This is your future under Jim Harbaugh
Tired Harbaugh defensive players faking injuries to slow down better teams:
Ranked, one- to three-loss teams losing decisively to mobile QBs under more sophisticated offenses:
We are all frustrated with our won-loss record under Rich Rodriguez. But if we can get the defense fixed, we have a shot to be the next Oregon instead of the next Stanford. Kudos to Harbaugh for doing so much at Stanford, with their admissions standards et al. - not trying to downplay that achievement. But it is far from clear that he would have that record if he was playing our schedule every year. I have spent a lifetime as a Michigan fan rooting for 9-3 and 8-4 and the occasional 10-2 teams that almost always lost when it counted the most.
I, for one, am willing to go through this difficult period in order to take our program to a level where we are consistently contending for MNC titles, rather than winning Big Ten titles and losing bowl games. I am not nostalgic for that era of consistent disappointment, and I dread consigning another generation of Michigan fans to the same fate.
November 28th, 2010 at 12:11 AM ^
on a gold mine with the fertile recruiting base of California, no matter what its academic standards, it can just go across the state and pick off the scraps. And win with those guys. Same formula as Boise. Go to California and get the players that USC and Oregon pass over.
November 28th, 2010 at 12:55 AM ^
November 28th, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^
...1. Harbaugh is having a better season than Whillingham ever had (and his loss to Oregon turned on a play in which a head-hunting Oregon defender pretty deliberately did a helmet to helmt hit which actively knocked a Stanford player unconscious, the Stanford players were never quite the same mentally in that game after seeing their buddy carted off the field).
2. I doubt Harbaugh has some of the terrible "come to Earth" seasons that Ty had.
3. Harbaugh NFL pedigree gives him an edge in recruiting (as most of the Big Time Recruits want to play in the NFL) which Tyrone never had.
November 27th, 2010 at 11:35 PM ^
RR is done baby, he is gone. Give it up supporters your man faild.
HAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRBAUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 27th, 2010 at 11:39 PM ^
fuck off troll
November 27th, 2010 at 11:41 PM ^
Hey man just trying to have a "Hard Edge"
November 27th, 2010 at 11:58 PM ^
Not Hard Edge.
November 28th, 2010 at 1:48 PM ^
Why is this only at -5?
November 27th, 2010 at 11:43 PM ^
While we're on the discussion of the ability to win National Titles, remember Rodriguez hasn't won any either. When deciding on a coach generally you wont get to hire one who has already won a national title (other than Bama hiring Saban). Harbaugh's teams play above and beyond the talent they get. So obviously he's a good coach. If Rodriguez doesnt start winning games against good teams he will no longer be here. Hopefully he gets it done next year.
November 27th, 2010 at 11:51 PM ^
November 27th, 2010 at 11:55 PM ^
And in return you ask for his head!
On a fucking spike.
HAAAAARRRRBAAUUGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 28th, 2010 at 12:04 AM ^
Are you writing these from some kind of mental institution? The low brow violence and exclamation points is why I ask. And if so, please don't smash the window with a water fountain and escape.
November 28th, 2010 at 1:04 PM ^
I will always +1 an "One flew over the cuckoos nest" reference.
November 28th, 2010 at 12:00 AM ^
What a bunch of loser crack babies.
My mom had trouble with will power. Fuck you for judging.
Here you have a guy that has done nothing but take all the criticism from the sports media from day 1 and yet has significantly turn things in the right direction.
How would you define right direction? 9-4 to 3-9 to 5-7 to 7-5. I don't know what next year holds, but I don't see significant improvement from one regime to the other just yet.
November 28th, 2010 at 12:57 AM ^
Did three people really upvote a post that referred to people here as "crack babies"?
November 28th, 2010 at 4:02 AM ^
Are you really offended? Did you think he was actually comparing the commenters to crack babies, or did you realize it was more of a "comedy third option" insert-mildly-offensive-thing-here type insult? Just for your mock outrage, I hope you get AIDS.
November 28th, 2010 at 1:52 PM ^
We all have AIDS!
