A Guide For Former Players Speaking In Public
YOU TOO CAN OPEN YOUR MOUTH IN PUBLIC WITHOUT GETTING PEOPLE MAD
NOT YOU
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:
- Rich Rodriguez is the devil. Accurate! So very accurate. But also played out. Everyone in the room will be envisioning you beating on a dead man. How did that go in the last season of The Wire? You didn't watch The Wire? You only read Rudyard Kipling books? Well, let me tell you: not so good. Also it was biting dead people but telling you that is pointless until David Simon writes a book of illustrated allegories featuring animals. How hard would I buy this book? So, so hard. I digress.
- Shuffling the fullback so you can run a power play at a defense that knows what's coming but is powerless to stop you is the only way to play football. Also very, very true but so obvious in the aftermath of Rodriguez being the devil that it hardly bears mentioning. You are trying to bring the Wisdom Of The Michigan Program to the public, but the public already knows that part in its bones. Fooling people is for communists. The wages of spread are turnovers.
- Brady Hoke is a cuddly bear-god who you, 6'9" high school tackle Zach Banner, should definitely play for. Now we are talking. This is a matter that the public is uncertain about—just look around here a few months ago—and Zach Banner is definitely uncertain about, being one of the few high school players in the country who has not leapt to play for our magic-poopin' cuddly bear-god. This is a topic of major interest amongst laymen and scholars and may result in honorary degrees from prestigious institutions if expounded upon at sufficiently withering, recruit-ensnaring length. Bonus points(!) awarded for pointed contrasts with Jim Tressel.
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.
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.
http://multimedia.detnews.com/pix/photogalleries/sportsgallery/20100822UMMediaDay/index22.html
The players are, of course, "tough". The team, under RR, was not tough. That's why they crumbled as each season wore on.
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.
The players are, of course, "tough". They are football players. That's how they roll. As a "team", they were not tough. They were not feared. They got pushed around the field. They got clowned. Bad teams took them to the brink or beat them. That is not tough. Again, I'll join Mattison, Hoke and the many former players who say that "toughness" needs to return to the program.
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.
Did we get a lot of "youth" excuses in RR's first year? Or was that his second year?
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.
Why?
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.
what he's REALLY doing is motivating Denard to get ticked off and win the Heisman twice to one up himself.
<br>
<br>Desmond Howard .. The Ultimate Michigan Man.
<br>
<br>
<br>/s(?)
Rich Rodriguez is the devil. Accurate! So very accurate. But also played out. Everyone in the room will be envisioning you beating on a dead man.I don't know about this. I'm not sure Brian realizes how much more strongly he supported RR than the fanbase as a whole. Many Michigan fans hoped for the best with RR but became thoroughly disillusioned with him. They held their tongue while he was here, but now that he's gone, they're finding it cathartic to let their frustration out. To the hard core of RR supporters, this may be like a knife to the chest, but they are only a minority of the overall fanbase, A lot of fans are comforted to learn that Hoke is very different from RR - just as Brian and others were comforted to learn that RR was different from Carr.
They held their tongue while he was here...
I find this statement... interesting.
jmblue is crazier than a shithouse rat, or just dishonest.
jmblue is the sanest e-person here.
Jmblue is sane and rational, and his comments are usually fair and reasoned.
That doesn't mean he's not hilariously wrong from time to time, just like the rest of us.
He's just being dishonest with that post, not crazy.
Maybe they held their tongue with one hand and typed incredibly premature and trumped up shit with the other? And now that they've stopped holding their tongues they can write lots of laudatory stuff about Hoke even though he hasn't coached a single game yet?
That's the best I can come up with.
I guess actions speak louder than words.
or does Mallett look completely stoned out of his mind in that picture.
Brian isn't saying that former players can't say whatever they want. He's simply suggesting that (a) jumping into the same debates until peoples ears bleed doesn't help former players' images with the fanbase, (b) ripping on current players for a lack of toughness makes fomer players look like the old man complaining about the price of the moving picture shows these days, and (c) Seriously, Denard?
Think of it as the sign on the woodchipper that says, "you probably shouldn't stick your arm in here. Just sayin'." You're free to do so, but don't say no one warned you.
I wish this was a sticky at the top of this thread. Not that it would have stopped any of the usuals and their usual, but it's a nice try.
