ijohnb

September 25th, 2015 at 10:05 AM ^

shows you something about the talent level in the NFL that Hart could not even carve out a useful place in the league.  He was one of the best college running backs I have ever seen.  I know a lot of it has to do with his size but it stuns me that there was not a feasible place to use him on a football field at the professional level.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

billybrown

September 25th, 2015 at 10:09 AM ^

Injuries played a big part in that as well. He could never stay healthy in the league. Also Hart was never fast even in college. If you're gonna be a slower running back in the nfl you have to be a bruiser and that's certainly not Mike Hart. All time great college player but just not physically capable at the next level. Still my all time favorite wolverine though.

Joined: 10/02/2010

MGoPoints: 112

tolmichfan

September 25th, 2015 at 10:11 AM ^

He couldn't stay healthy in the NFL. It seemed like he would put together a nice 80 yard game when he had a chance, but then some nagging injury would happen. He also wasn't fast or big enough to play special teams to hold on to a roster spot.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 11/26/2010

MGoPoints: 1433

Wolverine In Exile

September 25th, 2015 at 10:51 AM ^

Indy at the time he was picked was basically a NFL-version of an Air Raid offense with Peyton at the helm. He would've had to have much better pass catching skills than what he came out with. If he would've went to, say, Pittsburgh or the NY Giants, his running style of always finding an extra 1 or 2 yards after contact past the LOS, he would've stuck around for a couple more years. As it was, after his Indy time, he was already injured enough that he knew his time in the league was going to be short anyway (last statement from first hand conversation with Hart in Indy at a bar where we had mutual friends), so onto coaching it was.

Joined: 11/08/2008

MGoPoints: 10790

gmoney41

September 25th, 2015 at 11:04 AM ^

If Hart would have been able to stay healthy, he would have been a very productive player for the Colts.  Every single time he got into a game he was productive.  More productive than Donald Brown.  Sure he wasn't fast, but he always got positive yards, was hard to bring down, was great in pass protection, and caught everything.  Just couldn't get the ankles to stay intact.

Joined: 07/13/2009

MGoPoints: 3938

Brian Griese

September 25th, 2015 at 11:56 AM ^

If only Hart hadn't thrown two interceptions in 2004 and given up 37 points, we might've won. Hart should probably take quite a bit of blame for the 2005 and 2007 games, since you know, he could barely walk because of ankle problems.  Plus in 2006, he was awful too.  142 yards and 3 TD's is not that good.  If only he would've played better on defense and not given up 42 points, we would've won easily. 

Joined: 10/25/2014

MGoPoints: 30240

PeteM

September 25th, 2015 at 11:44 AM ^

Nice article.  I was impressed that the writer tracked down Underwood who was classy in his comments given his career wasn't what I'm sure he would've hoped it would've been.

I rewatched the Florida bowl game a month or so ago on BTN.  It reminded what a great back Hart was.  As the article states, despite good seasons here and there (Fitz in 2011) he's really last star running back Michigan has had.  I hope his coaching career is successful.

Joined: 09/15/2008

MGoPoints: 3471