What player alumni really think of the current players
October 11th, 2014 at 5:49 PM ^
"haven't posted in years"
http://mgoblog.com/users/wolverinewill
29 weeks ago
your last post. Whatever.
October 11th, 2014 at 5:57 PM ^
October 11th, 2014 at 6:33 PM ^
October 12th, 2014 at 8:32 PM ^
I bet you're fun at parties.
October 11th, 2014 at 5:54 PM ^
I would like any evidence at all to support your claims beyond "family of a current player" and "stuff I heard". I'm sure the players are feeling some heat from the fans, but I kinda doubt the alumni are talking shit about them to their parents.
By all means the program needs a new direction, but this type of backbiting and sniping on message boards is the worst type of behavior and just creates wars of words worth absolutely nothing.
October 11th, 2014 at 6:06 PM ^
October 11th, 2014 at 6:18 PM ^
I do. I usually don't look too deep into who posts, and keeping track of who knows who doesn't feel like it's worth the effort. I'll take your word, I guess, about what was said. It just seems unbelievable that so many alumni would speak poorly of the current players in front of their parents; and honestly, I heard similar stories toward the end of RR's era and many of them felt unsubstantiated.
But obviously if this happened it is unacceptable.
October 11th, 2014 at 6:06 PM ^
October 11th, 2014 at 6:22 PM ^
See above. I stand corrected.
October 13th, 2014 at 4:44 PM ^
He is legit.
October 11th, 2014 at 6:30 PM ^
for multiple reasons. I can't believe there's any group out there that feels anything but desire to support the current player...especially former players. It's difficult to fathom.
Also, if family members of current players think we don't want a Michigan Man at the helm, it just goes to show how twisted various accepted definitions of that term have become. Defined properly, the term "Michigan Man" can be a motivation tool. Tradition can be something that strengthens a program. We misuse the concepts so badly these days people want to get rid of them.
October 12th, 2014 at 10:43 PM ^
The "Michigan Man" concept has been perverted because Brandon applied it to a coach that did not appear to be qualified to be the next head coach at Michigan. The only real qualification he had for this caliber of a job was the fact that he was directly tied to the football program as a position coach under Carr.
It seemed like immediately after being hired Hoke was held up by Brandon as the true "Michigan Man" that was going to reunite everyone. Brandon's decision to hire Hoke and subsequent failure are what has damaged the "Michigan Man" meme. Bypassing more qualified candidates for someone with direct ties to the football program changed the definition to something closer to cronyism.
If someone like Miles or Harbaugh had been hired there would still be the direct tie to Michigan, but no one could argue with the qualifications.
October 13th, 2014 at 11:22 AM ^
A "direct tie to Michigan" has nothing to do with it. I'm not sure if you meant for that to be part of what a Michigan Man is, a lot of people think it is, but it's not. Again, I'm not saying that's what you're saying; it's not really clear. But this idea that you have to have a history with Michigan is crazy. Everyone came from somewhere else at some point. Is there supposed to be a requirement that you leave Michigan and then come back? The idea that where you came from has anything to do with it is crazy.
October 11th, 2014 at 8:00 PM ^
this makes NO sense. The letterment talk shit to the players/their parents, but they support Hoke? Do they not? And if not, who do they suggest?
October 11th, 2014 at 10:41 PM ^
October 11th, 2014 at 11:36 PM ^
Brady Hoke was the choice of coach from the Lloyd era players. GOTTA GET RID OF THIS SPREAD OFFENSE REDNECK COMMUNIST, GET BACK TO LLOYD ERA. HOKE'S YER MAN. So when Hoke fails, either they're wrong, or the players are pussies/shitty/somehow at fault.
It's been a pretty standard line of thinking from people who refuse to admit Hoke's been a failure.
October 12th, 2014 at 3:35 AM ^
and they want Hoke canned. So please do NOT lump all former players as Hoke slappies!
October 12th, 2014 at 10:20 AM ^
But that's just the problem; the whole UM program, both former players and almuni/fans, are so fractured. There is of course a group that want Hoke fired now. But the poster is also correct. There is/was a segment of former players (Carr's mostly) that were super vocal about Hoke being 'the guy' and are doubling down on that stubborness in face of reality at the expense of the current players.
October 11th, 2014 at 8:18 PM ^
October 18th, 2014 at 11:08 PM ^
I am also curious about this. I know the players would never talk trash about any of the coaches, especially not while they're still in school and/or duringthe season. But I wonder what they honestly think deep down?
