In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 526
Online now 132 Record: 7264 (3/12/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
In reading these responses, I noticed that some here commented on how much they enjoyed the offense.
But consider this:
While no doubt dynamic, the offense was absolutely stuffed against the better defenses that they played in OSU, MSU, Iowa, PSU, etc. GRANTED, Rich Rod had either the wrong QBs for his system (Threet/Sheridan), young QBs (Forcier/Robinson), or QBs who are poor decision makers (Robinson).
Still though, the overall showings against good defenses that his offense produced made me skeptical of whether or not it would really work in the Big Ten....
The talent he was left with was better than 3-9 and 5-7 though.
Dude you can't go off where recruiting classes are ranked to judge a teams talent. These recruits transfer, quit, or just don't turn out. Sure if u get good recruits your team should be good but you never know. Just look at Texas, based on recruiting classes they should play for the championship every year.
The star WRs that left? The 5* QB that left? The olinemen that left? RichRod didn't have offensive talent to work with.
The 2008 defense was still solid, but we all saw how that regressed under RichRod.
This is exactly what I told my dad regarding Rich Rod.
If he was willing to have a defensive coordinator hired, not telling him what to run and leave the defensive side of the ball to the newly hired DC, then that was the only way I would have liked him to stay.
A spread option offense with Threet/Sheridan running it, was a 3 win team.
In 2009 with improved talent at QB, which happened to be true freshmen, they were a 5 win team. They would have won more, but the defense had started their slide down under RichRod.
Recruiting rankings determine talent, it's up for the coaches and players to live up to their billing, Rich Rod couldn't coach, so they didn't live up to their rankings. The talent was there.
Sorry sunshine, the talent wasn't there due to attrition.
I will argue this until I am blue in the face. At least that Michigan had better talent than 15 wins in 3 years. I couldn't stand "the cupboard is bare" crap that was thrown around. It was a BS excuse then and it's a BS excuse now.
So you think Hoke would of had 15 wins in 3 years with the same players RR had?
Not a fair question. Do you think we have the same coordinators if Hoke was hired at that time?
He wouldn't have had the same players, that is a key.
If you want to play revionsist history, Mallett stays, Boren stays, Manningham and Arrington stay...
And Hoke recruits midwest kids on par with Tressel.
That's not what I am talking about though. I believe with the same exact players RR had Hoke gets more wins. No way our D ever should of been that bad. That's on RR.
That's on RR then. He needs to make sure he gets guys to do the job.
But that answer was based on your question the way you phrased it.
I highly doubt Mattison comes back if RR didn't destroy Michigan's defense but I could be wrong.
The attrition would be different, etc.
It is a question that is basically impossible to answer.
I think he likely would have had a better record but it is really impossible to know since our standard for Hoke is with the current coordinators.
What I am getting at is do you really think RR did the best job possible with what was here at Michigan? I don't. I think the defense was horribly coached. The players were not developed, didn't know assignments, couldn't tackle, etc... Michigan was not a team full of 2 star talent. We still had 3 and 4 star kids with a 5 star mixed in here and there. That's enough talent to put together 7 to 8 win teams in my opinion.
Fair enough. That was my biggest gripe about RR as well was his dictating what defense to run even if the DC had no idea how to run it.
RR did what he always has done but needed to be told to stay away from the D and that didn't happen (or maybe it was and he said no).
If he would have been willing to allow a DC to run what defense they knew best and assemble their assistants, that would have been the only way I would have been willing to keep him.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by MichRedWingFan7 18 months ago
I was a pretty strong supporter in 08 and 09. I figured by year 3 he'd have the ship moving in the way it was supposed to go. 2010 started strong (as always) and we had another monumental collapse. The exact moment he lost me was probably some time in the 4th quarter of the Penn State game in 2010. Penn State trotted out Matt McGloin, a walk on quarterback for his first ever college football start, and he absolutely picked that defense apart. Penn state hung 41 freaking points on us with a walk on quarterback starting his first game.
At that point, I was pretty much done. The Illinois game that year, even though we won, further pissed me off. As entertaining of a game as it was, that's not football. It was like watching an NCAA Football game (and even shootouts in video games annoy me). The final breaking point, if the Penn State and Illinois debacles weren't enough, was Wisconsin running the ball every play in the 2nd half and being completely unable to stop it.
LOL, don't forget the TERRIBLE season Evan Royster was having that year and ended up shredding the D in that game.
RR had to be fired. Even if Brandon decided to keep him for another year the D-coordinator would've needed to go. What self respecting D-coordinator would've joined RR on the hottest seat in the country? No way Mattison coaches under RR. I just don't see a coach wanting a one and done gig coaching under RR in case things didn't immediately turn around and find himself looking for a new job the following year. The likelyhood that things weren't going to improve forced Brandon's hand.
I'm not arguing that RR deserved a pass because lack if talent. I will admit there was less talent then usual when RR first came in though. My point to you was when you say rivals had our classes ranked high means we shoukd have a lot of talent on are team isnt always true. it makes sense but isnt always reality. over the last 6 to 7 years there have been a lot of talented players not make it through their four years. The class that vanbergen and Martin came in with after four years only had about half those guys on rivals left. I do think hoke would have done much better and less players would have left because he was very similar to Carr. Also it wasn't like hoke came to Michigan with all kinds of talent on the roster, hoke has down a incredible job for us
Nope, John U. Bacon.
Any other stupid questions?
And lol @ anyone complaining about "the cupboard was bare" comment. It is a documented FACT that the talent was deficient. Proof?
There you go.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Kenetic 18 months ago
It wasn't 3-9 talent.
Enjoy your opinion.
So you think Toledo had more talent than Michigan in 2008?
Rich Rod was a terrible coach at Michigan.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports