Scott Shafer taking over at Syracuse.

http://www.freep.com/article/20130108/SPORTS06/130108023/1054/SPORTS06/Former-Michigan-DC-Scott-Shafer-take-over-Syracuse

If RR had let Shafer do his thing the way that he wanted to, we'd be in a whole different place right now. Not a better place, just different!

Shafer was a scapegoat. But his firing was popular (among fans) at the time. Our defense was a huge disappointment because he did have better overall talent than the offense to work with in 2008, but the offense was so bad it compounded defensive failings.

The failure was not in hiring or firing him per se it was in not allowing him to pick any of his assistants but in throwing him in largely with a group that had all worked together before under Casteel. By the way he was forced to run the 3-3-5 in only ONE game in 2008 (Purdue).

RR deserves criticism here but as usual it is outsized as he simultaneously gets criticized for both not caring/ getting involved enough in the defense AND interfering/meddling in it.

'shoes

wshoes wrote:

RR deserves criticism here but as usual it is outsized as he simultaneously gets criticized for both not caring/ getting involved enough in the defense AND interfering/meddling in it.

Shoozie, I really don't aim (as you don't) to beat a dead horse here, but if you're attempting to emphasize the existence of a vicious circle, or paradox, in the case of RR's management(?) of the defense, I'd like to
chime in that it is possible for a leader to simultaneously commit both sins (which you enumerate above): he can insist on a subordinate [or subordinate body] operating strictly according to his guidelines, but not give a damn about the ultimate results. I've worked for "managers" in my career who fit that profile to a freaking "T"...and to this late day cannot understand how they remained in their jobs nearly as long as they did.

And to a man, I was convinced that was RR's tactic: he insisted on his own cronies "coaching" the defense in his fashion, but surrendering 42, 65 points didn't faze him, as he expected his offense to put up 45, 67 every game.

A bit heavy (and hogwashy), I concede. Just wanted to hurl it out...

Shafer's firing was never popular with me, nor was RR forcing his "boys" upon him as assistants. RR forcing the 3-3-5 on him was just a symptom of the greater malady, in that he had to be in charge whether he knew what he was doing or not. And it was clearly NOT.