I don't think Wermers was expected to contribute much.
is there such a thing as an etsy genuis? if so, this is it.
I don't think Wermers was expected to contribute much.
I disagree. I would much rather Michigan treat football as a business, and get down to the business of kicking other teams' asses. Part of the problem was the country club atmosphere Carr fomented in Ann Arbor. Boren and Wermers were prime beneficiaries. No more.
Totally agree with this. You can include Dan O'Neill in there as well.
Wermers never played under Lloyd. He was part of the '08 recruiting class.
He never played for Lloyd but he still was able to compare RR's atmosphere to Lloyd's through his recruiting experience with Lloyd. Lloyd originally recruited Wermers and RR was able to keep him after RR was hired. Chances are RR and Wermers barely interacted prior to Wermers arriving on campus. The bottom line is Wermers experienced RR's UM team and changed his mind. It's not a knock on anyone, just not a good fit.
I agree completely, however I wonder what he meant by saying RR is recruiting different people. Is that different types of players or actually different types of people?
you may have noticed our offense has switched from pro style to spread...
Quote: "I really didn't get along with the new coaches," Wermers said. "They were bringing in a lot of different kids that were not my kind of crowd. Coach Carr's staff was a whole different ballgame. It was like a family. But when Rodriguez came in it was a whole different feeling. It was more of a business."
There are indeed some nasty implications in there: 1) he contrasted this program with Carr's "family," reminiscent of Boren; and 2) his statement "not my kind of crowd" has very negative connotations. The "not my kind of crowd" is a cliche typically meant to denigrate whatever crowd it is aimed at.
We can safely assume that the family thing is meaningless - many recruits have touted the family atmosphere at Michigan. RR can run the program like a business and still promote a family atmosphere. As for the second statement, well, not sure what to make of it. IF there is a culture change among the players in the program, so be it. Some recruits will like it, some will not. Just like the culture that preceded it - the one that Wermers liked - I am sure some took to it and others did not. I am not sure what type of culture Wermers is referring to, but if RR can run it like a business and keep it like a family, then that is a great culture to have.
I guess I missed the part where Wermers said anything inflammatory about Rich Rod. He didn't feel comfortable with the new staff and said it felt more like a business than a family. It doesn't sound all that harsh, to be honest.
Mountain out of a mole-hill
This is the second time I have heard the lack of family values or family feeling excuse for leaving, the other most notably was Boren. Overall attrition can be expected and both Boren and Wermers were Carr recruits, this does not surprise me much. Oh well, lets move on. Its not like he was going to start anyway...
Running it like a business is a good thing, that's what winning teams are about. The "family atmosphere" thing sounds like sour grapes to me.
Yeah, he most likely would not have been a contributor unless injuries really caught up. Was he red-shirted? How would he have known how it was playing for Carr if, "...he noted he will have positive memories of his one year up north."?
He wouldnt know what its like to play for Carr. But Carr recruited him and RRod hung onto him when he took over. Through the recruiting process Wermers probably got to know Carr and his staff fairly well.
Of course, when you're being recruited, you often see a different side of a coach than you do when you're actually playing for him.
While that maybe true any coach would be wise to present the same personality and character on the recruiting trail that he does on the field. They dont want to sell recruits on one character and then present a different, that would build a bad rep for the program and coach.
You can't be the exact same person. In recruiting, you're buttering the kid up as much as you can. In coaching - especially for a tough, physical sport like football - you have to challenge the kids and push them to succeed. Anyway, the idea that Carr held the kids' hands is a stretch. Talk to someone who played under him and he'll tell you that Carr was usually the bad cop. It was the position coaches who played the role of good cop.
Although I don't think what he said was terribly nasty, I still don't agree with the negative comments to the newspaper. Say you weren't feeling it and you found a better fit, but I'm sure if Wermers were starting he wouldn't mind the business atmosphere.
Not everyone makes it here, and that's fine. Go to your next school, thank the coaches for giving you a shot and be done with it. The other comments aren't necessary, IMO.
+1, very well put.
but, I also think that sometimes people let something slip and it seems worse in print than it was meant to be. Even politicians, who talk to the press all the time, sometimes let something out that rubs people the wrong way; lets not forget he's just a kid.
