New Morgan Trent - RichRod Allegations
Bobby Deren, a senior writer for the Rivals Rutgers site, scarletnation.com has published Draft Season: Four Months on the Clock in which he chronicles the experiences of Morgan Trent, Kenny McKinley, Frantz Joseph and Lydon Murtha as they prepared for the 2009 draft.
This bengals.com story reports that Draft Season contains some sharp allegations about RichRod's evaluation of Trent in his communications with NFL scouts.
At the end of the book, Deren describes the scene with Lloyd Carr, the former Michigan head coach that recruited him to Ann Arbor, breaking the news to Trent that current head coach Rich Rodriguez did him no favors.
“Rodriguez had bad-mouthed him to every NFL scout he could,” Deren writes. “Rodriguez claimed that Morgan was lazy, he had an attitude problem and he was a big reason the Wolverines finished with a 3-9 record…”
Trent admits the words were “jarring,” and they were hard to understand given that he was so serious about his career that he actually moved in with his brother and sister-in-law and their two small children while going to Michigan.
...
[Bengals defensive backs coach Kevin] Coyle heard the rumblings, but he didn’t talk to Rodriguez and put more stock in other people close to the Michigan program that had been there before.
“When there is a coaching transition and the team ends up not having success, you have to step back and try to decipher what the truth really is,” Coyle says. “There was a lot of heat on those people and there was some pointing of blame. Plus, the players were somewhat chagrined, so you had to look at everything.”
Presumably this information has played a part in Trent's willingness to speak negatively about RichRod and the Michigan football program.
Predictably, to date this story has only been picked up by the Freep (print version link).
A Motion for Summary would fail. There is a question of fact involved and the matter would, at least, survive though some discovery (at which point, maybe such a motion could succeed).
It's not about RR caring about paying; it's the University and the program. Can you imagine what such a suit would do for the image of the school? The team? Recruiting?
This isn't a case of employer/employee and litigation would never have been a consideration on the part of Rich Rodriguez.
He would never have thought, 'I need to protect myself due to the potential that Trent might file a claim.'
He had a player who, for the sake of argument, had a negative attitude and did not buy in to his program as a coach and perhaps had issues with the S&C regimen. When asked, RR gave an honest answer. I don't see the problem with that unless it was inaccurate.
It doesn't matter whether there was an employer/employee relationship. Defamation and tortious interference claims are not affected by employment relationship. Validity of a claim aside, all "managers" at any organization are aware of the risk of the headache of litigation here, which is precisely why to avoid such an issue.
Look, the law doesn't matter here (it'd be a bullshit case even if brought by Trent), it's the common business sense of it. You don't trash him because it can do no good. A smart coach (look at what just happened with a certain someone leaving our basketball team), gives a smile and pat on the back because he knows that he needs to think about his image in the eyes of potential recruits and those kids' coaches.
He would not have been concerned about litigation, so we agree that the law is not an issue here, whatever the reason.
We just differ in our opinion of what he should be concerned with. I think his cred long term with NFL scouts is important enough to warrant an honest asessment, as ultimately his ability to place players in the NFL will be extremely important to recruits and their family, especially with top recruits that have realistic NFL prospects.
Any kid that wants to come in and has a decent work ethic isn't going to be concerned about his coach making an honest assessment as to his abiltities and attitude, so i don't think that will be a major factor for them. A player that does not have a strong work ethic may shy away, and I am okay with that.
I view this just like any other job. If a recruiter calls a teacher to ask why he got a C in the class, the teacher isn't going to hold back when saying, "He didn't do his homework and he was a constant distraction in class for both me and my students."
RR didn't say he wasn't talented, he just gave a character reference, and a mostly fair one from everything I have heard since he's left.
First, no should assume the story is truth just because its in a book. But, that aside, if it is true then it is a discredit to Rich. Those of us who have given references before know that there is a way to soft pedal someone's negatives if you want to do that. If he is giving his unvarnished opinion and offering it around, as the book claims, that is IME wrong. That kid, even if he was lazy in '09, deserves a chance to play pro football for a living and when your college coach trashes your character, you can get torpedoed. I would never want on my conscience the fact that I hurt someone's chances of getting a job, even if I disliked him.
