Godfather III was nominated for best picture. This Godfather III sucked meme is played out. That movie was better than 90% of the crap spewing out of hollywood today.
further adventures in Jed York being unsuited for his position
YOU TOO CAN OPEN YOUR MOUTH IN PUBLIC WITHOUT GETTING PEOPLE MAD
Don't. This is the easiest and best way to go about it. What does everyone think of David Baas? Exactly. We think David Baas won the Rimington award. We do not think he has some weird grudge against his younger doppleganger or is Joe Morgan.
If you have to, do not say anything about Denard. Nothing you can say about Denard will meet the standards of the Michigan fanbase, which thinks he is made of rainbows and sweetness and light and will brook not even the slightest criticism. For instance, saying…
You looked fantastic for five games against nobody. That's what you did.
…as a way to "blast college athletes' sense of entitlement" is taking a cheapshot at a guy playing opposite the worst defense in the history of man. Many people will make the internet annoying for a day until the next outrage.
More importantly, it's inane because Denard is the least entitled athlete at Michigan in a very long time. We get it: you hated Rich Rodriguez to the point where you'll roll your eyes at Denard Robinson. You can stop it now.
If you do say something about Denard, at least own up to it. Desmond Howard's response to this was to claim his comment was about "fans and the media," and while the fuller context of the quote does soften it somewhat it mostly emphasizes how bizarrely inappropriate it is to grab Denard Robinson of all people as a "perfect example" of entitled kids.
I mean, it's not like there's anyone else in Michigan's recent past that fits that bill slightly better—
If you have successfully piloted your speaking away from Denard, don't imply the kids currently on the team are lazy and soft. This is called "projection," a malady that often befalls middle-aged men past their glory days. The people on the team have worked very hard for little reward because there are a lot of people who aren't on the team for various reasons. So when you say the effort was "lacking" or Michigan "toughness" is back you are telling Ryan Van Bergen, who can stuff your desk-job-having ass in a can, that he's failing you.
This isn't very nice. Also, the opposite is in fact the case.
If you have managed to not talk crap about the players, you are most of the way home. Congratulations! Now you've only got three topics left:
Escuche y repita. Like last year's Ohio State season, the last three years never happened. They are the Godfather III, the lying-newspaper-guy plot from The Wire, the Brian Ellerbe era… right… forgot. Kipling. Forget this bit.
Remember: the last three years never happened and therefore cannot be commented on BRADY HOKE MAGIC POOPING BEAR GOD SAY IT DO IT NOTHING ELSE
SPECIAL BO-ERA DUDE ADDENDUM: it is not racist that Corwin Brown was not hired by Michigan and you should stop saying that because it's not helping Corwin Brown any.
Godfather III was nominated for best picture. This Godfather III sucked meme is played out. That movie was better than 90% of the crap spewing out of hollywood today.
It was just scarred by Wionna Ryder dropping out at the last minute, and Coppola sticking his daughter in the role. She's a fine director, but couldn't act a lick, and since so much of the film revolves around her, it hurt it big time. Andy Garcia was awesome in it though. So yeah, it's a bit overstated.
Julia Roberts was originally cast as Mary, but dropped out due to scheduling conflicts. Madonna wanted to play the role, but Coppola felt she was too old for the part. Rebecca Schaeffer was set to audition, but she was murdered. Winona Ryder dropped out of the film at the last minute (supposedly due to illness, though other reports state that she was committed to Edward Scissorhands). Ultimately Sofia Coppola, the director's daughter, was given the role of Michael Corleone's daughter. Her much-criticized performance resulted in her father being accused of nepotism, a charge Coppola bitterly refutes in the commentary track, asserting, in his opinion, that critics, "beginning with an article in Vanity Fair," were "using [my] daughter to attack me," something he finds ironic in light of the film's denouement when the Mary character pays the ultimate price for her father's sins.
douching it. Is this some kind of penis envy for the guy who has probably come closest to your magic since you left? WTFish. P.S. You will never have Shoelace's personality, Heisman or no. Go into a bar and see who gets offered more drinks. Exactly.
I think Woodson may or may not have been in there somewhere between 1991 and 2011.
....striking a "Heisman Pose" after a TD is not "bigger than the program," yet a player who hands the ball to the official and kneels down for a prayer is "bigger than the program?"
I always liked Derrick Alexander better anyway.
"I always liked Derrick Alexander better anyway."
This is EXACTLY what I was thinking when Desmond was scoring all those TDs against ND and OSU.