Another thing is that a lot of times reporters want to get people to say something more inflammatory than you meant, and liberally paraphrase and call it a quote.
Question: "Who ran Michigan football more like a business and who ran it more like a family, between LC and RR?"
Answer: "I guess LC was more family and RR is more business."
Newspaper: Wermers said "With Lloyd Carr there was a family atmosphere, but with Rich Rodriguez it felt like more of a business."
Not saying that definitely happened, but it's not out of the question.
Cue the MSM picking this up and bashing Michigan and Rich Rod in 3...2...1...
Dunno why these kids have to take parting shots at their former schools; let bygones be bygones and be done with it. Wermers was a middling recruit that Rod held onto when he took over Carr's recruiting class; after one year it was pretty clear he would be buried on the depth chart for the entire time he would be at Michigan. Good luck to you Mr. Wermers, but thanks for freeing up a scholarship.
exactly. everyone outside the program (MSM, etc.) will have a negative take on his comments. his intent was to put down the coaches.
comments to me. He was just explaining why he left.
But it is funny to note that most of the incoming recruits actually cite the "family atmosphere" at Michigan as a reason for coming here.
Good luck at Ball State.
The RR comment didn't seem nasty. Not getting along happens; you can't please everyone. A lot of other people have praised the program for its family atmosphere so this doesn't really bother me.
However, I wonder what he meant by this:
"They were bringing in a lot of different kids that were not my kind of crowd."
To me, that's the "zing!" quote - clearly, he didn't like the other guys being recruited...
but is part of that just a failure to realize what team composition is going to be like at an elite college football program? I mean, yeah - its different from your HS buddies... surprise!
I don't think that sounded so "nasty" he sounds more like ONeill than Boren that he didn't fit in and just wasn't happy staying with UM.
And he's right he should leave if he isn't happy it does nothing for himself to be going to UM with the atmosphere that he described around him, and it doesn't do the team any good to have a player on the roster who isn't motivated to be there.
Hopefully he finds what he wants at Ball State
Generally, I take "more like a business" to mean, "I probably wasn't going to get playing time just for having worked hard for a year, and it was more of a performance and talent oriented thing on the team."
Which is understandable. The best will play under RR, I think. IF you're not the best, we're glad you worked hard, but, tough luck. Some guys think a year of dedication should mean snaps.
Generally, the best players will play under any coach. This isn't a concept that is exclusive to Rich Rod and his coaching staff. Generally speaking, Carr put who he thought were the best players at the time out on the field, too.
Nope, I'm pretty sure the best players strategy was developed by Rod at Tulane. It's now been disseminated along with many aspects of his spread offense. For instance, Pete Carroll and Urban Meyer, who also adopted aspects of Rod's "run your program like a business" approach, use the best players strategy almost exclusively. You can tell because their teams are usually really, really good.
Lloyd was known to use a rubric that included talent, but as a subordinate variable to poetry recitation, consistently double-knotted shoelaces, and appropriate levels of eye contact in interviews.
I was making a reference to what I believe may have been Wermers' percieved impression.
"Lloyd recruited me, so I would play under him. Rodriguez has recruited others and made it obvious they will play first." I.E. - No amount of hard work under Rodriguez will get me on the field. He MAY have felt that under Carr, since he was recruited by him, that if he worked hard enough, he'd get a chance on the field sooner or later regardless.
Your first comment states that "the best will play under RR" as though this is a departure. I suppose it's possible that Wermers thought he would automatically get playing time under Lloyd because Lloyd recruited him, but if so, that was a pretty silly assumption to make. He MAY have thought that Lloyd just had sexy legs and that he and Coach would enjoy summers in a romantic seaside cottage, but I'm not sure why we'd bother speculating about that.
A coach tells a recruit, "We like you. We want you to come play for us." Unless you REALLY have a low opinion of yourself, that probably sounds a lot like, "We like you. We want you to come play in games for us." Even guys who say they want to compete never really expect (at least not as freshmen), that they won't see the field.
i think the real issue is that players who establish themselves as starters may in some programs become entrenched, and not have as much fear of losing their starting spots as in other programs. if RR maintains a more competitive atmosphere, the same players may still play, but they will be better because of the threat of losing their starting role.
This is absolutely true, but he may have ASSUMED under Carr he'd get playing time.
