OT-SI follows RR during his first 2 days in AZ
Two very interesting articles on Rich Rodriguez's first 48 hours as the Arizona head coach:
The first is the play-by-play:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1192629/1/index.htm
The second is a summary:
Sounds like both RR and Arizona learned from the mistakes highlighted in 3&O.
I wish him all the best.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:04 PM ^
Notice that Staples got the assignment and not Rosenberg...
November 30th, 2011 at 10:16 PM ^
Rosenberg is too busy working on his next Harbaugh profile, to cover the Rodriguez beat for SI.
Seriously, I'd like to know how Andy Staples arranged this. Kudos to him, professionally, for doing it. If I were Rodriguez, I think I'd be too tempted to go all Mafia on any organization that employed Rosenberg in any way.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:27 PM ^
I'm not sure how Michigan fans can read some of the recent comments from Martin, Molk and VanBergen or recent comments from Pipkins about what guys were saying about the new staff and still be talking about Rodriguez.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:56 PM ^
Exactly. When Molk says that this staff made OSU 1000x more important than the last staff, that's all I need to know.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:35 AM ^
during Rich Rodriguez's tenure: 33-4
during Brady Hoke's first season: 6-6.
Michigan did not beat Ohio this year because of a countdown clock or because the players said "Beat Ohio" at the end of each meeting. We won because we had a better team. We were 10-2. In every comparative match-up, Michigan performed better than Ohio.
I'm curious: If Braxton Miller had completed that pass to Posey and we lost the game...what would the players have said? I'm glad I didn't have to find out, but some of this stuff is beyond me.
Or this: Why didn't our extra emphasis on MSU this year result in a win?
December 1st, 2011 at 12:53 AM ^
you argue that the fact that RR put less emphasis on the game is a better approach? John Cooper did that, and I don't think it worked out well for him.
traditionally, Michigan coaches have stressed the OSU game as the biggest game of the year. Bo certainly did. Maybe it isn't the best approach, but it worked out better this year.
December 1st, 2011 at 2:32 AM ^
I'm not saying that. I'm just saying I don't think that is why we won. I think we won because we were a more complete team. I don't think saying "Beat Ohio" and having a countdown clock would have won us the game last year.
December 1st, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^
in the rivalry, there is ample evidence that placing emphasis on the game helps. Bo did so in 1969, and no one would argue that UM was a more complete team that year. Cooper undersold the rivalry, yet how many times did an underdog Michigan team win those games. And when Tressel took over, the most famous action he took was making that statement about Michigan during the halftime of the basketball game. That year, 2001, a terrible OSU team beat a favored Michigan team in Ann Arbor.
You quickly dismiss emphasizing the game as something that can have a strong effect. I think history says otherwise
December 1st, 2011 at 11:47 AM ^
in a roundabout way you just proved my point.
First, I didn't quickly dismiss it. I think its necessary to stress it because it's an important aspect of Michigan - and really all - of college football.
Second, look at the examples you just gave me: Bo in 69. Michigan's 8-4 teams in the 90s. Tressel in 2001. The underdogs prevailing over the favorites. By your logic, stressing the rivalry makes a team that may be overmatched superior on the day. Yet we, as the favorite, barely scraped by last weekend. We were 9-2, they were 6-5. Why, if we had the addition of countdown clocks and a new mantra, didn't we beat Ohio by 20+? Like I said, one pass differently and our chances of winning that game are dramatically decreased. Then what? Was the game stressed too much? Did even Brady Hoke not stress it enough?
I think for an underdog, putting a huge amount of emphasis on one game can make a big difference. It can give a lesser team a goal to put everything they have into. But even in 95-96, were our 8-4 teams really overmatched or did we just underachieve throughout the year, only to make up for it in the final game?
Stressing The Game is important, and for underdogs of the past it may have even been crucial to victory, but it is not why this year's team won.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^
So now you're not arguing that it can be helpful, but should in fact make the team win by 20 plus points. Sorry man, but that's ridiculous.
Further, he stressed the game at the beginning of the year, not just the past week. Were we considered massive favorites before the season began? C'mon, you're really stretching it here.
Those 8-4 teams that beat Cooper didn't always blow them out either.
