Why 1969? Because I'm a Michigan fan, and 1969 is very important to Michigan fans. Anyway, since 1969, the programs with the least variance in year to year results (as measured by winning %age) are
1. Michigan (var = 1.1%, mean = 77.6%) 2. Ohio State (var = 1.7%, mean = 76.6%) 3. Nebraska (var = 1.8%, mean = 80.0%)
(for the statistics novices, variance is a measure of how close individual points in a dataset are to the mean of the dataset - so a basketball player who scores 20 points each and every game has zero variance, while a streak shooter who scores single digits one night and 30+ the next has a very high variance)
Not surprising results; you've got three programs that have been consistent winners over that time frame, and consistency = low variance. When you go 39 years without a losing season, only one .500 season and only one perfect season, you're posting the most consistent results in football.
But what do you make of ... 4. Michigan State (var = 2.0%, mean = 51.3%) Consistently mediocre? Perennially average?
For the record, the highest variance belongs to K-State (var = 7.0%, mean = 46.7%). The lowest variance for a sub .500 team, call it "the most consistent loser in 1-A", belongs to Vanderbilt (var = 2.5%, mean = 30.9%). Keep in mind, re: Kansas State in particular, this is not variance against a trend line. Kansas State may not be "high variance" as much as it may be changing its profile, from a perennial cellar dwellar to a respectable program.
This could become a recurring feature here, stats that don't seem to be prompted by anything and don't seem to be headed anywhere. Today, returning to something I look at on occasion, the top 10 programs in college football history. That's not a subjective statement, just taking the top 10 in winning percentage, from Chris Stassen's webpage and James Howell's database.
In particular, a new and improved statistic, a revisited and revised version of something I've posted before. It's a quick look at how the top 10 teams in cfb history have done, head to head, against each other. It's new and improved in that I spent the 20 minutes researching games that were not included in James Howell's database (presumably because Howell does not consider the teams to have been "major college football programs" at the time the game was played).
As shown at the link above, the top 10 teams in cfb history, sorted by winning %age, are
1. Michigan 2. Notre Dame 3. Texas 4. Ohio State 5. Oklahoma 6. Alabama 7. Southern California 8. Nebraska 9. Tennessee 10. Penn State
Against each other, again sorted by winning %age:
1. Michigan: 96-70-8 (57.05%)
2. Texas: 81-61-6 (56.8%)
3. Notre Dame: 99-80-8 (55.1%)
4. Alabama: 67-62-10 (51.8%)
5. Southern California: 72-67-8 (51.7%)
6. Oklahoma: 91-111-10 (45.8%)
7. Penn State: 45-55-1 (45.0%)
8. Nebraska: 61-76-6 (44.8%)
9. Ohio State: 69-87-7 (44.5%)
10. Tennessee: 47-61-8 (44.0%)
And ordered by total games played:
1. Oklahoma: 214
2. Notre Dame: 187
3. Michigan: 174
4. Ohio State: 163
5. Texas: 148
6. Southern California: 147
7. Nebraska: 143
8. Alabama: 139
9. Tennessee: 116
10. Penn State: 101
The list includes the following games not included in James Howell's database:
3 wins by Michigan over Notre Dame in 1887 and 1888.
3 wins by Texas over Oklahoma in 1900 and 1901.
A tie between Alabama and Tennessee (date unknown)
I have not yet confirmed the 'completeness' of James Howell's figures for:
Alabama vs. Southern Cal: 5-2
Alabama vs. Texas: 0-7-1
Southern Cal vs. Texas: 4-1
Like I said, this isn't going anywhere. Yet. It will eventually.
Matt Pargoff of The Wolverine dug up an article from August (yes, August: I was busy in August) which documents the number of Feb 2007 football commitments that did not end up enrolling at their program of choice in August. I'm sure it was discussed. But I'd just like to point out once more Oregon State: from 2004-2007, they brought in 133 recruits. The official limit / year is 25. 25x4 = 100. They "oversigned" by 33! If I had been recruiting against Oregon State, I would have printed that article out and shown it to every kid, saying "if you sign with Oregon State, there's a 25% chance you won't make it to campus. They won't even have a spot for you."
By the way - tally - SEC 43 players who never signed. Big 10 ... 4. The *average* SEC team has as many such kids as the entire Big 10 conference. Keep that in mind next time you are looking at composite recruiting rankings.
And this may have been shown and linked before, too, but I'd like to share it again. From orangehammerfilms
At times shows, at times speaks to some of the things that made him special. 2nd clip - takes the massive hit, stays on his feet, keeps moving forward. Head-shaking. The catch against Indiana ... no other receiver I've ever seen stays on his feet after that hit at the 25.
It's nice having a coach who has an offense that's actually worth diagramming on the white board. So take a look (it's about 10 minutes long - thanks Victors' Cap for the link).
A few quick thoughts:
Some folks may think "Damn, he's letting all his secrets out!" Not a big deal. Not only can any coach worth his salt figure much of this out from game film, Rodriguez has been open about running camps and meeting with other coaches to show off his offense. Both Jim Tressell and Charlie Weis have made that pilgramage to Morgantown to learn from Rich Rodriguez (that's a fun fact to remember when the ND fans talk to us about their offensive genius).
I like some of the small tidbits in here. I like that he considers the QB a blocker. Why? Why not. I like that he is willing to discount a safety in the box because he just doesn't think that's going to stop his RB.
Keep in mind, he is talking primarily about the run part of the game here, so even when he's talking WR alignments and coverages, he's looking at how they affect the run game. One can only imagine what he has in mind for a WR corps that should be better than any he worked with at WVU.
But in all, the video only lays out what we already know; this offense more than anything stresses two things - the ability to read the defense and find the open area, and the speed to attack the weak spots before the defense can recover. Nothing revolutionary, but interesting.
Thoughts on Manningham, Arrington and Mallett will be coming soon.
That per Angelique Chengelis of the Detroit Free Press. Which ones? All of them. Every one of them. Shocking. Almost everyone assumed 2 or 3 assistants would be retained, with the most likely being longtime UM assistants WR coach Erik Campbell and RB coach Fred Jackson, and possibly QB coach Scot Loeffler. But it looks like Rich Rodriguez has cleaned out the cupboard.
The first question many message board types will ask is "what does this mean to our recruiting class?" To which the obvious answer is "Who cares?" Okay, we all care to some extent; it would be nice to have Sam McGuffie and Boubacar Cissoko and all come to Ann Arbor next year, but the composition of the coaching staff is much more important in the long run than a single recruiting class.
The bigger question to me is "why?" If this is because Rodriguez has some coaches in mind that he thinks are better than Jackson and Campbell and Loeffler, we have to give him that chance. I personally think that Campbell and Loeffler are among the best in the country (Jackson has never impressed me, as we never have multiple backs ready and our backups are always fumble prone), but Rodriguez is the guy getting millions to make these decisions and he's the guy coming off 32 wins in 3 years.
But, if Rodriguez is firing these guys just out of a desire to start fresh or because he wants to keep the guys from WVU he is familiar with, then that is cause for concern. Only time will tell, of course. And time may bring a couple back (don't be *too* surprised if after firing all 9, Rodriguez sits down with 1 or 2 and brings them back).
