Drew Sharp Article
Not to be outdone by by Rosenberg, Drew Sharp has a fun new article describing how MSU is now boring and under control, as opposed to the 'excitement' of upheaval at Michigan. It features many insightful statements, as we have come to expect from Mr. Sharp. My personal favorite is this one...
"Michigan is striving for a new football excitement, starring a flashy offense. The Spartans would rather just win as many games as possible, mundanely if necessary."
Here's the link:
http://www.freep.com/article/20090812/COL08/908120377
August 12th, 2009 at 9:01 AM ^
but I know there have been Sharp articles in the past critizing UM and Lloyd's vanilla offense. Forget him.
August 12th, 2009 at 9:16 AM ^
There is no point in even mentioning this guy. For all intents and purposes, he does not exist.
August 12th, 2009 at 12:08 PM ^
I simply could not agree more he is the new rob parker. He Contradicts himself Constantly, so Annoying
August 12th, 2009 at 9:15 AM ^
I would rather have a new football excitement than win as many games as possible - as the two are obviously mutually exclusive.
What do I want for Christmas?
A brand spanking new football excitement.
Michigan State is better than Michigan -- for the time being anyway -- because Dantonio already has established a consistency Rodriguez seeks... Jesus
August 12th, 2009 at 9:15 AM ^
We've gone over this many times and every article he puts out, he makes himself look stupider and stupider...
August 12th, 2009 at 9:21 AM ^
This isn't necessarily directed at the OP here, but I'm growing tired of Michigan fans thinking that every writer or every analyst has some sort of personal vendetta against Michigan. I know Sharp is retarded...and so is Rosenberg...and so is Forde...and so is Schlabach...and so is Rittenberg...and so is Kiper...and so is Musburger...and so is Everyone Who Doesn't Think Michigan is Awesome.
I just don't see a need to complain about every little article. It gets old quickly, and I'd rather save my venom for when somebody really deserves it. Otherwise, it just becomes the Boy Who Cried Wolf Syndrome.
August 12th, 2009 at 11:22 AM ^
+1 for you with the Rise Against lyrics.
August 12th, 2009 at 9:28 AM ^
But this guy influences the young impressionable minds of 1000's of children around the Detroit area.
This is just bad for collective consciousness, and is there a worse crime? Other than, you know, murder and stuff?
August 12th, 2009 at 10:35 AM ^
I get your point, but if you were a young impressionable youth, wouldn't you want to go play for the exciting guy?
Just a thought.
August 12th, 2009 at 10:41 AM ^
you really think "thousands" of young children are reading drew fucking sharp columns in the summer?
August 12th, 2009 at 11:09 AM ^
Think about the children, Dex!
August 12th, 2009 at 9:31 AM ^
I agree with you in principle, although I think Sharpe is the single case where the criticism is deserved. Rosenberg draws a lot of fire around here, but I've seen him write articles about U of M that are pretty fair and balanced. Drew never seems to bring himself to giving Michigan credit under any circumstance. Not just that, he seems to take pride in being the contrarian and annoying fans, who he always dismisses as "homers". Just seems to be what passes for journalism these days, if you're not being a dick, you're not being a columnist.
August 12th, 2009 at 9:37 AM ^
predict an 8-4 season last year for Michigan?
August 12th, 2009 at 9:43 AM ^
Your point is certainly fair in principle, but Sharp clearly has an ax to grind with Michigan, and I think it's alright to point that out. Especially because he writes for a local Michigan paper and therefore has more opportunity than most to take shots at the program. I agree that not every writer who takes a shot at Michigan has a vendetta, but Sharp is a different animal.
This kills me in the most recent article:
Rich Rodriguez dismisses a wannabe drug dealer from Michigan and immediately there are suspicions regarding the tautness of his program -- procedural questions that were once mostly asked of Michigan State head coaches.