Oh, wait, you meant that AIDS...
I meant like an assistant. Why are you guys all staring at me?
November 27th, 2010 at 11:59 PM ^
1. Hiring Harbaugh would only bring us 10-2 or 9-3 seasons.
2. There is no proof RR can field a good defense or special teams
3. Harbaugh has no bowl wins or proven track record
4. RR won in the Big Least; doesn't translate to the Big 10.
I for one, think either Harbaugh or RR will be successful here at UM. However, we already have RR, and I want to see him here another year; especially with all the frosh and sophs we have playing. I expect significant improvement next year.
November 28th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^
"There is no proof RR can field a good defense or special teams"
He's done nothing at UM to demonstrate it's not fact. Toto, we aren't in the Big East anymore.
November 28th, 2010 at 12:06 AM ^
November 28th, 2010 at 12:16 AM ^
Total Defense
27 Stanford 329.45
112 Michigan 445.18
After the last three years every rational fan can see we are light years from being the next Stanford.
November 28th, 2010 at 12:46 AM ^
November 28th, 2010 at 1:21 AM ^
9 games next year.......9 - 3 book it! Whether it is Rodriguez or Harbaugh or Willie Nelson
November 28th, 2010 at 1:36 AM ^
A team wedded to the traditional style of '80s and '90s Big Ten ball is vulnerable to offenses, like Oregon's, with mobile QBs? Gasp.
November 28th, 2010 at 9:29 AM ^
1. There is nothing in Harbaugh's offense at Stanford that resembles the "traditional style of 80s and 90s Big Ten ball."
2. One of these days, someone has to explain to me how running a pro-style offense makes your defense more vulnerable to the spread. Here I thought that offense and defense were separate components of a team, but apprently Pro Style Offense = Defensive Fail. Thank god Rodriguez runs the spread, which guarantees defensive success.
November 28th, 2010 at 12:42 PM ^
...wins games in spite of their defense not because of it (I believe they were giving up an average of 31 points a game awhile back).
Auburn I'm not sure on, and I'm sure the defense is playing better to earn their performance bonuses :) (Not a Cam Newton joke, its an SEC joke :) ).
November 28th, 2010 at 5:24 PM ^
That is not the case this season. Oregon is only giving up 18.3 ppg on defense. Auburn is the team with the mediocre defense, 25 ppg, this year.
November 28th, 2010 at 3:03 AM ^
Yeah. There's absolutely no indication that RR has us close to a MNC. A solid defense won't materialize next year. We're a couple years, at soonest, from putting a scare in OSU.
Harbaugh has a better shot. He's an excellent coach just hitting his prime. He will recruit better, all around. His teams have consistently played their best against the league's top teams -- they rise to the fight. Plus, JH lives and dies for beating OSU and MSU. That matters.
I think some fans misread his criticism of M's academics. What he said was accurate. Michigan has let football players slide and basket-weave. Not as badly as certain other schools. But we haven't been shimmering lights, either. Harbaugh thinks Michigan is better than that. He walked the walk at Stanford. So he can do it here.
November 28th, 2010 at 4:33 AM ^
Aside from not understanding the use of a period in the English language, this post exemplifies the pervasive ignorance flooding this forum.
November 28th, 2010 at 4:55 AM ^
this is my future under Harbaugh?!? Orange or Fiesta Bowl? I'll take it...
November 28th, 2010 at 9:08 AM ^
Harbaugh's Stanford put up a good fight against that Oregon team. I'd hate to see what Oregon would do to us.
November 28th, 2010 at 9:47 AM ^
Back to the video . . . I just can't believe that 44 had the guts to come jogging on the field after just one play!!
November 28th, 2010 at 9:47 AM ^
November 28th, 2010 at 9:47 AM ^
November 28th, 2010 at 10:32 AM ^
"Tired Harbaugh defensive players faking injuries to slow down better teams:" This is a good thing and demonstrates intelligence on the part of hte coaches and players.