All but official now, as Rodriguez has met with his team and told them he is coming, and has apparently started recruiting for Michigan already.
No comment yet - presser later today - but this one is being widely reported and seems more than just credible.
There have been bumps in this road. Les Miles seemed like a no-brainer choice, and somehow it did not happen. And the irony is that the Pitt win over West Virginia complicated our pursuit of Les Miles but made it easier to get Rich Rodriguez. But it's hard to be upset with the way this turned out.
Casting a glance back to my original short list from before Carr announced, we made a play for #3 (Les Miles) and it didn't work, we made a play for #2 (Greg Schiano) and he turned us down and we went after #4 (Rich Rodriguez) and we got him.
That's not to say that all concerns over the search were unfounded; sometimes mistakes can be salvaged, and it's possible that the intervention of Mary Sue Coleman and the rumored involvement of a professional search team gave Martin the assistance he didn't think he needed. Either way, it doesn't matter; we got ourselves a great coach and hopefully we won't be in a position to do this again for a long time.
This is the most important decision you will make in your tenure as the athletic director at Michigan. The stadium construction, the basketball search, even balancing the budget ... none of those compare to the head football coaching search.
And now, with the job open 2 weeks, what are we hearing? Brady Hoke. Mike DeBord. Ron English. An interim coach for a year and try again in 2008.
None of those decisions is acceptable. They are not just uninspiring, they are unacceptable. Any one of them would be seen as an abject failure on the part of the athletic department and the athletic director. Michigan is one of the top programs in the country and the job opening here is a dream opportunity for many, to take over a national powerhouse at a prosperous time, not in the middle of a decline. The right hire could launch Michigan into a truly fantastic era for this program.
And yet we hear that we may be considering Ron English, Mike DeBord and Brady Hoke.
Whatever your fears are with respect to Les Miles, they cannot outweigh the simple reality, the proven reality, that Mike DeBord and Brady Hoke are not good enough to warrant handing over the Michigan program to one of them.
There is no perfect candidate. Every candidate presents some danger, some fear. The fear that Schiano was a flash in the pan. The fear that Tedford can't recruit. The fear that Miles will embarrass the program. The fear that Stoops looks the other way on NCAA compliance. Ditto Tressell. Ditto Carroll. Meyer is a negative recruiter.
There is fear with every coach. There are negatives on every coach, and an element of risk. But with some candidates, there is a reward behind that risk. Les Miles is such a case. He has never been investigated by the NCAA. He has never said anything that would offend the fans or the population. He has never done anything to embarrass his university. Has he done something to offend Lloyd Carr? Assuredly yes, but as much as Carr has contributed to the program, his word cannot outweigh the collective thoughts of dozens of dyed in the wool Michigan faithful, ex players, ex coaches and alumni, who know and respect Les Miles and want to see him in Ann Arbor.
You have a committee of advisors. You have dozens of respected Michigan football alumni who will weigh in. When they say Les Miles is good and Les Miles can be trusted with this program, respect the opportunity that he represents, not the fear.
And faced with the choice of Hoke, DeBord, English and interim or Les Miles, the decision cannot be hard.
With the abrupt and unexpected announcement that Les Miles has extended his contract with LSU, an announcement made at a press conference in which he was widely expected to announce he was leaving LSU for Michigan, the obvious question was "What went wrong."
I went around insisting that it had played out exactly as I had expected (see next blog entry down), except that Miles hadn't waited out LSU's bluff, that when Miles held all the cards and could have told LSU he would negotiate after the season, he buckled in, bought their bluff and announced he had agreed to the extension.
Now word is filtering out that there is a much bigger issue at work here, one that comes as a huge surprise to many of us who thought we were tuned into this search. Bill Martin is just not sold on Les Miles. How he could not be sold, I have no idea. I said months ago, before this job was even open, that Martin had to make the call on Miles' character before anything else, and not even put Miles on the list if he didn't feel comfortable with it. But on the field, there is no question on Miles. He wins consistently. He is in the national title game. There are no questions on Les Miles the football coach.
But Bill Martin isn't sold.
And Les Miles, with a team headed to the title game, and with a 10 year, $35M contract extension from LSU on the table in front of him, has no interest in taking chances on all of that just so that he can be part of a search headed by a guy who may not choose him in the end.
If Bill Martin had called Les Miles today and said "Les, 5 years, $16M," I am confident that Les Miles would have sheepishly walked to a podium next week, wiped the egg from his face and announced he was coming to Michigan. But Martin, who has had since September at the very least to conduct the background on this search, and who can lean on the experiences of literally dozens of people who have coached with or played with Les Miles, still wasn't sure.
And so Michigan's best chance at landing a true home run head coaching candidate has disappeared.
There is no way to spin this except as a tremendous screwup by Bill Martin. This is not the time to start doing background checks. This is the time to be making offers.
It May Be A Reasoned Guess, But Let's Not Pretend It's Educated:
The coaching search is only, officially, 2 days old but Les Miles's name surfaced long before Carr announced him retirement and it's seemed like a foregone conclusion for some time. You will hear the steady drumbeat of Miles from now until this thing is settled.
If LSU loses (to Arkansas or in the SEC Championshp Game) the whole matter is settled. Skip the rest of this post because Miles is our man and no one will care if he leaves LSU before their Fiesta Bowl appearance against Kansas or whomever. But if they keep winning ...
You will hear statements from the LSU side that they are confident Miles is staying and that Miles would never give up a title shot to take another job. They will say, hint or imply that Miles will not be allowed to coach LSU in any potential title game if he is talking to Michigan.
LSU will make it difficult on Miles by putting an offer on the table before the title game that will force him to tip his hand. They will make it clear that if he does not sign the extension they will take that as a sign that he is leaving for Michigan.
From the Michigan side, you will start hearing rumors of other names. The first to surface was Kirk Ferentz. Others will rise. Brian Kelly will be mentioned. Mike Trgovac (he of the January 2006 rumors) may make a guest appearance.
Many fans will panic and put A (LSU bluster) and B (new names surfacing) together and get C (Michigan has given up on Miles and is looking at other options).
In reality, LSU is bluffing and Michigan is being cautious. Michigan needs names in case Miles turns us down, but Michigan can wait. And LSU knows they only hold one trump card in this game (the ability to deny Miles the title game). They also know that by playing that card they hurt themselves by disrupting a potential national title run. Their goal is make Miles panic and accept a contract extension.
Miles could, should and will tell them no. He should tell them that winning a title for LSU is the only thing he is focusing on, and that while that means he is not talking to Michigan and will not do so until after the season is over, it also means that he is not going to sit down and renegotiate a contract with LSU. His job from now until January 7th is winning LSU a title.
LSU will be left with two choices: wait it out or effectively fire Les Miles on the eve of the title game because he refused to sign an extension. The latter would be unprecedented.
And a third exists: LSU realizes the inevitability of the situation and makes the best of it, reaching an agreement that is acceptable for LSU, for Michigan and for Les Miles. After discussions among the two ADs, they jointly announce that Les Miles will take over for Michigan after he finishes the season at LSU, and that in the interim he will only be involved in the preparation for the bowl game (not the recruiting effort - Bo Pelini is allowed to man those duties and becomes the frontrunner for the HC job at LSU).
