Back in November, The Blue-Gray Sky made a post evaluating Charlie Weis, whether he had reached his ceiling, etc. While not particularly interesting to the non-ND fan on the whole, there was an interesting idea contained within, and that is giving a coach grades in several key categories. Those chosen by Jeff were Offensive Mind, Defensive Mind, Recruiting, Fundamentals, and Motivation. Their comparison was between Charlie Weis and Lou Holtz, which ended up looking like this:

This is a pretty good representation (though Weis’ offensive mind is clearly overrated – see games against Boston College, Syracuse, San Diego State, USC, etc. – all in his fourth year and with his own recruits). However, I’m obviously not here to talk about Notre Dame coaches, I’m here to apply this concept to Rich Rodriguez.

Offensive Mind – A-

Of course, Rich came to Michigan as an offensive genius, the father of the zone-read offense, engineer of the West Virginia Spread n’ Shred, etc. So how do I not give the man at least an ‘A,’ if not an ‘A+?’ Rich is a very good offensive mind, but he’s very much married to his offensive system, and while he can adapt it somewhat, I don’t see in him the creativity that someone like Chip Kelly brought to Oregon’s (very similar) offense. Maybe down the road, when he gets the personnel he needs, he’ll be a little more creative. however, I’m not sure there was tons of evidence for that in his time at West Virginia, and it remains to be seen if there are many tricks up his sleeve.

Defensive Mind – D+

Rich has never really worried much about defense. He’s put his focus into offense, and hired a defensive coordinator he trusts (or doesn’t trust and fires after one year) to be the “head coach” of the defense. This can be construed as a negative if it doesn’t work out, or a strong positive if it does. Coach Rod does have a reputation for being loyal to his friends from West Virginia, rather than surrounding himself with the best assistants available, so it is something of a weakness.

Recruiting – A-

When you take into account all the media-fueled “turmoil” around the Michigan program, and the negative recruiting that has stemmed from it, Rich has had a great pair of recruiting classes. He’s been able to pull down a pair of top-10 efforts with all the uncertainty around Michigan and the headhunting in the press. Just that alone is worthy of a grade in the A-range. If he’s able to start pulling in annual top-5 or top-3 classes once Michigan starts winning, this grade certainly has upward potential.

Fundamentals – B-

The coaching staff stresses fundamentals, and from everything we know about Rich’s past, he’s very very into teaching fundamentals. However, with Michigan’s play on the field last year, how can he get any better a grade than this? The offensive line in particular improved over the course of the year (and indeed, Greg Frey has the biggest “fundamentals guy” reputation among the coaches), so maybe as the system is installed more, and as the coaches settle in, the fundamental focus will improve.

Motivation – A

You’ve seen the Barwis video. I’ve seen the Barwis video. Barwis may not be Rodriguez, but the two are definitely an inseparable unit, and the motivation that Barwis brings is amazing. Rodriguez himself isn’t such a bad motivator (though, from the sounds of things, he was a little too focused on the stick, and not the carrot at times last spring), and the tandem is amazing motivationally.

When broken into units, it’s easy to see why coach Rodriguez is considered one of the top football leaders in the country. As long as he has a good defensive coordinator to take care of that side of the ball, he should be able to build any team and any program to success in due time.

Anything you don’t agree with? Debate in the comments.

Posted under Analysis, Coaching, Football

The final part in a series that I started (and accidentally abandoned) a long time ago. The other teams of comparison were Minnesota 2007, Alabama 2007, and Nebraska 2004.

Notre Dame and Michigan’s 2007 and 2008 seasons, respectively, were somewhat similar. Does that mean Michigan is doomed to follow in the Irish’s footsteps and finish 6-6 in their next season? Let’s take a look at why or why not. First, there’s a comparison between the actual teams. As Brian explored on MGoBlog, despite the same record, Notre Dame’s season of terror was much more… terrible… than Michigan’s. So, although this post is primarily predictive, it’s important to note that Michigan’s year was nowhere near the disaster that ND’s was.

Another key difference between the two teams: 2007 was Weis’ third year in South Bend. He was playing with mostly his recruits (after doing all of his winning with Willingham’s oddly-lamented recruiting classes), at least the ones who hadn’t left after committing to Weis, spending two years in his program, earning starting jobs, and STILL hating the whale enough to ditch his program.

