Unverified Voracity Had A Deal
Bacon Qs! The time has come: the season's over, Three and Out has been digested by the people who bought it at or around launch, and we are set to get more information from Bacon on things that were omitted from the book or were included and might need clarification or explanation.
If you've read it and something stuck with you, let's hear it. Don't be afraid to ask tough questions; Bacon can take it. He sat in a press box with limited power and made it out alive.
------------------
Site note. I have been bookmarking things for MGolicious but Delicious is not updating the feed. Now it's down. Not sure what I can do other than switch link providers, but I'll try to poke around and see if I can fix anything.
Boo-boo. It (one of the its, anyway) was REVEALED!
“Turns out you didn’t have a boo-boo,” a reporter asked Robinson on Friday. “You had a staph infection?”
Robinson threw his head back and laughed.
“It was a deal,” Robinson said, repeating another popular ‘Hoke-speak’ phrase.
“I was a little sick — had a staph infection. But I went out there and still played. I did it for my team.”
Heiko got a gross shot of it.
post-ND presser
Ow. Now that the season's over how do we feel about the Denard injury == terrible throwing idea? He had that and the elbow abscess, and once past those things he did get a lot better. I'm guessing 40% this stuff, 30% plain bad mechanics (back foot throws), 30% lack of familiarity with what Borges is trying to do.
BONUS: filing "had a deal" into the Hokeopticon.
Desmond Howard being interviewed by a woman who looks like she is playing a part in a 1990s science fiction movie. Just me?
This whole thing makes me think "Demolition Man." I am biased by the high top fade, probably. Via Wolverine Historian.
Goodbye, competent instate opponent. Saturday's game against Oakland was the last Michigan will play by edict of John Beilein:
"No," Beilein said Friday when asked if he had interest in renewing a contract with Oakland. "Not at all." …
"We traditionally want to play our games at Crisler (Arena) as often as possible," Beilein said of non-conference scheduling. "I'm not saying we won't go back to The Palace if it's a type of situation that we really think benefits Michigan 100 percent."
I'm not a fan. If playing Oakland means giving up occasional games against Arkansas Pine Bluff, uh… okay. There's plenty of room on the schedule for a game at the Palace against a real opponent.
Kampe said Oakland is "good enough to beat" Michigan and that's a reason M wants them off the schedule, but they're also good enough to provide an interesting game and an RPI bump relative to a Towson. Michigan should be looking for more opponents like Oakland, not fewer. I'd rather play them outside Crisler than some SWAC team anywhere.
Insert usual disbelief at lack of annual game against ND here.
Early emergence. I'm still trying to get my head around what's going on with the hockey team, and it basically comes down to three things:
- They are short two quality defensemen. Moffie should be a third pairing guy rotating with Clare and Serville should be redshirting. Clare's gotten better of late but his footspeed remains an issue and you can feel the panic when he gets the puck in his own zone.
- There is no top line. The best forward on the roster is…? Depending on the day it's Di Guiseppe, Wohlberg, Brown, or (lately) Guptill. One of those guys may have been the third wheel on a vintage Michigan top line as someone else stirs the drink.
- Special teams are terrible, terrible, terrible. Michigan's PK is last in the CCHA and PP is 8th. This was something of a problem last year; the PP has been a mess for a long time. Watching MSU run the same thing M does reveals that there are options other than "shoot from the point" and "get your shot blocked from the point."
This is not really related to the article I'm linking except that parenthetical above:
…this weekend, it was a different freshman — forward Alex Guptill — who stole the show. Guptill ensured that Di Giuseppe wasn’t missed at all. Over the course of the series, Guptill racked up three points and now leads Michigan in goals scored (nine).
“(Guptill) is doing the little things right,” said senior defenseman Greg Pateryn. “That’s what it comes down to. Less is more in college hockey, and he’s doing the simple things.”
After the first half dozen games or so I pegged Guptill as one of those big forwards the NHL drafts too high who disappoints until catching fire as a senior and leaving in a blaze of glory, but not so much. Guptill has started catching my eye for "little things" like dumping and chasing effectively; he seems faster than most guys his size.
On the flip side, a lot was expected from Hyman and he hasn't produced, languishing with 7 points. Only Glendening and Lynch have fewer points among forwards* with a regular shift. Both Hyman and Guptill are a bit older than usual Michigan freshmen (they both took post-draft years in junior) and it's a little concerning that Hyman isn't doing much of note yet.