I put my money on the first. Michigan can wait. Les Miles can wait. And as long as they do, LSU has no choice but to wait. Les Miles takes over at Michigan on January 10th, 2008, give or take a day.
Bo Schembechler, Tirrel Burton, Lloyd Carr, Tim Davis, Jerry Hanlon, Bill McCartney, Jerry Meter, Les Miles, Gary Moeller, Paul Schudel, Bob Thornbladh, Ron Vanderlinden, Milan Vooletich.
If Les Miles eventually gets this job, that means that in 1980 (and again from 1988 [see image] to 1989 <- thanks Rich), there were 4 current/future Michigan head football coaches prowling the sidelines together in Ann Arbor. Can anyone think of another example of this in modern football history, four head coaches at one program on staff together at the same time?
There were 5 future Division 1-A head coaches on Bo's staff that year (McCartney, Vanderlinden, Moeller, Carr and Miles). Two of them have won national titles (McCartney @ Colorado in 1990 and Carr @ Michigan in 1997) and one is an odds-on favorite to play for one this year (Miles @ LSU).
Lloyd Carr did not get to ride off into the sunset on a glorious high the way so many wanted him to. He rode off in a busted jalopy, the engine limping, the driver with a damaged arm unable to shift out of first gear. He didn't get carried off the field like Earl Bruce; instead, he shook some hands, waited for the crowd to clear and walked out.
But if he didn't get one final triumph, if he didn't get a moment of redemption it's okay, because Lloyd Carr was not a coach in need of redemption. How quickly we forget what all we've seen and what all he's done. One year ago we were all abuzz over a #1 vs. #2 showdown that had been settled by 3 points and which had determined a spot in the national title game. It was the kind of game that made Bo Schembechler a legend, the losses included. Lloyd Carr had answered his ardent detractors, and if they did not scale back their claims it was only because they were not listening.
In 13 years at Michigan, Lloyd Carr maintained the stature of the Michigan program, delivering his fair share of wins and maybe more than his share of big wins. He brought us a national title, our first since 1948, disappointing critics across the country who could no longer taunt Michigan over our long national title drought. And he did it without a single losing season, without ever missing a bowl game, without ever finishing in the bottom half of the Big 10 and without compromising class and integrity.
If the last 7 years of his tenure did not live up to the promise of his first 7 it's a disappointment, but it is not his legacy. A coach's legacy is his body of work, not just his departing note. His legacy is 121-40, not 63-24. His legacy is 6-7 vs OSU and 5 bowl wins, not 0-4 and 0-3. His legacy is a national title and Braylon Edwards and Charles Woodson and Tom Brady, not 14-3 with 91 yards of offense.
Carr may have been boring. If ESPN ever makes a movie about Braylon Edwards, they'll replace Lloyd Carr with a "composite character" based more on Bo Schembechler because Carr doesn't fill out a screen (or a column or a 60 second TV segment) as well as Bo did. He gave us no fascinating personality to write about so we made one up. Not content to let Michigan Football be the story, the way Lloyd Carr always wanted it to be, we created and peddled a fictitious and unflattering image of Lloyd Carr that made for better material.
And not content to complain about bad offensive line play, conservative game plans and poor player development, a disgraceful element of the college football world chose to extend their complaints to the man himself. They blurred the lines between the coach and the coaching, as if it would be impossible for a good man, a smart man and a man loyal to the Michigan football program to lose 5 games in one year. We have message board posters, bloggers and newspaper columnists who warned that Carr was a devious, selfish man, the kid of man who would retire in August and force Bill Martin to hire Jim Herrmann. We heard he would time his retirement announcement to eliminate Les Miles as a candidate. We heard the ridiculous assertion that Carr shipped out assistants whose competence threatened the ascendency of his handpicked successor.
Instead, we got Lloyd Carr at his press conference demonstrating the class he has always demonstrated, and flashing the wry humor that was always there for those who choose to listen. He extended an olive branch to Les Miles. He offered his support to his successor, but no pressure. He didn't complain and he didn't fight. He simply gave his reasons and stepped away.
Lloyd Carr was not forced out. Lloyd Carr did not retire because we lost to Ohio State. Bill Martin did not approach Lloyd Carr and suggest he move on. Lloyd Carr stepped away because he longer wanted to do this, no matter what ESPN's uninformed talking heads may suggest. And with no real evidence to back up their assertion, ESPN pushed that angle on its own, rolling video clips of the losses to Appalachian State and Ohio State on screen as Carr discussed retirement, as if to drive home the fabricated angle that those losses cost Carr his job.
Don't expect apologies. Don't expect any of the message board character assassins to publicly say "Whoa, I was wrong about Lloyd. He didn't do any of those awful things I said he would do." Don't expect ESPN talking heads to comment on the network's badly produced coverage of the rumors and the final event. Don't expect anyone to step back and say they weren't fair to Lloyd Carr. And it won't matter, because Lloyd Carr is also not a coach in need of an apology. The people who really care about the Michigan football program understand what he has done and how he has done it, and that is what matters. He was given an oportunity to do what he loved to do, and for 13 years he did it well and was well rewarded by the people and in the ways that matter most. There is no apology necessary and no redemption required. Just a thank you.
The defense went unchallenged by an opponent playing the ultimate game of Lloydball. Tressell knew that the way we were playing 14-3 was safe, and he wasn't risking anything.
There is *nothing* that a single player or a playcaller can do when the offensive line is as bad as it was today. We laugh at Charlie Weis for thinking he can scheme his way to victory while ignoring the fundamentals, then we turn around and think it's our offensive scheme that causes a loss like this.
The WRs had their worst game of the year. Five drops, at least, none more critical than the 2 by Manningham after the Englemon pick late in the 1st half.
People suggesting that the entire offensive coaching staff should go are ... well, let's not lose the point by being too polite ... they are stupid. See point #3. "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater." Simply changing *everything* instead of figuring out what needs to be changed is a good way to make sure you're back in the same position again soon.
Henne was just not Henne. He was playing great football from the time he came back from the knee until the pick at Wisconsin. He was terrible today, and something was clearly wrong.
Columns based on the idea that the columnist can get inside the heads of Bill Martin and Lloyd Carr and that they know what those two men are not worth reading. There is a difference between an opinion and baseless speculation, and the latter is worthless. And the Michigan fan base loves to worry; all someone has to do is write a plausible sound bit of insane speculation that ends with "head coach Mike DeBord" and a thousand UM fans will stare at it and say "Oh my god, he's right!"
That Mike Hart is the greatest Michigan running back of the last 25 years, and despite no national titles, no OSU wins, no singularly spectacular game winning plays and no Heisman, belongs right up there with Anthony Carter, Charles Woodson and Desmond Howard as a Michigan legend. No player has ever shown the combination of fight, desire, power and prowess that Hart has shown.
That only injury has prevented Chad Henne from going down as the greatest Michigan quarterback in the dropback era.
That the Lloyd Carr era has been good for Michigan. Extending the streak of winning seasons and bowl appearances while putting a stake through the "hasn't won a title since ..." has done more for Michigan than 7 straight wins over OSU ever could.
That Brandent Englemon's is the great overlooked story of the 2007 Wolverines. From 2* recruit brought in (some thought) as a locker room kid and not as a player, to the anchor of an improving secondary, it's the kind of story that would get told and retold if not for Hart, the injuries and Appalachian State.
