Hey ESPN dude ......
I was listening to an ESPN writer talk (don't even care what his name was) on the radio the other day about the way RR was “badly” treated when he first came to Ann Arbor. And if we’re at all honest, the “base” was divided on RR. As someone, looking back, that was not in favor of the hire ... I was listening to a guy that had absolutely no idea about Michigan football telling me about Michigan football. (So in essence this is my response to him ... not the blog.)
So where was Michigan football before RR. In 2003, we did win the B1G Ten championship. In 2006, we are 1 play away from playing for the MNC. 2007 was a huge disappointment ... because it followed on the heels of 2006, yet we still kicked Florida’s ass. We were still only 10 years removed from a National Title. The “Michigan Man” as this ESPN dude continued to regurgitate is actually a direct quote from Bo, as he was referring to Coach Fisher taking over the BB team in 1989 ... yet that’s all we hear about now as to Michigan’s coaches.
So what was it about RR that split the base ? OK. I’m old. I am pre-Bo. I had issues with Bo because he rarely put a focus into offense or special teams. He loved defense ... he built his teams based on defense. Michigan football was “3 yards and a cloud of dust”. Not very exciting ... but almost always successful. We were lousy at punting and missed FG’s cost Bo at least 2 more Big Ten titles. But, had the bowl system been the same back then ... Bo would have played in 20 straight.
But the boring offensive style all changed when Harbaugh came onboard. Suddenly we had an offense ... what fun !!! But what happened after that was beyond what anyone thought ... Michigan became QB University ! After Harbaugh we had QB after QB get drafted into the NFL ... Harbaugh, Grbac, Collins, Grease, Brady, Henson, Navarre and Henne ( 8 QB’s in 20 years) ... and Mallett was in line to follow Chad. We ran a pro style offense, so NFL bound QB’s wanted to come to Michigan. Wide receivers knew Michigan was a good choice because of the QB. We were also producing an entire roster worth of offensive lineman that went to the NFL, again because we played a pro style offense. And yet, Michigan was still expected to produce a tough, very tough defense. We bitched about any season where we lost 3 or more games, and yeah Tressel brought osu back from the Cooper days (when we owned tOSU just as bad as we owned Penn State). So Michigan football had some maintenance issues in 2007, but the “machine” itself was not broken, ... and we still had offensive weapons returning.
So, to me, when Bill Martin hired RR it was the end of QB University. Michigan didn’t need to change the football system, we just needed someone to put new paint on it, wax it, shine it up and fine tune what Bo and Moeller & Carr had made Michigan. So that is why I was one of those “base” fans that was not in favor of the RR hire. I, like everyone else had no idea what would happen ... I still thought we would win football games, even important ones. ( FWIW – it is all ancient history now ).
Go Blue !
January 10th, 2011 at 11:26 AM ^
Not being a fan of the hire and not supporting the coach are two separate issues.
If Les Miles is hired and thrown under the bus from day 1 the same way Rich Rod was then I would certainly expect him to struggle as well.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:24 AM ^
We just had a true sophomore quarterback finish sixth in the Heisman voting.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:26 AM ^
B1G Offensive Player of the Year as well...
January 10th, 2011 at 11:31 AM ^
I think that what the OP meant was a university that put out NFL QBs. Even the most ardent Denard fans don't expect him to be a starting QB on Sundays. Not a knock against Denard, just expectations.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:39 AM ^
Do you think Texas fans are broken up that Vince Young sucks in the NFL? OSU fans crushed by Troy Smith's shortcomings in San Francisco?
The point isn't whether Denard will succeed in the pros, but rather that worrying about it is stupid if he's successful at Michigan (which, yeah, he's done alright for a young fellow).
January 10th, 2011 at 11:51 AM ^
Potential recruits put stock in whether they think the school can turn them into an NFL prospect. Not saying Denard won't be or that we have that reputation, but I'm saying it does matter to some of these kids.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:56 AM ^
recruits probably care. who does the next hot QB prospect want to be like? if you're not sending a stream of people to the NFL, you have to rely on being a hot college team right when that kid is making his decision to be in the mix. turning out QBs that people idolize is how you build the mystique that creates life-long fans and turns them into recruits.
