Fighting false information

Submitted by UMdad on

I am amazed at the arguments I hear when discussing UofM football and RR.  An uncle of mine (fellow alumni) was just complaining this weekend about the tiny RR lineman and how we couldn't win with them and if they fired RR it would take another 3-4 years for a coach like Harbaugh or Miles to get in serviceable Big Ten Lineman.  I did a little research and the 2 deep lineman average 6' 5 292 this year compared with 6' 5-5/16" 280 in 1997 (including such guys as Jansen, Backus, Hutchinson, Brandt, etc.) and 6'4-7/8" 303 in 2006.  2006's two deep includes Boren and Mitchell, who's weight and work ethics were questioned by the staff and fans at the time, so that raises the average a little.  I am sure that a little more research would find that the midget slot ninja argument would probably not hold up well either.  I can think of several good sized receivers on this years roster and a couple of smaller receivers that had a lot of success in years past (Howard, Breaston, etc.).  Even the argument that our QB's aren't 6'4 and 220 anymore won't be true once Gardner steps in.  I would be more tempted to listen to people's criticism of the program if I thought they were using actual facts to formulate independent thoughts instead of just regurgitating whatever crap they saw on the internet forums.  

GoBlueinMN

August 3rd, 2010 at 11:24 AM ^

I think a lot of has to do with some of the players that RR has brought in that may not have necessarily been the type of player that Michgan would have gone after in the past. The two examples that come to mind are McGuffie and Tate. People saw these "smaller" players come in and get banged up playing in the Big Ten and assumed all RR's players were small and fragile.

Space Coyote

August 3rd, 2010 at 11:36 AM ^

But I think we would have brought in McGuffie either way.  We probably just would have gave him a redshirt year so he wouldn't be immediately destroyed.  RR has brought in smaller slots, but that is because it fits better with what RR is trying to do.  Most pro-style teams (see USC as well) want bigger targets, but the spread option run type offense has a lot of benefits for the shorter, quicker guys, especially on the bubble screens.

jbibiza

August 3rd, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^

Sam McGuffie was recruited way before Rich Rod was hired and he committed to Lloyd Carr.  There was fear that he would jump ship on signing day as Cal loomed large, but RR was able to hold onto him.  Strictly an Ancien Regime recruitment.

EDIT: beat me to the punch........ never mind.....

wordtoyourmother

August 3rd, 2010 at 11:24 AM ^

It seems every possible thing about Rich Rod and the spread that could be portrayed as negative were amplified by anti Rich Rod people (bad recruting, small and ineffective O-Lineman, receivers become useless, etc.).  That seemed to then spread to the uneducated fanbase, who now spew it out to everyone else.

UMdad

August 3rd, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^

specifically to Valenti on 97.1.  I think he weeds through intelligent Michigan fans to find the idiots.  Plus, if uses the term walmart wolverine one more time I think I am going to hit someone.  It is not our fault that every H.S. graduate in the state gets into MSU.  If only Uof M grads were allowed to root for UofM our numbers would be reduced dramatically.

Baldbill

August 3rd, 2010 at 11:24 AM ^

Sometimes you just have to be patient and explain the real truth to some...and then point them to this blog.

I understand I have a neighbor who is a fan but has not accepted RR and the change that he brought, I truly hope we win enough games that most of this stuff falls back into the noise and we don't have to listen to it any more.

those.who.stay.

August 3rd, 2010 at 11:40 AM ^

Just nod your head, suck it up, and wait for Sept. 4.

On a related note, can you believe the shit this man spews:

I was watching CFL last night and just could not believe what I was hearing from this guy. Stuff like "Hottest seat in America", bringing up the major violations in super dramatic ways, etc. What a pile of crap. 

BlueDrew

August 3rd, 2010 at 11:51 AM ^

I saw the same thing last night.  Truly unreal.  I can't fathom how uninformed you would be on the sport of college football if "College Football Live" is where you get your info.  It just underscores how lucky we really are to have this place to get our UM info.

Njia

August 3rd, 2010 at 11:44 AM ^

Sometimes you just have to be patient and explain the real truth to some...and then point them to this blog.

I've even heard my barber, who is a die hard U-M fan, saying many of the same things. OTOH, he has ESPN on the TV in his shop all day. He gets only one version, ("All the Sports News That We Find Fit to Broadcast") of the facts.

Last time I was in, he talked about how "pathetic" the defense was under RR. I said, "true". Then, I started in on the analysis that people like Brian, FA, Mathlete and others have provided on the site. I also told him to quit getting his U-M fix from ESPN, and check out MGoBlog. He'd be a better man - and a better fan - for it.