That Michigan will beat Ohio State because 0-4 for Hart and 0-4 for Henne is no way to go out. That not a single good thing has happened since Bo Schembechler passed away, and one year later is a perfect time for the world to turn back around.
That I'd rather lose with class than win with Tressell.
That I don't care if I have nothing to back up the obvious insult there. I don't need justification - he is Buckeye. I am Wolverine.
That I'd rather go 10-3 with Mike Hart than 12-1 without him.
That Chad Henne has at least one Tom Brady vs. Alabama, Drew Henson vs. Auburn type game left in his Michigan career.
That there comes a time when you are ready to trade your current frustrations for a whole new catalog of frustrations, and that honeymoon period people talk about is that window when you even the new guy's idiosyncracies are a breath of fresh air. After a couple of years, those idiosyncracies aren't charming anymore, they're irritating, and you ask yourself why he's making the same mistakes 3 years in. And you start remembering fondly the predecessor who didn't make *those* mistakes.
That my next blog entry will be a celebration, not a dirge.
For many of us in Big 10 country, the word "sparty" has entered the college football lexicon in the last 10 years as a useful word to describe that unique phenomenon that seems to identify and capture the essence of the Michigan State football experience. It's a wonderfully versatile word that can be used as a noun, an adjective or a verb.
Noun: When someone goes out of their way to talk about the Michigan - Michigan State rivalry as a thing to be disrespected and Michigan as a program to be disrespected, but then turns around and complains that they deserve to be treated better by Michigan, that is just who Sparty is.
Adjective: When the Michigan State teams is unproven and unimpressive, when it's been years since they achieved anything of their own yet their fans find the time to taunt rivals in the wake of a rival's loss, that is very, very sparty.
Verb: When Michigan State plays the best football they are capable of and stakes out a 27-10 lead midway through the 4th quarter of the game, yet somehow manages to lose it, Sparty on!
And we've all come to expect it. "That's just Sparty being Sparty."
When Bobby Williams went out of his way to treat the rivalry with disdain, that was very sparty. And as much as I enjoyed John L. Smith's tenure and found him endlessly entertaining, some of his antics (like instructing his players on how to guard midfield in case of a loss) were very sparty. So when John L. Smith was let go and Mark Dantonio was brought in, the fervent hope in East Lansing must have been that this would be different. Dantonio was all business. Nothing sparty about him.
In the short time he's been at MSU, Mark Dantonio has covered himself in sparty. When he took a relatively harmless shot at Michigan after being informed that we had lost to Appalachian State, that was very, very sparty. And when he installed a countdown clock that marked the minutes and seconds until kickoff, that was very, very sparty, too, almost sending a message to the team that 7-5 with an upset victory over Michigan is their definition of success.
[BTW ... coach Dantonio: the only clock that matters is the one on the scoreboard. You don't celebrate the beginning of the game; you celebrate at the end. And by "at the end" I mean 0:00, not a 10 point lead with 8 minutes to go. You'd think players on a team which has Spartied on as much as Michigan State would know better than to congratulate each other on their impending victory, but apparently Dantonio spent so much time teaching them to get ready for the Michigan game that he forgot to teach them how to win the game.]
If that's all Dantonio did, it would be a matter for MSU fans, that they could shake their heads and say "Man, I really thought we had escaped all that" before hoping that they could rebound with a win over Purdue or PSU. But Dantonio instead chose to take it to another level, by (among other things) lecturing Michigan about sportsmanship and class and then mocking Mike Hart in his comments to the press today.
Really, coach Dantonio, mocking Mike Hart's stature? Mocking the physical stature of a back who has run for 650 yards against your team in 4 years? A man who ran for >100 yards on a bad ankle in one half of action? You're going to mock him? I don't know how big Mark Dantonio is or how tall he stands, but on the field and on the scoreboard, Mike Hart is a bigger man than Mark Dantonio has ever been.
And even that wasn't it. Reacting to Michigan's moment of silence after the game (a direct reaction to Dantonio's earlier remarks) and to Mike Hart's comments about MSU being our little brother, Dantonio cautioned Michigan that "pride comes before the fall." Apparently Dantonio needs a dictionary. Taunting your opponent after a win is not prideful. It may be arrogant and it may be obnoxious, but it is not prideful. Likening your opponent to your kid brother may be condescending, but it's not prideful.
You know what is prideful? A grown man, at a press conference 2 days later puffing himself up as the model of sportsmanship (this flag planting crew, headed by a coach who mocks opposing players is going to lecture people on class?), then taking out the damage to his ego on his opponents, warning them about the consequences they will surely pay down the road. That is prideful. Don't miss that for one second; Dantonio's pride was hurt by the loss and by the fact that his comments were mocked. His pride was hurt, and that's what prompted his remarks. "I’m going to be a coach here for a long time. It’s not over. It’s just starting. I’m very proud of our football team and I’m very proud of the way our football team handled themselves after the game as well.”
Pride comes before the fall? On Saturday night, 5 days after Dantonio's display of pride, hours after Michigan State has fallen to Purdue and fallen to 5-6, I hope Mark Dantonio revisits his advice to Michigan that pride comes before the fall.
I'm heading back to Michigan for the Minnesota game and I won't be mobile blogging via iPhone from the sideline or anything, so this is the first and last word on Illinois week that you'll hear from me.
That was good. Simply put, that was good. It was a road win against a seemingly respectable team, without Mike Hart and with 2/3rds of Chad Henne. I don't know how to spin that as anything other than impressive. Chad Henne was fantastic. The WR corps was excellent (what a catch! by Arrington, and a heck of an effort by Manningham on his TD catch). Carlos Brown was better than most expected. The defense always felt shaky, but held up exceptionally well, giving Mendenhall and Williams none of the big plays that we all feared could be our undoing.
Were there points to pick at, real and perceived? Sure. The pass blocking was a disaster. The linebacking corps seemed to be handled far too easily. And the play selection for Ryan Mallett does not put him in position to succeed as a passer. But more on that later.
As Michigan gets its act together, as it has done over the course of the 6 game winning streak, there's a bit of a divide in the fan base. Some are relieved that our long national nightmare is over, and others can't get over how this talented a team lost to Appalachian State and got creamed by Oregon. I can understand the frustration that lingers from those two abject failures, but let's not allow that frustration to infect topics it has no relevance to.
The Purdue and Illinois games were well called, generally well executed games from Michigan, impressive wins that show that Michigan may finally be playing up to potential. Neither can these wins "redeem" Michigan's coaching staff after the failures of Appalachain State and Oregon nor can those two losses blemish these two impressive wins. There is no need to nitpick these victories searching for negatives to justify the lingering frustration of 0-2.
What have we seen the last two weeks?
Chad Henne is on his game and he is every bit as good as he should be. Since Henne has returned to the lineup against NW, over 60% of all the meaningful drives* he's led have resulted in points (22/36), with almost half of the drives ending in touchdowns (17/36). That is extraordinarily efficient. (*) does not include half and game ending kneel downs and such drives.
Carlos Brown may be a competent backup to Mike Hart. We may no longer be looking at the 5.5 yards/carry when Hart is in, 3 yards/carry when Hart is out offense that has so often been the case against the better teams we've played. It is only one game, but it was more than we've seen before, and against a pretty good run defense, too.