Yet on the same day, Mark Dantonio welcomed back a running back freshly released from a four-month jail term for hospitalizing a hockey player during a campus fight last fall. Dantonio placed unspecified restrictions on the player's return, reminiscent of Lloyd Carr's private penal policy at Michigan, and the actions barely raised a public ripple.
This would have been a great opportunity for Sharp to point out that the reaction to the two punishments doesn't make sense and is inconsistent. Instead, Sharp's conclusion? Times are changing, because Dantonio is a boring, awesome coach. Give me a break.
August 12th, 2009 at 9:57 AM ^
for as much as this fanbase likes to criticize Sharp for what he writes, let's be clear on something:
He is a good writer. How do I know? I'm pretty sure that he is evoking the EXACT emotion out of you angry Wolverine fans that he intended to by writing the article.
After reading the article, I can't understand what anyone can have a problem with. Are you honestly telling me you wouldn't want to be in Michigan State's position in 12 months - only losing to a tough Pac 10 team, the two best teams in the conference, and an SEC bowl game? Plus, beating your in-state rival? Honestly, we wouldn't want a 9-4 season, with good team chemistry, a solid coach and a promising future?
Let's be rational. C'mon.
August 12th, 2009 at 10:01 AM ^
I completely agree. Sharp has all the tools to be an amazing writer, but he tries way too hard to be cynical and make all of his articles against the popular opinion. He always tries to down play Detroit sports' teams sucesses, and makes a huge deal out of failures.
August 12th, 2009 at 10:14 AM ^
He is a good writer. How do I know? I'm pretty sure that he is evoking the EXACT emotion out of you angry Wolverine fans that he intended to by writing the article.
Just because he's able to piss off Michigan fans does not make him a good writer. It just means he knows what buttons to push. Someone could write "Eff Bo Schembechler" in the Free Press and it would certainly piss me (and hopefully everyone here) off, but that doesn't make it good writing.
I am more than comfortable stating that Drew Sharp is NOT a good writer, but has managed to finagle himself a cushy job as a local sportswriter by simply being a contrarian that people respond to, more often that not, negatively. (The king of this form of sportswriting: Jay Marriotti.) Sharp is a guy who likes to take shots at the program because he knows it will rile up a passionate and dedicated fanbase. That's definitely something. But I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that it's "good writing."
August 12th, 2009 at 10:18 AM ^
It's not like Sharp is exclusively bashing UofM all the time. He's negative about every team most of the time. Sure he took a shot at us today while complementing Sparty, but isn't that probably the best way to get people riled up?
August 12th, 2009 at 10:29 AM ^
I have no problem with sportswriters being negative or critical. But Sharp is critical for the sake of being critical, and he appears to do so because he is either 1) lazy; or 2) simply can't think of anything better to write. Whatever the reason, he's not a good writer.
Moreover, why is it Drew Sharp's job to "get people riled up?" I think his job is more appropriately to write interesting columns about sports. In that regard, he fails miserably.
August 12th, 2009 at 11:11 AM ^
I already said that he is being critical for the sake of being critical. Maybe that is just the kind of writer he feels he is.
Maybe "riled up" was a poor choice of words, but he as a writer is supposed to put out something that makes people talk about it. He chooses to be negative as heel and people always talk about him.
Just because something is negative doesnt mean it is not interesting. Sharp gets people to read his stories, and thats the goal.
August 12th, 2009 at 10:44 AM ^
drew sharp is NOT a good writer. he's the print equivalent of a radio shock jock that vomits baseless shit (not just about MICH, either) in the hopes of provoking a reaction. that doesn't take talent - you just have to be intellectually bankrupt and a loud mouth.
August 12th, 2009 at 11:10 AM ^
...he's good in the specific context that he is attempting to succeed at (getting a reaction through his writing).
However, I'm not really certain today's article is the article by which to lambaste him, he really doesn't say anything that isn't currently true.