October 11th, 2014 at 8:47 PM ^
October 11th, 2014 at 9:02 PM ^
Thanks for the post. This is well written, heartfelt, and full of truth.
Go Blue.
October 11th, 2014 at 11:11 PM ^
show up to meet with the team yesterday, today and to form a welcome line at the game? That sounds like support for the players.
October 11th, 2014 at 11:48 PM ^
I spent 4 hours today surrounded by and talking to former players.
First, I think it's inaccurate to lump the former players together. There are almost 2000 former players. They don't think and act as one. Just like fans on this board they all have their own opinions.
However, almost 200 of them showed up today to support the team and the currrent players.
All the players I spoke to were very supportive of the players and wanted nothing but the best for them.
I get that this is 'adverse selection.' I'm talking to the ones that showed support by showing up.
I can assure you that it hurts and pains the ones I talked to as much as the fans, if not even more.
October 12th, 2014 at 12:08 AM ^
October 12th, 2014 at 12:10 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 12th, 2014 at 12:47 AM ^
What if the former players showed up to support the coaching staff and said they were supporting the players, but their support of the players was conditional and contingent upon them winning?
I can't help but feel that the current players are being used as pawns to save the jobs of David Brandon and the current staff. I am guessing that nobody associated with the program wants to see a true housecleaning in which outsiders are brought in to affect a true culture change in Ann Arbor.
I am guessing that the former players showed up tonight for the same reason they never showed up or supported the players when Rich Rod was there; they want the Michigan job to be for "insiders only."
I think Hoke and company should be allowed to succeed or fail on their own merits with no favoritism or cronyism.
October 12th, 2014 at 3:22 PM ^
Did you ask them where the hell they were hiding 4 years ago?
October 12th, 2014 at 3:23 PM ^
Double trouble.
October 11th, 2014 at 11:58 PM ^
do you and the players have a legitimate disdain for the current staff? And do you and/or the team/players think the staff is incompetent?
October 12th, 2014 at 12:14 AM ^
October 12th, 2014 at 11:33 AM ^
Will,
thanks for posting the info you've posted. Unfortunately, (IMO) it raises more questions than answers.
"...they just want to win."
So why aren't they winning? It's too simplistic to say, "because the coaches suck ..." Are the players that Michigan has on the roster currently capable of more, of sustained success, of winning? We all assume, because of their star ranking, that they are. But if they're working so hard, love each other and their coaching staff, why are they consistently incapable of doing the things that are required to win?
For example, Michigan runs a basic stretch play to the left -- a play that they've repped 1000's of times in practice -- and the PSU LB shoots the gap and drops Smith for loss. I know a lot of guys will scream, "bad coaching!" but is it really? I've said this before, but at the end of the day, all the practice and coaching is so that the players can perform on gameday. Why aren't they? A coach can only do so much coaching.
Taking you at your word that your brother plays on the team, I'd be curious to hear what he has to say about this issue. It's not as if there are "advanced football techniques" that Hoke & Co. don't know, that other coaches do, and this is the cause of lack of execution. There are always going to be times when the other team "out executes" you. But, with this Michigan team it seems like every team out executes them on bascially every play.
I know it's the "in thing" to disparage the coaches, but I have to wonder if, based on your original comments (and the comments of Desmond Howard), if there is a component of the struggles that is "on the players." If former players are willing to disparage a kid to his family, maybe they're seeing things from the players that they, as former players, don't like. Further, maybe they're seeing things from Hoke & Co. that they do like, because they have seen/experienced good coaching.
I don't know the answer.
Any thoughts?
October 13th, 2014 at 3:18 AM ^
Sure, the players could fail to study well and execute. On the other hand, while repping plays may seem like rote memorization of assignments, the coaches could also fail to present (as from your example) the first team offense with a scout team adequately representing the looks that the PSU defense tends to use, resulting in surprises on gameday. They could also fail to call plays with high chances of success in various situations.
All parties have responsibilities, and if any member fails to carry out his, whether by indolence, incompetence, or simply due to competing against a faster, more experienced, etc. opponent, the whole team loses.
October 13th, 2014 at 4:58 PM ^
I see your point(s) Vegas.
However, I have to wonder if there is far too much emphasis being put on coaching in an effort to shield the players from their responsibility: execution. I agree that if a coach were continually putting them in positions to fail that that would be on the coaches. However, to my eye there are many times when the players are being put into a position to succeed, and yet, they're failing to do their jobs. For example, Frank Clark (our best and most experienced defensive player) missing a sack on Nova against Rutgers after GMat calls the perfect blitz at the perfect time.