Our wide receiving corps is excellent, and both of our starters are versatile WRs who can run routes all over the field and succeed.
Our offensive coordinator is absolutely willing to deploy the wide receivers all over the field, to stretch defenses or to attack them down the middle and to try to get points out of the passing game. He is willing to go shotgun 3-wide if the situation calls for it. As long as Henne is in the game.
Our D-line is becoming dominant against the pass and adequate against the run.
Our secondary is vastly improved. The corners are playing extremely well and all three safeties in the main rotation (Englemon, Adams and Harrison) are making plays.
On the other hand:
The playbook with Ryan Mallett is extremely limited, even without Hart and trailing early in the game. The first down passes that Chad Henne is allowed to throw are whittled down to a few short waggles to Carson Butler when Mallett is in. Simply dropping back in a pass look and throwing 10 yards downfield on 1st down is not in the playbook (though, to be fair, the 4 Ryan Mallett possessions against Illinois included 3 good drives into Illinois territory, 2 of which ended on turnovers, not bad or conservative playcalling).
The line is struggling mightily at times, both in recognizing / picking up blitzes and, against Illinois, at handling a simple bull rush.
Ryan Mallett cannot take a snap from Justin Boren.
No big plays in the kicking game (at least none that we caused ... 2 big penalties and a dropped punt by Illinois turned the special teams in our favor).
On Balance
I look at that list, and it is very much in the positive to me. I'm encouraged. I'm not predicting 10-2; I'm not that encouraged. But I feel much better about our shot at the Big 10 title now than I did two weeks ago. The offense is clicking the way it should, and that can cover any bumps along the way the defense or special teams may encounter.
Assuming, as many are, that Michigan will be looking for a new head coach this off-season, a quick rundown on some of the possibilities. One quick note before I start ... I do not consider the possibility that a candidate will leave for an NFL head coaching job to be a negative. If we hire a coach so good that he has NFL offers after 4 years, that's great.
Les Miles
Pros: He wins. When he took over Oklahoma State, the Cowboys had been to 1 bowl in the post-Barry Sanders era. He led them to 3 straight. He moved on to LSU where he has won over 85% of his games through 2.5 seasons, including two straight seasons that match the best season Michigan has produced since 1997 (11-2). They are currently #1 and playing like it, the year after losing their starting QB / #1 pick in the draft Jamarcus Russell (although Matt Flynn is a very experienced replacement). He is also, to some people, the perfect blend between a true "Michigan Man" and an outsider; a Bo Schembechler assistant who is still passionate about Michigan but who is not entirely a product of one philosophy.
Cons: He's very popular with the rumor mill. Are the rumors being planted by people who don't want him at Michigan or are they honest assessments of a coach who doesn't have the character that Michigan is looking for? Rumors of impropriety are vague whispers, but tales of personal dislike of Les Miles seems a bit more common.
Outlook: I don't think we'll ever hear any official comment, but I expect Bill Martin to speak to people who have worked with Les Miles over the years (including Lloyd Carr, Gary Moeller, Cam Cameron and others). If they vouch for Miles, Miles will be on the short list. If they caution Martin, Miles's candidacy will be dropped.
Kirk Ferentz
Pros: He rebuilt the Iowa program in short order and had them playing like the typical, under-talented and over-achieving team that is often considered evidence of good coaching. He has a strong Michigan tie, having been hired at Iowa by current UM president Mary Sue Coleman. His philosophy at Iowa seems to be very much in line with Carr's at Michigan.
Cons: His philosophy at Iowa seems to be very much in line with Carr's at Michigan, and at a time when the fans are clamoring for "something different", Bill Martin may feel the same way. But more importantly, Iowa's star has declined of late and taken Ferentz with it. The results have been disappointing, the offense looks anemic at times and the in-game coaching strategy seems to often mirror Carr at his worst. There are also some concerns about the PR of going after another Big 10 coach.
Outlook: It will be interesting to see how far he goes. If he is on the short list, you can infer that Mary Sue Coleman is a part of this process. If not, it would appear that Martin is going his own way. Maybe too simplistic an outlook, but also maybe close to accurate. I doubt the fact that he is at another Big 10 school will deter Michigan. Michigan and Iowa both must realize that Iowa to Michigan is a step up. The possible PR hit of offering Ferentz and having him decline is minimal if Michigan recovers with a good coach.
Jeff Tedford
Pros: He's one of the best coaches in the country; it's just that simple. He is getting consistently good and often elite results at a program that does not and will not ever have the recruiting or the support of the schools he is bettering. His offenses are excellent and his defenses play at least to their talent level. No one's ever had anything negative to say about Cal's ethics.
Cons: There's no indication he would be interested. Michigan would be putting a lot of faith in the power of 100 years of excellence to lure a coach away from a program that is (short-term) at least on equal footing.
Outlook: Uphill battle, but even if there's little to no chance he would be interested, Michigan would be crazy to not at least ask.
Greg Schiano
Pros: He has done a remarkable job of resurrecting a Rutgers program that died shortly after registering its first win in 1869. Everyone who waches them play seems to agree that Rutgers is a well coached team. Schiano has shown ability with both recruiting and Xs and Os. His recruiting ties to both NJ and Florida would be a boon for a program in a state that doesn't produce the most 1-A talent.
Cons: None, really. He doesn't have the track record of near BCS title caliber teams that Tedford and Miles do, but that's not really a con, more the lack of a positive.
Outlook: He has to be on the short list. He will leave Rutgers eventually (Rutgers simply does not have the money or fan support to sustain Schiano's improvements), and he has a great chance to be the next Joe Paterno or Bo Schembechler somewhere.
Brian Kelly
Pros: Has had significant success at lower tier schools, compiling an excellent record at D-II Grand Valley State before rebuilding a sinking Central Michigan program. Is off to a good start at Cincinnati. Generally regarded as a good game day coach.
Cons: He has a thin 1-A resume, with only 3 full years. He has no experience (not even as an assistant) at a top tier 1-A program.
Outlook: It would be a mistake to compare him to Urban Meyer, whose success at Bowling Green and Utah was not just impressive but remarkable. Still, his resume is intriguing. I expect him to be on the "long list", not the short list. He is, to some extent, the football equivalent of the Beilein hire that Martin made for basketball, but the Michigan football program is much higher profile than the basketball program and can chase proven coaches first.
Rich Rodriguez
Pros: He has achieved with regularity at West Virginia what used to only be a once in a 5 years achievement. His offenses are fundamentally sound but also creative and make use of all the talent they have at their disposal. He has proven that he can recruit effectively. Perhaps very importantly to the UM fan base, his teams are simply fun to watch.
Cons: He already flirted with and turned down a lot of money from one elite program (Alabama) last season, making his subsequent statements that he won't be leaving West Virginia believable.
Outlook: As with Tedford, he may be unwilling to leave and it may be a worthless stab, but Martin has to make at least a phone call to Rodriguez and find out.
