Coaching vs. Talent Argument

[OrangePA]

For those who feel that coaching is the key, it would appear that your best argument is the Michigan Wolverines.

The program seems light years ahead of last year.

I know nothing about the talent changes, but I have to hand it to the new staff, Michigan seems to be back on track.

 

[ImperialOrange]

Michigan always has talent and the school recruits for itself. Hoke didn't walk into a situation that Marrone walked into.

 

[kingottoiii]

For those who feel that coaching is the key, it would appear that your best argument is the Michigan Wolverines.

The program seems light years ahead of last year.

I know nothing about the talent changes, but I have to hand it to the new staff, Michigan seems to be back on track.

RRod wasn't really the problem there. If he had a decent DC and let that DC play a 4-3 instead of a 3-3, I think Michigan would be in the same spot they are now. The 3-3 doesn't work in a power running conference.

 

[OrangePA]

RRod wasn't really the problem there. If he had a decent DC and let that DC play a 4-3 instead of a 3-3, I think Michigan would be in the same spot they are now. The 3-3 doesn't work in a power running conference.

Boy, I think that point of view is the minority one.

RRod insisted on running the defense.

He brought his system and defensive assistants from WVU. He then hired a titular DC - first Shaffer and then Robinson.

So if it is coaching, the blame falls on RRod.

 

[kingottoiii]

Boy, I think that point of view is the minority one.

RRod insisted on running the defense.

He brought his system and defensive assistants from WVU. He then hired a titular DC - first Shaffer and then Robinson.

So if it is coaching, the blame falls on RRod.

His dumb decision to go 3-3 was ultimately why he failed. I guess my point was his running of the team overall and of the O was not the issue. He was dumb to get involved in the area that wasn't his expertise. If he hired a 4-3 DC and was hands off, he would still be there.