I hear it now, "bad coaching!" But c'mon man, you're a senior, you've been in the same defense for your entire career, and you're always brought up as a "Impact Player" by the tv guys. Your DC calls you number, you have a free run at the QB, and you miss the play. Now, I am not dogging on Frank (ok, I am a bit) but at some point the players have to take responsibility for their own job, and fans have to recognize that the coaches can only do so much.
Now, all that being said, I fully suspect that there is something in the environment that the coaches have created that isn't bringing out the best in the players. I don't know what that might be, but there is something definitely wrong internally.
October 14th, 2014 at 1:53 AM ^
My post admittedly covered the various links of the chain, any of whose absence can, and often does, prohibit victory on the field. One can certainly observe instances, such as the one you mentioned, of obvious great play calls spoiled by lack of execution by the players. Even when our players have trouble executing, or are even, perhaps, simply less talented than the players on other teams (not referring to anyone in particular), most of our adult fanbase probably realizes the lack of class associated with directing disparaging remarks towards 18-23-year-old students, and, instead, tends to focus blame on the experienced adults in charge of providing - as you put it - the proper environment, in which they can be successful.
When I am responsible for teaching things to others, although some are simply lazy or obstinate and refuse to learn, I usually find that different personalities and learning styles require me to improvise my methods of explanation in order to reach all (or most) of my subjects.
That being said, I agree with you that it's not likely just an issue of delivering a way to understand a thing, but larger issues at play, that are prohibiting our on-field success. Whether the coaches are providing an insufficient atmosphere of success, there is a talent-gap, or other reasons can best be realized by those on the inside, who are obviously not the type of people to point fingers at each other, so we may not know for a while. During my time at UM, I was able to hear about things like a flu bug going through the locker room and other simple cases of unfortunate circumstances causing some poor performances as well as [player x] is just a bit of a bonehead and blew it. One big point that many may not understand is that a big task of the coaches isn't to pump the players up or get them to play with intensity; they get so fired up that the coaches have to try to keep them calm enough to maintain cool heads and play smart football.
October 17th, 2014 at 8:41 PM ^
I'm not a coach, but we just went through this at the school at which I teach. The coach kept telling his players that it was their fault for not executing, and yet the offense would hear the opposing defense call out the play they were about to run based on formation, etc.
All the execution in the world can't compensate for two extra men in the hole...
October 12th, 2014 at 12:35 AM ^
The douchiness is strong with those former players that do that.
They should be ashamed and embarrassed for treating students that way.
October 12th, 2014 at 12:43 AM ^
October 13th, 2014 at 9:09 AM ^
MLK said it best, and it bears repeating for those former players and coaches who (still) fail to get the message: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
Bo made every effort to always help, to build, to coach. That's a "lasting lesson" that seems not to have rubbed off on some of his (and successors') former players.
October 12th, 2014 at 1:47 AM ^
You mentioned Bo being gone and not coming back in the OP. It made me think, I guess you can say Lloyd's last years were a decline, which is mostly true, but we really fell apart when Bo died. I was born in '87 so I don't really remember Schembechler, I've seen pictures and heard recordings of the speeches, but I was raised and came of age on Lloyd Carr's teams.
I don't know what my point is, but, I guess we lost our way when he died. I've never really felt all that attached to Bo or what he meant to the program because I didn't experience him as a person or coach, but he obviously meant a lot, and I suddenly feel like I wish I'd had that experience. The kind of infighting and bad mouthing we've seen from everybody over the last few years is dissapointing. I agree we don't need a 'Michigan Man', whatever that is, and I've read opinions from others' on this blog arguing that Bo never really said we did. It seems too many of our community didn't learn enough from that man.
October 12th, 2014 at 3:39 PM ^
October 12th, 2014 at 10:22 PM ^
RR would have been successful for a couple of reasons.
No one would ever think of undermining RR as the coach if Bo was still here and endorsed the hire.
He would have helped RR understand the culture and transition properly.
I can't speak to the Freeps motives, but I don't even think you would have seen the practice gate issue so trumped up.
The man was a rock.
October 13th, 2014 at 11:55 AM ^
The Freep wouldn't have written the hit piece on RR if Bo was around. That article was only written because there were papers to be sold due to the in-fighting around the program.
Part of what made the athletic department a bit of a cult to Bo was that he was an incredibly strong personality who had the results to back-up anything he would say. A thought experiment is how powerful would the Michigan Man meme be if it was made by Moeller or Lloyd. I personally can't see it having a life of its own unless it was uttered by Bo.