To your last point, I think you have to consider what job it is. Its the NFL. They are looking to give out millions of dollars to kids. Who's better to ask than the coach who's been around them? They want the honest to god truth, not skirting around questions.
As long as RR didn't go out in public with it, I find it hard to blame him for his opinion.
Yea I agree. RR doesn't want to hurt his own creditibility when it comes to scouts. Then when RR really does want to help a kid who deserves it his opinion doesn't count for much because he always just says nice things about his kids. I don't think there is anything wrong with him making private comments to scouts who asked for his honest assesment.
He isn't giving Rich as a reference. Prospective employers are calling his former employer to see what kind of employee Trent might be. It's the responsibility of the former employer to be honest.
I couldn't possibly disagree with you more.
I called a reference once and got a glowing review for a prospective employee that was actually above and beyond what was stated in the resume.
Fortunately I knew someone at the company and followed up indirectly only to be told quite an opposite story and that the glowing review was only likely an attempt by the manager to help them get a new job so they wouldn't have to fire the party in question.
Eeek.
I would never want on my conscience the fact that I hurt someone's chances of getting a job, even if I disliked him.
NFL teams aren't going to add roster spots based on glowing references, so if you give a misleadingly positive report of a player, you'd be hurting the chances of employment for someone who may well be more deserving.
Ugh. I have no idea if Trent slacked off under Rodriguez. If he didn't, then it's definitely wrong for Rodriguez to say he did.
Your point, on the other hand, is just ridiculous. If Rodriguez didn't lie to scouts, he's doing the right thing. You're saying that it would be better for Rodriguez to give a glowing endorsement regardless of Trent's performance?
I wouldn't want to be the guy that said, "Oh, yes sir, this kid you're considering for an engineering position is a hard working individual with fantastic people skills," and then have to try to regain my credibility when I find out his crappy work caused a plane to crash.
We don't know exactly what RR said, we are getting the information 4th hand at best.
RR-->Scout X-->Carr-->Trent-->Author
This is the most direct route possible for the comments to travel and no doubt it mutated along the way as people paraphrased, condensed, etc. It is highly likely there was Scout Y in there after Scout X and possibly someone between the scouts and Lloyd who, perhaps, had an agenda in coloring those comments to be as negative as possible.
When asked for a reference, I give honest assessments, otherwise there is no point to providing and contactting references and it is a giant waste of time. My reputation here as a reference is important as Silicon Valley is actually pretty small, especially when you narrow it down by specialty, etc. I want my opinion to matter when a former employee of mine that deserves a glowing review uses me for a reference, therefore I tell the truth.
unless RR shot a hooker or punched a dolphin, I'm not interested in offseason "investigative/blame" articles. Dead hookers are bad news.
Wins will determine if RR is here next year or not.
Edit: I'm fucking tired of all this shit turning into a pro RR vs anti RR thing. Should all coaches be blowing kisses out of players assholes if they were in fact lazy? Now even if it was that he was lazy, Morgan Trent was a decent player his Jr year. I wish people would stop bashing both RR and Trent.
"Dead hookers are bad news."
Live ones aren't so good either. Just ask LT.
This is such an underrated movie if you ask me. It kills me
The adage goes, 'don't get caught with a dead girl or a live boy'.
I would love to know exactly what RR said to scouts. If he said, "Morgan Trent doesn't try that hard in practice and doesn't really apply himself in the film room as much as a leader should", then I'm reading that as "negativity" as much as observations. Does that hurt Trent's stock - sure, but it may also be the truth. Now, if RR went around and legitimately badmouthed Trent and said he was a lazy joke, then I can understand the distaste in Trent's mouth. My sense is that the truth is somewhere in between, and is basically a non-story. I memory serves me right, Pete Carroll basically held a press conference to talk down Mark Sanchez, and while it was kind of a dick move, what he said was not fundamentally wrong. He just should have been more discreet about it. Sounds like the same issue happened here with RR and Trent.
But to be fair, if RR really did badmouth Trent while he speaking with scouts, he should be called out on it.
