who fails upward better: Whitlock, Kiffin, or Brandon?
Another week, another riot. We are all Greek. The cause of this one:
At the end of the book, Deren describes the scene with Lloyd Carr, the former Michigan head coach that recruited Trent 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. [ed: "Morgan Trent was so serious about football he decided to save on rent."]
But Trent was also worried about what Carr thought about his words showing up in the book. He talks to him, not Rodriguez. “I really like Coach Carr. He’s been very good to me,” Morgan says. “I think at first he was wondering, but I let him know it didn’t put him in a bad light. I would never do something like that to Lloyd. He’s great.” …
“I guess it was motivation,” Morgan says of the words that Deren estimates may have cost him $1 million. “(I) want to show people it was all false.”
Consider it done.
Here we go again, after one hell of a game of telephone from Rodriguez to NFL scout—at this point the story can get passed to and fro ad nauseum—to Carr to Trent to book author Deren. Rodriguez issued a denial…
“The comments attributed to me are inaccurate and absolutely ridiculous,” Rodriguez said in a statement. “I said just the opposite about Morgan Trent to NFL scouts and wish him well with the Bengals.”
…but even so, don't you kind of believe it anyway? Don't you sort of want to believe it? I believe Rodriguez told NFL scouts some version of what Deren says. I also believe that Trent was a lazy player with an attitude problem who was one of the main reasons Rodriguez's first team was a jumbled sack of cats attempting to claw in 20 different directions. Even if he didn't say it, I believe the words attributed to Rodriguez are accurate.
Trent's personal animosity towards Rodriguez has been made plain. We've previously established around here that football players are not compliance experts and the distinction between countable and non-countable hours befuddles even said experts. A former player's opinion on Michigan's we're-talking-about-stretching violations says more about his relationship with Rodriguez than anything about the violations. It's a Rorshach test. What Morgan Trent sees*:
"I'm not surprised because I know what happened, and I know what kind of rules were broken. I couldn't see how they were going to get out of that."
"Whatever steps need to be taken (to restore Michigan's winning tradition), I'm all for it. What is happening right now obviously is not working. I don't know how long they're going to let this last until changes are made."
"Coach Rod’s a good coach, and people are just trying to get him in trouble to me," Graham said.
So Morgan Trent is not disposed to give Rodriguez the benefit of the doubt when Lloyd Carr convenes a special meeting of the Anti-Rodriguez illuminati with the express purpose of revealing the dastardly secret carried about by Rich Rodriguez…
who controls the practice logs?
who puts Michigan Stadium in a bog?
weeeeee dooooooo… we do!
…that any Michigan fan could already have told you.
this happened like eight times in that game
He was not particularly good at football. He badly regressed after a promising junior season. Then when he went to the Shrine Bowl he "struggled," reinforcing the opinion of scouts "already down on him." The reason for this is now obvious: he hated the transition to Rodriguez, probably hated the coach himself, and spent a year half-assing it. The responsibility for this lies with Morgan Trent, even if he was so serious about football he lived with relatives(!). Attempts to deflect it only reinforce the very criticism (possibly) leveled by Rodriguez. It had nothing to do with the quality of the team, as Trent claims elsewhere in the article. A guy from Hillsdale went in the third round this year. The Bengals hadn't even talked to Rodriguez and still waited and waited and waited to take him.
During the very moments when Trent was doing whatever it was that made him a team cancer, Brandon Graham was turning himself into a first-round pick. We have not had any reports on what Rodriguez told NFL scouts about Brandon Graham, but dollars to donuts they were along the lines of "draft this man first overall and ask if he will adopt your kids." The reason Rich Rodriguez would say this is because of the things Brandon Graham did. You see, Rudy?
Now, there are a disturbing number of people who look at the Rich Rodriguez inkblot and see big pointy teeth. One major reason for this is that Rodriguez appears to be much harder on his players than Lloyd Carr. It's the very tippy top of the peak of hypocrisy for any Bo-venerating Michigan fan to look down on Rodriguez for this (his failure to resemble Bo in the win column is another matter). Part of that veneration is accepting the idea that being a coach often involves being very harsh to people who aren't living up to your expectations.
I wish that Rodriguez had managed to enter more smoothly but don't really blame him for the massive culture clash no one from fans to players to athletic director anticipated. He has a track record.