Bottom line, players felt putting emphasis on the game helped. History shows that putting emphasis on the game helps. No one said it guarantees wins or leades to 20 point blowouts. So yeah, Hoke stressing the game is better than RR not emphasizing the game.
December 1st, 2011 at 1:03 PM ^
Now you just aren't even trying to read what I'm saying and just spouting off the same things over and over again. You're even making stuff up. I'm not stretching anything, I'm being logical while you disregard the actual points I'm making and pretend to argue something that isn't there.
I never said anything about garaunteeing 20 point victories. I never said the 8-4 teams blew out Cooper's teams. What I said was: If you are going to say that our 90s teams and Bos 69 team emphasized the game and beat superior opposition in tightly fought contests, then wouldn't it make sense for a far superior Michigan team at 10-2 to handily beat a deflated 6-6 OSU team since our coach - as Michigan Man as it can get - is now stressing the rivalry so much more than his predecessor? If anything, our defense came out and played their second worse game of the season against a true freshman quarterback. Shouldn't Greg Mattison - former Michigan coach with a deep understanding of the rivalry - have eaten him alive?
The whole emphasis on The Game only comes into play on the actual field in two scenarios: A talented underachieving team needs a goal since their season is shot (Michigan in 95' and 96') or when the two teams are highly ranked and playing for Rose Bowl bids, BT titles, etc.
Michigan's teams the last three years were fatally flawed (it's a bit different starting Nick Sheridan vs. Braxton Miller you know?). This year, we have far more complete team. We won because of that.
Once again: What would your response have been if Braxton Miller completes that TD pass and we lose the game? That we, a 10-2 team, kept it close with a 6-6 team at home and that proves that Hoke "gets it" because they were closer than the losses from the last three years?
Borges not calling 60% pass plays and running 77% out of the shotgun had a lot more to do with this win than the extra emphasis on it.
December 1st, 2011 at 3:14 PM ^
but you're not being logical. You're being evasive and constantly changing your argument to save face.
In your first post, you said this "We won because we had a better team." That does disregard placing emphasis on the game. Not a lot of wiggle room there, though you do riggle out of it in a later post.
You subsequently morphed your argument later to say that placing emphasis does have some effect, just not in this type of game.
"The whole emphasis on The Game only comes into play on the actual field in two scenarios: A talented underachieving team needs a goal since their season is shot (Michigan in 95' and 96') or when the two teams are highly ranked and playing for Rose Bowl bids, BT titles, etc."
This makes even less sense. You emphasize the game from the beginning of training camp. We have no idea what the team would look like at the end of the season. Few people would have assumed that OSU would end up 6-6 and Um at 10-2.
it does not guarantee wins or automatically improve performance. But how could you not believe game planning and thinking about one opponent all year long will only affect your performance if you're an underdog? Either it affects your performance, or it doesn't. It wouldn't only matter if you're an underdog.
And your last sentence is even sillier. Why would it matter if only both teams are playing for Rose Bowl bids? Wasn't Michigan playing for a possible BCS birth? So playing up the rivaly would have only helped Michigan if OSU also came into the game ranked? How does that even make sense at all.
You seem to be going out of your way to evade giving Hoke's strategy credit, yet still allowing credit for others who employed the exact same strategy.
December 1st, 2011 at 4:47 PM ^
It's funny that you are calling me "evasive" when I am directly answering your quesitons while you evade mine.
Anyway:
No, I am not discrediting Hoke: His strategy is exactly what members of the fanbase like yourself need, some sort of fantasy about extra emphasis being the difference between winning and losing. Hoke is a PR master. He knows his audience. He's an absolute genius, the exact opposite of Rodriguez in these situations.
But once again:
If stressing a rivalry matters, why did we lose to MSU? That was supposedly stressed more than last year, yet we had the same results. I think we lost because our offense passed the ball 60% of the time. I don't think we lost because Hoke didn't add "Beat Sparty" before every pre-practice talk.
If stressing a rivalry really matters, why did Mattison's defense play one of their worst games against a very weak Ohio offense? Even if you say that OSU gives equal importance to the rivalry, their 118th ranked pass offense should not torch our Top 25 defense because stressing victory in that game all season should have seen us shut them down with ease. Or maybe it's becasue Bollman and Fickell actually had a gameplan that got the better of Mattison? It makes no sense: Mattison participated in the game for years, yet he was bested by a freshman QB?