January 10th, 2011 at 12:41 PM ^
Not all the Michigan QBs worked out in the NFL though. Look at Navarre, Henson, Henne...
January 10th, 2011 at 3:57 PM ^
No, but all of them got drafted and were given a chance in the NFL at least partially because they were a solid QB here
January 10th, 2011 at 11:49 AM ^
yeah as an "athlete"........ I think what the man is trying to say is in the past we created QB's that could play that position in the NFL. Denard probably wont play QB in the NFL.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:26 AM ^
Which is exactly why we need to return to a Pro-style offense. The fact that so few programs run it today means we can attract the top offensive talent.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:29 AM ^
run the Wing T offense, or the wishbone for that matter.
Besides, Michigan has shown that it can attract top talent under any system (Devin Gardner, pre-CC Dee Hart, etc.).
January 10th, 2011 at 2:25 PM ^
I miss the wishbone.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:36 AM ^
The top QB taken in this year's draft is likely to be a spread guy (Gabbert or possibly Newton). The top QB taken in last year's draft was a spread guy (Bradford).
The idea that what system you play in as a collegiate athlete has more than a very minor impact on pro potential is ignorant drivel.
January 10th, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^
But Gabbert and Bradford were in passing spread offenses, not run spreads. A case can be made that Brady and Manning run pass spread offenses with their teams.
January 10th, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^
+1 for the avatar and name, sir.
January 10th, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^
Bradford ran a pass-first spread, and if Newton gets drafted high as a QB, it will only be because of the groundbreaking success of the Vic resurgence. A pass-first spread QB possess a very similiar skill-set to any of the plentiful QB's who have thrived in West Coast offenses. Denard's success in our run-first spread won't translate well in any existing pro offense, and I don't know if I see the pro-game ever evolving to the point where it could (our offense murders linebackers and secondary who make poor decisions/have slow reaction times/lack a developed quick-decision making set, Pro teams have a robust pool of players who don't suffer from any of those short-comings).
January 10th, 2011 at 12:26 PM ^
You're both missing the point. You don't need a "pro-style" offense to produce pro quarterbacks.
Thanks, though, for taking down the straw man argument that Denard should be considered a pro quarterback prospect.
January 10th, 2011 at 12:34 PM ^
likely be taken over these guys, if he were coming out, but I agree. Probably doesn't matter much that he plays in a pro system. NFL guys are looking for certain physical characteristics (yes Drew Brees and Mike Vick etc. excepted), good arm strength with phenomenal accuracy to every part of the field, great vision, great awareness and poise, great touch, a quick release, and good recognition and decision making. That's not an exhaustive list of NFL QB criteria, but if a college QB can demonstrate a lot of those things in any offense, it's likely they'll get a hard look by the NFL.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:37 AM ^
Baltimore Ravens, New England Patriots, Green Bay Packers, NY Jets, KC Chiefs?
My point being that there are many different types of pro style offenses these days, not just a two split backs with a drop back pocket passer.......
January 10th, 2011 at 12:33 PM ^
And many of them incorporate "spread" concepts. The Pats and their no-back sets with heavy use of underneath crossing routes, for example. Even the Eagles ran some read-option (or at least appeared to, hard to tell if the handoff was called or a read). And of course, half the teams use some form of a "wildcat" package.
Football is football, If you have translatable skills, you can be successful in many different systems.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:38 AM ^
I thought I remember hearing from someone on ESPN that coaches may be goign back to the pro style. I think Florida with Muschamp was an example cited.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:50 AM ^
Gary Danielsen?
January 10th, 2011 at 11:54 AM ^
No, but maybe the Pony James, which is just as bad.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:27 AM ^
Mo and Lo just recruited far better athletes. They couldn't hold a candle to Bo as a coach.