People who have no clue what happened and no real vested interest, like MGoBlog and the Freep? These sorts of things generally work out among the involved parties -- players, coaches, and teams. They want to know who blows smoke, who gives their real opinions, and who is looking out for whom.
I don't see where anyone around here has any business calling anyone out for this.
Carroll was mad Sanchez left early by his own estimation for the draft, and he showed it publicly, that is why he was a "Dick". It had no career effect on Sanchez at all.
If those snippets from the book are correct, RR hurt Trent's draft status, Trent will have lost money from this.
I wouldn't say that RR significantly hurt Trent's draft status. I think seeing guys like Dwayne Jarrett and a large number of Big 10 receivers run past him for his last season probably hurt his status at least as much.
And to be fair, all Carroll could say is how he viewed Sanchez's potential in the draft, because that was the question asked. When he was drafted, Sanchez had played about 13 collegiate games with a great supporting cast around him. And let's not act like Sanchez has blown the doors off the NFL - he still three 20 INTS (against only 12 TDs), had a great defense and running game to protect him, veteran leaders all around, and had guys like Brad Smith (a sneaky-good multi-use player), Braylon Edwards, and Dustin Keller to throw to. You put JaMarcus Russell in that type of situation, who is to say that he doesn't turn out a winner as well.
Trent may have been lazy, but I don't see why RR had to bash him. He had nothing to gain by doing so. In fact, it would have hurt his recruiting if anything.
The way to handle it is to say, "I just say what I see. Yeah, he's a talented guy but he didn't always work to his ability. I"m not going to cover for anyone. You put in the effort, I will always have your back."
If you are a slackedy ass recruit who is going to be scared off by this, and not say, "Not me, Coach! I am ALL IN!" then why would he not gain by knowing this?
I can't believe this board is full of people who act like this is t-ball and no one should ever be criticized because their feelings might get hurt.
this is true, we're talking about more than just constructive criticism or an honest critique. saying things like:
he was a big reason the Wolverines finished with a 3-9 record…
is just flat out wrong and a personal attack. clearly, a single defensive back who was good enough to be drafted was not the poison that killed the team.
It can cut both ways.
The problem is that we cannot know if what RR intended to convey is what the coach who was quoted actually heard. That is a problem with human communication in general.
Clearly, however, RR was not referring to Trent's play when discussing the 3-9 record (that would be too ridiculous to accept), he was obviously talking about how a bad attitude and not buying in can infect others on the team, can make coaching difficult in practice and in games (and we saw hints of that on TV). RR blaming the 3-9 season on Trent's playing ability would be silly; RR blaming the 3-9 season on Trent and others' attitude is not that silly.
Maybe the allusion isn't to play-making ability so much as attitude as a senior leader - would that be "poison" to hurt an already weak team and cost a couple of games (i.e Purdue, Utah, Toledo and other close losses). Remember what Brandon Minor said at the end of that season about seniors not buying in and how that attitude affected the team? Maybe Morgan was one of the ones that Minor was referring to.
perhaps rr meant it as a compliment. perhaps um would have been 1-11 w/o trent.
There are ways to review players/employees without painting them in a bad light if you are inclined to do so. RR apparently was not inclined to do so, which is questionable. RR has a player for one season and is so unhappy with him that he "bashes" him when speaking with his potential future employers.
It certainly isn't t-ball
What makes you so sure that Trent's second or third-hand account of what Rodriguez said is accurate?
Ever play telephone? To me, this sounds like a case of "Jenny likes you purple monkey dishwasher."
Bitch.
Don't you talk about my woman* that way!
* At least I think she's my woman. We held hands during recess but then I spilled my juice box on her new dress and now she won't come down from the top of the slide :(
Sorry, I was thinking of something else.
How exactly RR bashed him isn't specified but even without the specifics it comes off pretty obvious that RR didn't do Trent any favors in regards to his next employer.
What is Trent's motivation to be less than truthful on it? If he is embellishing, what is he going to gain from it, its not his book that the quotes are in, is he still angry over the 3-9 season? It would make more sense, that what Carr told him is the motivation behind his comments from a few months ago with regard to RR.
