denard on why he stayed
another rittenberg bit from his time in ann arbor:
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/25410/denard-robinson-on-why-h…
"They took me in and said, 'Man, look, we're not trying to have the team break up like it did our freshman year,'" Robinson said. "They said, 'We kind of rebelled and it was like whatever.' My teammates, they're like brothers to me, and they were like, 'Stick around. We need you to stay.'"
Rebelled and it was like whatever...am I reading too much into that?
I mean, it's great to know they're not pulling the same BS this time around, but it's kind of infuriating to know that they pulled that BS the first time around. Whatever. At least they learned their lesson, I guess.
April 13th, 2011 at 10:55 PM ^
It's not only infuriating, it's disgraceful.
Don't emphasize those words too much; I'm sure it was put differently to Denard. But still, you're right to be infuriated by the very idea that our players rebelled against a coach. Very, very upsetting indeed. Glad that Hoke has their respect and will hopefully be able to to do more with them than RR. It does make me more sympathetic toward RR, too, because he had to deal with that. Not cool on the part of our older players to do that to their coach.
But still, you're right to be infuriated by the very idea that our players rebelled against a coach. Very, very upsetting indeed. Glad that Hoke has their respect and will hopefully be able to to do more with them than RR. It does make me more sympathetic toward RR, too, because he had to deal with that
Just playing devil's advocate, but why do you just assume it was true and give RR sympathy? How do you know RR isn't just using that as another excuse? I think you can read too far into it either way.
As I read it, Denard is saying not only did RR say some players rebelled when he was hired, but so did at least some of his current teammates.
<br>
<br>I can understand being a bit cynical if it was just RR, but you basically got players confirming it (although second hand, through Denard).
That is true. I wasn't saying I actually believed it either way. I was trying to demonstrate that reading into that tiny bit of 2nd hand information could give all kinds of ranges of results. But you're right, having players confirm it kind of swings it one way.
And the other side of the coin: people, both in Morgantown and Ann Arbor, have grumbled that RR had a habit of giving guys he inherited the cold shoulder in favor of his recruits.
The bottom line is that it's the coach's job to make it work. He gets paid the big bucks.
April 13th, 2011 at 10:29 PM ^
But the program is supposed to be about the players. Not the coach, and certainly not the fans. Yeah, the players don't get to run the asylum, because you're creating s structure that is in their best interest, but it's about the best experience possible for the majority of them. (And yes, that usually involves winning). It's obvious Brandon prioritized that in his hiring process, even if others don't think it's important.
And on the other (other?) side of the coin, you have players like Brandon Minor saying they would "go to war" for Rich Rodriguez, or Brandon Graham crediting that staff for transformining him into the player that he is.
April 13th, 2011 at 11:19 PM ^
Maybe they rebelled because RR was a dick. Just because Denard liked RR doesn't make him a great guy. Of course Denard liked Jim.
Because, according to Denard, the departing coaches said that if he stayed he should buy in to the new coaches/schemes. Says a lot for a coach who was just fired to ask his prize player to put loyalty to Michigan and its success over loyalty to those who brought him here.
Def reading too much into that....Every coach has to earn the respect of their players...I think the PLAYERS gave RR a fair shot. That should not even be a question.
Yup, Justin Boren gave RichRod every chance to come to his senses and ease up a bit on rules concerning extracurricular activities. Stupid RichRod didn't earn Justin's respect.
- - -
Seriously, you're going to make a leap of faith and put all of that on Rodriguez?
- - -
I think something along the lines of "two-way street" is the best guess here.
Boren never played for RR. Maybe the few practices he was in was his fair shot.
told Denard that they in fact, (some of them) did not give the new staff a fair shot. That's reading his quote, not reading into a thing.
you're definitely. reading too much into it. I do not care what sport/career it is, there will always be guys that fight the changeover process.
You are correct, it's the third, a third, a third rule. A third will embrace change, a third will be indifferent and a third will reject in varying degrees . The key is winning over the middle third and containing those that reject the change. If you can get the ship going in a positive direction, the majority follow.
Hoke has been pretty smart about the whole thing because he's relied on Michigan's strength (tradition) and team as a cause greater than ones self interest. In my opinion Rodriguez didn't initially play his hand nearly as well.
This is 100% pure columbian awesome. Love the honesty.
Hoke should be appreciative that he walked into a situation with a guy like Denard.
Guy is a class act, team leader, and he's a nasty, nasty football player. I'd imagine it will make the transition easier having him under center.
couldn't agree more - the reason you don't see as much turnover with the players as when RichRod took over is guys like denard, martin, and molk. You add a classy coaching staff (not meant as a shot at richrod and his staff) and you could see some great things.
I think this team has the recipe for success. Go blue
When RR took over almost all the leaders were leaving. I was kind of getting at saying this transition should be easier from the really close up perspective because Hoke has some leadership, and young leadership at that.
Not to say I don't agree with what you wrote.
We won't know until summer/fall how many kids will transfer. There are transfers and kids that fall out of the program every year. Let's hope that that stays to a minimum this year but let's not count on low turnover just yet.
For one, as someone above mentioned, there is much more returning leadership.
Another reason, and this isn't a shot at RR, just a fact, but the players that went from Lloyd to RR were going from teams used to winning and being quite successful to something different (so something that worked, at least to an extent, and making major changes), whereas RR to Hoke is something that wasn't overly successful (and for a couple years very unsuccessful) to something new.
It is much easier to make a change when what you've done previously hasn't worked. It's much harder to change your ways when you've had prior success.
