Mike Martin contrasts Mattison and G. Robinson
"There's just no way I'd have the same kind of respect if it weren't for him," Martin told AnnArbor.com during a recent interview. "We were playing backyard defense (under former defensive coordinator Greg Robinson), pretty much. Just going out, picking a gap and just kind of doing whatever we wanted to do. It was a lot different."
http://annarbor.com/sports/um-football/ex-michigan-dl-mike-martin-nfl-draft-greg-mattison/
So Mike Martin informs us. Okay.
I seem to recall that Mike Barwis was a top choice of Rich Rodriguez. And so was Jeff Casteel. And, by all reasonable reckoning, Greg Robinson was the third or fourth choice, and a cut-rate option at that.
With all of Mike Martin's moaning about his pre-Mattison career at Michigan, where does his year with Scott Shafer fit in?
He said he learned more in one year with Mattison than he did in all 3 previous years combined... sounds pretty clear to me. I think if there's one opinion you can't argue with when it comes to the old staff it's the best defensive player on the team.
But note what Kyle Meinke is adding, quite apart from Martin:
"We were playing backyard defense (under former defensive coordinator Greg Robinson), pretty much. Just going out, picking a gap and just kind of doing whatever we wanted to do. It was a lot different."
"(under former defensive coordinator Greg Robinson)" was the writer's (or his editor's) insertion. It's not clear to me that Mike Martin ever mentioned Robinson by name. Or that he mentioned Scott Shafer by name. Or that he omitted Shafer. If Mike Martin thinks that Greg Mattison is the one and only God of DC's, and that BOTH Shafer and Greg Robinson are frauds, that's okay; Mike Martin knows better than I ever will. For my part, I've never doubted the value of Mattison. All that I wondered was why Michigan was settling for bargain basement staff before Brandon figured that you get what you pay for. And until I mentioned it, everyone had left Shafer out of this particular discussion. It seems like the MGoBloggers wanted to beat up on GERG (okay) and by extension Rodriguez (as always) and Kyle Meinke was doing a bangup job of playing to that base.
And this:
The laissez-faire defensive style played under Rodriguez and Robinson doesn't fly in the NFL, and Martin likely would have struggled with the transition. By returning, he received a year of tutelage under the demanding Mattison.
That's not a Mike Martin quote. That's noted football coaching expert, Kyle Meinke. I don't know what "laissez faire" means when it comes to football defenses.
Let me refer you to something you wrote a short spell ago in regards to RR
Anyway, he is gone and he isn't coming back and I don't see very much utility or relevance in debating the fine points of his coaching techniques.
Let me refer you to something that you, uh, contributed to this inestimable thread:
I think RR hated M and did one of those double agent things, conspiring with the Freep to bring down M, but Brandon and Hoke arrived like super hero's to save the day.
There's no limit to your pointless non-sequitirs, is there?
You're losing your touch Section1. I get your hatred of the freep but that was a pretty weak criticism. If you combine the two quotes you blocked, it's pretty obvious what he meant by laissez-faire football. It's also obvious that Martin was talking about the D under Robinson, because he was the D-coordinator before Mattison. I don't see the problem with clarifying that. He's just making it more readable. It's a good article.
All that I asked was whether Scott Shafer was as much of a disaster as Greg Robinson. Kyle Meinke didn't mention Shafer; and it isn't clear to me that Martin mentioned Robinson, although the context would clearly include Robinson.
The reason I provoked this side-issue is substantive; a number of people (not me) have expressed high praise for Shafer. With the suggestion that his firing by Rodriguez was a mistake. Maybe Martin is one of those people. But when Martin says that he hadn't learned much of anything in his first three years at Michigan, with no regard for Shafer, it does raise the question.
April 24th, 2012 at 12:37 PM ^
Time to bring out the stock Section 1 response image. I thought someone started a blog for you, so you could go crusade in some lonely corner of the Internet? That would've been nice. What happened?
And the mods wonder why I forward posts like this to them...
You are as stubborn as you are stupid. Find one unkind or uncharitable word that I wrote, as to Martin, or Mattison or anybody else on the current team.
My point about the "bargain basement" was the reference to Michigan's failure to secure the services of Jeff Casteel, for about 1/3 the price we later paid for Mattsion. That particular argument is an old one between you and me and it is one that I am quite satisfied that I won, with substantial backing from Three and Out. I know that you are still mad about that. Too bad.
I have said it a hundred times on this blog; I'm not getting bogged down in "who's a better coach." I leave that to all of the highly experienced Division I football coaches who are also members at MGoBlog. Isn't that what the boyz do on sportstalk radio? Substitute their knowledge for the professionals who actually take the field?