Comments like these make it blatantly obvious that you are a young Michigan fan. Which is 100% ok. It's just interesting the different opinions Michigan fans have that tend to correlate generationally.
Don't even get me started on Yale VanDyne.
Simple, easy to understand guidebook for those too stupid to follow rule #1: say nothing.
And yet, it will be less than a week until somebody breaks the rules.
Although reading the article again, I can see Desmond's point about the media and fans freaking out about one player. There can be a sense of entitlement with players: remember the three Florida five star freshman who sat out of practice because they didn't like how they were being treated and referred to themselves as the Big Three?
Desmond is completely off on his analysis of Denard. As a previous poster mentioned, his stats speak to his talent. His committment to the team is spoken to by his work effort, vouched all las season by other players, and his continual efforts this season, despite numerous injuries.
Denard is awesome: I remember walking past Bells Pizza at 2 in the morning last year after the Notre Dame victory. Lo and behold Denard and Vincent Smith were standing outside. Noticing them I yelled as I walked by great game. Realizing more needed to be said, I walked back and high-fived both just telling how awesome they played and how much they mean to the university (particularly Denard). He tried to deflect the praise to Smith and even tried to convince me Smith was actually Denard. He was full of gratitude and both told me to take it easy and have a good night. Nothing less than I would expect from the Leaders and the Best.
Also, if Desmond is entitled to his opinion, then Brian is entitled to criticize it and request that people stop making ridiculous comments.
the reason that I first loved football. I used to hate football as a kid because we had 1 tv and I wanted to play my Nintendo and my dad would fall asleep in front of football all Saturday and all Sunday. I had a serious grudge agaisnt football as a rule, but when Desmond was playing for MIchigan I just couldn't be mad anymore. I've loved football and MIchigan ever since. That said, he needs to mind his words and maybe stay off of Twitter. Denard Robinson is a role model in the making. Telling Michigan fans that he's not the greatest player ever is like telling fans when they say "we're number one!" that "you know you're not REALLY number one right? I mean your team is in like 4th place in your conference. Just look at your stats on pass defense. Where do you get off?!" Seriously. I was at the game when Desmond signed for the Lions mid season and ran a kick back for a touchdown and was freaking out like a little kid, but COME ON man.
With all due respect, this is a blogger telling former Michigan football players what they're entitled to say about their former program. I can imagine how dismissively my eyes would roll if I had played at Michigan.
With a few exceptions (mostly related to basic decency), players can say what they want and we can say what we want about their comments. We have no right to tell them not to speak their minds just like they have no right to tell us not to respond.
Brian isn't actually talking about banning former players from speaking, right? He's saying "if you say these things, you will sound like an idiot, so you should not say them."
And yes, when Desmond freaking Howard, whose most famous moment is the time he struck the heisman pose after scoring a touchdown (which, for the record, was awesome) calls out Denard Robinson for being entitled, he sounds like a complete idiot.
This is probably a silly distinction that I'm making, but I think it's:
(1) reasonable to say that Desmond came off as an ass (I think he did); and
(2) unreasonable to issue guidelines in advance that would have prevented him from saying it.
I totally agree with you on Desmond. I'm just not a fan of discouraging comments ahead of time -- especially when that discouragement comes from a source without any real claim for doing so.
I understand your point, though, and almost made this case in my original comment.
That Brian's "guidelines" carry no weight with any of these players right?
Because he has no control over their lives?
If not best, very close.
One thing though ... having a killer smile, winning the Heisman Trophy, providing highlight footage that makes OSU look silly and gets heavy airtime season after season, and being part of the College Gameday crew makes a player almost immune from any criticism ever. Almost.
Even Desmond should think before he speaks. Using Denard as his hypothetical example of today's entitled players was unquestionably the dumbest thing that has ever come out of his mouth. Yes, it is possible to win the Heisman and still say stupid shit. Like everyone else, Heisman Trophy winners should stop and think before they speak. Maybe even moreso. They are Heisman Trophy winners, for Christ's sake. We would like to be able to look up to them.
I think everyone on this board is, or should be in agreement that Desmond should not have made those comments about Denard. That said, the fact that some people are talking some pretty hefty trash about Desmond is absurd.
Everyone makes mistakes. If any of us were in the public eye as much as he is, I am sure we would be caught saying stupid stuff from time to time.
If I were him, I would apologize to Denard. Maybe he already has privately. But using Denard in a speech as an example of spoiled, entitled college athletes was some stupid shit.
I don't think that ANYONE will defend what Desmond said. Why would you call out the LEAST entitled player I have ever watched? The guy has ZERO ego, is all about the team and is a true class act.
