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/
That, in itself, shouldn't cause a disaster. But the usual argument isn't that Rodriguez needed a Casteel-level coordinator, it's that he specifically needed Casteel. I'm having trouble thinking of another successful head coach who's so tied to a particular assistant that it's the AD's responsiblity to break the bank to get him. Anybody have a parallel for this? It'd be interesting to see how this worked elsewhere.
For me, if a new hire came to my office and suggested we needed to add a bit to the budget for assistants because we couldn't compete for the best with our current payscale, I'd consider it. If he came to my office and said we needed to add to the budget so he could hire his former assistant, I'd start to wonder if I'd made a mistake. Why the crutch?
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:45 PM ^
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:50 PM ^
The thread got heated.
April 23rd, 2012 at 12:29 AM ^
I'm not sure that I read the same article as the OP or many of the posters.
I have no personal or emotional interest in defending Greg Robinson, but it seems to me that Martin's comments were referring to two coaches: Tall (not knowing d-line) and Rodriguez (the overall team concept, the "backyard defense").
I know that it is longstanding board policy to blame GERG for all defensive shortcomings and to curse at the Freep and the other gods that bedeviled the '08-'10 teams (and there were many). But I'm not seeing that in this piece. This piece - and Martin's words, as best as they are represented - are aimed at the overall team architecture and the defense's role in it.
whether the parenthetical editorial comment "(under former defensive coordinator Greg Robinson)" is clarifying the context of Martin's quote. I assumed it was and that Martin's statements had been in part directed at Robinson even though there was no direct quote regarding him.
But even if that's the case, you're correct about the primary focus of the piece and of Martin's quoted comments.
April 23rd, 2012 at 11:47 AM ^
I thought the most interesting, and condemning quote was the one where Martin alleged that the defense was there mostly for the offense to scrimmage off of.
I wonder why none of this made it into the book by the intrepid Mr. Bacon.
April 23rd, 2012 at 12:07 PM ^
Has anybody been more transparent, more open, more receptive to questions and more self-explanatory than John U. Bacon?
Not Carr. Not Brandon. Not Rosenberg and the Free Press.
I think it would be a great thing to ask Mike Martin more questions. I'd welcome it; especially if it weren't packaged and canned by somebody like Kyle Meinke. Another Touch the Banner interview perhaps. Or something done for MGoBlog. A full, unexpurgated transcript. And questions drawn from the Board's membership. I like the idea of more questions and more answers.
April 23rd, 2012 at 12:34 PM ^
Well, I think John has said that most of the meetings he sat in on were offensive meetings.
Probably following Rich.
He either didn't, or left a lot out.
And I'd be all for another Q&A with Bacon...can we pick which questions he actually has to answer, and do follow up questions this time? Or does it get to be him cherry picking to do monologues again? Because if it's the latter, I'll pass.
I don't get it; if John U. Bacon didn't write the book that some people wanted, then they should write their own books. And then they can answer questions about what they wrote.
And if you think that Mike Martin has been misquoted, inadequately quoted, or otherwise misrepresented in Three and Out or anywhere else, by all means, somebody should ask him more questions and record the answers. That's all good with me.
In the meantime we have Ryan Van Bergen, Martin's friend and teammate. Page 429.
I was just saying that Bacon had access to Martin, and his feelings aren't reflected in the book...more along the lines of "boy, this defense is a chaotic mess", which was a big part of what people thought was left out. And someone who was there thought so too. But I've gone beyond the dead horse, and hit the rotting bones when I am going back to T&O, so yeah, sure...
It's not rare for kids not to talk badly about the coach until they're gone - it's the general rule. I don't doubt that Martin was anything other than complimentary, after all, during much of this time period, Bacon was writing a book WITH Rodriguez - I'm sure Martin wasn't going to bash Rodriguez to his writing partner.
Regardless, I think what's interesting is the the phenomenon Martin describes - segregated practices (offense on the turf fields, defense on the grass fields) and no attention from Rodriguez aren't in the book.
Maybe it's the "this was originally a joint venture between Rodriguez and Bacon" thing?
I left my copy of Three and Out in my other pair of pants today - I just KNEW I'd pay for it.
What is on Page 429.
I think that's the RVB speech on "where were all of the old Michigan players and such the last 3 years that are around now" that he was supposed "censured" for (which as far as anyone knows was "knock it off with the inflamatory stuff" to the media).
I like that speech.
I don't see how it's revelatory to Martin's claim that the defensive:
a) was poorly coached
b) was neglected by Rodriguez
And certainly understandable from Ryan's point of view.
I think he was going for "but he DID talk to Ryan, and he said THIS"....but yeah, maybe not fully related.
It all fits together perfectly if you are privy to the rational of S1's arcane nuancing
Those are some big boy words you are testing out there. If you're going to attempt to use them, you've got to try to get them right.
danka
http://annarbor.com/sports/um-football/journeyman-steve-watson-sets-mic…
"These coaches, I don’t know what they were doing, but every week, they felt like because we were getting beat, they had to switch their strategy," Watson said.
But it was a love affair compared to how he felt about Magee. Ouch.
"Coach Magee told me at the time, basically, that I had no chance of playing at Michigan at all, and that I basically sucked," Watson said. "He said, 'You can transfer, if you want to. I don’t think you’re ever going to play here.'" Watson calls it the worst day of his career.
he stuck around and got his Sugar Bowl ring!
sounds like the time-honored Lloyd-Carr-tosses-the-transfer-papers-on-the-desk motivational ploy, seen from the player's point of view.