Jim Harbaugh
Pros: Harbaugh is another great compromise candidate, as a "Michigan Man" with a history outside the program whose approach is not mired in the rut that Michigan is perceived to be in. He is (was?) a fan favorite. He has a fire that would excite Michigan fans bored by Carr, even in times of success. He has a reputation for being a good Xs and Os mind, especially on offense. He had remarkable success at non-scholarship 1-AA San Diego and the results so far at Stanford are encouraging. One speculates that, with his personality and long NFL career to point to, he could be an excellent recruiter.
Cons: He is unproven at the 1-A level. He is in his first year at Stanford. He has burned a lot of bridges at Michigan with his recent comments, and that could negate his "Michigan Man" lineage. There are also Les Miles-ish rumors about Harbaugh's personal life, which coupled with his alcohol related ticketing a few years ago gives some people caution. There may also be some hesitation on Martin's part ot hire a football coach prone to making as much news for comments as Harbaugh does.
Outlook: I would be a little surprised if Harbaugh's name came up, but not shocked. It would simply mean that Martin is not thinking the way Michigan historically (supposedly) thinks.
Jon Gruden
Pros: He was at one time considered one of the best football coaches anywhere, at any level. He had tremendous success both with Oakland and early on with Tampa Bay. There is an assumption that a relatively young, Super Bowl winning coach with drive and his work ethic would be a lights out recruiter in the college game. He is a good "systemless" coach who will try to win with whatever strategy will suit his talent best. He has made some comments that indicate he may be interested in a move to the college game at some point.
Cons: His star is seriously in decline in Tampa Bay, though how much of that is his fault and how much is a lack of talent or lack of coordination with management is hard to judge. There is some concern that what makes him a good NFL coach will not translate, that his tough as nails approach will not work as well with teenage kids and that his tireless hard work can only carry him so far when the players are limited by NCAA practice regulations.
Outlook: I don't think Gruden would be interested and I don't think he is a slam dunk candidate like Jeff Tedford, for whom you prostrate yourself on the off chance that he is interested. But he would certainly be worth a call. My personal opinion - he is a damn good coach, and I don't know what's gone wrong in Tampa.
Mike Trgovac
Pros: He's a Michigan Man. His NFL ties could help him assemble an excellent staff. He has had some good success as a DC in Carolina.
Cons: He has no head coaching experience, his defenses in Carolina were built in support of a head coach with a defensive pedigree (leading some to question how much was Trgovac's work) and he is not one of those hot NFL coordinators who has a reputation for genius and who is on the fast track to head coaching gigs. He is, to be honest, a candidate that would get zero consideration if he were not an ex-UM assistant.
Outlook: This is the kind of candidate Michigan should look at as a fallback and nothing more. He would be our Charlie Weis.
Not considered
Mike DeBord: Bill Martin is not crazy and will not hire an unpopular assistant with a poor track record as a head coach elsewhere. The contrast between DeBord and Kelly at CMU alone should settle the issue.
Ron English: English's resume is way too thin for him to be considered for the UM head coaching position.
Tony Dungy / Bill Cowher / Andy Reid: I see no reason to think there names will ever come up, even though in my 2 am pipe dreams Tony Dungy declares he's done everything he can do in the NFL and calls Martin acquiring about the Michigan job.
Hot Coach of the Moment: Michigan can find an established, proven coach. There is no need to try to find a diamond in the rough by mining lower tier schools for one year wonders who show promise.
My List, In Order
1. Jeff Tedford
2. Greg Schiano
3. Les Miles (if the character references are good)
4. Rich Rodriguez
5. Jon Gruden
If I were to strike out on that list, not at all an unlikely scenario given that 3 of the names are names I assume beforehand would not be interested (Tedford and Gruden), I would go back to the drawing board and draw up the second list, considering Kelly, Harbaugh (if he has a strong 2007), Kirk Ferentz, Steve Sarkisian and others.
1. Claim that the playcalling in 2007 has been good. It hasn't.
2. Indict the coaching staff in a way that ignores the fact that we are coming off an 11-2 season in which we were a score away from the national title game. Whatever inherent flaws there are in the coaching staff, they obviously do not make losing inevitable.
3. Back down on my assertion that Mike DeBord, while not a particularly good offensive coordinator, is generally competent and an improvement over our previous offensive coordinator.
4. Trip over myself trying to *the guy* who comes up with the perfect analogy to describe how much DeBord sucks or to generate the singular, telling stat to crystallize the failures of Lloyd Carr.
5. I will not exaggerate our talent or our failings in an effort to drive home how disappointing the season has been so far.
To put it simply, we all know what the expectations for the year were, we all know how the team has played and despite the best efforts of the Big Ten Network, we have all seen enough games to know what has caused much of the failure and what has caused the successes. Maybe the message boards crave another great blog entry with a wonderful analogy they can share with their friends and laugh at, another "Mike DeBord is like ..." catchphrase or "Michigan's offense is like ..." silly comparison. But as they stack up (and they are stacking up) the analogies and comparisons and catchphrases become not only harsher, but increasingly lacking in insight, increasingly inaccurate and increasingly popular solely for their humor and pejorative value.
I Will
Look at why we've played the way we have, and hazard some guess as to what to expect the rest of the year.
From what I've seen, we've basically been plagued by four failures so far this year, four things that are primarily to blame for the bad start. Some coaching related, some player related, and here's my take.
1. Excessive use of the non-scoring offense (as seen against PSU and NW):
I was not the guy who coined the phrase "non-scoring offense" or proselytized belief in its existence. But having heard the term enough times, I was the skeptic who pulled the stats, did the analysis and said "you were right, I was wrong, there is a non-scoring offense." And past analysis showed that in the first 3 seasons of DeBord as OC, the non-scoring offense may have led to frustration, it may have led to boring games, it turned should-be-blowouts into pedestrian victories and it robbed us of the eye-popping numbers we had expected to see (in 1999 for example). But it rarely led to losses. DeBord may have been maddening but still careful in his use of the non-scoring offense.
2006 continued the same, a season in which we went 11-2 and the offense only failed us in one of the two losses. The key to the non-scoring offense not costing us games is how it was used. It was used when we were comfortably ahead and against significantly inferior opponents. However, this year the strategy has changed. This year, it's being used any time Ryan Mallett is in the game. And that is killing us.
There was no better example of this than against NW. Against NW, Ryan Mallett had practically the whole first half and generated 0 points. We had one missed FG and no other drives into scoring range. Henne, given just over a half, generated 28 points. The difference was the willingness to throw repeatedly on 1st down with Henne in the game, to force the NW defense to back men out of the box and cover Manningham and Arrington (and to punish them when they didn't). With Mallett, we continued to run right into that run focused front. With Henne, we took the easy throws they were giving us.
In fact, so far this season we are effectively averaging about 32 PPG with Chad Henne at QB (67 points in just over 2 games of action) and about 18 PPG with Mallett at QB (52 points in just under 3 games of action). Over half of Chad Henne's drives have ended with TDs or FG attempts. Under 1/3rd of Ryan Mallett's have. It's not because Mallett has played badly. We have not scored with Mallett because we have used the non-scoring offense every time he has gotten under center.
With a runningback who will consistently gain good yardage but who will not break the big run, you need to capitalize on the defensive focus of the run game. You need to take the short pass when they back off to play safe in the secondary. You need to go down the middle when the safety creeps up to attack the LOS. Otherwise you are asking too much of Mike Hart and asking too much of the freshman QB forced into too many 3rd and long situations.
