Very legitimate points and cause for hope. I would be as happy as anyone if RichRod turns out to be the guy. But my point is that the best argument for him is what he's done in the past (and much of that is in an inferior conference). If he didn't have the resume and turned in this season (or for that matter if he was Lloyd and turned in this season)I think we'd be united in wanting his head. I don't think there's much evidence that he did a good job with this year's Michigan team (and if I'm missing something I'd be happy if I was wrong). Moreover, if he goes 8-4 next year as Arrogant Michigan fan suggests, I'd be satisfied that that was a sign of significant progress. But I do think if Michigan goes 5-7 or even 6-6 that a long look would have to be taken to evaluate the coaching job that RR is doing. I do stand by my view that the mark of a good coach is that he gets the most out of his players. If objectively, what he does next year meets that test I'm fine with it. If it doesn't I don't think he gets to rest on his prior accomplishments any more than the rest of us do.
Look folks, we all care about Michigan football and I would like RichRod to succeed. I also believe he is entitled to another year. But, realistically, what evidence is there that he has done a good coaching job this year? I am very concerned that most of your views are based on RichRod's success at WVU. It is important to note that this success, essentially occurred after Miami, Virginia Tech and BC left the conference. When your big game is Pitt, Rutgers, or Cicinatti, winning the conference does not seem like such an accomplishment. Now none of that is proof that he is a bad coach, but, it's not evidence that he is a great coach either. So, let's look at his performance this year.
In my view, the fundamental quality of a good coach is that he gets the most out of his players. He may not win championships, but his players do the best that they are capable. Can anyone out there with a straight face, really say that RichRod got the most he could out of this team? Are you really saying that these players were not capable of beating Toledo and Purdue. If you're not saying that, why are you so convinced that the criticisms of RichRod are so unfair?
Now, I strongly disagree with the view that you can't coach fundamentals. Both Bo and Woody made their careers out of coaching fundamentals. Can anyone suggest that this was a fundamentally sound team? They simply did not block or tackle well. Yes, many were underclassmen, but still. Moreover,perhaps there's no way to coach Odoms out of fumbling punts, but if you can't why keep sending him out there? That's fundamentally poor coaching.
I don't disagree with the view that the offense was substantially depleted by graduations and I am not after RichRod's head because Mallet and Boren transferred and Arrington turned pro (though certainly he doesn't get any brownie points for his handling of this). Nonetheless, the defense had seven returning starters from a 9-4 team that beat Florida. So, the incompetence of the defense is incomprehensible and I think can fairly be laid on to the coaching (by the way is anyone the least concerned about the defensive signal confusion and shouting during the OSU game?) Lloyd's recruting may have been on the downswing the last few years but until the disaster of this season was completed, no one would have accepted that this was 3-9 talent.
So, where are we? You cannot say that those of us who are skeptical of RichRod are all neanderthals who don't understand football. There is cause for serious concern that the man is not as gifted a coach as you would like to believe and is doing serious damage to the program. Personally, I don't know. But saying if we fire him we will turn into the next Nebraska or ND to me makes no sense when RR may well be the next Weiss or Callahan. I think the only good way to look at it is to ask yourself what kind of coaching job RR did this year with this team. Most of the evidence points to not very good, but there are some things that do make me believe the issue is not settled:
1. He has a history of lousy first years. I don't think there's a legitimate reason for this as most good coaches improve a program their first year (go look at the first year records of Saban, Miles, Tressel, Meyer, etc. Not to mention, of course, Schembechler-yes I know he had a talented team) but it seems to be RichRod's way so a bad first year is not necessarily a predictor.
2. He has had success at other programs, although that it was a weak Big East makes me nervous.
3. I saw progress in the offensive line. This is the one coaching area where I think they did a good job. Last year's O-line was essentially Jake Long and four guys who couldn't block anyone. This year they had essentially no one and by the end of the year they were opening holes even though the defense knew there was no passing game. This is the biggest cause of optimism in my view.
4. He recruited Beaver and Forcier.
In my view, the foregoing is not cause to give RichRod 5 or 6 years unless substantial progress is made next year and the year after. Otherwise, you are just hoping he's a good coach without any evidence that he is (at least for Michigan). I think, with respect, that a lot of your support for RichRod is based on the horrible thought that if he isn't the answer then Michigan really is on the verge of a disaster with no clear answer and no clear way out. I hope that's not the case but just as I don't believe RichRod should be fired at this time, I don't think he deserves any fan letters either.
Recent Comments