Finally, I didn't change my argument. I said that saying "Beat Ohio" and having a countdown clock did not win us this game, having a better team did. Having Borges figure out the offense by Illinois did. Saying it in a press conference did not. Its kind of like garaunteeing a win: If you win, people think you're a genius, the coolest guy alive. If you garauntee and lose, it is a minor footnote (John Elway garaunteed the Broncos would beat the 49ers in a Super Bowl...they lost 55-10). It was the same thing this year with Hoke. He put extra emphasis on two games: MSU and OSU. We lost one and won one. To the logical rational person, this would indicate countdown clocks and such matter very little. We would assert that it was actually the differences in the offensive strategy that caused the different outcomes in those games. You can go on believing fairy tales.
However, on the flip side, when you've blown other games - maybe from stressing too hard about a certain team, thus ruining your chances at big ten titles? - the mantra of "Beat Ohio" can have a galvanizing effect translating to one victory saves a season. If you cannot understand this, then I don't know what to tell you. I think you do, but you are avoiding it. That's what Fickell and co. told themselves. Would it have mattered at all if they had come out and played the same crappy offense they played the week before against Penn State? No.
Once again: Michigan won this game because they were a superior team. They should have won by more if not for some sublime play by Braxton Miller and some surprise creativity by the OSU coaches. Saying "Beat Ohio" had no effect on the outcome of this game.
Once again: What would you say if Michigan had lost this game on a last second touchdown by a freshman quarterback who was leading the nation's 118th passing offense?
December 1st, 2011 at 5:13 PM ^
"it does not guarantee wins or automatically improve performance. But how could you not believe game planning and thinking about one opponent all year long will only affect your performance if you're an underdog?"
That answers your questions. Focusing on a game does not guarantee a win, but if you have two exact same teams (A & B), but team A spends extra time on the OSU game and team B does not, I would argue that Team A would have a better chance to win the OSU game. You argue that their chances do not improve, and they have the same chance to win as Team B (unless they are an underdog or both teams are fighting for the BCS or whatever odd twist oyu keep coming up with). This is not logical. In fact, it makes no sense whatsoever.
So every scenario you keep coming up with (Why didn't we beat MSU, etc) is answered. Emphasizing a game doesn't guarantee a win, but it is obviously better to constantly prepare for a game than not. That has been born out historically, and again this year.
It seems relatively clear that emphasizing and putting extra attention on the game has benefits. You've admitted as much. Why you insist that only doesn't matter in this instance, I have no idea.
December 1st, 2011 at 5:48 PM ^
What exactly did we do in the final game that was so different from anything we'd done all season, except give up several big plays in the same game?
Once again: the only tangible benefit of stressing a rivalry is gearing up for an epic showdown (2006) or saving your season (1995). I'm talking about on the field performance. It doesn't hurt to stress the rivalry, but it doesn't make a huge difference either. You are either going to have a talented team with a good gameplan that executes better than the other team or you aren't. as simple as that.
And as I said above: most of the benefit comes from the perception people like you have of the coach. Hoke knows. He knows people are out there marvelling at "how much he gets it" and how his team "plays Michigan football" when they just squeaked by a 6-6 Ohio team. He's a genius.
December 1st, 2011 at 7:14 PM ^
December 3rd, 2011 at 8:50 PM ^
Well, Bo went 0-7 in bowls during the 1970s and 5-5 during the 1980s. Meanwhile, from 1969-79 he went 5-5-1 against OSU while from 1980-89 he went 6-4. So while his bowl performance improved dramatically, he also got slightly better vs. OSU. I don't think one was directly related to the other.
December 1st, 2011 at 7:52 PM ^
I know why you sigh so much. It's because it must be exhausting to be so much more insightful than everyone else.
You're right, what was so different from anything we'd done all season? I mean, so what that we ran Denard 27 times? and so what that it was by far our most efficient offensive performance of the season. I'm sure that came from dumb luck, not extra gameplanning. And so what that on the HBO special both sides claimed that they gameplanned all season for that one game. I'm sure Hoke and Borges didn't do that at all. It was just sweet fortunate that this was their offense's best performance.