August 12th, 2009 at 10:06 AM ^
I just find this guy extremely annoying. I mean he has a job as a journalist so he must be good at it, but I find things that he says are way off base.
August 12th, 2009 at 10:42 AM ^
potshotting michigan in this article. We're all pretty myopic if we don't think what he wrote about Michigan in this article isn't true.
There is NOTHING wrong with what he wrote about Michigan, and there's nothing wrong with what Michigan is going through. The team is going through a transition, which is largely complete. The fall season will dominate the news cycle now, and that's a good thing. The media will have to report on Michigan's 8-4 season which will include a 13 point victory over Sparty.
August 12th, 2009 at 11:07 AM ^
I disagree that there is NOTHING wrong with what he wrote about Michigan. He wrote this:
Michigan is striving for a new football excitement, starring a flashy offense. The Spartans would rather just win as many games as possible, mundanely if necessary.
Two problems:
1. Michigan is not striving for a "new football excitement, starring a flashy offense." Michigan is striving for a winning football team, just like MSU is. Michigan's coaching staff believes it can do so using an offense that is far different than the one it has used historically.
2. The quoted passage suggests that Michigan would rather have a "flashy offense" than win as many games as possible. That's just stupid.
August 12th, 2009 at 11:15 AM ^
Just because we are striving towards winning does not mean that we also are not going for a flashy offense, which we were with Rodriguez. Rich was hired to implememnt the spread and bring Michigan into the spread era of college football. Sure we also want to win games, and Rodriguez was a hell of a choice for that, but that statement is not unture at all.
August 12th, 2009 at 11:15 AM ^
(1) You must not have lived through Lloyd Carr's tenure as head coach, or specifically, the Mike DeBord era of offensive playcalling. Rich Rod's style of offense IS exciting, IS flashy. It's fast, powerful, aims to put 70 on the board every game, never quits. The players Rich Rod is bringing in will lead to a "flashy" offense and excitement.
(2) I read the passage differently. I read it as that Michigan is looking to win, but in a new way. Sparty could care less about winning "flashily."
The way I read the article is that Michigan's football team is taking a progressive step forward, while Michigan State is playing the conservative, old-school football that Lloyd Carr approved of. There's nothing wrong with either position.
August 12th, 2009 at 11:26 AM ^
RichRod's offense may be flashy (it's certainly expontentially more exciting than anything run by the previous regime, and yes, I lived through the Lloyd Carr era), but RichRod doesn't care that it is. Meaning he's not running a "flashy offense" just because he thinks it's exciting. He's running his "flashy offense" because he thinks it's the best way to win football games. If RichRod thought he could go undefeated by running it up the middle 60 times a game, I'm sure he would.
Sharp's article suggests that RichRod cares more about being flashy and exciting than winning. That's obviously not the case. He cares about winning, and the method by which he accomplishes his goal utilizes an exciting new offense.
I'm not sure we're saying totally different things. I think we're disagreeing on the takeaway from Sharp's article.
August 12th, 2009 at 11:22 AM ^
I think this article is more pro-MSU than it is anti-UM. I really couldn't find anything in it that was untruthful regarding the UM program. You may disagree with his point, "MSU is better than UM right now", although based on last season's results and this season's predictions, that not a stretch.
I dislike Drew as much as the next guy, but this article is not as bad as many of you make it seem. Let's save the anti-UM venom for when it really is necessary.
August 12th, 2009 at 11:47 AM ^
should close the thread. I agree completely.
August 12th, 2009 at 12:30 PM ^
The same offense that all but abandoned the forward pass in Pat White's last two seasons with RichRod?
The father's of football's past would be proud of this offense.
August 12th, 2009 at 3:13 PM ^
names on an article, do not click the link. I vote with my mouse. I don't understand "so I was visiting GBWM for the 5th time this week the other day, man they're terrible." Do not read stuff that you already know you don't like. It seems obvious, but several posters do this. Drew Sharp doesn't have an axe to grind, he has a wallet to fatten.