If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
I don't disagree. I like richrod and love his offense. But let's not pretend that the Carr teams were bad.
Carr had some wonderfully talented teams. He did not get the best out of them. He (and other coaches before him) treated post season play as vacation time and encouraged the players to enjoy the moment rather than compete at their highest level.
I long for a Lions team that is consistently competitive.
I don't disagree. I like richrod and love his offense. But let's not pretend that the Carr teams were bad.
The talent was a great. The coaching sucked at times.
Carr too often was afraid to push the envelope, and therefore was often out-coached by those that would.
Carr's problem is that he was fine with being "good" at a University that wanted to be great. He was a father figure to his players, but he also never really got the best out of them.
Last edited by Kstat; September 20, 2009, 10:12 AM.
That's all fine and good, and I agree, but Carr won a lot of games. He had a problem in opening road games, a huge problem on the West Coast, but he generally won the games he should win.
Thus Carr never missed a bowl game, and never had a losing season...
To be a professional means that you don't die. - Takeru "the Tsunami" Kobayashi
Like I said, he was okay with being good. He never went out of his way to be great.
With the talent he had, anybody could have coached most of his teams to a 6-6 record and gotten to a bowl game. Rich Rod did not have that type of talent at his disposal in year one.
Carr also got smacked around annually by Tressell, who was actually willing to do whatever it took to beat Michigan, something Cooper wasn't. Lloyd was okay with being the good sportsman and losing to OSU.
Last edited by Kstat; September 20, 2009, 11:08 AM.
I don't think he was ok with just being good. But, his style of football, (like Bo and Tressel) is premised on being more talented than the other team. When you aren't more talented, you weren't going to win a lot...
But because he won a lot, there was no need to change.
Last edited by SeattleLionsFan; September 20, 2009, 11:10 AM.
To be a professional means that you don't die. - Takeru "the Tsunami" Kobayashi
The talent was a great. The coaching sucked at times.
Carr too often was afraid to push the envelope, and therefore was often out-coached by those that would.
Carr's problem is that he was fine with being "good" at a University that wanted to be great. He was a father figure to his players, but he also never really got the best out of them.
Well stated. Carr's interest was focusing on the Big 10 Championship and Rose Bowl berth. Once upon a time that was a successful season. Now that you have the BCS BS in place, it's about winning the Big 10 and a National Championship. Carr never got that. Rich Rod does. That mentality has finally come to Ann Arbor.
Carr's teams underachieved which comes from weak coaching.
I don't think he was ok with just being good. But, his style of football, (like Bo and Tressel) is premised on being more talented than the other team. When you aren't more talented, you weren't going to win a lot...
But because he won a lot, there was no need to change.
But he was winning in a water downed Big 10. Over the last 6-8 years, Michigan could not compete with the SEC, SWC or USC. They are not there yet but definitely will be in the next 1-2 years.
Tweet
Comment