From Nittany White Out:
Michigan will be beaten and beaten badly this season. For years Michigan has been beating on its fellow Big Ten rivals mostly due to Lloyd Carr’s impeccable coaching. This is not to say Rich Rod can’t coach. But he simply doesn’t have the players to run his offense. Sure he’ll modify it this year to fit his players, but if history repeats itself, his first year will be dismal. And to the delight of all Big Ten teams, Michigan will struggle. Michigan will be last season’s Notre Dame.
Can you honestly tell me with confidence that they can even win all their non-conference games? With Utah, and Notre Dame (away), the odds are in favor of a 2-2 start before they even start their conference gauntlet. Then there are revenge games away at Penn State, at Purdue, a vastly improved Michigan State, Illinois, at Minnesota and at Ohio State. If you look at their schedule, only 3 games can be considered a sure win, Miami (OH), Toledo and Northwestern.
The 2008 season will be sweet music to all Big Ten fans not sporting Maize and Blue.
Now then, everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion on this year's Wolverines... what I take issue with here is the ridiculous litany of "points" that are thrown out here sans defense, logic, or any identifiable level of reason. All this "breakdown" does is trot out a number of phrases, talking points, and whimsical notions that have been echoed around rival message boards ever since Rodriguez was announced as the new HC. Let's take them in order shall we?1. For years Michigan has been beating on its fellow Big Ten rivals mostly due to Lloyd Carr’s impeccable coaching. This is missing the forest for a single tree. I said in the comments section over there that I'm was as big of a Lloyd Carr supporter as you could find during his tenure in Ann Arbor. He deserves a LOT of credit, but the main reason why Michigan has been winning football games has been his impeccable coaching? The man was a solid football coach and even greater person, he will go down as one of the greats who have roamed the sidelines in the Big House. But to claim that Michigan has been beating on its fellow Big Ten rivals mostly due to Lloyd Carr's coaching? Certainly his ability as a head coach was a large factor in Michigan's Big 10 success... but uh, there are a few other points to take into account here as well. For one, I think Carr's management of his talent had a much larger effect than his gameplanning or x's and o's prowess did.
I highly doubt anyone would argue that Carr-lead Michigan teams' success had nothing to do with his recruiting, which coincidentally brought in more talent than other teams in the conference could dream of having (save for that one down Columbus way of course), it probably had nothing to do with the fact that Michigan was a better football team across the field than nearly everyone else they lined up with, and I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that there has been a long-running tradition of a top level program, which affords it the ability to recruit, gather quality staffs (even if Malone, DeBord, or Andy Moeller were members...), and build from a very strong base. Michigan has not only been fortunate to have a run of great coaches, but we also have been spoiled rotten with the level of football player that we bring in year in and year out... more on that in a bit. To say we won only because of Lloyd Carr's coaching ability is quite simply wrong.
2. But he simply doesn’t have the players to run his offense. Sure he’ll modify it this year to fit his players, but if history repeats itself, his first year will be dismal. Sigh... I nailed this in the preview on "things people will beat to death and be way off base about" and here's example 1A. Sure he'll modify it to fit his players... and if you'd care to tell me how the caliber of player he had at West Virginia, Tulane, and Glenville State compares to that which he is now working with in Ann Arbor, I will happily sit here and listen. Michigan beat a number of teams over the years by running HB traps to the left and occasionally find one of a long line of great receivers deep (oversimplifying a bit for the sake of brevity)... the offense doesn't have to be amazingly complex or mind bendingly difficult to succeed, in fact if you'd like a beautiful example, I direct your attention to last years contest between #10 Penn State and the lowly unranked Wolverines... final score? 14-9 Michigan. Not exactly an offensive firework show was it... and a true freshman qb at the helm no less.
Rodriguez has been around the block, he'll put something in place that will enable this team to play to its strengths. Why everyone is so convinced that because Michigan won't run the "Pat White Steve Slayton" offense next year that they are in huge trouble is beyond me, Rodriguez ran an effective offense with Sean King winging the ball all over the place, and he ran one that whipped the life out of opponents by throwing less than 20 times a game, he's clearly able to adjust to his personnel, but hey, that's inconvienant to this flawed argument. We're all well aware of his first year record at West Virginia and Glenville State, etc, etc, but to try to compare his first year at WVA with what he's working with here is a bit of a stretch if you were to ask me. What his success in these different systems does tell me is that he WILL get his play-makers the football, and believe me when I say that we will have more than one or two players who will be capable of making plays.
