his ego was his downfall at U of M (assuming he's let go or quits) in the next week.
...It does take ~4 or 5 years to build a program but demonstrating that you can't improve or recruit well (RR's recruiting has proven to not be all that it appears) will quickly shorten that 4-5 year span.
...one player can't win games for you.
...scape goating the last coach won't help you win support from within the program.
....board posters shouldn't second guess the AD. But then again board posters believe they know how to run a football program.
...Michigan will be back. Don't know how long it will take but we'll have a team that can play football, tackle, and play like the winningest team in Div 1 should play.
Thanks for feeding my ego and making me MGOBLOG's #1 Attention whore according to MGOBLOG's #1 creepy stalker.
January 1st, 2011 at 11:02 PM ^
This is the kind of post that makes me interested in what you have to say.
No need for pics like that.
BTW: I largely agree except for the ethic: "board posters shouldn't second guess the AD."
Why not? What I would agree with is: "board posters would be unwise to think that second guessing the AD will make a difference".
+1
January 1st, 2011 at 9:47 PM ^
"May you live in interesting times" a Chinese curse?
January 1st, 2011 at 10:02 PM ^
I was going to ask the same thing. Haven't we suffered enough? Well, besides that we don't have to run gassers and get our bodies caved in while also suffering the losses. But besides that.
January 1st, 2011 at 9:48 PM ^
* Lloyd was not near as bad as I thought he was
* I can coach travel baseball when Michigan is playing without asking for an update every 5 minutes
* It's actually great to live 800 miles from the Big House
* I really like the pro set offense - boring is good!