"Ranked, one- to three-loss teams losing decisively to mobile QBs under more sophisticated offenses:" Love to be ranked and we currently have trouble w/ ALL QBs and offenses.
I'm not confident our D will improve under RR (forget the DC that'll be forced to run the 3-3-5) other than that the players will get older. Also, you don't mention our non existant special teams or everyone's lack of fundamentals - whether just holding onto the ball or tackling. Under RR, I see us at 6-6 or 7-5 next year; I don't see any progress.
November 28th, 2010 at 2:50 PM ^
The OP shows embarrassingly poor reasoning. There is no ceiling on any particular style of play. Just look at the last few teams the Big Ten sent to BCS bowls. There's a mix of spread (Illinois 2007, PSU 2008) and pro-style (Iowa 2009, OSU 2009, Wisconsin 2010). There is no evidence to support the ideas that
1. spread teams have a higher ceiling than pro-style teams
2. Harbaugh will bring a pure pro-style offense back to Michigan
3. the pure pro-style attack you assume Harbaugh will bring will be limited to 9-3 or 10-2 at best.
You should stick to what you do best. Multiplying 500 by 13. After all, Denard is going to hit 6500 yards of total offense any day now, right?
November 28th, 2010 at 3:18 PM ^
You should stick to what you do best. Multiplying 500 by 13. After all, Denard is going to hit 6500 yards of total offense any day now, right?
Lol. As you well know, I've never done that. If you wish to take the time to come up with more sophisticated projections of Denard's future stats, you have ~900 points. No one is stopping you from putting up a diary of your own. I have a day job, and composing that weekly Almanack is enough work as it is. I think my disclaimers point out the deficiencies in straight-line projectioning, but if you need a reminder, here is the relevant passage:
- Past performance is not a predictor of future results. To the degree I describe end-of-season projections for Denard, I do so simply, rather than Mathletically: (current total) * (13-game season) / (games played to date). Denard's numbers may come down against stronger defenses, but he played quite well against Iowa and Illinois, two statistically strong defenses, so we'll see.
I think that's a reasonable statement. If you disagree, you're welcome to say so.
November 28th, 2010 at 5:40 PM ^
Golden Nuggets: Are Harbaugh's Tweets Potential Recruiting Violations?
http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2010/6/29/1542319/golden-nuggets-a…
November 28th, 2010 at 8:04 PM ^
If you have to defend your opinion 50 times in the same thread, you are probably wrong.
November 28th, 2010 at 10:04 PM ^
If that's the best argument you can come up with for firing RR, then you are probably wrong.
November 29th, 2010 at 6:19 PM ^
Well according to Cowherd we couldn't even get Harbaugh......then says he missed on RR. So in a thirty second span he admits to knowing it all then admits to knowing nothing.
November 29th, 2010 at 8:25 PM ^
How did UM do against Oregon the last time they played? Harbaugh seems to be a much better coach, so that's what I'm concerned about.
November 29th, 2010 at 9:10 PM ^
Hi Communist Football,
I usually enjoy your diaries and posts on here, and rarely reply myself, but I felt the need to dissect this one a bit. If I'm not mistaken, your argument is that:
Rich Rod's track record indicates that he puts us in the best position to win national championships, whereas Harbaugh's indicates we'll end up back with Carr-like consistency, albeit perhaps slightly better. This, in turn, would threaten the unity and solidarity of our community of Michigan fans.
I can understand at least some of this argument--I believe there is a valid case for keeping RR. His offense is prolific in terms of yards, and will hopefully grow more consistent in terms of scoring as the kids get a year older. Meanwhile, there's no way our kicking game will be as bad as it was this year, and we'll return virtually the entire defense (plus T-Woolf). On paper, that bodes well for our chances. On paper, we look like a 9-10 win team in 2011. Bring Harbaugh in and you risk attrition, confusion and so on.