The point that Desmond was trying to make was about the media and the fans' attitude about a potential Denard exit (read the full context, it is pretty obvious). But, you can certainly make that point without adding the gratuitous part about Denard only having 5 good cames against crap competition.
That said, perhaps the guy is a Michigan legend, and the amount of sensitivity of some of our fanbase is over the top. Stupid comment by a guy that should have known better - and he has had the decency to try to clear it up. Move on, let it go.
maybe not the dumbest...the "they can come look at the heisman in my living room" comment after his 50 yards of offense in another rose bowl asskicking was probably dumber.
wasn't Brian on board with the racism thing? wasn't he also complaining that we didn't have enough black assistant coaches?
I don't think he explicitly blamed racism, but he definitely complained about a lack of young black assistants and suggested that it might hurt our ability to relate to recruits, at least until we hired Montgomery.
Naturally, it's been an oldish white guy (Mattison) that's actually turned out to be key in recruiting thus far.
and used a bad example. His point was let's not annoint a sophomore THE BEST THING EVER. He said the questions this offseason weren't about Michigan, but it was all about "What's Denard doing? will he stay???" And Desmond thought the focus should be more on the program.
That's my positive spin take, and I don't think Desmond said what he meant. Or was quoted pseudo incorrectly. at least I hope
Which is a more polite way of saying he stuck his foot in his mouth. Politicians do it all the time, and occasionally disaster follows. Disaster won't—and shouldn't—attend Desmond on this, but he needs to be a bit wiser about how he phrases some things.
Somewhere, right now, Denard is smiling. That makes me smile!
I think the newspaper plot in season 5 is highly underrated.
The newspaper plot as a whole, yes. The jackass inventing stories? Not so much. Gus Johnson quickly became one of my favorite characters in the series, but every time I saw that Templeton guy on the screen I just wanted to hit him.
I agree, but for me the urge to kill Templeton was the whole point. He was painted as the only grade A asshole - maybe besides that one cop who takes Randy's Marlo clothes money- in a show full of ethical and moral grayness, which is saying something. I also like that the Washington Post told him to fuck off, and that McNulty fucked with him so.
than a post instructing sports fans how not to overreact on the internet. That would solve the vast majority of kerfuffles surrounding former players -- including this one.
and wish it would hurry up and come on.
for my tastes, there have been too many axes to grind on the main page lately and way too much sniping between fellow michigan fans on the boards.
Is your post sarcastic or is it ironic?
was that if Denard put up those numbers all year and beat OSU and MSU and won a BCS Bowl game and the Heisman and maybe struck a pose, THEN he would be able to be feel "entitled"? Desmond contradicted himself. I don't think Bo qualified the statement "no one is bigger than the Michigan program" with any performance exemptions.
In fact if anyone is acting the big-shot, it's Desmond Howard. It just blows my mind he can throw out Denard Robinson's name as an example of what's wrong with college football. Denard is all about what is RIGHT with college football.
i can't start forums but this was interesting - would be fun! pleaseee former players, don't demean this idea i'd love to see it
In response to accusing someone of starting flame wars, you decide to include comments labeled as "proof" that you know will start arguments because there is no way to actually prove what you have chosen as evidence.
Hopefully I've outed your ridiculousness and this can end right now.
Denard playing injured.
Vincent Smith returning 6 months of an ACL tear.
Mouton making a game winning sack after one of the worst defensive performances of all time.
Martin playing after two cheap shots from Wisco and MSU.
The team was still young and poorly defensively coached: proof=Umass.
Brian does provide insight and quality material. Yes, he is frustrated but he is still the one putting in the effort everyday to make this blog work for us.
You tried to prove the team wasn't tough based on one game over the course of the season, so your criticism of my rebuttal refutes your intial analysis. When it comes to an elusive and tough to define topic regarding toughness in football, I agree with you Hoke and Mattison have a better grasp of it then I do. What exactly are they doing to make the team tougher? Yes, they are trying to make them bigger instead of quicker (RR) so that the team can play a more physical style of play. They obviously are trying to impart a mental toughness also. If you are trying to say that since the Detroit News piece you think the team lacks mental toughness, committment, or resolve, then I disagree with you and point to previous examples. After experiencing the hell-fire that was the last three years and now a coaching change, the coach who recruited many of these players, we have only had three (I believe) transfers. After three of the toughest years of Michigan football with the Michigan family fractured, our players are sticking with the program, learning a new system, and still talking about resurrecting Michigan football. These guys are tough and were tough during the RR era. Van Bergen's comment speaks to the sense of abandonment the team felt when RR was there, and yet they still bust their butts for UofM. That is toughness. Using a fullback is physicality.