*[IE, two thirds of Michigan's nominal top line to start the season. This is what I am saying.]
Pittsnogle redux (or I guess Jamie Smalligan but that's no fun). 2013 basketball commit Mark Donnal's latest boxscore: 36 points on 13/15 shooting with 8/11 from the line. UMHoops has video of this outburst featuring multiple three pointers, baby hooks in the lane, and a fadeaway jumper from the elbow, all against a pretty decent high school center with midmajor offers. Dude is a 6'9" post. Watching the video makes it apparent why Beilein offered Donnal as fast as he possibly could.
He doesn't look particularly athletic and doesn't seem to have the attributes needed to be a 4, so it's three-shooting center time again. Hopefully Donnal ends up reminding me of that one center from the SNES version of NCAA basketball who shot 50% from three because some programmer looked at a Colorado center going one for two (or thereabouts) on the season and decided he was awesome.
Etc.: Dave Brandon complains about OSU's recruitin' waiver. Didn't Michigan get the same thing when RR was hired? I don't recall any sanctions coming down as RR recruited dudes between his hiring and the Citrus Bowl.
December 13th, 2011 at 1:52 AM ^
I think you're on to something here. Bo likes RR, Carr knows this, and so out of respect for Bo, Carr contacts RR at the appropriate time. Given RR was already coaching at his alma mater and had turned down Alabama just a year before, I wonder if Carr even thought about whether RR would actually consider the offer. I think Carr making the call on Bo's behalf without expecting it to go any further than one phone call is the only way to square him making that call with his subsequent behavior.
December 13th, 2011 at 9:26 AM ^
Does he mention Bo spoke to Carr about Rich as a replacement? Bo liked Rich's offense, because it was a running offense, but I don't ever remember hearing him mention Rich as a future Michigan coach. Which would be a really weird conversation since Bo died a year before the position opened up. And Bo certainly would have been inclined like Lloyd to have a guy on staff take over, since that's exactly what Bo did (became AD just so he could do it, too).
December 12th, 2011 at 7:48 PM ^
I haven't read the book yet (in the holiday plans), but was there anything there about the Shafer hiring? I remember reading comments from Shafer that implied that he was surprised that he was hired, since he basically sent Rodriguez a resume several years earlier and had no relationship with Rodriguez - nor had he really spoken with him. That was the first time I remember worrying about how seriously Rodriguez was taking the defense. If it wasn't covered in the book, I'd love to hear Bacon's thoughts on it.
December 12th, 2011 at 10:59 PM ^
About the only time Shafer is mentioned is when he resigns.
December 12th, 2011 at 7:59 PM ^
I found the book to be objective for the most part, with a strong Rodriguez slant and most of it is from his perspective.
That being said, there was something I could not believe Bacon wrote. This question is doubtlessly going to get down-voted or dismissed by Bacon or there will be generic "You're just wrong" response.
On page 135, Bacon is discussing Rodriguez, the spread option, and Michigan's personnel. Rodriguez being questioned about his system, and he gives the general answer that pisses a lot of people off, "I would change nothing."
Bacon seems to agree with this:
"Here he was obliquely addressing the frequent criticism that he should have waited until he had the right players before installing the spread. When I asked him about this, he replied, 'The players always struggle at first. But if we tried something else, then NO ONE would know what the heck's going on. Is that better?'
"In fact, the adapt-to-your-talent argument is largely a canard, one rarely made by experienced coaches. Football is now so complicated that just learning a new offensive or defensive system usually takes more than a year, and few coaches are allowed much more than that if they plan on keeping their jobs. So trying to teach your players one system, then another, is a waste of valuable time and risks confusing your players and possibly your assistants, too. Yes. coaches can adapt their play-calling--witness Rodriguez's shift from running to passing when he went from Jed Drenning at Glenville State to Shaun King at Tulane--but they cannot easily adapt their SYSTEMS."
My questiont to Bacon is this: how can you, in hindsight, possibly write or believe that? Hindsight provides us the benefit of seeing Hoke and Borges adapt to Denard's skill sets. More specifically, they incorporated spread elements when they both admitted they were not comfortable running them. But that was what had to be done. That was the personnel they had.
This is one of my biggest criticims of Rodriguez, that he was so stubbornly convinced that his spread could work in year one that he ended up doing more damage than good.