When DeBord is in scoring mode, he is very good at using play action pass or run looks to generate big gains. No Carr offense has featured more post routes, seam routes and waggles than a DeBord offense, all plays that work for us because we force the defense to defend the run first. But with Mallett in, when we force the defense into 8 in the box (or some functional equivalent), we simply run again and trust Hart to make them miss. And when it doesn't work, we focus on blocking better.
So how does this play out? Hopefully, with Henne back in, it becomes an irrelevantly maddening trait and not a cause for concern. And amazingly enough, it is *again* not the reason we've lost. The two games where this has been the biggest culprit were two wins, two maddeningly close wins against inferior opponents, but two wins.
2. Poor defensive schemes (as seen against Appalachian State and Oregon):
Yes, the spread option with a mobile QB can be an equalizer, but at worst the defense should be able to play a game of "pick your poison". You should be able to set up a defense where either you press the WRs and hope coverage holds long that pressure gets to the QB, or to hang back in coverage with everyone in zone, contain the QB, keep him in the pocket and not give the QB any open options despite the time to throw. Heck, against Appalachian State we should have such an edge that we can take everything away, but even if you say our defense is inexperienced and untested, at least the pick your poison approach should work.
Somehow, we wound up in a defense which allowed everything. We played soft on the WRs and gave up easy, short completions, but we also gave up the big plays. We neither spied the QB nor contained him. We didn't get pressure on the QB, but we didn't blanket the WRs in zone either. We played a defense that was designed around all the weakest parts of a contain defense and the weakest parts of an attacking defense ... all the aggression of the contain and all the safety of the attack.
Why did it improve? Two things happened, lineup changes and a change in the offenses we faced.
Lineup changes: Brandent Englemon and Donovan Warren are simply better than Steve Brown and Johnny Sears. That has helped tremendously, particularly with respect to the big plays. But the bigger change has been the emergence of Brandon Graham. He allowed us to get consistent pressure from the front 4, without forcing us into blitzes, and any defensive coordinator looks better when he can count on getting pressure from the front 4.
Conventional Offenses: English is fine against a conventional attack. He knows how to get players where the ball will be if he knows where the ball will be.
How does this play out? In all likelihood, with continued great success against conventional attacks but hold your breath against Illinois. We'll see if English has learned and if Graham makes that much of a difference.
3. Poor execution (as seen against App State, Oregon, NW):
Unlike the first two, the defensive failures against NW were frequently the result of well defended plays and missed tackles. A 65 yard pass pickup when 3 UM defenders *almost* knock a NW receiver down and then let him go. A 50 yard run which should have been 5. Against App State and Oregon, it was frequently offensive execution problems. Missed wide open receivers. Bad blitz pickup. Lack of effort from the WRs at times. Dropped passes. Fumbles. A bad decision leading to a critical interception.
What can you say? How does it improve? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Maybe they aren't trying hard enough. Brandon Graham described Michigan's opening against NW as walking onto the field unmotivated, feeling like it was a HS game. That's inexcusable (whether that's Graham's talking about his own attitude or his take on the team).
How does this play out? Hold your breath. More unmotivated efforts will lead to more losses.
4. Complacency (as seen against App State and NW):
I'm not usually one to write off poor performance as "complacency" on the part of the coaching staff, but I'm seeing signs this year. I see it in the fact that we held so many players out of so many practices in spring and fall,often for "precautionary reasons" and then came out with an offense that looked out of sync the first two weeks. I see it in the way Hart was held out for the middle of the game against App State, until victory seemed impossible. He came back in, ran healthy and ran hard and nearly won the game for us. I see in the way a seemingly healthy Chad Henne played one series against NW, led us to a touchdown and sat on the bench until halftime, when we were down 16-7 and the Mallett led offense had done nothing.
How does this play out? It would be easy to say that at 3-2, having struggled with a terrible Northwestern team, that complacency would be cured by reality. I wouldn't count on it, not with rumblings that the EMU game plan could once again be Henne for a drive and then Mallett.
Future Fears:
Where might our problems recur?
Non-scoring offense? Against any team the coaching staff feels is inferior. That could be anyone except OSU, Wisconsin and MSU, potentially.
The problems with the spread? Eastern Michigan and Illinois.
The complacency? Eastern Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota.
Execution problems? Could happen at any time.
So other than the games against quality opponents that could beat us no matter how well we play, the game that looks riskiest is Illinois. That's the game where I could see us coming out with the non-scoring offense, playing a gameplan designed with the assumption of victory and find ourselves behind because of our difficulty with the spread.
QB: I was pleased. Mallett threw a couple of passes that could have been dangerous, but he also fired off some absolute lasers, like the one to Arrington in the first half, and did a beautiful job converting a late 3rd and long to Mathews. He has an ability to be accurate on the run that cannot be taught (and that neither of his predecessors has/had) and that allows DeBord to once again 'move the pocket' away from play action, as he is fond of doing. There should be no question, though, that this team will be better with Henne back. 0-2 vs. 2-0 masks the fact that we are very very limited with Mallett at QB. It's possible that Mallett could handle more of the offense, but the fact is the coaches won't allow him to, and that's one reason we need Henne back.
RB: Mike Hart for Heisman. Okay, not that no one else deserves it, but Hart certainly is making a case for himself. 650 yards through 4 games and he carried the team against Penn State, with a true freshman backup QB against a good defense. 150 yards against Penn State is a major achievement, and his blocking (on blitz pickup, on Mallett's touchdown run ...) is no small bonus.
WR: Still nothing deep, but we have 3 good WRs who are able to catch passes all over the field. Contrary to the constant complaints of fans, we are using the middle of the field and Mathews and Arrington are consistently getting open there. Manningham will get loose deep soon. That will come. The only complaint against this WR corps, and it's not a complaint against any one player, is that it doesn't have the diversity that some of our *great* wide receiving corps have had. Mathews and Arrington are very similar in what routes they can run, and you can see in the way he uses Manningham that DeBord would like to find a receiver for quick hitches and long handoffs but hasn't found one yet. Manningham is not slippery like Steve Breaston and is not that receiver.
OL: Very good. I never felt the OL was at fault in the first two games, so I won't call it improvement. Penn State has a good defense and when you telegraph where you're running and still get 175 yards running there, you've done a good job. Pass protection is harder to read, since PSU's pass rush is not the strength of the defense.
DL: Superb. Graham is kiling folks and Johnson and Jamison are solid. Jamison may not be "unblockable" , the way he's often described in spring and fall practice, but he's been solid. They were not the problem the first two weeks, really.
LB: Better. Graham and Thompson are good at getting where they are going and delivering hits when they know where they are going. We'll see what happens when they have to read and react. The pass coverage continues to be a bit weak. Quarless got open repeatedly, even if Morelli didn't always find him. When we encounter offenses that do a better job of using the TEs and RBs in the passing game, we may be tested again.
DB: Excellent. Warren and Englemon should have been starting from Day 1. Englemon is simply in the right place almost all the time and that is the primary job of the safety. And Warren is unusually advanced for a freshman. Between the expected and realized improvement of Trent and the unexpectedly advanced ability of Warren, we have the ability to play whatever combinations of coverages English wants.