The Better

Michigan’s offense, though significantly better than Notre Dame’s, was full of first-time starters (every single player except for one – Steve Schilling), many of whom were never expected to contribute. The offensive line, in particular, didn’t have the accolades or experience of Notre Dame’s comparable unit, and they still managed to perform much better (as in “didn’t give up an NCAA record in sacks”). When you take into account that every single offensive player who had a meaningful role on the team (except Sam McGuffie, who missed much of the year with injury and was out when the offense started to, like, function) is back, and Notre Dame didn’t have quite that luxury between 2007 and 2008, it’s certainly a good sign for Michigan.

Michigan’s defense was supposed to be its strong suit in 2008, and that didn’t quite come to fruition. However, Michigan will be returning some of its most talented players on defense – defensive end Brandon Graham, corner Donovan Warren, and linebacker Obi Ezeh – and they are loking to build on that success.

The Worse

The quarterback situation for Michigan coming off 2008 is much wore than Notre Dame’s was the previous year. Though Jimmy Clausen had a horrible first year in South Bend, he was still the #1 overall recruit in the nation for a reason. Steven Threet, on the other hand (should he choose to stay) is a more limited, though still talented, player. If Michigan has to start a true freshman (or even a sophomore Threet), it will be a step down from a sophomore Clausen.

Michigan also lost its defensive coordinator, which can be seen as a blessing and a curse. Scott Shafer’s defense wasn’t the world-beater it was built up as before the season, but Michigan’s defense will still have to learn from its third coordinator in as many years, which certainly increases the likelihood of missed assignments, etc. Of course, GERG did beat the Irish in their house last year.

The Verdict

Halfway through last year, emulating ND’s two-year stretch might have been a pretty good goal for Michigan. The head-to-head win in the series, and a path to an 8-4 record (and therefore, ridiculously, a BCS bowl) seemed to be well within ND’s grasp. Then, of course, they fell flat on their faces, getting GERGed and not even registering a first down against USC until the third quarter. Rich Rodriguez’s noted track record of success and actual support (in the form of opinions) from people in the know would certainly seem to imply that the Wolverines aren’t headed for an extended down period like the Irish may be.

With Michigan’s fairly unique situation last year, particularly for a first-year coach, they were set up for a pretty special kind of suck. Notre Dame’s 2007 team, in all honesty, shouldn’t have been. With a year under the RR regime, a hell of a lot more experience, and some new recruits coming in, the Wolverines should be disappointed with a season like Notre Dame’s. Of course, expecting much better might be setting up unreasonable expectations (8 winsis a reasonable goal).

Posted under Analysis, Coaching, Football

Let’s break down a bit of Notre Dame film from last year. Since Charlie Weis is the vaunted offensive genius who led the Irish to the Worst Offense in History, last year, we’ll look at the offensive “effort” against the Cardinal of Stanford.

First of all, I don’t know how John Latina still has a job. His offensive lines have gotten worse every year, even when they returned a lot of talent. Take a look at the regression by Sam Young, and you’ll see what I mean. In case you don’t believe me, here are some examples of the All-Star recruits of the Notre Dame offensive line getting completely owned by Stanford(!), of all teams.

Another item of note is the fact that Jimmy Clausen may just not be quite ready, but either way, there is no way he should have been starting for anyone last year, much less a team that has the QB tradition of Joe Montana and Brady Quinn. He was quite fond in 2007 of taking sacks by “scrambling” for 5-10 yard losses, when he was under little pressure and should have just thrown it away. On the rare occasion that he got good protection, he still managed to miss wide open guys, or threw passes that required superhuman effort for wideouts to catch. Another thing Clausen too often (not pictured) did was not trust his arm, and throw to the checkdown option even when his first read was open (and often widely so).

And of course, there is the lack of speed at the Irish skill positions. Slow running backs aren’t too much of a liability when they can do all the things that Mike Hart could for Michigan. When you’re just mediocre AND you get run down from behind by a Stanford linebacker, that’s a problem. This category of videos is also good for showing why Stanford lost to Notre Dame: the scheme was good, but players didn’t always execute right, and that led to several big plays.

This past weekend, we saw Notre Dame face off against San Diego State, and it appeared that few of their issues from last year have been resolved. Clausen was much improved, but it’s time to find out whether he can be so poised when he is getting killed on every other play.

Posted under Coaching