2009 TSUN News (football only discussion)

[jwinslow]

Former Syracuse coach Greg Robinson hired as Michigan's defensive coordinator - Michigan Wolverines Football: News, Blogs, Photos, Audio & Video - MLive.com

University of Michigan football coach Rich Rodriguez has hired former Syracuse coach and veteran defensive coordinator Greg Robinson to run the Wolverines defense.
The athletic department announced the hiring this afternoon.
Robinson, who was fired after four years and a 10-37 record at Syracuse, served as a defensive coordinator in the NFL with the Kansas City Chiefs, New York Jets and Denver Broncos. He was the Broncos' coordinator when the team won its back-to-back Super Bowls in the late 1990s.
Before moving to Syracuse, Robinson was co-defensive coordinator and linebackers coach at Texas in 2004. The Longhorns beat Michigan that season in the Rose Bowl.
Robinson replaces Scott Shafer, who served at Michigan for a year before resigning. Shafer, whose Wolverine defense allowed the most points in school history, was hired to be the defensive coordinator at Syracuse.

Interesting that a michigan paper would tout a Texas-Michigan matchup where Henne's offense lit up the scoreboard.

Scout.com: Greg Robinson

hope my more knowledgeable brethren will chime in, but for my part, Robinson did a great job while he was here in 2004. If Muschamp had left after one year (as we all assumed before he was promoted), I'd hoped that GR would be rehired as our DC (provide he was fired, which seemed a good bet, and turned out to be).

Robinson instilled a fire in the defense that was just not there before. There was a vast attitude difference between 2003 and 2004.

He made what many of us would term "interesting" personnel decisions that were questioned, but a lot of that could well have been due to the limitations of only being here one year.

No question he brought a number of good traits to the team that I'd suspect helped us a fair amount going into '05.

[BB73]

If you add together Robinson's 2008 wins with RRod's, you get 6 wins - which sounds about right for TSUN in '09.

[Lou270slant]

Originally Posted by BB73

If you add together Robinson's 2008 wins with RRod's, you get 6 wins - which sounds about right for TSUN in '09.

vBet? Because I'm taking the under.

[jwinslow]

Originally Posted by Lou270slant

vBet? Because I'm taking the under.

W Mich
Ntre Ame
E Mich
Indiana
@ Michigan St
@ Iowa
TBA (likely I-AA)
Penn St
@ Illinois
Purdue
@ Wisconsin
Ohio State

Bolded the very winnable games.
Playing MSU early (with a new QB & RB) will help, and PSU replaces a lot.
Playing at wisconsin is tough, but will the badgers be?

[jwinslow]

mgoblog | Michigan football, basketball, hockey, and general what-have-you

Hello: Defensive Coordinator Greg Robinson

By Brian ? January 20th, 2009 at 2:46 PM ? 98 comments

Two reliable sources are reporting that Greg Robinson is indeed the guy at defensive coordinator; unless there's an unexpected derailment an official confirmation should come sometime soon. (Bonus, ethically dubious confirmation can be found at Maize 'n' Brew, which relays some goings-on at the premium sites.)

I've said my piece on Robinson already?in a word: yikes?and am pretty skeptical of the hire. However, I am not a football coach or even that familiar with Robinson's work except in a macro "holy God what happened to Syracuse?" sense. Rich Rodriguez is, and he's basically gambled his career on his future performance. All hail Gamblor!

Also: Michigan might not be done searching for coaches. LBs coach Jay Hopson is apparently searching for a job closer to home, further proving that nothing escapes Mississippi's inexplicable gravitational pull.
Yes, this would make it a seriously uphill battle to retain the services of either non-enrolled DT commit.

Commence panic?
Update: official.

Brian's take (referenced above)

greg-robinson-fail greg-robinson-fail2 greg-robinson-fail3

Another name for DC has been unleashed into the wild, and it's, uh, well. Well, it's this guy:

This probably won't come as a surprise to those of you reading the diaries or the message boards, but up until now it's just been speculation: "done deal" is another level entirely.

I admit a sense of foreboding at this news. While Robinson is a man with much experience at both the NFL and college level, the results of that experience have been decidedly mixed. My impression of the man has been heavily influenced by Syracuse blog Troy Nunes is an Absolute Magician. The site's proprietor, as you might imagine, is not a fan:

TNIAAM's burning hatred for a man who went 10-37 may obscure rationality, but then again: 10-37 at a school that had gone 107-59-1 under Paul Pasqualoni with just one losing sesaon. Greg Robinson is a stunningly incompetent head coach.

(This is somewhat amazing to me: I actually watched the first game of Robinson's tenure at Syracuse, which also happened to be the first game of Pat White's career. It was a sleepy early-season game in a half-empty Carrier Dome between two nondescript Big East teams that I had no real opinions about. The only reason I watched it was because it was that giddy time at the beginning of the year when you're so excited to watch football that things like Mississippi State-South Carolina seem like a fantastic way to spend three and a half hours.