My one and only thesis on this blog has been that Rich Rodriguez was treated unfairly, mostly in the press but elsewhere as well, while he was at Michigan. I was and still am right about that. The Detroit Free Press is a big and influential institution in southeast Michigan, and that is who my war is with; the Free Press, and other lazy reporters.
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:26 PM ^
So you aren't going to judge who is a good football coach, because you don't have the expertise. But you're worried about whether Rodriguez was treated fairly. Ultimately, doesn't one have to delve into coach evaluation in order to determine whether a fired coach was fired fairly?
It's ridiculous to claim that you don't engage in a good deal of judging the acumen of Rodriguez and his staff, even if you so do obliquely, by stating that others seem to hold X and Y opinions, and yet you don't think those opinions make sense, etc.
Ultimately, though, I echo M-Wolverine: You keep on banging that drum in the dark, buddy. Soon, not even MGoBlog is really going to give a shit about Rodriguez any more. All of the minutiae about his time at Michigan are going to be largely forgotten, and the narrative that will remain is about the fella from WVU who tried to run the spread at UM and had a disastrous three seasons before Brady Hoke was hired. You can comfort yourself - though I'm sure you won't - that the minutiae about the sanctions, his purported inability to 'get it', his predeliction for Josh Groban, and all the rest of the negative claptrap both founded and illusory will fade as well.
You really just need to be more Zen about this. This will help.
April 22nd, 2012 at 11:35 PM ^
Agreed on all points, but I'd like to add the obvious: fairness is besides the point. It's silly to attempt to consider Rodriguez in isolation of the Freep scandal or the failure to hire Casteel. The relevant question isn't whether these happenings were fair. A coach gets the cards he's dealt and it's his job to make the best of them. What's so infuriating about Section 1's endless apologies is that he refuses to argue that Rodriguez did enough with what he had.
April 23rd, 2012 at 12:06 AM ^
Sports fans have a unique ability, to overlook their team's flaws and failures, and to see the world only through the perspective of their side's winning and losing. Sports fans are remarkably good at having short and limited memories.
I can honestly say, that when I first came to MGoBlog, Brian Cook's personal stamp marked this blog with some of the qualities that I liked a lot. An honest, clear-eyed appraisal of the University's teams particularly the revenue sports. And an intelligent approach to sports, with out of the mainstream thinking, and lots of perspective, including a fair bit of historical perspective.
I don't think Brian has changed much; but the Board is bigger, and dumber, than ever.
not sure about dumber, but you have certainly contributed to making it redundant on many occasions.
It's amazing how you managed to take a very simple thing, and once again try to make it about the FREEP. Mike Martin, Michigan football player, said he received little to no coaching on the previous coaching staff. This is not second hand info, or wild speculation about a secret cabal. This is about a coaching staff FAILING to do the job they get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to do.
The defensive coaching staff failed. That falls on RR. Not the FREEP, Lloyd Carr, Braylon Edwards, or any of the multitude that gets you riled up.
Now, you can still hold onto your thesis, that RR was treated unfairly, and still admit his defensive coaching staff was a miserable failure. Those two aren't mutually exclusive. But you can't, because that would mean admitting something - that despite the unfair treatment, he wasn't particularly good at his job at Michigan. And that is simply impossible for you to do, despite the ample evidence that built up over the three years, and from the mouths of Michigan football players.
Always fun to watch you flail though
Didn't you read? I didn't argue with Martin; several times I acknowledged that Martin knew more than I could ever hope to. I simply started out by observing that "Robinson" never seemingly passed Martin's lips, and that if you take what Martin said literally, he was being equally critical of both Robinson and Scott Shafer. Go back and read what Martin is reported to have said, and check me on that. I'm right.
Naturally, because I wasn't following the current standard Michigan Hoke-Manbauw-RAH script (and given that I wasn't attacking Hoke or Mattison in the slightest, and I wasn't defending Greg Robinson, it's a pretty crazy standard of Hoke-worship that needs to be followed in these precincts), a lot of people started criticizing me and attacking me. You should try to read more carefully.
quite well. And what I read is a guy deperately trying to apply misdirection because his thesis (RR is a good coach that was sabotaged) is being severely undercut.
What difference does it make if MM was saying that Robinson sucked or Shafer sucked or both sucked? Either way, it's on RR for doing a piss poor job with the defense. Why parse it, other than to deflect blame. Martin said he learned nothing from the previous defensive staff (or staffs). Who cares which person he was blaming, since they were both hired by RR? Either way, the outcome is still the same - RR did a poor job. End of story, Section 1 go cry while wearing RR pajamas.