To be perfectly blunt and enraging to the denizens of the comments who get enraged when people pop on here and say dumb MLive-type things about departed players, I do blame Trent. Michigan is not going to be in good shape if Rich Rodriguez leaves after this year, and Trent would clearly like to see that happen and is operating either without a care as to how his inability to suck it up affects the program or with the express intent of getting rid of Rodriguez. Loyalty to the institution does not occur to him. It appears that correcting the record is so important to him that he's willing to sell out his alma mater to refute allegations that may not have actually happened and no one knew about. In doing so he's convinced me that the potentially fictional and definitely obscure allegations are true.
So… congratulations Morgan. You've invented a variant on the Streisand Effect.
As for Carr, he gave explicit permission to Trent to sell Rodriguez out in this book:
But Trent was also worried about what Carr thought about his words showing up in the book. He talks to him, not Rodriguez. “I really like Coach Carr. He’s been very good to me,” Morgan says. “I think at first he was wondering, but I let him know it didn’t put him in a bad light. I would never do something like that to Lloyd. He’s great.”
No, just Rodriguez. Any question as so whether or not there is a major rift between the two coaches is now gone. If there wasn't, Carr would have talked to Rodriguez about it. He would have gotten some clarification or a denial or something, and he wouldn't have presented it to Trent in the fashion he did. If he didn't do that, he would have told Trent to shut up when given the opportunity.
If there is really a New Era of Accountability in the athletic department, Carr and David Brandon should have a come-to-Jesus meeting in which Brandon does a lot of screaming. Trent is a pissed-off kid who was working for a scholarship. Carr is supposedly a program icon and an athletic department employee. Michigan shouldn't be paying someone who is actively working against the interests of the athletic department. It's obvious that Carr could have helped smooth things over with any number of players but chose not to, chose to exacerbate things in certain situations. He could have been of help during the transition; he was the opposite.
Through it all, Rodriguez just grits his teeth and asks if you've heard his Lion King joke. I shudder at the tell-all book that will inevitably follow a Rodriguez canning.
*(meta: I had to link to a mgoboard message board post instead of the News because the News shoved their story behind a paywall a month after they posted it. No one is ever going to pay for that article. Go newspapers.)
If 20% of what I read about what's going on at Michigan is true, there is no way Rich Rod will be coach of Michigan's football team in 2012.
On the one hand, he'll be fired after 2010 if he has another "substandard" year.
On the other hand, if the team wins the conference title in 2011 as I suspect they'll be in line to do, I sure hope he leaves with middle fingers extended, in order to take the Miami or South Carolina jobs.
No one deserves to be treated like this. All Rich Rod wants to do is coach football. All this shit is ridiculous, and it's really making me question my fandom.
Each time something like this comes up and the anti-RR trolls come out spewing all they can about their confidence in his lack of character, I get the same nervous feeling the he will ultimately say F all of you and move on to a better situation where he is appreciated as a coach and not unduly vilified at every turn.
It would raise an interesting quandary for me should RR leave in an untimely manner and someone like Les Miles or Harbaugh replace him. Would I support them as coach?
On the one hand, I would love dearly to pick apart his every move and jump on any tiny bit of negative information as payback for those that did the same for RR.
In the end, I would practice what I preach and get with the program and support whoever the coach at M might be and cheer their success and lament their failures until given a valid reason not to do so.
My support for the next hypothetical HC would be as unequivocal as my support for RichRod. He's the fucking U of M coach, ergo, I support him unless given a legitimate reason not to.
I think most people would agree with you, but the debate is over what is a legitimate reason not to.
I certainly support our coach, but those who are less informed than we are could construe what he's done so far as a legitimate reason to not support Coach Rodriguez.
Two losing records, major violations against the football program, etc. on the surface look like pretty darn good reasons not to support a coach. But we know there are deeper issues at play here, so we still do.