If you had stepped out of a time machine and told me that in four years Pat White would be governor of West Virginia, Rich Rodriguez would be head coach at Michigan, and Greg Robinson would win 25% of his games and then be under serious consideration for DC under Rodriguez, I would have punched you and stolen your time machine. But on the way towards a nondescript house in Mentor, Ohio, where Jim Tressel would conceived in approximately an hour, I would think to myself "wow, that's pretty far out."

Oh, yeah: West Virginia puttered along for a bit before getting some huge runs out of White and won handily; I thought to myself that gimmick offense will never work long-term.)

Anyway: being a stunningly incompetent head coach does not necessarily mean one is a stunningly incompetent coordinator. Numbers will have to make that case. Go, numbers, go!

...Cont'd

...But but but but? is there a but somewhere in here? I don't think so. Robinson was a horrendous, horrendous recruiter. This year a kid decommitted from Syracuse to go to Central Michigan. He is old and his energy level will only dip. Rumor is that he doesn't swear and looks down on those who do, which, like? that whole "fit" thing mentioned earlier, right?

Maybe the abject failure at Syracuse was one of recruiting, motivation, and roster assembly, and not schemes, but since Rodriguez doesn't coach the defense at all he's really hiring someone to be head coach of half his team. In that context, Greg Robinson seems like a horrible choice. (Also in all other ones.)

*(The 2003 Texas defense was 32nd in scoring D and 25th in yardage.)

Elsewhere: New M blog Those Who Stay runs down the Robinson resume and comes out the other side not covered in sewage.

[DontHateOState]

Losing Hopson would hurt; he is their best recruiter.

[Jaxbuck]

Originally Posted by HailToMichigan

Me, I like the Robinson hire. Much better than I'd have liked a couple of the other names being tossed around. (Like Hopson - I really don't have many issues with him as a position coach, but promoting him to DC would have seemed like lazy nepotism.)

Anyway, Robinson had to have a pretty impressive resume to get hired at Syracuse in the first place. I'm going by that, not his record as a head coach. I don't buy that he's being hired to be half a head coach, because there's so much a head coach does that doesn't fall under the realm of coordinator duties. And I don't worry about the recruiting, because of the number of recruits that decommitted when Shafer was fired: zero. That tells me the DC isn't really into the recruiting as much. Couple of guys even said, well, my position coach is still there and he's the one I've been talking to anyway.

I agree that I don't equate his titanic failure as a HC to an auto fail as DC.

That said two things I would be concerned about:

1) His player development skills. It can't be all that great given the utter magnitude of suck that was the 'Cuse under his watch. Given tsun's recent history I would say you guys need someone who has a strength in this area.

2) Just because the last DC wasn't a great recruiter shouldn't make it OK for the next one to be a recruiting black hole.

I don't care how anyone wants to spin it, you do not make any organization or group stronger by adding parts that aren't good to great. Swapping out suck for mediocre and calling it progress is what the Cincinnati Reds/Lions/Clippers and other perennial losers do.

[jwinslow]

Me, I like the Robinson hire. Much better than I'd have liked a couple of the other names being tossed around.

Absolutely. Like most UM fans, when I saw Hermann's name surface I just about died, just with a different look on my face.

Like Hopson - I really don't have many issues with him as a position coach, but promoting him to DC would have seemed like lazy nepotism.

Possible, though Hopson seems to be better respected in AA for his coaching than others (Dews).

Anyway, Robinson had to have a pretty impressive resume to get hired at Syracuse in the first place. I'm going by that, not his record as a head coach. I don't buy that he's being hired to be half a head coach, because there's so much a head coach does that doesn't fall under the realm of coordinator duties.

True, and Tressel would make a pretty mediocre OC I'd be interested to get the take from our guys on Hornfans. They are a smarter bunch than the average scout variety.

And I don't worry about the recruiting, because of the number of recruits that decommitted when Shafer was fired: zero.

I believe one of the DTs mentioned Shafer's passing when softening his stance, though that was happening either way.

Shafer was not asked to do ANY recruiting, in order to focus on coaching. Of course they then focused on primarily offense in the spring, so that made the first part a curious approach.

The overall defensive talent at UM is below standards right now, particularly the depth, and the only way to change that is to recruit their way out of it. This class is a start, but there are still holes to fill, and the recruits won't always be big fans like Turner and Campbell.

[jwinslow]

Edit: looks like they have some good things to say here:
Greg Robinson now D-Coordinator at Michigan

[LordJeffBuck]

Originally Posted by MichFan1997

Why does it matter that much what state the kids are from anyways?

1) Because in-state kids tend to grow up rooting for in-state schools.

2) Because kids generally want to go to a school close to home (in-state or neighboring state).

3) Because local prospects are more likely to visit the school/attend games on "unofficial visits".

4) Because local kids are more likely to attend local camps and combines, where the coaching staff can make in-person evaluations.

5) Because it is easier for a college coaching staff to develop relationships with in-state high schools - this is obviously important for developing "pipelines".

6) Because it is easier for a college coaching staff to evaluate local prospects - the coaching staff has more/better opporunities to visit the prospect's school, attend his games, etc. Would Ohio State have offered Floridians like Lydell Ross and Maurice Wells if the staff had had more opportunities to see them in person?