I think that's a really interesting point. OTOH I have no idea how those players who were around for 2007 responded and rebounded. Seems like some of them might have really wanted a change at first, at least.
April 13th, 2011 at 10:25 PM ^
To the players. I think the Cap 1 Bowl showed all you need to know about how the players felt about the previous regime. (Which is not to say they couldn't buy into the new regime).
April 14th, 2011 at 10:45 AM ^
I'm projecting how I would feel. I agree that the bowl game against Florida shows a lot, but how they got to that point, I'm not sure. Those guys are more competitive than I am and going through 2007 (the beginning, obviously) must have been a chore and a half.
April 13th, 2011 at 11:05 PM ^
No one is going to like considering this on here, but Hoke seems to have way better people skills and way more authentic humility that Rodriguez. Go watch Hoke's press conference January 11 and subsequent appearances, and then watch Rodriguez project publicly as Michigan's coach. There is an obvious difference. That forced tear thing he did when the allegations by the Free Press came out in 09 was just weird. That being one example.
Recruits are always talking about the relationship and connection they feel with the coach and staff. It is very important to them when they decide where to play. If a new guy comes in and your guy is out, the new guy has to have just the right way and approach. His audience has built-in skepticism.
If we're honest with ourselves, we have way more evidence that Rodriguez struggled with his initial approach during the transtion, than we do the players he inherited were of poor character. It also seems like we're giving a free pass to a highly paid coach with years of experience leading college football players, by simply bashing the players.
April 13th, 2011 at 11:52 PM ^
In the second half of his career, Carr was losing to OSU every year, losing a bowl most every year and his teams were usually out of the NC hunt before the leaves changed.
I sure didn't feel like Michigan was "quite successful" at the time he stepped down. if the players did, they must have not been shooting very high.
April 14th, 2011 at 12:41 AM ^
In the second half of Carr's career, Michigan owned the 11th highest winning percentage in college football (BSU doesn't count).
http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=2002&end=2…
That is quite successful by any definition.
Going to a bowl every year. Going to a BCS bowl 50% of the time. Being a game away from the National Championship game, and having "the year of infinite pain" end with a 7-5 record, his worst. Combine that with what you said, basically winning 3/4 of the games, yeah, there is success there. I didn't say they were world beaters, or that they won National titles, but they were successful in many regards.
OSU under Cooper was a hell of a lot better than 11th in winning percentage and were losing to Michigan annually. I can guarantee you they don't look at that period as "quite successful."
Ironic, isn't it? He could have gone 1-11 and as long as he beat Michigan it would be considered kind of successful. Going 11-1 with a loss to M gets you fired.
Not a shot at OSU, it'd be the same here.
Between "quite successful" and successful. I think OSU fans would claim that Cooper was "quite successful" in his time there. He wasn't completely successful, but he had some success, aka, he was quite successful.
whose talent is matched by his class and character. And he's far from the only good kid on the squad, and the fact that there have been no apparent issues during the transition can be attributed in part to the quality of kids RR recruited. I hope Hoke & Co. acknowledge that at some point, if they haven't already.
Agreed. Although, from the outside, it tends to reflect poorly on RR that he recruited Dorsey. (Again, from the outside. I like that RR was giving him a chance.) So the recruitment on the RR front seems to be slightly mixed.
But still, you're right that the kids RR left behind are generally good kids.
So it reflects poorly on Lloyd Carr that he recruited guys like Johnny Sears and Marques Slocum too, just to pick two from the larger list of his recruits that flamed out badly?
I would say yes, it does reflect poorly on him. I think it reflects poorly on any coach when they recruit a player that flames out badly. Obviously Lloyd had a little more in the Michigan fan/media bank of trust to overcome that type of event, but it still reflects poorly on him.
I won't judge a coach's character based on whom he recruits, but on a tactical level, pursuing lots of players who are in danger of not qualifying academically is questionable. We played with fire and got burned.
Unless I am missing some newly released information, it burns me up to hear RR criticized from recruiting Dorsey. Dorsey was a teenage kid who had gone two years without trouble -- that is an eternity of time for a youth -- which shows that he was not a thug. Show me a teenage thug who can go two years without getting in trouble, especially when he is riding high as a prized recruit. Given this, why does it speak poorly of RR -- or Lloyd Carr for that matter -- for giving a kid a chance who has given a fair amount of evidence that he wants to turn his life around?
I tend to agree with you for the most part, but I still do blame RR for concentrating recruiting efforts on a kid that didn't/wouldn't qualify. I mean obviously, all coaches strike out once in awhile, but in general they need to have some idea if a kid they are recruiting will ever make it on campus and avoid those that won't.
what they are being told by high school counselors. They are not in charge of admissions and would not be able to tell. If a HS counselor tells you a kids redone credits are from an accredited school you have to assume they know what they are talking about. This made Dorsey's transcript look respectable and he had an opportunity to qualify with the grades he earned at the credit recovery school replacing lower marks that he earned earlier in his HS career. Michigan admissions did not accept those grades.
I also seem to remember that when Brandon took over he insisted on raising the bar for admissions on incoming athletes.
Agreed, but I got negged to hell for it. Mostly, the criticism comes from folks who don't like us too much, or didn't like RR too much.
Amazing how people are willing to grant star athletes second chances they'd never think of granting non-athletes.
This is a kid who could not meet the NCAA's lowly eligibility standards, and who had a criminal rap sheet to boot. Maybe some school is right for him, but Michigan is not.
met the NCAA standards. It was UM's admissions that denied his entrance.
I thought the issue had to do with his alternative school grades not counting toward his overall GPA.