What do you consider a legitimate reason not to support Rodriguez?
items that would cause me to change my mind:
1. Any indication at all that the welfare of players was not at the forefront of the coaches' minds at all times
2. A clear and consistent pattern of discipline problems and a lack of control by the coaches in terms of player behavior
3. Any indication of substantive infractions with regard to academics, recruiting, NCAA rules or any deliberate flouting of the spirit of those rules
4. Locking a player in a closet
5. Personal conduct/moral turpitude that would be unbecoming to the U of M and what it represents
6. 4 years in without a clear path and demonstrable improvement toward becoming an elite program that continually vies for a league championship and consistently is a player on the national level with regard to national championships.
I'm not against discussing the swirl of opinion, but I agree with the previous poster, the Michigan AD is in the best position to know whether RR should still be here. The biggest thing about success from all things Michigan is that the entire culture is supporting it. From the Regents, through the President, through all Faculty and staff, the Michigan culture is making the right decisions, tracking them and following through.
Does that mean mistakes are never made, no, does that me no one ever gets fired, or a decision has to be changed, no.
Does it mean that the people running the University know far much more than people who spend part of their day on blogs?
being ranked #5 in the country, returning a butt-load of talented seniors on both sides of the ball and losing your opening game at home to a Division 2 school named after a chronically impoverished and hard to spell mountain chain?
And I don't think it ever will.
So the loss to ASU put you over the edge to not support Carr?
"two-time defending I-AA national champions."
Not to minimize the impact of the game, but this wasn't just some random I-AA team. It was a team that would go on to win its third straight I-AA title. And yes, there is a significant difference between I-AA and II.
He's the coach of the Michigan Wolverines and is, in my estimation, an outstanding man and leader of men.
I hope this will all pass soon and Rich can enjoy being the heralded coach of the Michigan Wolverines like Yost, Crisler, Bo, and Carr.
I believe that the Michigan Athletic Department is one of the best-run AD's in the country and that they do not listen to the insane blabber that it shot all over the internet.
When we are restored, under the leadership of Coach Rodriguez, I hope that he never forgets what so many have done to him. I hope he realizes that there is a huge faction of supporters who believe that HE is the man for the job.
I am one of them.
If you think it's acceptable to treat someone the way RR has been treated the past 2 1/2 years, non-stop, that's your problem.
And really, do you need to be so profane? All I want is for RR to get a fair shake with his own players, and time to install his program. You equate that with .... well, whatever.
No, I'm ingenious.
because as someone stated i think he simply believes not saying anything prevents the cycle from continuing. in fact, it is that theory that sums up why many believe, in a way, the game passed him. newfangled blogs and media weren't exactly in his sight lines and the game, as a whole, moved on. he's expressly said that the attention and new dramatics of recruiting, etc., had exhausted him. where in the older times not giving quotes to newspapers often DID stop stories from being printed, now it means a story will be written and you will simply be marked as unavailable/unwilling to comment.
What you reference here is not what the main problem is here.
The problem is that Carr had no business having that conversation with Trent to begin with.
If Carr had not had that conversation w/ Trent, a future clarification wouldn't be necesary, b/c there wouldn't be a situation to clarify.
Nothng productive could have occured by Carr having that conversation w/ Trent. It only encourages factionalism w/ in the program, and it undermines Rodriguez. And an AD employee - I don't care who he is - undermining the football coach, is unacceptable.
I've lost a lot of respect for Carr, and he needs to go.
Carr was Trent's Head Coach for three years. To many, perhaps including Trent, he was like a father figure. He cared deeply about his players. Trent admitted he loved Coach Carr and probably wanted to speak with him, get his blessing, and move on. Remember, Trent came to Michigan thinking Carr would be his coach. That was the Michigan he went to, and the Michigan he knew changed, like it or not. Carr had every right to talk to Trent and Trent had every right to talk to Carr. What Carr said may not have been appropriate, we don't know and what we speculate is up for debate, but without a doubt they had every right, and very well should have talked.
We have 3 guys here that have supposedly said something and a ......I won't call him journalist ...who comes out with a story. RR denies it....Lloyd and Morgan should come out and stand behind their words. Until then we know nothing.
Sam did a nice job on WTKA and I think it interesting that Don called in after he did a little snooping and found out this book is self published, which allows him the freedom to put as much B.S. as possible. Also, it shoulf be noted this supposed controversy had zero effect on Trent's draft status. He was considered a late round pick to undrafted fa before the senior bowl, he did little to help himself there, he ran a good 40 time which everyone already knew he would so that had little effect and then he got drafted late.