Certainly. But the atmosphere that brings out the best guys may be completely different.
RR frequently alludes to competitiveness and probably creates a more competitive environment than Carr did. If this is the case, the players that aren't used to RR's philosophy and lack the competitive "edge" may feel that it is more about business than family.
Please divulge on what basis you are making the assumption that competitiveness was lacking in the Lloyd football environment.
The only time I can think of where Lloyd kept someone on the field when they were struggling and another option was available was Henne in his junior year when Gutierrez was on the bench. And it turned out that Lloyd knew what the fuck he was doing by sticking with Henne, and that I got frustrated with his apparent 'loyalty' to Henne because I didn't know shit. If you can think of other examples, hit me with 'em.
EDIT: If you're trying to say that practices and training may be more intense now than under Lloyd - fine. There's some anecdotal evidence out there to support that. But if you think that Lloyd hesitated to put his best players out there because he wanted every little Kurt and Justin to have his turn to play in front of mom and dad, you are completely deluded.
"More competitive" was probably not the right choice of words but the way RR brings out competitiveness is likely different. "Different" was probably a better choice.
I am not insinuating that Lloyd did not put his best players.
Flaming over. I just get crabby when Lloyd gets caricatured as a lovable grandpa who didn't really care that much whether Michigan won or lost (not that you were necessarily trying to convey that).
Carr played Pat Massey, Eric Brackins and the soph version of John Navaree despite obvious and brutal struggles. Sure, Navaree worked out by the time he was a senior, but Jesus Christ did he suck as a soph. Massey was a disaster at DT all through 2004 and Brackins was helpless against the Purdue and NW spreads in 2000.
any of those players.
It's interesting to compare this to what Austin White's dad had to say on Sam Webb's show this morning. He said he was impressed with the intensity of Michigan's coaches during practice and that he was impressed that the coaching staff recruited "the whole family," i.e., spoke a lot to Mr. and Ms. White and not just Austin...These things are not necessarily inconsistent with what Wermers said, but it does make you wonder if the issue of family under Rodriguez isn't in the eye of the beholder.
I'd like to think that the coaching staff is looking out for kids and not bringing in "the wrong crowd" but I also agree w/ jg2112 that things during the late years under Coach Carr seemed to be getting a little too easy for the players...I'd also be interested to know exactly what "the wrong crowd" is. Are they guys who don't care about academics and beat people up on the weekends, or are we talking about poor black kids from Florida who have dreads and listen to rap?
He sounds like a tool. It's the latter.
"Are they guys who don't care about academics and beat people up on the weekends, or are we talking about poor black kids from Florida who have dreads and listen to rap?"
Also, note the linemates Wermers is joining at Ball State...
Who did Wermers get offers from, aside from U-M (and presumably Ball State)? I recall Brian suggesting one of the linemen was offered solely from camp performance, and that the rating services and other offers (from MAC-level or lower B10 schools) suggested a collegiate career riding the pine. Was it Wermers?
Agree with another post regarding one year into the career, of Barwis bootcamp, lost in the depthchart, etc., and the expectation to play being exploded.
Wermers was a four star on Scout who had offers from Iowa, UCLA, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan and Northern Illinois.
So why go to Ball State?
My guess would be that it's a pretty good MAC program that's close to home for him.
In the article it says that there are a bunch of players from his HS playing there, I'm assuming that's why he chose Ball State.
Ball State's coach is former Carr coordinator Stan Parrish. If he's looking for a more Lloyd-like experience, Ball State becomes an obvious choice.
(Now whether Parrish runs his program the way Carr ran his is another question, but Wermers may see it as a possibility.)
So your basically saying he had offers from a bunch of meh programs and Iowa.
As for his comments, they are more of a commentary on his maturity then the manner in which RR runs the show. He is 20 years old and was probably used to being a stud. Division I college football is a rude awakening to those who is has always come to "easy."
Quick though on the below quote…
"But if I'm not happy every day that I wake up, why keep doing it?"
My guess is that 99% of the football team is not going to be happy everyday when they are getting the crap kicked out of them by Barwis. You put in the hard work to achieve a greater goal and win football games.
Those are not the words of a winner. Successful athletes know that every day isn't going to be "happy time." What separates the winners is that they push through to reach a goal - happiness comes from reaching that goal.