Ty Duffy reviews Three & Out

"The absent Rosenberg cannot raise his arms to defend himself."

Poetic justice.  The poor dolphin couldn't raise any arms to defend himself either. 

Except for this part:

This is felt most keenly with Bacon’s treatment of Detroit Free Press columnist Michael Rosenberg. He lands blow after blow, accusing the silent columnist, more or less blatantly, of unprofessionalism. Rosenberg is quoted second-hand saying “I don’t like that guy. I don’t think be belongs here” after Rodriguez’ initial press conference and threatening to run former AD Bill Martin out of his job. He’s publishes stories about swearing in practice, without having attended practice. He fails to distinguish between countable and non-countable hours to inflame his practice expose. The absent Rosenberg cannot raise his arms to defend himself.

Why oh why does Rosenberg still get the benefit of the doubt after what happened?!? Bacon was actually relatively tame in his treatment of Rosenberg...but good God, after what happened with it all, how can you NOT accuse the guy of being blatantly unprofessional? I mean, sheesh. Rosenberg was a journalist...he very well could have defended himself, and he was one of the few fricking guys who actually DID, given the chance (in the book)! He was interviewed! What more do you want?!? I just can't help but get infuriated at this. 

haven't put two and two together by now regarding the defenses during the RR era. There was a real lack of talent and GERG failed utterly; Bacon's only choice, and RR's too, would have been to crucify the guy. They're all being painfully polite and their silence speaks volumes.

. 

It was a decent book review, but it still plays up the usual talking points about RR/Carr/Brandon/Freep that have circulated since he showed up.  Yes, RR had trouble selecting a defensive coordinator and then following through on that plan, he had trouble with the media, etc.  But I thought the book basically pointed out how unprofessional Rosenberg was - and he had ample opportunities to defend himself - and how the old guard at the University either conciously or unconciously undermined RR's tenure early on, especially when the losses mounted.  RR definitely deserves some blame for that, but look at this year - with basically the same offense as last year but with a much-improved defense (by finally hiring a good DC and the simple maturation of all those young players RR brought it) the team won 10 games and made it to a BCS bowl game. 

So to say that if RR had just won he would have stayed seems myopic - RR needed time  and a better approach to/plan for the defense, and one led to the other.  It is RR's fault about not enabling his defensive coaches to do better, but some blame also fell on Brandon and the rest of the AD for not paying enough to get the top coaches that we now see maning the sidelines.  And I honestly do believe that with another year of development, this team would have won 9-10 games under RR (especially if a new DC had been brought it), and all would have been forgotten.  I love Hoke and think he is a good coach, but to say that RR should have just won more games because Hoke did (and that was not a point made by Duffy but is one I've seen around) his first year ignores the chasm of differences between the two situations and reinforces some of the false equivalences that littered the whole RR/Hoke debate.  I think RR needed to leave because the situation was forever toxic, but in no way should we feel "sorry" for guys like Rosenberg, Carr, Martin, and Brandon simply because a book pointed out how they acted during RR's time at UM.

The review cited hits one of the main points that many people hoped would be answered (even partially) by the book - why the defense performed badly and for so long. Bacon gives one possible explanation and it probably plays a role but not the whole story. RR would have liked to have Casteel on board, but because of money and perhaps Casteel thought he had a good chance as the next HC at WVU, it didn't happen. As the reviewer and many others noted, where Bacon's account weakens is what happened next with Shafer and Robinson. He probably was at attendance at some meetings and probably caught a sense (even as a fan) of what the team was trying to do on the defensive side to shore things up. We really don't hear much of it. Which leads to the broader problem with the book - again many others have noted this: the incomplete nature of the information. We don't really hear from Carr, Brandon, Robinson, Shafer, Martin, etc. We don't really know what they thought or what over moves were happening. Maybe Bacon did know more - a lot more but chose not to write it. Maybe this was all he knew. Remember he took on the task from a particular point of view - inside RR's team of coaches.

Sometimes it takes decades for the main details to come out. Sometimes we (the public) never really know.

Good parts:

1. An unique insider view.

2. Humanizes the time under RR. He actually comes across better than his general public relations image - no one is going to forget the record, but it shows that he wasn't insensitive to the losses and definitely hurt him a lot. It is worth remembering that while the typical super fan may be down in the dumps after a bad loss, he hurt just as much if not more because we all had our "real" lives to go back to whereas this was his real life and it turned from a dream to a nightmare.

3. Actually an interesting book for non-FB fans - shows what can happen when one steps into a job with a long historical legacy and a lot of the "old hands" still around. A practical lesson for anyone coming as an outsider. Were there people against RR from the beginning?  Probably but there were plenty of missteps as well on his part: bad advice, bad decisions, and trusting too much the wrong people. Maybe it was the way Bacon chose to portrayl him but he comes across as surprisingly naive in many of his dealings. We'll get to see if he learned anything from his time at Arizona.

Less good parts:

1. Inside view - but either heavily self-edited or lacking in crucial details (e.g. a good discussion of the whole defense situation)

2. Missing information and details from other major players - granted this was after all from the POV of someone "embedded" with RR's coaches.

3. After this book, we'll probably never see another one like this for decades unless Moeller, Carr, Brandon or RR write something. After Season on the Brink came out, it altered how these books were perceived. It showed the negative side and not the usual hagiography, but it also made future subjects very wary and cautious.

Ty Duffy is irrelevant.

I thought the review was right on except the parts about Carr and Rosenberg. As others have pointed out, they could have responded with their take. But it didn't take the book to lower my opinion of Carr and Rosenberg. Carr's silence as the alumni fractured spoke volumes – at the time. He could and should have been leading the all in for Michigan charge, but he did the opposite. I knew that two years before Three And Out came out.

As for Rosenberg, I don't think Bacon charged him with too much more than had already been established here at MGoblog and elsewhere. Bacon went into more detail, but the general point of Rosenberg's ethical sloth was established well before the book.

So basically, Ty Duffy feels the same way most of us do about the book.  OK great, now let's move on. 

Rich Rod told us everything we needed to know about the defense last year and Bacon figured everyone got it. Vince Lombardi couldn't have fixed that D. No need to write anything else.

/s

seriously though I haven't finished the book yet, but Bacon has wrote at least five times so far that Rodriguez always took the blame and put everything on himself....and everytime I read this I just keep thinking about Rodriguez saying Lombardi couldn't fix the D.