The money between a 5th rd pick and 6th rd pick is negligible so this is a big stink about nothing.
LLLLLoyd llloves Michigan too much to specifically give Trent the green light to share the story for the book. If he's plotting RR's demise (which he very well may be), he loses all "cover" by telling Trent to "go ahead and tell the story".
Trent burned Carr by going public. Expect another vanglorious luncheon between Carr, Rodriguez and Brandon where they sing "HTTV" and give a joint statement on how great everything is going.
Or this could all be Carr's retaliation for Jaime Morris. Is it August yet?
Only, what can Brandon do about it? Really?
Letting Lloyd go is going to stir a hornets nest of older boosters who believe Carr to be infallible (ironically, many of the same people who accuse RR supporters of believing him to be infallible) and to represent some bygone era of Michigan perfection that only exists in the sepia-toned memories of those who still think we were an elite program in hte last years of his tenure.
He can't force them to be friends.
Lloyd will not, nor should he, publicly acknowledge or comment on any of this.
Morgan is is Morgan and will remain a bitter ex-player with an axe. Will he keep talking? Maybe. One certainly suspects that he has had his mouth open in the past and could very easily be AKA 'anonymous player x' in a certain Free Press hit-piece. As it stands right now, he has provided more evidence and publicity for his own attitude problem that anything RR may or may not have said to NFL scouts. Congrats Trent, you are now on record as big, whiny, me-first, non-team player.
RR can only sit and take it, like he has thus far.
I liked Carr. He was a good coach and had his own philosophy, for better or worse.
I like RR, he is a good coach and a good man. Whether or not his philosophy translates into success on the field is yet to be determined, but i think it will. Either way, that is what I will judge him on and not on any of the trumped up negative PR being generated.
I can only wonder at Carr's motivation for relaying the information to Trent and why he would bless Trent going public with it after assuring that his own reputation would remain intact, which, for the record, it does not.
Brandon has the power to say, "Get out of YOUR office, Lloyd..."
I've always loved Lloyd. I also think RR has been handling himself remarkably well, in a fashion we should all be proud of: humble on the outside, a raging inferno of "get it effing done!" on the inside.
I want to keep loving Lloyd, for all he gave to the U. I'm going to do my best to hang on here and hope this turns out, somehow, to be wrong. Dammit all!
I don't envy David Brandon, but I'm glad he's our man now. I believe he's up to the task.
a baby in his retirement. I guess there is no way to preserve your legacy then the failure of your predecessor.
successor ... Lloyd's predecessor was Mo.
I have to completely agree with you here. It often gets overlooked how incredibly well he has handled himself the past 3 years, despite being under more scrutiny than your average drugged-out pop star. Lloyd left on his own terms, for whatever reason Miles was not hired, and RichRod was an amazing hire that nobody expected. Other than a losing record, what has he done to deserve any of this?
"If there is really a New Era of Accountability in the athletic department, Carr and David Brandon should have a come-to-Jesus meeting in which Brandon does a lot of screaming."
If it happens, amen for that!
All this pissing in other people's lemonade. Must be Spring/Summer. Fall can't get here fast enough!
You weren't that good. You were lazy, confused, and just didn't give a crap about your team, your school or yourself. Get lost. You are not a Michigan Man.
Fair disclosure: I'm an MSU grad and blogger--albeit one who sees Rodriguez as less pointy-teeth-guy and more as a sympathetic figure caught in a maelstrom--so I don't claim that my views on Michigan football are completely without jaundice. With that out of the way: if Trent honestly believes that Rodriguez said those things, you're essentially asking him to be loyal to the program when the program (in the form of Rodriguez) has not been loyal to him, at all. To me, loyalty would have been Rodriguez standing up for his former player by not "bad-mouthing" Trent (whatever that actually meant) even if he had ample justification to do so--as seems to be the case.
So here, there's a former player speaking out and joining the chorus of anti-Rodriguez voices, probably in the hopes that, yes, there will be a change at the top. I'd imagine that Trent knows replacing Rodriguez at the end of this season would leave Michigan in poor short-term shape. Given what he believes happened (and as Brian concedes, probably did happen), I bet Trent thinks the post-apocalyptic period would probably be worth it.