On to Penn State
Senior QB Anthony Morelli was a 5* recruit. 5th year senior Austin Scott was a high 4* recruit. Junior WR Derrick Williams was the #1 recruit in the country. None of them is a particularly good player. Morelli still looks like an underclassmen with a strong arm and nothing else. Scott, fumbles aside, is just not a consistent gainer or a big play guy. Williams is an inferior version of Steve Breaston.
Recruiting rankings are no guarantee of future performance, but there is a consistent pattern at Penn State that highly rated offensive players bust and highly rated defensive players form the backbone of top notch defenses. Penn State simply has not been a well coached offensive team in years.
In fact, it's interesting to me, as a Michigan fan, that for all the constant complaints about our coaching staff, we have 3 national powers on our schedule and we have a decided coaching edge in 2 of those games.
Elsewhere
At least three games on Saturday were lost on bungled last minute drives. Ball State had a wide open receiver drop a potential TD pass with under 1:00 to go. Ditto Texas Tech, in the endzone, on 4th down. And Iowa would have beaten Wisconsin but for a wide open receiver tripping over his own feet on a long ball. I'm not sure I've ever seen that before.
The Big 10 is not making freinds and impressing pollsters this year. Wisconsin's my pick for "next Big 10 team to let down the conference" after Michigan vs. App State and Iowa vs. Iowa State and losses to Duke and Florida Atlantic.
I'm looking for 1000 yards and 100 points out of WVU when they play Louisville. Louisville's defense makes Notre Dame fans laugh. WVU could easily score 28 points on the opening drive if they play their cards right. It was a nice upset win for Syracuse, but boy, the fact that Syracuse over Louisville is that big an upset pretty much tells you how irrelevant Syracuse has become, and that's a direct indictment of head coach Greg Robinson. Pasqualoni had seen better days, but he never fell this far.
I had my fun with Charlie Weis and the Willingham comparison. But seriously, as talk builds of how Weis is being treated differently than Willingham was, I think some of the comments are off-base, so I'm going to offer my rebuttals and missing pieces.
1. The Biggest Missing Piece: Urban Meyer It's my firm belief that Tyrone Willingham was not fired simply because of his record or because the Tyrone Willingham Fact Sheet convinced the administration there was a problem, nor as a result of his repeated losses to USC. He was fired because Notre Dame thought they were going to land Urban Meyer, and if you have a chance to land Urban Meyer you do it. The PR hit of firing Tyrone Willingham would have been worth it. That's why Charlie Weis is being held to a different standard, if you believe he is; there is no Urban Meyer out there for Nore Dame. It's my belief that Notre Dame missing out on Urban Meyer will be a story that will be remembered and retold for years. In 10 years, when USC or Oklahoma is doing a job search and a hot candidate may be asking for too much money, people will say "Remember when Notre Dame could have had Urban Meyer but they balked at his demands ... how did that work out?" as a cautionary tale about how rare opportunities at great coaches are. Missing out on Urban Meyer will be recorded as a bigger story than landing Charlie Weis.
2. The Talent Argument I briefly got into the talent argument with respect to the Notre Dame offensive line the other day. But let's state this again; however weak Tyrone Willingham's classes may have been that he left for Charlie Weis, they are better than the classes that Willingham inherited at Washington, better than what Mark Dantonio inherited at Michigan State and better than the ones Appalachian State works with every year. You can use the lack of veteran talent as an excuse to not live up to Notre Dame's usual expectations, but you cannot use it as an excuse to be abjectly horrible.
3. Charlie Weis Going Forward Lots of Notre Dame fans, the non-delusional ones who aren't simply blaming Tyrone Willingham, are saying some rational things about Charlie Weis going forward. He's got some learning to do. He has to understand that in college you don't just scheme your way to victories. You don't beat teams with your Xs and Os mastery alone. You can't implement a 120 plays from 14 different sets before you've taught them how to block and tackle. You have to understand the college game and the college players and treat kids differently than you would treat NFL professionals. Still, Charlie Weis is a smart man, and he's identified the problem, so he will go about fixing it. But a post on a Michigan message board poster (from ScottAC, in a non-archived post) raised a great point; what they are saying boils down to an admission that all the things they salivated over and bragged about when Weis was hired aren't going to win games. He was hired because of his Xs and Os mastery, his complicated playbook with multiple sets, his professional and businesslike approach, etc. Basically, they are saying, Weis needs to learn that all the stuff that was being pumped out by the PR machine as proof of his greatness won't win him games, and now he has to *learn* how to be a good head coach. Good luck with that.
I don't mean to pick on anyone, but Armando Allen had a very, very freshman 1st quarter. Rewatching the game, I saw:
1. a misread on a simple handoff where the point of attack was blocked to perfection but Allen instead cut back and was caught for a short gain by an (intentionally) unblocked DE 2. a frontside blitz which Allen ignored, moving left after the snap, seeing no one to block and then releasing as a checkdown (while Clausen got drilled by the blitzer) 3. a beautifully blocked inside run which left Allen the choice of either cutting inside or outside of his blocker 5 yards downfield, but instead saw him being indecisive and eventually running right into the blocker. 4. Another sack which came when Allen stood in the backfield and did not help with either the frontside blitzer (Crable, who blew by the TE) or the blindside blitzer (Harrison, who blew by the LT). 5. A fumble on another play where he chose to cut back into the unblocked Michigan D even though the point of attack was well blocked.
Other curious items from the ND side:
I know Charlie Weis usually scripts his offenses opening plays, and I have to assume the end around from the 1 on 2nd and 27 was a scripted play. If so, Weis has to be flexible enough in the future to throw the script away under such unusual circumstances. If it was not scripted, what was he thinking? The end around is a play which frequently loses yardage because if one defender on the backside reads it and stays home, the WR is running 6 yards deep in the backfield, right into the defense. And in this circumstance, it was only Brandon Graham's enthusiastic pursuit of a ballfake that prevented that play from being a safety (even if Tate had been able to evade Graham, the time it would have taken would have allowed the DBs in pursuit to meet him in the endzone instead of at the 4).
Clausen's attempt to corrall his fumble brought back memories of Brady Quinn's laugh out loud funny fumble late in last year's game. Too bad Warren intelligently landed on the ball instead of scooping it up and running for 7.
The very first pass play for Michigan came with Toney Clemons on the field (due to Mathews being disciplined for losing his cool against Oregon)! And it was to Mike Hart split out wide. Uncovered. Completely uncovered. Gimme yardage.
Mike Hart is not fast but he explodes into a well blocked hole. He is patient when he needs to be, but he gets to his first gear about as fast as anyone and that explosion helps him deliver that pop in the hole. I know Tom Zbikowski is a boxer tough-guy and all, but when Hart meets Zbikowski, Zbikowski goes backwards almost every single time. And despite being a senior now, Zbikowski continues to be in the wrong place so often Pacman Jones refuses to believe it's a coincidence.
Morgan Trent is good and Donovan Warren is getting there. Trent gives the appearance at times of being about to give up the big play, but he's not giving it. Great closing speed is part of that. Shawn Crable had a great day. It was almost David Harris-like the way he'd show up out of nowhere to be in the right place and end a play. All that stuff is great to see because it's *not* dependent on Notre Dame being a terrible team. They may be terrible, but they are not predictable, so reading them right and getting there is a good sign.