That's where I get off the bus, though. Because that's still only "on paper;" we really have nothing in Rich Rod's history to indicate that WILL happen. Certainly not the last few years, and really not his time at West Virginia either. Why? Because there's zero indication he can put together a WVU 2007-style defense without Jeff Casteel, or, really, the WVU 2007 offense without a Steve Slaton. Is that Dee Hart? Maybe. But maybe not. It's certainly not Vincent Smith, Michael Shaw, etc.
So really, all we can say about RR in the future is "it looks as if we'll win 9 or 10 games next year, barring unforeseen events." We really can't say **** about national championships. We don't deserve to be talking about that, given our embarrassing losses to quality teams this year. We should be talking about beating the OSUs, MSUs and Wisconsins of the Big 10. THEN we can talk about national championships.
Now, the argument gets worse when we get to Harbaugh. It seems as if you are saying he can't win national championships at Michigan because he lost to Oregon this year, and instead, this would doom us to 9-3 every year. Well, as far as losing to Oregon goes, so has everyone else. Stanford, meanwhile, has stomped on every other team its come up against. It's not 9-3, it's 11-1 and headed for a BCS bowl. Not only that, they've played solid defense and put together a high-scoring offense with what can only be described as middling recruits. Even last year, when they did lose 3 games (in the regular season), they pulled off two major upsets--one of which was Oregon.
Does this automatically translate to success with Michigan in the better Big 10? No, just like RR's success at WVU did not automatically translate to success here. Is Harbaugh a better choice for 2011 than RR? Impossible to tell. How about long-term? Again, difficult to call.
I'd guess with Harbaugh we'd play better defense and, perhaps, more disciplined on offense, but less prolific too. My personal opinion is we, first choice, make the specific change to Harbaugh, or, second choice, we keep RR and bring in a real DC. However, I think it's important that everyone realize there's no sure things either way, and either choice contains within it both serious risks and potential rewards. The reason I'm in favor of a coaching change isn't spread-aversion, "michigan man" mythos, or dislike of RR--rather, I believe the real threat we're facing isn't a string of 9-3 seasons, but more 7-5s and 5-7s. I remember how, when Weis got a final year in 2009, ND was supposed to put it all together. I believe they went 6-6. One more of these, with Harbaugh off the table, could be catastrophic for recruiting and fan morale.
However, as others have said, if the Harbaugh option isn't there, I'll stick with the known quantity and hope that paper improvement translates into on-the-field improvement...
November 30th, 2010 at 9:26 AM ^
Thanks for the praise. You've boiled it down reasonably well. Here is how I would boil it down:
1. My goal is for Michigan to be a perennial MNC contender -- like Florida State in the 90s. From 1987 to 2000 (14 seasons), FSU lost 19 games: an average of 1.4 per year, and finished in the top five each season, with two MNCs. We face a tougher schedule than FSU, especially starting in 2011, so let's make that a goal of an average of 2 losses per year for Michigan.
2. Michigan's Bo-Mo-Lloyd track record is one of consistent three-loss above-averageness. Post-1997, Lloyd averaged 3.4 losses a year: which meant a lot of miserable, 4- and 5-loss seasons. Notably, these teams underachieved: they lost more games than their athletic talent should have warranted.
3. If we are going to go back to the Bo-Mo-Lloyd style of team, then I want evidence that Harbaugh will outperform Bo, Mo, and Lloyd. None has been forthcoming.
4. The key to a good defense is fundamental soundness--tackling, assignments, etc.--and great athletes. Michigan will get the athletes, and it is not that hard to find people who can coach fundamentally sound defenses. RR is, in my view, capable of assembling such a defense (i.e., it's not dependent on Casteel) if he is willing to let go of his loyal WVU holdovers.
5. The combination of a fundamentally sound, athletic defense with a ridiculous, spread-option offense is the best formula for consistent national superiority.
6. Harbaugh can provide the sound, athletic defense, but not the ridiculous spread-option offense. RR has provided the offense, but not yet the defense. But, as I write in point #4, it is more probable that RR can put this combination together than Harbaugh.