This was very simple for anyone who can read - a Michigan player indicting the former coaching staff. No need for you to trash the current staff (and let's just both agree that your "manbauw" thing was snide, so save the "Where did I attack the current staff" nonsense).
Simple question - do you agree with Mike Martin that the previous coaching staff did a poor job? If yes, then there is no reason to comment on MM's "moaning" or argue with other posters. All of whom seem to be in agreement with Martin. If not, then well, we now know exactly where the "dumber" parts of the board reside.
April 23rd, 2012 at 10:14 AM ^
In reverse order:
- I have tried not to judge whether coaching staffs do a great job or a poor job. I'm not an expert. I've said that many times. You really do not read very well. Simple question, simple answer. I will not "agree" with Mike Martin; I certainly won't disagree with him!
- "Manbauw" is a term of derision and ridicule for the more worshipful sectors of this Board; not the current team or the current coaching staff, none of whom I have criticized.
- The reason I brought Shafer into the conversation was to add complexity and nuance. Rich Rodriguez saw the job that Shafer was doing, and fired him. There's probably a pretty good case that Rodriguez should have fired Greg Robinson after his first year. (Personally, I was convinced that that was going to happen, particularly with some of the vague rumblings out of Morgantown from time to time.) It may have been, that had Rodriguez been allowed to continue, he'd have dismissed Robinson and gotten an other DC, perhaps Jeff Casteel. But that's an unknowable, now.
- The idea that Rodriguez had difficulty in selecting good DC's is sort of perverse, in light of the apparent financial constraints in a changing world of college football coaching. It is true that there was a time that all assistants got paid low bucks, and they had to deal with it. That time had passed, by 2009. And now, every school from Michigan State to Ohio State understands it.
- It's also perverse -- and it was a common meme on the MGoBoard -- that Jeff Casteel didn't come to Michigan because he may not have liked, or that he somehow distrusted, Rich Rodriguez. That it wasn't "just money." Indeed, I really don't think it was "just money" with Casteel. I think it was the combination of low money, no contract, and as much as anything the poisonous off-field atmosphere created by the combination of the hostile press and the private undermining done to Rodriguez by certain Michigan factions. The idea that Jeff Casteel had personal issues with Rich Rodriguez has been blown entirely out of the water now, in Tucson. And the financial and factional issues were documented comprehensively in Three and Out.
April 23rd, 2012 at 10:54 AM ^
cop out, man!
I mean, you can't judge whether the worst Michigan defense ever was bad? Really? Here's a hint - it was bad. There were ample statistics showing it was poor, and now players confirm it was poor. It's fairly obvious to anyone, that it was poor. But it's fun watching you turn yourself into a pretzel in order to not criticize your beloved RR.
BTW, if your lack of expertise prevents you from commenting, however did you manage to extol the virtues of RR's previous coaching endeavors? After all, you're no expert, so how could you evaluate whether he has ever done a good job or not?
Are you an expert in media? If not, how can you comment on the FREEP?
It's amazing that you're lack of expertise prevents you from commenting on the defense, yet you can actually comment on the motivations of Jeff Casteel, and why he chose not to come to Michigan.
The truth is, this was a simple post. Martin pointing out that RR's staff did a piss poor job. It confirmed what was plainly obvious to anyone. But you tried nuance in order to deflect what we all know - you're repeated defenses of RR lacked merit. He did a poor job coaching at Michigan. I know it hurts, even moreso to have it confirmed by a player, but there it is.
April 23rd, 2012 at 11:01 AM ^
The possessive, versus the contraction of "you are."
You're welcome.
My one presumption about Jeff Casteel is that, in opposition to some long-ago speculation here at MGoBlog, is that he didn't harbor any dislike of his colleague Rich Rodriguez (some unstated dislike being the reason that Casteel didn't come here, and hence another knock on the character and persono of Rich Rodriguez). I made that presumption because Rodriguez offered him a position on his staff in Arizona and Casteel took it.
April 23rd, 2012 at 11:22 AM ^
Pointing out typos is generally an extremely effective form of argument.
Now you're just being an asshole.
excellent misdirection. It's interesting that you talked about my grammar and Casteel, but not the inconsistency of you touting RR's record, but then claiming the inability to review his defensive record because of a lack of expertise.
Like I said, it's been fun watching you flail, in order to not come to the conclusion that just about everyone else has, from fans to players - RR did a poor job coaching. I look forward to your response about my punctuation
April 23rd, 2012 at 11:22 PM ^
If someone threw the insults you've laid down in this thread at you, you'd be the first person to go running to the mod thread and cry about how people were insulting you and that's not allowed and they should be banned.