. . . the fact that Mikhail Suslov has reincarnated himself in Brian, so as to tell us what sorts of comments are appropriate, and what are not, lest we hurt Ryan Van Bergen's feelings. Clearly, I lack the wisdom, moral fortitude, and love-of-Michigan to do this myself.
(a) jumping into the same debates until peoples ears bleed doesn't help former players' images with the fanbase
Does the general fanbase (not just the tiny sliver of it that posts here) really have a problem with any of the players that has spoken up? I doubt it. Most of the "controversial" things they've said amount to them being frustrated with how the program was run the past three seasons, which is a widely-held sentiment.
I've noticed that Brian has been saying things like "most fans" or "everyone" to cover a lot of his opinions lately (e.g., "Eleven Warriors is more optimistic about Hoke than most Michigan fans"). I don't know if he recognizes that on some positions, he's a bit of an outlier.
He used Denard more as an example because he knows Denard was the only bright spot on last years team. What 1 player means more to a team than Denard means to Michigan , If Devin Starts last year michigan win 4-5 games. The point he was making was no 1 person is bigger than the program and that is 100% correct.
If you took it as he was saying Denard was acting like he is entitled to anything thats your problem not Desmonds. He never said that or implied it and i'm sure Denard knows he meant nothing by it.
I read this whole thread (so far) and I am astounded to learn that there are people roaming the earth who can apparently both read and locate a specific web site, but cannot understand that Brian's admonitions to former players are satirical.
I don't understand how this is possible.
Like it really matters, though.
When HarbaughGate broke out several years back, I didnt care about it because, in some cases, when you speak in sweeping generalities to sound more credible you will bring up an example close to home or what happened to them. harbaugh thought he had more credibility if specifically brought up his experiences at Mich. The problem is sometimes that example is forced, wont make sense and is just wrong.
Same thing is happening here. Desmond is making comments about some problems he sees in CFB and brings up a MICH example so people dont think he's a homer. I agree that its the worst possible example that he gave. Like, did the people behind The Decision confer with him on this speech or what?
But, regardless, he put his foot in his mouth. And, his example takes away from his point. No wonder he communicates so well with Corso on the GameDay set
I dont think we need to pile on Desmond today, but Brian is pretty spot on with his post......and he's not really piling on Desmond either, btw
what you are trying to say but it still doesn't add up. If he wanted to use a Michigan example (which I don't think is necessary to give his opinion additional weight but whatever) there's plenty of examples out there - Boren, Tate, Mallett, etc. etc. He used Denard which was the worst possible example he could have used. It made his point significantly weaker to use Denard specifically, so what was the point?
I think Desmond's point was this: even if a player is very good and puts up some big numbers, he shouldn't ever think he's above his teammates and deserves special treatment. I don't think he intended the statement to bash Denard. I think he meant it as more of a word of caution. Now, Denard himself may not need this kind of warning, but maybe a teammate or two could benefit from it. There would be no point in calling out a guy like Mallett or Boren, because they're already gone.
I agree with your point that Desmond probably was drawing on the first guy that popped in his head from UM, and I doubt he holds any ill will toward Denard. At the same time, though, Brian is seemingly arguing that in general, former players/coaches at UM should be WAY more careful about how they discuss the team, especially if they haven't been directly involved in it for years.
All that said, I'm not going to hate on Desmond because he has been a solid representative for UM and it definitely feels like a spur-of-the-moment-type comment that I'm sure he would like back.
To the victor go the spoils. The old guard won this battle. So they can rewrite history.
"Several former Michigan offensive players on the team when Hoke was defensive line coach under Lloyd Carr — Hoke was a member of the staff that helped lead the Wolverines to the 1997 national championship that Griese quarterbacked — said they had a unique relationship with Hoke. Griese included himself among those players.
"I remember when I was playing as a quarterback — and he's a defensive line coach — he had a relationship with every single player in the locker room, and that's abnormal," Griese said.
"When I would come off the field after I'd throw an interception, the first guy I'd see was Brady Hoke. He'd say, 'Don't worry about it, we've got your back. We'll get the ball back.'"
Brady Hoke's good guy credentials get another boost. Probably the same qualities that helped us avoid any major attrition and secured our top notch recruiting class thus far.
...an MGoTempest in an MGoTeapot.
So there's this:
RellBEFLEXIN9 Marell Evans @desmond_howard we know you support us big homie!
Prediction: There will be a reprise of this sometime before the season starts. MGoShoeing it.