The only thing we did differently was let up long pass plays (no one calls you a "glass half full" guy, do they?)
It's a good thing Hoke can't fool you. We're just dumb sheep, impressed by his language and silly wins. But not you. You see right through the rhetoric.
So what he was named Coach of the year? And that it was the third time in four years (3 different conferences) that he won COY. You, Coastal Blue, can see right through it and you are not impressed. The press, everywhere, are just gullible idiots.
And so what that the players claimed his emphasis on the game helped. And that there is historical precendent. Or that you even admit that focusing on the game can help. In this case, in this instance, it's all just Hoke pulling the wool over all our eyes. He deserves no credit for this. Luckily, we have you to help us see it for the baloney that it is.
I'll end this with a Go Blue, and maybe a little Bear Down for you as well.
December 1st, 2011 at 5:13 PM ^
"it does not guarantee wins or automatically improve performance. But how could you not believe game planning and thinking about one opponent all year long will only affect your performance if you're an underdog?"
That answers your questions. Focusing on a game does not guarantee a win, but if you have two exact same teams (A & B), but team A spends extra time on the OSU game and team B does not, I would argue that Team A would have a better chance to win the OSU game. You argue that their chances do not improve, and they have the same chance to win as Team B (unless they are an underdog or both teams are fighting for the BCS or whatever odd twist oyu keep coming up with). This is not logical. In fact, it makes no sense whatsoever.
So every scenario you keep coming up with (Why didn't we beat MSU, etc) is answered. Emphasizing a game doesn't guarantee a win, but it is obviously better to constantly prepare for a game than not. That has been born out historically, and again this year.
It seems relatively clear that emphasizing and putting extra attention on the game has benefits. You've admitted as much. Why you insist that only doesn't matter in this instance, I have no idea.
December 3rd, 2011 at 8:45 PM ^
I think there's another issue at play. The football season is a grind. Practing for four hours a day, five days a week, is hard. When the coaches stress that the most important game of the season is at the end, that can help players keep focused as the year goes on. And when you're working so hard to show your best in the season finale, your team will probably show a lot of improvement as the year goes on. That certainly was true this year.
December 1st, 2011 at 1:02 AM ^
That particular point (beating Ohio) can be argued but many others can't, like Martin saying that they learned a different mentality. He said Hoke taught them how to compete and what Michigan football is (he said he had no idea what Hoke meant when he first said that but learned).
December 1st, 2011 at 2:31 AM ^
What is Michigan football?
To me, it seems like the biggest difference between last year and this year was...the winning.
Look, its not a popular opinion. We want our new coaches to be miracle workers (I think they did do quite a bit to improve the D). But reality is, this team was set up a lot better from a personnel standpoint than the three prior to it. It had a more favorable schedule. Every team we played in the Big Ten was worse than the one from last year except MSU and adding Nebraska instead of say, Indiana (Though we also had Wisconsin and Penn State last year as opposed to Northwestern and Minnesota this year).
My point is, what if two things go differently. Let the rest of the season fall as it is. What if Notre Dame doesn't leave Gallon wide open and we lose that team like teams would 19 out of 20 times in that situation and what if Miller's pass to Posey is a yard shorter? Playing "Michigan football" had nothing to do with Notre Dame blowing their coverage or Braxton Miller missing that pass. At 8-4, was "Michigan footbal"l still played this year?
I'm just curious as to what you guys think the phrase means and how it affects the outcome of a game.
December 1st, 2011 at 7:25 AM ^
would be yes, we played Michigan football. But I think you'd also see people blaming losses to our three main rivals and Iowa on a "lack of high star rating talent" recruited by RR. Or how the players recruited by RR are undersized or not the right type of player for the rough, tough B1G.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:03 PM ^
Read what Pipkins has heard from the players this year about Hoke & Co. Coaching made a BIG difference this year, especially at the end of the season. This staff excels at teaching football and that is exactly what Pipkins was told by his future teammates last weekend.
December 1st, 2011 at 5:35 AM ^
This sort of talk is vastly overblown. "Learning what Michigan football is" and other intangible, largely motivational talk didn't help much against MSU, did it? ND nearly had us beat and tsio could have beaten us if Miller could complete a deep ball.
I'm more interested in player's comments about proper technique, film study, and better schemes on defense... in which case there obviously has been a massive improvement.