In any event, I think solely blaming Trent here essentially sanctions the idea that in the Rodriguez era, loyalty is a one-way street. I may be naturally skeptical of the Inherent Michigan Values that Wolverine fans always ascribe to the program, but whatever they are, this surely isn't one of them.
Fair disclosure: I'm an MSU grad and blogger--albeit one who sees Rodriguez as less pointy-teeth-guy and more as a sympathetic figure caught in a maelstrom--so I don't claim that my views on Michigan football are completely without jaundice. With that out of the way: if Trent honestly believes that Rodriguez said those things, you're essentially asking him to be loyal to the program when the program (in the form of Rodriguez) has not been loyal to him, at all. To me, loyalty would have been Rodriguez standing up for his former player by not "bad-mouthing" Trent (whatever that actually meant) even if he had ample justification to do so--as seems to be the case.Except that RR has stated he did not make these comments. Even if he did, it would seem that Trent not buying in to the regime/program and being a negative influence would be the initial failure of loyalty. So by your logic, if RR received no loyalty from Trent, he owes him none in return.
So here, there's a former player speaking out and joining the chorus of anti-Rodriguez voices, probably in the hopes that, yes, there will be a change at the top. I'd imagine that Trent knows replacing Rodriguez at the end of this season would leave Michigan in poor short-term shape. Given what he believes happened (and as Brian concedes, probably did happen), I bet Trent thinks the post-apocalyptic period would probably be worth it.Second failure of loyalty on the part of Trent. He put his agenda against RR above beyond that of the program.
In any event, I think solely blaming Trent here essentially sanctions the idea that in the Rodriguez era, loyalty is a one-way street. I may be naturally skeptical of the Inherent Michigan Values that Wolverine fans always ascribe to the program, but whatever they are, this surely isn't one of them.Again, if Trent was a negative influence in his time under RR, he should be prepared to accept the consequences of that. His decision to go public speaks volumes as to his character and his willingness to cause harm to Michigan as an program and institution.
(1) "tell me about Morgan Trent's attitude"
(2) "tell me about Brandon Graham's attitude"
By your definition of loyalty, is Rodriguez obligated to answer these questions the same?
It is not "bad-mouthing" to answer private questions honestly. Rodriguez's public comments about Trent are uniformly positive. The same cannot be said for Trent.
LVS, I appreciate your work at theonlycolors, however I think you are wrong here.
Your implication of this "one way street" of loyalty is faulty. There is a difference between being loyal and being honest. Even if RR came out and said that Trent was lazy/didn't buy in/killed baby seals for fun, he was claiming the truth (well, probably not the baby seals part). I'm sure that RR hopes that Morgan will succeed in his future, but he also doesn't want to burn bridges by lieing for him. If he lies and says that Morgan was an A+ off-season worker, blah blah blah, he is doing a dis-service to future student athletes when they are attempting to go pro.
RR does neither himself or his players or NFL scouts a favor by sugar-coating every single one of them. that is what cheerleaders do.
+1 for the Stonecutters reference.
Somewhat related: I'm hopeful that (David) Brandon will be able to help RichRod with what seems to be a relative (if not absolute) weakness. I'm referring to his executive presence. Rodriguez has sometimes seemed overwhelmed by the parts of his job not directly related to football (public presentation, administration, etc.). It's harder to imagine Bill Martin (more of a back-office guy in demeanor) doing much in that department.
I remember one of Lloyd's first press conferences after the Mo-blow-up in '95. He handled the stage very well. Aside from occasional grumpiness and the Todd Harris sideline bashing, I thought he continued to do so for most of his tenure. What was presented here will, if true, end up as one of his low points.
... why it would be a big deal if he HAD said something along those lines. Coach Carr didn't often hide how he felt about certain players. Coach Berenson has let it be known when he didn't think guys were ready to leave early. Why is it so wrong and horrific when Coach Rod (hypothetically) gives an honest assessment? I just don't get it. Let the man coach football! Let him get through a two-week stretch without this garbage! NEED SEPTEMBER!
I got the impression that Trent talked to Carr AFTER he had been interviewed ("I let him know it didn’t put him in a bad light"--didn't instead of wouldn't.) Therefore, this idea that Carr approved of what Trent said is not soundly based in fact. It follows that the conclusion that we now have proof of a rift between Carr and RR is also not soundly based in verifiable data.