7) Because it is easier for a college coaching staff to evaluate local prospects - the coaching staff is more likely to get better info on the prospects from local high school coaches who want to develop relationships with the in-state colleges (see #5, above); this is especially true for info about a kid's "character". A high school coach has no incentive to be make a complete and accurate disclosure to a non-local college staff who comes around to look at one of his kids every twenty years, but that same coach might give out some valuable info the the local recruiters who are there every year to check out his kids. For reasons #6 and #7, non-local kids are always more difficult to evaluate.

8) Because developing relationships with local coaches is a good way to discover "under the radar" prospects.

9) Because in-state kids often experience pressure to attend in-state schools from family, friends, coaches, teachers, members of the community, etc., so the in-state schools have a built-in recruiting advantage.

10) Because non-local kids have a greater likelihood to transfer due to (a) being homesick, and (b) not having the "natural" loyalty of an in-state player.

11) Because non-local kids have less access to their pre-existing support systems (family, friends, etc.), they sometimes find it easier to "get into trouble" and harder to get out of it. In support of #8 and/or #9, Ohio State fans can cite Ryan Williams, Antonio Henton, Walter Dublin, and James Scott as recent examples of non-local kids who left the program early after dealing with some issues in Columbus.

12) Because, when the rivalry game is on the line, the local kid might just show a bit more heart and guts and grit than an out-of-state mercenary.

Other than that, it doesn't matter that much what state the kids are from....

[MichFan1997]

Originally Posted by LordJeffBuck

1) Because in-state kids tend to grow up rooting for in-state schools.

2) Because kids generally want to go to a school close to home (in-state or neighboring state).

3) Because local prospects are more likely to visit the school/attend games on "unofficial visits".

4) Because local kids are more likely to attend local camps and combines, where the coaching staff can make in-person evaluations.

5) Because it is easier for a college coaching staff to develop relationships with in-state high schools - this is obviously important for developing "pipelines".

6) Because it is easier for a college coaching staff to evaluate local prospects - the coaching staff has more/better opporunities to visit the prospect's school, attend his games, etc. Would Ohio State have offered Floridians like Lydell Ross and Maurice Wells if the staff had had more opportunities to see them in person?

7) Because it is easier for a college coaching staff to evaluate local prospects - the coaching staff is more likely to get better info on the prospects from local high school coaches who want to develop relationships with the in-state colleges (see #5, above); this is especially true for info about a kid's "character". A high school coach has no incentive to be make a complete and accurate disclosure to a non-local college staff who comes around to look at one of his kids every twenty years, but that same coach might give out some valuable info the the local recruiters who are there every year to check out his kids. For reasons #6 and #7, non-local kids are always more difficult to evaluate.

8) Because developing relationships with local coaches is a good way to discover "under the radar" prospects.

9) Because in-state kids often experience pressure to attend in-state schools from family, friends, coaches, teachers, members of the community, etc., so the in-state schools have a built-in recruiting advantage.

10) Because non-local kids have a greater likelihood to transfer due to (a) being homesick, and (b) not having the "natural" loyalty of an in-state player.

11) Because non-local kids have less access to their pre-existing support systems (family, friends, etc.), they sometimes find it easier to "get into trouble" and harder to get out of it. In support of #8 and/or #9, Ohio State fans can cite Ryan Williams, Antonio Henton, Walter Dublin, and James Scott as recent examples of non-local kids who left the program early after dealing with some issues in Columbus.

12) Because, when the rivalry game is on the line, the local kid just might just show a bit more heart and guts and grit than an out-of-state mercenary.

Other than that, it doesn't matter that much what state the kids are from....

And if you still manage to get good recruiting classes with minimal in-state recruits, almost none of those things matter.

[jwinslow]

And if you still manage to get good recruiting classes with minimal in-state recruits, almost none of those things matter.

Much simpler to dismiss it all. I hope RR keeps focusing that much time in Bama, Ark, LA, Miss, Georgia rather than the Midwest. Makes life a lot easier on our team. Easier recruiting battles for OSU and less talent brought in.

[BuckeyeNation27]

Originally Posted by MichFan1997

And if you still manage to get good recruiting classes with minimal in-state recruits, almost none of those things matter.

Michigan's last 4 recruiting rankings:

Scout
2008 - 6
2007 - 10
2006 - 9
2005 - 2

Rivals
2008 - 10
2007 - 12
2006 - 13
2005 - 6

2008 record: 3-9.

Hmmmm....maybe it's about more than just getting good recruiting classes.

[jwinslow]

Expanding on that point (to eliminate the 'spread' rebuttal):

2005: 7-5
2006: 11-2
2007: 9-4, and the 4 were pretty bad

Hmmmm....maybe it's about more than just getting good recruiting classes.

Tennessee wants their money back for celebrating many Februaries.

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Originally Posted by MichFan1997

And if you still manage to get good recruiting classes with minimal in-state recruits, almost none of those things matter.

Don't really fallow college football much do you.....