"That’s what (the players) were telling me on my visit. ‘We actually learned how to play football.’ "
http://michigan.scout.com/2/1134074.html
Mike Martin and film study:
http://annarbor.com/sports/um-football/michigan-football-teams-mike-mar…
December 1st, 2011 at 9:28 AM ^
No question. The improvement in tackling, lineplay and coverage (till the Ohio game anwyay) was extremely noticeable. Hoke, Mattison and co. deserve all the credit in the world there.
Although I think Denard's comment comes down to "Fitz was healthy".
December 1st, 2011 at 3:29 PM ^
So because we didn't win a game against MSU, and we didn't beat ND or Ohio thoroughly enough, emphasizing Michigan football is a non-factor?
December 1st, 2011 at 4:49 PM ^
If you win, it's Michigan football.
If you lose, suddenly it becomes something else, like poor recruiting, someone else's guys, etc.
If we lose those two games to Notre Dame and Ohio State - completely possible - no one is saying things about "learning what Michigan football is".
December 1st, 2011 at 5:11 PM ^
and when you lose, you don't get it, or understand Michigan.
So when Llyod Carr was coaching against John Cooper, he got how important the rivalry is, but when Tressel became the OSU coach, I guess Lloyd must have forgotten all about it.
December 1st, 2011 at 5:19 PM ^
I would argue that there are certain things Michigan fans expect from their team.
beating their arch-rivals is one, but playing fundamentally sound football. Playing good defense, getting a lot of hats to the ball, not getting blown out. These too are things formerly associated with Michigan football, and these materialized this year. There were plenty of UM football teams under Carr and Mo that lost to rivals, but still played Michigan football. So even if they lost to ND and OSU, they would have still been learning Michigan football if they did all the other things.
However, if they got blown out of those games by 20 points or more, then no, then no one would be saying they were learning what Michigan football is.
We've had a definitive style of play for close to 40 years, and that changed the last three years. This team played a lot more like the teams of the previous 40 years, being lead for the most part by their defense and a strong runnning game. Doesn't that sound like Michigan football? Why the need to downplay it?
December 1st, 2011 at 5:50 PM ^
a 40-34 game is definitive Michigan football?
Edit: Let's go further
A Michigan team operating out 75% out of the shotgun with a running quarterback is definitive Michigan football?
Or is it definitive Michigan football because this team ended up 10-2?
December 3rd, 2011 at 7:47 PM ^
"Michigan football team's Mike Martin says intensified film study is behind third-down success rate"
As important as this is, I think it understates a more important factor.
"Michigan football team's Mike Martin --- is behind third-down success rate"
There, fixed that headline for them.
December 1st, 2011 at 10:56 AM ^
I'm tired of the OSU chorus that If Only Miller Hadn't Overthrown That Pass The Bucks Woulda Won.
Bullshit. We would've had just under two minutes left, with all of our timeouts, and all we had to do was get into field goal range. The way our offense had eviscerated their defense all day long, I still think we get out of there with a win.
So quit repeating that shit.
December 1st, 2011 at 2:21 PM ^
The penultimate OSU offensive play, the overthrow to Devier Posey, where Posey had scorched J.T. Floyd, ended with 45 seconds on the clock.
December 1st, 2011 at 3:02 PM ^
It did not. If you rewatch the game, the pass to Miller was on 3 and 6 with 1:48 to play. Miller scrambled for the 4th down conversion. The following series featured a sack on 1st down, and short pass completion on second, and spike on third and Avery's interception.
Check the play by play if you care to.
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/playbyplay?gameId=313300130&period=4
December 1st, 2011 at 3:25 PM ^
You are wrong. There was 1:41 left on the clock when that play ended. Has he caught the ball and scored, he was near the 30, there would have been at least 1:35 left
December 5th, 2011 at 2:36 AM ^
Not just brazenly confident in your utterly incorrect assertion of fact, but you topped it off with some real top-grade frou-frou penultimate shit. Very lawerly.
December 1st, 2011 at 2:40 PM ^
...that it was just a piece of extraordinarily bad luck that Miller Overthrew The Pass.
If Miller was an accurate deep thrower he'd have been defended differently, he wouldn't have been given all day to throw and that stuff wouldn't have been coming open all day.