All of this could be explained away by Trent overselling what Carr said to him to justify his draft position.
Basically, we have proof of exactly nothing--except Morgan Trent thinks RR said bad stuff about him.
There is also no proof that Carr didn't talk to Rich Rod about it. What were they going to do to stop this if it had already occured? Chain themselves to the printing presses or issue a cautionary press release saying some idiot is trying to release a book with false information?
But isn't it possible to simultaneously be a supporter of both Carr and RR? Isn't it possible that this colossal game of telephone is simply a result of people hearing what they want to hear, and inferring mountains when what's actually being said is molehills?
Until such time as evidence worthy of the definition comes out as proof to the contrary, I do not believe that LC is purposefully or inadvertently undermining RR or the program he's running. Deren knew exactly what kind of thing was going to get his exercise in self-publishing plenty of coverage, and I think anybody who believes a word of it without true corroboration from other sources is being gullible.
Given that Carr, a whole host of his former players, and RR himself are all slated to be live on-air on WTKA very soon for a Mott Hospital fund-raiser, this crap could not have come out at a more awkward time.
I shudder to think what it would have been like if the internet, email, FB, Twitter, Mark Snyder, and self-publishing had all been around while Bo was mercilessly whittling his squad down to those who really wanted to stay in the first months after he took over.
This may just be naivete on my part, I honestly don't know. The circumstantial evidence makes a relatively strong story that Lloyd sold-out RR, but the older I get, the more examples I see of people misinterpreting other people, or situations where a story does get changed as it gets re-told from one person to another. You all can laugh me out of the room, I wouldn't blame you, but I still think it's entirely possible the Ramseys had nothing to do with Jon-Benet's murder, and I do think it's entirely possible that this situation with Lloyd and RR isn't quite what it seems as of today's news. (FWIW, yeah, OJ is guilty.)
It is an easy and logical conclusion to reach, since this all began as a wild bit of multiple hearsay -- 'Trent said that Carr told him what some NFL scout said about what RR said...'
But here's the thing: Carr -- our Senior Associate Athletic Director, Lloyd Carr -- is in a position to straighten it out. Do something. Clarify it. Call out Trent as a liar. Make the case that RR really did say it, including naming the NFL scout in question... or else leave the Department.
either Trent on the author, is lying outright.
The only quotes that can be attributed directly are those from Trent to the author and they relate directly to what he indicates Carr told him and what he discussed with Carr in relation to how his comments would play in public.
Unless the author fabricated quotes, Trent indicated that Carr disclosed to him that RR made negative comments about him to scouts. We also know, from Trent, that he discussed with Carr making this public and the impact it would have on Carr's image.
We also know that quotes were approved and made public by Trent.
I would guess that Carr did not know the specifics of what would be released and took Morgan at his word that it would not be damaging to him. In terms of protecting Carr's image, Trent gets a major FAIL.
it's unlikely the author is lying. but that doesn't mean is information is right.
Why would a relatively unknown author, who can't find a legitimate publisher, who wants to sell at least one copy of his crummy book and who transparently worships the ground Morgan Trent walks on want to embellish?
I'm not positing on whether it is likely or unlikely that the author is mistaken/lying/taking crazy pills - I have no clue. The mere fact that he self-published a book, however, amounts to precisely zero indicia of reliability.
I really can't understand why so much is being made about a third-hand allegation in a self-published book (meaning it didn't go through the usual round of copyediting and fact-checking that would occur at a commercial publisher)--particularly when this allegation involves three people, two of whom the author couldn't find the time to interview.
This is a failure of Journalism 101. Even a writer at the Free Press, had they been the original publishers of this story, would have contacted Rodriguez and Carr for a reaction and included their response (or "no comment") in the story.
But, of course, had Deren done so, his juicy little story would have lost quite a bit of its impact.
yes, it is possible people don't act uniformly good or bad. lloyd carr was on balance a great coach and influence on the football program and the university. he is also a good person. but he isn't acting like one here. sometimes good people do things we don't like, and even do plain bad things. that may be happening here.
i liked Van Halen with David Lee Roth and i liked Van Halen with Sammy Hagar.
that gary fellow, though, oish.