November 30th, 2010 at 9:16 PM ^
1. Fair enough, and yes, obviously that's the ideal place to be. Let's just say I hope we end up there too, no matter what happens with the coaching decision. But I'm concerned that we haven't figured out the "getting through the Big 10" part first.
2+3. While that may be the case, Lloyd also had "getting through the Big 10" mostly figured out. I think the Harbaugh people see in him someone who has also figured this out, but has a killer instinct and ruthlessness Lloyd never really had. Or rather, had when he was younger and seemed to lose over the course of his career as HC. This is why I think the "doomed to 9-3" scenario is groundless. At Stanford, Harbaugh has demonstrated that he can mold disciplined, aggressive teams that can win big football games, upset favored sides and end up competing at the (near) highest level in college football. Those USC and Oregon wins in 2009 were electrifying, and this year's 11-1 season should speak for itself. All this with while hamstrung by being at Stanford. I think this is a very good indication that he'll have success here, if he comes. The $2.5m question is whether he'll have more success--and more immediately--than RR. I'd say I'm only about 60/40 on the Harbaugh side of the equation, so obviously I still see this as something of an open question.
4. Agreed, except what I said was that RR's success in WVU was partially attributable to Casteel, and he has not demonstrated he can make up for this side of play without him. As you say, it's institutional, and changing the defense means hiring a real DC and allowing him to hire his own staff. This is my second choice after Harbaugh. A close second. But after the decision to hire GERG and force him to play 3-3-5, I've lost faith in this. However, we'll be a 9-3 team if our defense simply moves up to average.
5. That would be a good combination, but I'm skeptical of the defense's ability to progress and I'm concerned about the way our offense leaves points on the field and turns the ball over. Plus on defense it seems like we have one positional crisis after another. This year the secondary, next year the linebackers, the year after, the DL. Can Harbaugh magically fix that? No. But maybe he can get more out of his defensive players, like he has at Stanford. Maybe a good DC can too. But I'm skeptical, based on the past 3 years.
6. Harbaugh's teams also score a lot of points. I think, judging from this and past years, the realistic choice is more this:
RR: Prolific-but-somewhat-undisciplined offense+average-but-undisciplined defense
Harbaugh: Less-prolific-but-more-disciplined offense+average-but-disciplined defense
FINAL POINTS:
Personally, I'll get behind either man when the decision is made. I just want us to win, and think that begins and ends with improvement on defense. Assuming it's RR (and I feel like things are trending that way), I'd like to bring this up:
I think the shred-and-spread can be successful in the Big 10, but it does seem that in RR's 3 years, we've lost steam as the season progressed. Why do you think this is? Lack of depth on the roster? Stiffer competition as the year goes on, with opponents possessing more film? What is the solution?
December 1st, 2010 at 10:48 AM ^
The differences for me:
1. A lot of the "indiscipline" you refer to, I ascribe to youth (remember our offense is very young also).
2. Losing steam has been stiffer competition combined with key injuries (esp. Denard and Mike Martin). But actually, I would say the defense has improved over the course of the year, though it doesn't show up in the stats. I think the defense did better as the season went on, but the offense sputtered more (due to stronger defensive opposition and Denard's knees and youth). The MSU game with the two end-zone interceptions was a negative inflection point in Denard's confidence I think. Denard will get better.
3. Your argument that Harbaugh would be more aggressive, and thereby better than Lloyd, is plausible, though it doesn't address how Harbaugh will beat the Oregons of the world (i.e., teams with equally good defenses and schematically superior offenses). This is where I give the edge to RR.
4. Something that I didn't even really bring up in the OP, is that I enjoy the RR offensive style. Call it the "beautiful game." Coaches who can run the spread option well are hard to find, whereas coaches who can run fundamentally sound defenses are everywhere.
5. Harbaugh is a Michigan Man. I think this gets underappreciated. I think a big part of the fire RR campaign has to do with the fact that this is the year that we HAVE to get Harbaugh NOW, or we'll lose him forever. Is that really true? If Harbaugh didn't go to Michigan, I'd believe that. But a guy like Harbaugh who sees Bo as a second father: that should be the kind of guy we could get at another point in time. Hence the urgency of dumping RR to get Harbaugh *now* isn't persuasive to me.