The second part of this is the notion that because the offense likely may struggle at times, Michigan is doomed. This might be the case if the defense were going to be of the 2000 vintage... but that simply will not be the case. The Maize and Blue won't have to score 35 points a game to win. Of course it'd probably help to actually, you know, look at the team you're talking about to realize points like that.
3. Michigan will be last seasons Notre Dame. Based upon what? Michigan lost a number of top offensive skill players like ND did two years ago? That's where any and all comparisons stop beween these two teams. The coaching staffs couldn't be more different in terms of both track record and ability, the recruiting classes compared over the past four years are vastly different, the schedules for the upcoming year are different, and the makeup of this year's Michigan squad compared to last year's notre dame edition is also vastly different. Quick name last year's starting running back for ND... does he even crack our top 5 heading into this season? How about their top receiver.... and on, and on, and on.
4. Can you honestly tell me with confidence that they can even win all their non-conference games? With Utah, and Notre Dame (away), the odds are in favor of a 2-2 start before they even start their conference gauntlet. 2-2 would be something close to a worst case scenario to start the season as I look at the teams we're facing... but hey, "the odds favor it"... which means precisely nothing. Nothing in the way of matchups, breakdowns, or other places where any of these teams might give Michigan problems. Utah will be a tough test, as will ND as the first road game, are theses sure wins? No. Are they sure losses? No.
5. Then there are revenge games away at Penn State, at Purdue, a vastly improved Michigan State, Illinois, at Minnesota and at Ohio State. Ah yes, the "revenge game"... this is as true a barometer of an upcoming season as any. I love the argument that teams will be excited to beat Michigan this season... really?? That's different from every other season how exactly? It's really helped Penn State out a bunch since '96 hasn't it, every time our two teams have lined up since then hasn't been a "revenge game" for the Nittany Lions? Next of course is the "vastly improved MSU" (in what way are they vastly improved?)... which just so happens to have to travel to Michigan Stadium where, vastly improved or not, they haven't won since 1990... which is a vast expanse of time.
I've longed learned the hard lesson of trying to determine "sure wins" and you know what, the same holds for "sure losses". For anyone to try to claim that Michigan will be doomed to a 9th place conference finish and a record that one must reach back to 1967 to find another in the same ball park (4-6) with nothing more substantial than talking head sound bites and message board banter is just a bit laughable... add to the fact that it is June, and it's even more laughable. Call me old fashioned, but examining trends and matchups certainly carries more weight than trying to judge a team's "revenge factor" against its opponent.
So in short, we're in trouble because:
1. Rodriguez can't possibly run "his" offense (nevermind that this "argument" completely ignores 2/3rds of the game of football and fails to present any sort of actual attempt at defending these kinds of predictions, it sounds good and everyone else is saying it too!).
2. Other teams will want to beat Michigan really bad... which is news to exactly no one.
How very illuminating...
Michigan may very well struggle this season, nobody knows how we'll look come the end of August, which makes absolute statements about the upcoming season altogether misguided. Particularly when such absolute statements don't do anything like the following: "I think a lack of an experienced quarterback combined with the installation of a new system will really hinder Michigan's offensive efforts this year, this could spell trouble in a number of matchups, including...blah, blah, blah and so on."
I am not stating that Michigan will be great or even good, I don't KNOW what they will be, but to deny that there's a chance that they will be anything other than downright terrible (and the Nittany Whiteout prediction is the bottom of downright terrible) is pretty bold at this point in the year. To attribute said terrible-ness (English is a generative language after all) all to a struggle on offense is just a bit too much for my taste.
Posts
7 comments:
Look, I agree on the "Lloyd Carr was the greatest coach in the history of ever" criticism; the man could recruit, but his game management skills and tactics were mediocre at best (you said it yourself, "halfback trap to the left and long bombs" pretty well describes UM).
That being said, to criticize NWO for lack of analysis ("Nothing in the way of matchups, breakdowns, or other places where any of these teams might give Michigan problems") in a post where they're discussing the final standings of every team in the conference is a little much, especially when you're falling prey to the same logic-free assumptionfest repeatedly (as in, "Notre Dame and Michigan have different players and schedules, so there is no basis for comparison" in #3 and the fact-free assumption that the defense will "simply not be" like 2000 in #2).