Hypocrite much?
M-W, I agree with you wholeheartedly on your last statement but I feel like its "too little, too late" at this point for me to be of much use herein.
Section 1, stop calling people names. It probably won't matter to you but if you keep it up I'm going to dock points. You should know better.
I can handle being called stupid or whatever without melting into a pool of hot butter. Any lines he's crossed don't bother me (though the site has higher standards than I do). So I wasn't "tattling". Just pointing out to him that maybe he should chill next time he gets the urge to go running to you to complain about someone else. Glass houses and all that.
If anything I'm slapping myself on the wrist for contributing to it again....I just thought if we're questioning Martin, we're really hitting new lows in justification. Let the kid be. After he signs a big NFL contract, we can Braylon him if someone so chooses. But it turned into the same old...
No, no, I didn't mean for it to seem like you were tattling. I was more apologizing that I wasn't of much help than anything.
My one and only thesis on this blog has been that Rich Rodriguez was treated unfairly
and you've only said one thing?
That's impressive. Also tedious.
April 22nd, 2012 at 11:29 PM ^
The "same guys" - Molk, Martin, etc - would consider you part of the problem with the Michigan football base over the past 4 years.
You are the perfect example of the type of supporter Molk called out at the banquet. Once again, I implore you do leave until the last RR player graduates (How about when Jake Ryan gets drafted, you can come back and support "Michigan football" without the Rodriguez stain on it?)
But keep believing you're a real Michigan football fan after you abandoned the team, talked shit about them during the RR years and then cheered on all the players that the guy you hated and derided so much, brought here found success once they actually had a complete team.
You're the type of person who gives all Michigan grads, fans, etc. a bad name. I honestly feel slightly depressed whenever Michigan succeeds because I know it brings happiness to the spoiled, entitled, backstabbing segment of our fanbase that you represent to perfection.
I'm just glad the guys you mentioned got at least one year of a real Michigan Football experience, rather than "backyard football." This is what I wanted for them...to enjoy their experience here. Because it's pretty obvious the previous three years kinda sucked for them. You can support the team to do well, and when it's clear it's not working out, fix it for them. I wanted them to have at least one good year. People like you wanted them to suffer through at least one more year of GERG/Beavers/Rich assistant infighting.
I find it kinda funny that must of the guys you are talking about were actually Lloyd recruits, and not Rich recruits. See, I see them all the same...you're the one who keeps separating them. I notice you have no problem throwing the 2008 team and the players left behind, saying they suck and Rich had no chance to win with them. Apparently it's ok to throw the players Rich was left with under the bus. (You even do it here...apparently we had three years without a "complete team"...man, where are you supporting the players who were on those teams?). See, that's the difference...I want a coaching staff to serve the players as best as possible, and make the Michigan Football experience special. You want players to serve a coach's needs, and his greater glory.
The fact that you feel bad when Michigan wins says all that needs to be said about you. You favor a failed regime and being right (which...psst...it's obvious now...you weren't) over Michigan succeeding. Who really cares about the players more? I don't normally have to say "I told you so" because the vast majority of people don't give two shits about being quote unquote "wrong", and are just happy Michigan is back on track. There's just a tiny segment, like yourself, who was dreaming of Michigan MANBALL flopping, the program tailspinning, just so they could say "I WAS RIGHT!!! HAHA!!" But it's not all that shocking that what made Michigan good for 40 years continues to make Michigan good. Maybe you should have listened to them a bit more, since they're what's made Michigan Football something people have enjoyed over that time, and might know what they're talking about. There isn't a program around for you to be dissatisfied with if not for them. Though it seems you were only a fan for 3 years anyway. They were hear before you...they'll be hear after you're done whining. It's obvious you know less than nothing about what makes one a Michigan Man in context of football, and you wanted something different. Maybe next time. You probably only have a decade to a decade and a half to wait and see. But till then, the only one embarrassing Michigan and Michigan fandom is guys like you.
Nerve clearly struck.
Hope you enjoyed your frenzy that I didn't read.
I know you're a fake and that this past season wasn't even about the players to you, it was about you being "right".
I remember you crying your eyes out on here after the Minnesota game, in which Brian wrote a great piece about all the players had to go through from the media and fans like you and you were of the mindset that "It doesn't need to be about that! Why can't we just celebrate what's happening now!" Because you know, deep down, that in your own small, petty way, you contributed to the misery that those guys had to put up with in those three years here.
Greg Robinson was part of what made Michigan football awful for three years. Your general attitude is part of what diminishes it for a lifetime.