The argument about just needing to fix the bathroom instead of remodeling the entire house doesn't hold water because we had all of 21 defenders on the entire roster and one offensive starter when RR took over. Why not change? We were out of the NC hunt every September except for two years after Carr took oveTThat my friend is disheartening and should be for you, because like me we both witnessed much better prior to these two.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:29 AM ^
I think the fan base was actually pretty well divided (about 80/20) in terms of believing in the spread vs not believing. But thats just my opinion base on the people I talked to, which is an awfully small sample size compared to the whole fanbase.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:42 AM ^
It was always the defense (well, the lack of it)...
January 10th, 2011 at 11:29 AM ^
FWIW we need to leave all of this stuff behind. The fact of the matter - in regards to Michigan football and the media - is that some people get it and others don't. There's no point in arguing with the "don'ts" because most of the time they are stubborn people who like hearing themselves talk [vis a vis Mark May].
The only way we are going to rid ourselves of the crappy stigmas that SEC homers put on us is by going out and winning. The RR experiment didn't work out. Is the fan base to blame?... Not entirely, but we certainly don't have clean hands. Regardless, there's no point looking back, especially when our last B1G title is getting out of sight in the rear view mirror.
It's time for us to strap our balls up and get to work.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:29 AM ^
We were still only 10 years removed from a National Title
Doesn't seem like a long time, but a DECADE is a really long time in the football world. In 2008, that 'machine' was broken, and it wasn't a RR wrench in the gear that broke it, but a lack of maintenance by the previous guys that helped to bring this thing to a screeching halt.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:34 AM ^
1-6 against Tressel, 3-3 against Weis/Willingham, 0-3 in major bowl games, two big wins (OSU 2003 and ND 2006) offset by App. State, Oregon demolition, early season losses to not so hot Oregon, Washington, UCLA, and ND teams, special teams disaster at Iowa, never in the NC race post-September save for 2006.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:38 AM ^
We had TWO QBs drafted in that time...I mean we ARE...err were...QB U!
January 10th, 2011 at 11:55 AM ^
Is the "not so hot Oregon", they were in the MNC discussion until Dixon went down that year. They were for real, and we could not stop them. That remains one of my worst experiences at The Big House to this day (and I've been to most home games since '07).
January 10th, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^
The not so great team is the one we lost to in Eugene in 2003 thanks to a terrible start on offense (Gee, Oregon knows we're going to hand the ball off right up the middle?) and the spread punt disaster. That team finished 8-5 and lost the Sun Bowl. Don't worry though, I know it is hard to keep track of all of them.
January 10th, 2011 at 12:49 PM ^
Well then... hey look over there...
January 10th, 2011 at 3:33 PM ^
Thanks for this. This is what bothers me most about the "we need a Michigan Man" chorus. They like to revise history and wax poetic about Michigan and think that every year was like 1997 or 2006. We were a 3-4 loss team for most years
Fact is, for the last half a dozen years of Carr's tenure, save one year, we were out of the NC picture thanks to losing the first (very winnable) OOC road game. And Carr's last season, included the App St debacle, getting blown out against Oregon and Wisco and then deciding not to really run any offense against Ohio State. But hey, we beat Florida, so our 2007 team was great and RR really screwed it up (despite losing every single skill player on offense that year).
Time and again for years we couldn't stop a halfway mobile QB, get a good safety or punt the ball, but these things are glossed over by this crowd.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:29 AM ^
2-6 record against OSU from 2000-2007? What about the 2005 7-5 season? What about our defensive meltdowns in 2004, 2005, and the last two games of 2006 and the first two games of 2007?