CleverMichigan…

August 3rd, 2010 at 12:56 PM ^

One night I went straight from Yost to a party, still wearing my jersey which miraculously made it out unstained. Obviously people asked me the score, stuff like that, and one guy started trying to talk to me about football as well. His ignorance was glaringly obvious and when I mentioned MGoBlog and he said "What?" I knew it was best to just walk away.

Njia

August 3rd, 2010 at 1:41 PM ^

Of course, Misopogon was one of the contributors I referenced, just didn't include him on the list above. A fail on my part.

However, my conversation with my barber wasn't just about the defense. He was also talking about the Freep article, the NCAA infractions, etc. I was relying on what I'd read herein to get his head turned around.

MGoPony

August 3rd, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^

What were last year's two deep averages? Maybe its just false perception but they seemed slightly smaller than the opposition.

That said I remember reading about our significant size/weight gain from last year to this year. I definitely feel better about our line this year, especially if Molk can stay healthy. Last year is certainly not this year, and this year I think our line will surprise some people with its effectiveness.

WichitanWolverine

August 3rd, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^

I think it's pretty hard to deny the fact that our slot ninjas are smaller that prototypical Big Ten receivers (at least Gallon and Odoms).  They are also much more of a threat if deployed correctly with an adequate QB, IMO.

wile_e8

August 3rd, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^

The only thing that will solve this problem is wins.

 

Remember when Florida hired Urban Meyer and the same people said the spread would never work against mighty SEC defenses?  Yeah...

UMdad

August 3rd, 2010 at 11:57 AM ^

Actually, bad weather really is my biggest fear with the spread.  Bad weather games the last couple years have not gone well for us and I tend to think that slick muddy fields and bitter cold weather favor power offenses over quick and precise offenses like the spread.

BigBlue02

August 3rd, 2010 at 12:20 PM ^

West Virginia isn't warm by any means.  We turned the ball over because of inexperience, not bad weather. Slick, muddy fields are a problem for anyone with freshmen at QB.  Just because you line up under center doesn't mean your ball security is magically better.

maizenbluenc

August 3rd, 2010 at 1:08 PM ^

Didn't Tate lead a comeback to force MSU into OT in the cold rain?

If we're impacted by weather, it is because our warm climate recruited athletes need a season to acclimatize and we've been forced to play too many of them too young. If we had a normal distribution of upper classmen in the two deep, this wouldn't really be a factor. Especially in a run-heavy spread.

the_white_tiger

August 3rd, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^

Yeah, apparently these morons disregarded the fact that the Big East Championship was won in a sleet/rain storm in Pittsburgh by a spread team in Cincinnati, and the PAC-Ten championship was won by Oregon, who also runs the spread, in freezing temperatures in Eugene. Oregon scored 37, and Cincinnati scored 45. Both games had poor weather and were won by spread teams. BUT IT'S COLD IN THE BIG TEN, HAHA FLORIDA KIDS CAN'T HANDLE THE COLD HURR HURR HURR!!!

Section 1

August 3rd, 2010 at 2:03 PM ^

For my part, it is pretty clear; not much that I can do will affect what happens on the field.  (Other than give money to the program and hope for the best; I strongly recommend that everybody do that.)  Our guys will win, or they won't.

But when somebody says something wrong, or publishes something that is inaccurate, then that is something that I can correct, on the spot.  Or at least make an attempt at a correction.

We have these, widely-held Ann Arbor Urban Myths, each and every one thoroughly and demonstrably untrue:

1.  The Michigan football program lost "family values" under Rich Rodriguez.

2.  Rich Rodriguez "drove away" a significant number of players who would have helped avoid the two losing seasons in 2008 and 2009.

3.  Rich Rodriguez has a history in civil litigation that raises serious questions about his personal character.

4.  Rich Rodriguez and Mike Barwis were responsible for some serious practice time and workout time excesses in violation of NCAA rules.

5.  Michigan now has more, or different, off-field 'player character' issues, attributable to Rodriguez-era recruits.

These are all untruths.  Each and every one.  To the extent that they are uttered by people who think that Michigan needs to fire Rich Rodriguez, they are lies.  I won't wait for "winning" to cure those things.  I don't want Michigan to be led to victories by a guy with a suspicious character, or by a coach who is cutting corners on the rules.  But the fact is, there is no good reason to question the character, or the methods, or the integrity, or the skills of Rich Rodriguez.   I want to get back in the face of anyone who is suggesting these myths and tell them to shut the fuck up because they are either wrong, or stupid, or lying, or all three.  And tell them exactly why they are so wrong, and so stupid, and what they are saying/repeating is a lie.

hokiewolf

August 3rd, 2010 at 11:33 AM ^

I'm blanking on the psychological term for it, but this is a good example of people believing things that support their preconceptions while rejecting all other data, no matter how solid.