April 23rd, 2012 at 11:33 PM ^
April 24th, 2012 at 11:06 AM ^
Sad reality for you:
You are so predictable that I literally could just reply without reading it and it seemed to fall right in line the thread.
Other sad reality:
Unlike you, I never abandoned the program and never gave up on it. You just hung around lobbing insults at a team that would go 11-2 once it was actually full of upperclassmen and returning starters, because you - I'm assuming you've never played a D1 sport, so you have no idea, it only makes sense - don't understand how the components in a team actually work. While you were busy talking about how bad our team would be this year, predicting a miserable, mediocre season, I believed we would win ten games. I knew our guys were good enough - unlike a former coach who called them to small to compete, who you happen to fellate on here whenever you get the chance - and I knew - you'll be hard-pressed to go back and find anything where I criticize the Hoke hire - that once Hoke got ahold of Mattison, we were set. Hell, after everyone was talking about going 1-2 to finish out the season after we lost to Iowa and saying Denard should be benched for Devin, I said Borges would realize his error and we would go 3-0 and make a BCS bowl.
As was my concern - along with many others - was that Hoke/Borges would try to turn our offense into something it wasn't. Funnily enough, Borges agreed: I remember the interview where he admitted he wished he'd went to an offense that fit Denard better earlier in the year. It could have very well earned us a shot at the Big Ten title, but this is the price paid in a coaching change, even if the new coach inherits a full team.
I love Michigan football. But the truth is, like anything in the world, there are certain aspects I would change in it. Distancing ourselves from fans, donors, media members and former coaches who can't love it unless it fits their warped, pathetic little viewpoint, would definitely be on the top list of my priorities.
You should definitely change your Molk quote to the one that suits you best. Its only appropriate.
And please understand, the most pathetic part about you is is the fact that you take more satisfaction in being "right" than the actual success of the team. Even more pathetic than you not understanding how you contributed to the miserable three years Mike Martin and David Molk had before last season.
April 24th, 2012 at 11:08 AM ^
I don't think he did any of what you're writing.
April 24th, 2012 at 12:20 PM ^
He did. Often.
Once again, it wouldn't be as noticeable to someone who often agrees point for point with his opinions. That's just simple human nature and applies to sports, poltics, economics, etc.
April 24th, 2012 at 12:26 PM ^
I just want to be clear: I am being accused of not supporting Rodriguez, or not supporting Hoke? Or just not supporting the players?
April 24th, 2012 at 12:06 PM ^
Who's predictable?
Yes, you are a proud fan since 2008. Your degrading commentary says everything we need to know about what you thought of the program before that. (And why the homophobia? Not that secure with your manhood? And if you have any December/Early January quotes where you were YAY Hoke, you can happily link them...and you're welcome to find all those quotes of me trashing the team, and Rich, and whatever else your fantasy-land imagination comes up with. I'd call you a liar, but I think you really believe the nonsense you write. Which says more to me you've had a break with reality.
And I've been around Athletic Departments, Sport teams, and Michigan Football probably since you were still pissing your own pants (which admittedly, might not have been that long ago). And done more to support Michigan Football than you'll ever do. I take little pleasure in being right about Michigan Football...I'm just glad I was right that they're better off now than they were 16 months ago. But I take a lot of pleasure in seeing how wrong guys like you were, and still won't give up the ghost, with all evidence to the contrary. Better to be the guy who is happy we're winning games, than the guy who is mad we're winning games. You don't have to pretend to be a mind-reader to see pathetic...you just need to look in the mirror.
But I'll keep posting...because I know you're reading every word...and hating it. ;-)
April 24th, 2012 at 12:19 PM ^
Read that last one, didn't read this one, but knew it would be there almost instantly because this is really all you seem to have.
You keep posting because you're the desperate type who needs the last word in an online debate because you feel that that somehow shows you've won, even when you've already lost.
So go ahead, read this and post, proving me right or don't post because you know you've been called out and will pretend not to have read this even though you're reading it right now.
April 24th, 2012 at 12:36 PM ^
...and you 13 minutes.
Nice Catch-22 you set up there...but if you feel that way you can stop.
I have not kept a running diary of M-Wolverine's feelings towards the team, but my recollection is that he's routinely cheered for the team and kept the grousing about the current (at the time) coaching staff to a minimum throughout his participation here.
There is no surprise that someone who holds his exact same opinion on almost every issue would feel this way.
April 23rd, 2012 at 11:25 PM ^
Good point about Casteel taking the job in AZ for less money than WV was paying him. From the link you posted, the AZ job is also year-to-year, another reason some thought he didn't want to come to UM.
As compared to
Please make it stop.