You jest and snark after every bolded statement, but by God every bolded statement is EXACTLY the spin that is best for the program. Thank you. I knew you'd come around eventually. And Desmond needs to keep his mouth shut. Was he high?
Desmond is one of the most recognizable faces of arguably the most storied program in college football. Undoubtedly this helped him land a primo gig at ESPN. He's made the most of the opportunity so I give him due credit.
However, in the interest of appearing neutral, Desmond and others former players turned analyst often seem to overcompensate at the expense of their former programs. What's unfortunate here is that Desmond made a terrible judgement call when picking a player to make a point as I can't think of a player in the program's history whose huge talent is overshadowed by their sincere humility more than Denard Robinson.
I, for one, refuse to throw Desmond under the bus even though I'm a bit perplexed, perhaps disappointed. In the net equation, Desmond has done so much for Michigan that I'm willing to give him a mulligan. Gonna leave the tearing down of former heroes to the Buckeye fan base. Speaking of, gotta run to check the microwave; the Orville Redenbacher bag has fallen silent.
Denard wasn't very good against good defenses. Especially compared to his games against bad defenses. That isn't even a point worth arguing.
I'll give Desmond Howard the benefit of the doubt that he knows Michigan football, knows what it takes to be a winner personally and in this program, and that he knows more football than everyone on here combined. Including Brian.
Step out of our little world of groovy but meaningless stats and face reality. Desmond Howard has earned the right to say what he wants AND to be criticized for it. Honestly, I sorta hated the last three years of watching a proud program get dirt rubbed in it's face by lesser schools. and with no real long term hope beyond an unbelievably fast quarterback who couldn't last a whole game without getting hurt. To the extent that former players are acting out and criticizing the previous era, they have a point.
I don't like them saying it but they aren't coming from a stupid perspective.
Sorry, but it seems like Desmond has gone completely to the dark side where promoting Desmond and the wisdom of Desmond has overcome common sense. Kind of like ESPN in general. Whatever his point, talking about entitlement and naming an individual is out of bounds unless said individual has in some way demonstrated a sense of entitlement.
I laughed, I cried; then I pooped. Best thing ever wrote - ever.
We Bo desciples get how annoying it is that we hated Richrod because he was the anti-Bo. And we get it that we were wrong, or at least we were overly anti-Rodriguez than was fair to him and the program. And I will say for the record that I was totally, completely wrong about the offense being ineffective, not working in the Big 11, etc.
BUT. Our defense sucked arse. And was not in any danger of improving. And Rodriguez, as good as he was at offensive Xs and Os, just didn't get the Michigan Man thing. Curse me and all my brothers in winged helmets, but he just didn't.
But here's my point... Bo, and Mo, and Lloyd had a philosophy, which was buried somewhere in the "Those who stay will be champions" mantra, that those outside the program have never quite understood. When a guy was ready to leave the program after having the crap kicked out of him as a Demo player during his redshirt year, or was ready to quit because a freshman running back took his spot he felt entitled to after three years of sweat, or was going to transfer because he was moved from tight end to guard to linebacker, no one ever asked him to stay. EVER. The coaches would tell them why it was good for THEM as a man and a person to stay in the program , but the philosophy was always "if you want to leave, we aren't going to ask you to stay. Those who stay will be champions. Period." I was at Michigan during the Moeller years, and when guys transferred (Jon Ritchie, Trevor Pryce, Eric Boykin, etc.) Coach Moeller would explain it yet again to us all.
And I know that is what Desmond was saying - He wasn't judging whether the program would be better or not if Denard stayed or left; we all know that him leaving would hurt like hell. But the point was that a sophomore who had a great year is still not larger than the program; and what Bo or Mo or Lloyd would have said to him is "Son, you are welcome here, but if you are going to leave, then godspeed." And they would have absolutely meant it , too.
And I was one of the old Bo guys who at least understood what Richrod was trying to do at the Bust with the Josh Grobin thing. He was trying to capture that same spirit that the "those who stay" era seemed to easily explain - We are men of michigan first, whether on the bench, or being drafted in the first round - and with that comes a certain measure of pride that only a Michigan Man can really understand.
I know how many of you hate the whole "Michigan Man" arrogance, and I completely understand why. I really do. But it is still what makes the place special. And if Richrod had understood that, he would still be our coach...
This is as good as it gets. Well done.
But bottom line is if Rich Rod had beaten OSU or MSU he'd still be the coach.
...to be highlighted. Thanks for the insights from within the brotherhood of Michigan football student-athletes.
Comments