Also, to say we don't know what's going to happen so we can't say UM is going to SUCK HARD (and they might) is to say we shouldn't be writing any predictions. Which is fine, just so long as you guys stop writing predictions with the rest of us. We'll spend the rest of the offseason on the Chronicles of JoePa, thank you very much.
I don't agree with their assessment of Michigan (or the fact that Northwestern is a gimmie for UM this year but Minnesota is a toss-up, for that matter), but they're entitled to their opinion, and in the context of the post they were making, I think they provided enough.
Thanks for the comments, believe me when I say I appreciate them.
One of the KEY points in my whole diatribe here is that when determining the final standings of every team in the conference, some analysis and reasoning is essential. You don't have to go pages deep, but c'mon, there's absolutely nothing there.
I did not say you can't predict the outcomes, I DID say that nobody knows what Michigan will look like, I DID say that to make absolute predictions and give no reasoning to back them up is too much. I also didn't say that you can't say Michigan will suck hard... what I said is you better damn well have some reasoning behind it or you deserve to be called out on it. Just as someone should have some reasoning behind a statement like "I think Michigan will be great," there has to be some kind of support.
I would hardly call my treatment of the ND issue a "logic free assumption fest" I gave a whole list of points on how these teasm differ, and I will happily delve into much greater detail on how ND '07 and Michigan '08 are different situations, I certainly went into more of that than they did, and I apologize for not bludgeoning the point home further.
I'll bow to the 2000 defense point, you got me there.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the main point here and that is that you feel they provided enough backing for the points whereas I feel they provided absolutely zero backing other than the same trite and contrived statements that have been thrown around for months already.
I don't think the UM '08: ND '07 comparison is completely unfounded. You say the coaching staffs differ greatly in ability, but Weis got ND to two BCS bowls before last year's abomination, and turned Brady Quinn into a Heisman contender. You say schedules matter; last year ND had the 6th best schedule according to Phil Steele, this year UM has the 15th best schedule according to PS.
Where they'll be better than ND is the defense, they'll have to keep the offense in games this season. It's just that they better hope the offense keeps the turnovers down, otherwise they could be in some real trouble. Luckily, with the running backs UM has, I don't see them having a huge amount of turnovers unless they get a case of the fumblerooskies, or if the offensive line doesn't come together as planned.
I'd say more about the ND-UM comparison, but Sunday Morning Quarterback has done a good job in making a few salient points. Otherwise, keep up the good work.
Thanks for the contriubtion and the link g0el pete, much appreciated!
The key difference I see between what SMQ did (well as always no less) and what the post I'm responding to is that he actually went into some detail on how he felt the situations were comparable. I disagree to an extent, but I can at least understand his reasoning.
That is different than simply saying "Michigan will be this year's Notre Dame" and leaving it at that.
My, I haven't been called out like this since I last tried to take too many ketchup packets at McDonalds.
But on the entire Michigan prediction:
Of the 11 teams in the Big Ten this coming season, Michigan sits at #10 in returning players. The #11th? Minnesota. With 16 starting Seniors and Juniors, Michigan is almost dead last if it wasn't for the 14 at Minnesota this coming season. Reason for concern? You bet it is.
Then let see, by the Purdue game, Michigan can easily be 2-6 with sure wins over Miami (OH) and Toledo. Then add to the fact that the game is in West Lafayette and it is Joe Tiller’s last season as the head coach of the Boilermakers. Mark this game in the Boilermaker column. This prediction is based less on Rich Rod’s coaching abilities than the emotion involved in Tiller’s eventual retirement. (Think Michigan’s improbable win over Florida in Lloyd Carr’s last bowl game)
Did everyone forget how ridiculous a 1-9 Notre Dame start last year sounded as well? Think Weis didn’t attempt to cater his offense to his players as well? And when on the topic of talent. What leads you to assume that Michigan automatically starts off with more talent than Notre Dame when Charlie Weis off a top 5 recruiting class still managed to win 1 game in his first 10 last season. Just because it hasn’t happened in the last 40 years doesn’t mean Michigan won’t pull a Notre Dame.
But the key will be the offensive line. When you lose the top returning OT player in Boren to your hated rivals. Things don’t look too bright in Ann Arbor. They might not finish 9th in the conference, but they sure wont’ be in the top 5 this season. Like when the bully falls over in a high school fight, all the other Big Ten teams are eagerly anticipating kicking the Wolverine while they’re down.