Who was available to put the shine back in or tweek the Michigan system? Anyone around the program that fit that bill? Look at the Carr coaching tree and point out who from it was around to do that? Part of the issue was that there was no one around to pick up that mantle on the 2007 coaching staff.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:36 AM ^
January 10th, 2011 at 12:50 PM ^
The OP is notably silent as to exactly who Martin should have hired, if not Rodriguez. And, if the answer is Miles, then you have to address the fact that the outgoing head of the "Michigan system," Lloyd Carr, was strongly opposed to that hire.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:29 AM ^
I have not followed Michigan as long as you, but I did start towards the end of the Bo era. I had almost the identical feelings on the RR hire as you - I didn't feel that the Michigan "machine" needed to be scrapped - just slightly updated. I also was not happy to get away from a system that produced consistent NFL talent.
But, on the divided fanbase, I am proud that I never publicly criticized RR and encouraged the whole "he is an outsider who is going to ruin everything" dialogue. Sure, I harbored my doubts, but I was also willing to give the new guy a chance to see what he could do.
Ultimately, the RR experience didn't turn out so good and I, like you, do hope that we transition back to a pro-style offense. That said, we don't have to go back to 3 yards and a cloud of dust. There are a whole host of systems out there that can ease any transition away from RR's option attack and allow us to maximize Denard's talent. I hope that whomever we bring in is willing to be flexible and work his system to his talent. Ultimately, in my opinion, what did RR in was his refusal to do that.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:37 AM ^
You and I are contemporaries with completely different viewpoints. I was one who felt like the "pro-style" offense needed to be changed. I prospered through the years of Hensen, Brady, Griese, etc. and enjoyed all the subsequent pro QBs that Michigan put out. However, after watching teams like Oregon and App. State run the spread I became enamored by it. And when Lloyd Carr stepped down, it felt like an end of an era to me. In other words, I was all about bringing in the spread offense and Rodriguez doing it. And my support finally paid off this year, which made him leaving all that more difficult for me. I understand that the defense sucked and Rodriguez going was pretty much a foregone conclusion. But I was somehow able to put the defense out of my mind (by fast-forwarding past all defensive series on the DVR) and really enjoyed watching the offense, even when it stalled. There was so much excitement attached to it for me and I, for one, will be sad to see a return to a more "pro style" offense if that is what happens.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:50 AM ^
I apprecate your reasoned and thoughtful response and can relate to your position. Its exactly the same as my 2 sons !
Go Blue !
January 10th, 2011 at 11:30 AM ^
Nice story and you seem pretty reasonable, but you are the exact kind of guy I hate. Your thinking held us back from potential greatness.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:34 AM ^
Look, the divided fanbase didn't help, but RR's poor staffing choices on D, poor D recruiting and refusal to adjust his system to the current roster didn't help. There was also a ton of attrition even after year 1, and that didn't help either.
Not trying to trash RR - he did get a raw deal here and I will root for him at his next stop because I genuinely like him - but if you think that the reason he didn't work out here are because of the OP, you may want to re-examine. I don't think that the OP did anything to cause a 3-9 record in year one.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:36 AM ^
But I bet he is a 'down in front' guy that has boo'd the team at least once in the past three years.
And that's enough for me to quarrel with him.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:45 AM ^
If he boo'd the team EVER, than I withdraw my defense of him and I join you and Ziff and anyone else in criticizing him.
But, I don't know that to be the case. I had my doubts about RR - many of the same concerns he raised - and I NEVER boo'd the team. In fact, I never expressed by doubts or concerns outside of this blog and I defended RR vocally to anyone who criticized him.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:52 AM ^
Alright OP, you ever boo the team? Be honest.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:42 AM ^
I don't think Ziff was trying to be specific to the Rich Rod situation, but the thought process of "nothing needed to be fixed, just spruced up" as it related to Michigan football for the last 30 years.
I am with Ziff on this one, that thought process of being content with better than average kept Michigan football from being great. I thought Michigan went in the right direction with the Rich Rod hire, but as we all know that didn't work out. I, like the rest of the fan base, will be looking forward to seeing what Dave Brandon does with his first coaching hire.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:30 AM ^
You started three of five paragraphs with the word "So". So I knew the post wasn't worth reading.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:32 AM ^
So what? So serious.