For better (generally) or worse (sometimes), Bo cast the lasting imprint on Michigan Athletics for the second half of the 20th century.
October 12th, 2014 at 9:33 AM ^
Thanks for the post. Any former player who talks trash to a current player, or his family, is an asshat.
Coaching changes happen. I have no doubt that a few former players who pushed hard for Hoke are now desperate to avoid being wrong and so blame the current players. That's poor form. It's clear that Brandon and Hoke need to go.
October 12th, 2014 at 10:17 AM ^
Thanks for the insight. I hope your brother realizes that the vitrol of the fanbase is not directed at the players. Most want a coaching change, but the bigger concern is the AD. The fans and students are sick of being treated like crap by the athletic department and are caught between trying to support the player but not supporting the AD when both are so intertwined. I personally feel like the AD is using the players as pawns to try and save his own job. As for the former players, are we surprise at this point? After the way RR was treated? The sanctamonious bullcrap from a select group of them is ridiculous. President Schlissel mentioned in that fireside chat with the student body that a culture change is needed in the athletic department. I think the "Michigan Man" stuff is kinda BS as well, but the whole department needs stong leadership, as well as the football program needs someone who makes it known that crap like that will not stand.
October 12th, 2014 at 10:31 AM ^
I really appreciated this post. I'm so tired of the "Michigan Man" bullshit, I just want these kids to win games. Bo would be ashamed to know some of his former players and coaches are such assholes. Nobody in the world should be able to badmouth any of these kids, I mean look at the effort that they put forth last night. Devin played the final quarter on one leg. I'm so proud of the way they played. MICH
October 12th, 2014 at 10:47 AM ^
This was sad to read. Change cannot come too soon. Let your brother and the other players know that they are supported.
October 12th, 2014 at 11:21 AM ^
"Were not going to talk about each other, we're not going to criticize each other"...
October 12th, 2014 at 11:50 AM ^
I think the "Michigan Man" issue is a red herring. I don't think anyone here can credibly argue that they want to hire a coach who cannot become a Michigan Man - those are precisely the kinds of coaches we disdain when they are at other schools. Players can, and do, become Michigan Men when they had no prior allegiance to, or affiliation with, the school. Coaches can do the same.
Being a Michigan Man means you are loyal to the school, and profess the school's athletic code of "winning the right way." Frankly, I'd rather see Michigan stay mired in mediocrity than bring in a "win at all costs" coach, which is what "the Michigan Man meme is holding us back" means to me. Those "win at all costs" coaches eventually bring down the approbation of the football world and get fired anyway, so what those coaches give you is just a few years of winning and a lot of years of pain.
I agree with those who argue that there really isn't a viable candidate for coach who is from the Michigan coaching tree, but Bo wasn't from the Michigan coaching tree himself. Yet he became a Michigan man because he was about principles first and winning second. That's what a Michigan Man is. So, let's keep our eyes on the real prize: what the candidates are, no what they aren't.
As far as the player-alumni behavior described by the OP, I am disappointed to hear of this. If true, those players are not Michigan Men; even if you blame the current players, you don't share that belief with their families (or even at all publicly)..
October 12th, 2014 at 3:29 PM ^
means backstabbing any coach that is not from the Michigan coaching tree by trumping up allegations of NCAA violations, and either directly or indirectly obstructing recruiting, etc. That is what happened to R2 before he got to his fourth year.
And then deliberately hiring a member of a specific Michigan coaching tree, who by wins and loss records alone, is clearly not as qualified as other coaching candidates (with other, or no Michigan coaching heritage) to lead the tradition and values of Michigan football: "winning with integrity".
The "we must hire from within the family" mentality, is how we've gotten into this mess of mediocrity. The time we hired from without - before R2 - ruffled a lot of feathers, but worked out pretty well as far as "winning with integrity" is concerned. We got the man who coined the term "Michigan Man" - but he was one because he displayed those values.
I have seen some people suggest we abandon our values. I agree to do so would be wrong. I think the vast majority of this fan base want to see both values on display -- not just integrity -- and continuing in "mediocrity with integrity" because we happily hired within is just not good enough.
FWIW, I think the current coaching staff acts with an intentionally opaque set of values to protect players and program, and mislead opponents. In their minds, this is the right thing to do, and acting consistently within that framework equals integrity. I am not so sold on this, but can comprehend where they are coming from.
I think on the other hand, the current AD and PR staff communicate in disingenuous ways that are directly misleading; which to me completely lacks integrity and insults our intelligence.
There has to be a better option than the current state.
Comments