Here is a Detroit News pic mentioning RR's "Hard Edge." I'm sure they did a story on it also.
I don't think it was that the team wasn't tough, I just think the team wasn't that good and they were young/inexperienced. You say they crumbled the past two seasons at the end, but you don't consider that the schedule is built with the tougher teams situated at the end of the year. If the tough teams were interplaced among the schedule we would have a much more balanced season. We wouldn't have these high expectations because we pounce on some easy teams early, and then when the good ones realize our team is Denard Robinson and if they stop him they stop us. It is just we played the better teams (Rose Bowl participant etc.) at the end of the season. They just weren't as good as the Wisco's, OSU's, and Miss, States of the world. Yet...
that Hoke and Mattison are spending their time instilling actual, tangible things like proper defensive alignment and tackling technique and not your pie in the sky idea of "toughness."
I will put down any amount of money necessary to have dahblue meet face to face with any member of our defense and question his toughness.
I think it had more to do with a real reason.
In a lot of areas, our team was very youthful.
After Mike Martin got hurt and was never the same, we lacked a physical presence on the line.
Our secondary was made up of freshmen and sophomores. There is a reason players redshirt.
Our quarterback was in his first year starting and made the same mistakes many other young quarterbacks have before him. His stats in big games have already been listed and you can see that he wasn't nearly as bad as people say, he just didn't have the running back he needed to lean on at times.
Or maybe it was our freshman left tackle who consistently came up with holding penalties at crucial times.
I think it had to do with our kicking game, which was unable to make a field goal inside 40 yards and did things like set up Ohio State for 35 yard touch down drives.
Maybe part of it was the bad defensive scheme our coaches ran with players who were not quite ready to play at this level?
I think toughness truly comes in at the very end of the list of things that need to be improved.
What are they going to do? Beat them with bamboo reeds? Hang them by their ankles and make them do sit-ups? Leave them in Northern Canada and say "Find your way back to the Big House. First person back doesn't have fight the shark."?
I really think you need to re-examine the problems with last years team.
I don't know why Coastal Blues posts keep getting greyed out. New system is weird. You need to rethink toughness. We lost because we weren't good. Being good usually makes teams fear you. Yes, being big and physical can make teams fear you, but also telling your offensive linemen to chopblock the other team's best defensive player makes teams fear you.
Zach Novak is a perfect example. He is tough. Not because he is big, really talented, or feared (see Blak Griffin). But he is the grittiest, hard working, toughest player out there. He is one of my favorites and brings toughness to the game everytime. This is toughness.
Coastal Blue and others have had the exact same argument multiple times this week. I think people are getting sick of it and negging appropriately.
Every single person on this site uses the exact same arguments over and over again.
Because we have the exact same discussions every week.
I get accused of having an agenda for defending Rich Rodriguez because people - who claim to be sick of the argument - continue to express their opinion about his coaching tenure here. I believe some of their points to be grossly unfair and inaccurate. So I continue to defend a coach I respect. So it's an agenda to defend Rodriguez using similar arguments when someone insults him, but its not an agenda to continuously use similar arguments to deride him.
If you go back through my posting history, I never bring up Rodriguez. I never start topics about him. I never mention him unless someone else does.
In the end, the new system really comes down to whatever you agree with. If you hear something you agree with, you will upvote. If you hear something you disagree with, even if its well thought out,you will downvote it.
Edit: I mean look at what you're saying: multiple arguments. You can't argue with yourself. There's two sides. Yet one side gets downvoted and the other gets upvoted, just depending on which side is more invested in the argument.
I admit to compulsively downvoting Promote Rich Rod, Bouje, and Wolverine318/319/320/321 regardless of content. Other than that I've just been marking both sides of these RR v. Carr debates as redundant.
Because the work you're doing is very underrated.
Hey, I see you made it out of Bolivia! Did profitgoblue work his magic?
Edit: Intended reply to OMG Shirtless; sorry coastal blue.
I think I saw in the mod thread that my penalty was only 1 month in the box.
Want to hear something interesting (no, of course not, because you want to rant, not argue)? There are multiple definitions of "tough". There's "physically tough", which the above poster was emphasizing (correctly, IMO). Then there's "mentally tough", that being the will to play four quarters, overcome adversity/turnovers, etc. That's what RR's teams lacked and what Hoke/Mattison are trying to instill.