Shut up. You don't know what you're talking about any more than the next guy here. For you to say RR "bashed" him is dumb. And no, this sure aint t-ball. The coach of a major D1 program has to give an honest assessment to scouts or his credibility goes to hell. If that's what he did, good on him; if not, I have an issue with it. The bottom line is, I don't know, and neither do you. You're talking out of your ass.
slackedy ass.. dont talk back
how a player can "buy in" to one coach and then once he's gone be so lackadaisical when his replacement is brought in. If Trent's goal was to play well and get drafted as high as possible, then why not just nut up and tough it out? I understand that he was recruited by Lloyd, but it's not like Lloyd would tell his recruits, "Don't worry; as long as I'm here you only have to half-ass it." Are RR recruits really just more motivated than Lloyd recruits? I hope so, but highly doubt it.
And the people who want everything to be the way it has always been, because that is how they do their jobs?
It's not that they say "I just want to halfass it," it's that they believe there is only one way to do their jobs/be successful. I can see the same things happening with football players. Maybe they are right -- that the old way is best for them -- but it's generally going to antagonize management and you have to be willing to live with the consequences. Morgan Trent seems to have done that.
If there is a management change, and you want to keep your job, you do whatever the new managers want. It's not like Trent would get fired but if he didn't do what was asked of him then he deserves to be bad-mouthed.
mustard style potato salad.
me no like the mustand style.
Personally my favorite, with extra pickle.
Redskins with dill.
If ya gotta have a secondary 'tato salad, that's the one...definitely NOT the mustard-style.
I negged both you and Elno in this thread.
Elno, because he doesn't realize that the potato salad line is getting a little, uh, stale.
You, because you clearly have your potato salad priorities* misaligned. That shit needs some acidity, son!
*fixed
I agree that he didn't buy in to what RR was bringing. Lets be honest here though, Trent really wasn't that good. His last year under RR was probably his best. I don't know how many times I'd yell at my TV and it would be at Trent, mostly during the Carr days too. I actually thought he had a good year under RR. Last season was the first season that pretty much everyone seemed to buy in. They started out great, but injuries effected the whole season, besides the first 3 1/2 games. Tate and Molk probably were the biggest injuries of the whole year. The D wasn't that great, and when those two got banged up, everything seemed to spiral out of control, especially when Molk went down. Hopefully this year, everyone stays healthy, and they can get back to bowling.
This seems like a situation where everyone is wrong, and nobody is wrong.
If, what is reported is true, I don't have a problem with RR giving an honest assesment of Trent. If he thought there were effort issues, he should say so - corching is a close fraternity, and I don't think you would advance your respect in corching circles if you blew smoke up people's ass about how great every kid that played for you ever was. To borrow from the "job referral" comparison above, when I've hired someone who fails despite a sterling reccomendation, it has impacted my willingness to take the reccomender's advice with any credibility in the future. If RR sticks up for a kid he doesn't believe in, and thinks will fail, his opinion going forward is diminished. I would only have a problem with RR saying Trent was "a big reason the team was 3-9". That seems like laying the problems of a lot of people, including himself, on a scapegoat.
That said, it's tought to blame Trent for being upset. If you found out that someone was trashing you around your entire job-market, you'd be pretty pissed off, right?
What's happend:
-Corch has negative opinion of player
-Corch tells others of negative opinion
-Player gets upset that coach has done so
Trent is justifiably upset. That doesn't mean Rodriguez did something wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean Trent is doing something wrong by disliking him.
If you say "Morgan Trent is an opinion leader among teammates," that's good, but if you add, "and since he didn't buy in, he encouraged an antagonistic attitude among others, which is a big part of the reason for the bad season," that's bad. It's an opinion. You can never prove anything one way or the other.
I'm sure none of this comes as any surprise to the parties involved.
Right. It's a case of "these two people dislike each other". In such a situation, from our vantage point, it's fruitless to find "right" or "wrong". It just is.
Agreed.
It's also kind of funny that RR keeps his opinion private, while Trent makes his opinion public, yet people say that somehow reflects poorly on Rodriguez. When RR writes a book called, "Morgan Trent's Lazy Ass," that's when I'll get upset.
Your last sentence gave me the best laugh I've had in a while.