He'd probably have shredded us running, instead. If he ever does become an accurate thrower he'll be a handful. But when you give him what he doesn't do well and he doesn't do it, it isn't just luck.
December 1st, 2011 at 2:51 PM ^
If Miller was an accurate deep thrower he'd have been defended differentlyLike Penn State last year? Didn't work too good then, if that indeed was the strategy. However, with less than 1 minute to play and up 6, uh, no, that was a blown coverage.
December 1st, 2011 at 3:44 PM ^
Yes, it was a blown coverage.
One of the reasons there were more blown coverages than usual last week against double moves is that they had time for double moves because we weren't getting to Miller. One of the reasons we weren't getting to Miller is that it was more important to contain him (we've seen this in reverse all year with Denard).
If Miller were a better downfield passer this tradeoff might have been seen differently. Mattison's usual MO in the two-minute drill has been a lot of pressure--he didn't come as hard as usual this week and I can see why.
December 1st, 2011 at 4:07 PM ^
were of the run variety. Had to respect Miller's primary talent, and absolutely, that allowed for the WR's to put on double moves.
December 1st, 2011 at 2:34 AM ^
Does what the seniors said about the lack of support from the Michigan Men during the Rodriguez years as well as the meeting on how they didn't quit on the coach like happened in the last coach change also matters? Because that's the type of thing that people are talking about when they talk about RichRod. Yes, he failed miserably at winning at Michigan, but the lack of support for him and how that impacted the players, OUR students, was just disgraceful.
We're not talking about RichRod because of RichRod. We're talking about him because it is an evidence of how disfunctional the Michigan family became because we hired a coach. We're talking about how internal fights generated pre-game speeches about cockroaches. We're talking about Braylon on SNF saying "Carr's University of Michigan" because he feels he's the owner of the #1 jersey. We're talking about something we never thought possible at post-Bo Michigan: that something, someone can be more important than the team.
Yesterday I heard Toomer on ESPN radio criticizing RichRod (still, after this weekend's victory) rehashing the tired old meme that the spread offense doesn't work on the B1G, while saying why he thinks Meyer will fail. When it's a consensus that last year's offense was actually good but the defense was the worst thing in the universe. We want to set the record straight, because we're Michigan and here we care about right and wrong more than we care about losing or winning. That's why people still talk about Rodriguez.
December 1st, 2011 at 3:00 AM ^
It's funny Toomer said that. Our offense, especially over the last three games, looked a lot closer to what Rodriguez was running than anything from Toomer's time at Michigan.
December 1st, 2011 at 10:57 AM ^
What's this thing about cockroaches? I haven't read the book.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:38 PM ^
Rodriguez always referred to criticis of the program and those who criticized him and the kids as cockroaches. He would make an analogy that winning games would be like sunlight: the cockroaches would go back into hiding. But after losses, in the darkness, the roaches would come back out.
The metaphor was basically that program critics are skulking cowards. This metaphor made a lot of appearances in his speeches, especially in 2008/2009.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:32 PM ^
thanks for the links.
I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for that guy. wish him and his family the best.
a rose bowl between mich and arizona would be the best, and one of the very few times when i would be ok with michigan losing (well, maybe just winning by a little).
November 30th, 2011 at 11:18 PM ^
So, as I read your comment, you are primarily a RR fan first, and Michigan is your second team.
<br>
December 1st, 2011 at 6:02 AM ^
RR's treatment here was unfair, to the point where I am embarrassed at the behavior of some people in the athletic department and former players.
If RR beats Michigan in the Rose bowl I will be upset that Michigan lost, but happy for RR. It is possible to do both, if you're an adult.
December 1st, 2011 at 8:43 AM ^
It is IMpossible to do both if you are a real Michigan fan.
<br>
<br>My loyalty is to Michigan. Do I think that the media treated him well? No. But we are not the media. He came, he lost, he was first.
<br>
<br>As to the former players, perhaps all of these guys - and there were so many that you do have to wonder what they all saw and were bothered by - had a legitimate beef with RR or were not happy about the direction he was taking the program. To me, Molk's recent comment that Hoke and company emphasize the Ohio rivalry 1000 times more than RR proves all of these former players and others who didn't want rr here right.