December 1st, 2010 at 8:57 AM ^
So I'm not going to go point by point or anything. Just wanted to bring up, remember your FSU model (and most any teams that have made similar runs...USC for example) were cheating their asses off, and right in the middle of recruiting hotbeds. We're not the latter, and I'm guessing you're not advocating the former. If you want a model of more achievable domination, I would look at OSU - a streak of Big Ten Titles, multiple title game appearances, steal one or two. You don't necessarily have to run the same system (though Tressel-ball HAS worked), but that's probably our ceiling, unless you want to sell out the values of the University. Or move the school to Texas.
December 1st, 2010 at 10:59 AM ^
What I've observed over the years is that the pro-style teams that win do so because they have superior athletes (and upperclassmen): it's rarely the playcalling or the in-game coaching that makes a mountain of difference. Spread-option teams, on the other hand, can be consistently top-10 offenses even when they are at their internal trough in terms of the quality of their athletes.
For defense, where scheme is much less important than fundamentals and attitude, athletes are really key. A guy like a Kerrigan or a Graham is great whether you are an average coach or a great coach (not to say that there aren't certain technical things that great defensive coaches can bring to the table).
Tressel's record is distorted by the fact that we have been weak during most of his tenure. But Tressel, excluding his first year, is averaging 1.9 losses a year: which meets my criteria, except for the 2006-7 BCS disaster. But to your point, Tressel-level achievement is quite realistic -- we don't have to cheat to get there. (We'd have to cheat more if we were handicapped by a pro-style offense.)
December 3rd, 2010 at 10:31 PM ^
...spread-option teams can make up for not having all 5 star athletes. But I think this works best when opponents are not used to the spread-option, as in single-game, non-conference matchups, or in leagues where defenses are not all stacked with 5 star athletes.
The best spread-option programs over the past few years--Oregon and Florida--are actually stacked with 5-star athletes on both sides of the ball. Florida's defense payed a huge role in their 2 national championships, especially the first one where they shut down a vaunted OSU offense that had burned our pretty good defense (and everyone else's) for a whole lotta points. Oregon wins consistently not only because it can score a lot, but because it a) does; and b) consistently shuts other teams down in the second half. If RR stays, I want to see this from our team next year...at least, more of it.
These two flaws can be partially attributable to youth, yes. But we now have three years of poor turnover margins, stalled offenses and defensive collapses to consider when we, or rather DB, evaluates the coaching situation. And on the other side, we have what looks like much better discipline on both sides of the ball.
I'm also concerned by this coaching regime's long-term planning for the defense. Our secondary situation is a crisis, but one that looks to abate next year when the freshmen get a year older and T-Woolf comes back. However, losing Mouton and Ezeh, average though they way be, gives us remarkably little depth at linebacker, a set of positions we hardly excelled at this year. In fact, we're one injury away from starting another trio or quartet of inexperienced, undersized and probably confused underclassmen, when--as Wisconsin proved--we're already not good against the run. The year after that, van Bergen and Martin graduate and we've got issues on the DL. A coaching or DC change might help alleviate this personnel problem next year, but we need some fundamental re-imagining of our recruiting strategy if we want long-term success on the defensive side of the ball.
That said, I'm getting nervous that the way this CC situation is playing out is going to leave us in a poor situation. Would Harbaugh come? Probably. But would he commit to coming now, when Stanford is playing in a BCS bowl game? I have my doubts. Will waiting until Jan 1 to announce a coaching change simultaneously hamstring the new coach's ability to recruit while undermining the recruiting process already on-going? Yes, and perhaps it already has.
If I were DB, I'd tell Harbaugh: "I need to know if you're going to do this now, and if not, I'm going to stick with the guy I've got. Best of luck on Jan 1."
November 30th, 2010 at 2:29 PM ^
Why do people insist on believing Harbaugh would come running? He's made some really asinine comments and not backed off of any of them.