And second, I don't buy Bacon's point that "Football is too complicated nowadays." That is total B.S. The pro-style offense is one of the least complicated offenses out there. They run it in pop warner and high school. (Some high schools also run the spread.) The core of the pro-style offense is clock management and ball control. It's not flashy, but it is incredibly effective because you don't allow the other team enough time. Is that really so complicated that the assistants wouldn't get it? Or are they just that incompetent that they only know how to run one system? And it would have hardly been a "new system" to the players if they had been already running it. I just can't understand why Bacon is siding with Rodriguez on this one.
Hoke and Borges have gradually incorporated pro-style while keeping the spread-option elements and shotgun that Denard is familiar with. This seems to be a smart decision. With what Borges and Hoke have done, how can Bacon possibly agree that Rodriguez's methods were the right decision?
December 12th, 2011 at 9:25 PM ^
The pro-style offense is one of the least complicated offenses out there.
The pro-style offense is, in fact, more complex than the spread and spread option offenses. Nuances with blocking assignments in pro-style, hand-it-off offenses are more complex than in offenses where the quarterback is a threat as a runner because in the latter, your team has an extra blocker to work with and can thus see the same success as pro-style without the extra scheming. Pro-style routes in the passing game are more complex because they have to be timed out with the quarterback's dropback, whereas starting the quarterback in the shotgun means the timing only matters for the receiver. Pro-style routes often rely on having a quarterback with a great arm, whereas the spread offense Rodriguez ran at Michigan gave several receivers that were blitheringly wide open.
Finally, who on the team was going to run said "simple pro-style offense?" If you're going to simplify it to high school-level, you need a talent variation that is as large as that observed in high school (if your blockers are bigger than the defenders, you will block them effectively). In the Big Ten, Michigan does not see the kind of talent gap over its fellow teams in 2008, and even then the talent it does have consists of smaller-but-quicker linemen like David Molk and a total of 1 returning starter, which surely would not have been able to MANBAWL its way to victory over most teams on its schedule.
I probably should have just downvoted this, because the core of this is simple ignorance.
December 12th, 2011 at 8:14 PM ^
Bacon wrote the book during the 2011 offseason, before he had a chance to see what the new staff would do with the team. At this point, I've got to wonder if he doesn't look back atnd second-guess some of what he wrote in (and left out of) the book.
December 12th, 2011 at 9:18 PM ^
There wasn't anything about this season that changed how the last three seasons should be viewed other than the fact Rodriguez should have done everything within his power and then some to bring Casteel with him from WVU.
"What the new staff would do with the team". Oh you mean the new staff that inherited 18-19 starters and a weak schedule with none of the outside distractions that miserable fans such as yourself helped create the year before? Well, I'd hope they would have a successful season. In fact, real fans who didn't abandon the team were fairly certain we'd win 9-10 games this year. Glad to have you back on board.
The only surprise about this season was just how much the defense improved, which is why my first paragraph is 100% correct. And even then, Bacon already holds the view that if he could do it over again, Rodriguez would do everything he could to get Casteel in the fold.
So just give it a rest.
December 12th, 2011 at 8:40 PM ^
I think Bacon was right, but for the wrong reasons. There was no reason for RR to adapt to a pro-style players because there was only one returning starter to adapt to. Unless you think he should have delayed implementing his sytem for the sake of Threet. The truth is that if Michigan had returned 4 or 5 O-lineman and a QB like Henne in 2008 we have no idea if he would have adapted his system or not, we also have no idea if RR would have been hired under that scenario or if Carr would have choosen to retire under that scenario.
As Brian has said before the defense is a better example of RR being stubborn, not the offense.
December 12th, 2011 at 9:30 PM ^
There was no reason for RR to adapt to a pro-style players because there was only one returning starter to adapt to....not only had all of the new starters been recruited to U-M for their ability to excel in a pro-style attack, but many had been practicing it for 2-3 years prior to RR's arrival.
December 13th, 2011 at 8:45 AM ^
I will repeat for a fiftieth time: there was all of one non-freshman O lineman who made an impact for the positive at Michigan or beyond. The quarterbacks where Threet Sheridammit. Your best two WR left, your RBs stayed. It didn't matter what offensive system they ran, they frankly were not very good. Spread, pro, air raid, triple option, wing-t, wish bone, flex bone or single wing it wasn't going to matter, they were going to be BAD. Regardless of what you wanted to run Yakety Sax was going to be the end result. I thank the kids for working their butts off at Michigan but they were terrible, bottom line.
link:
December 12th, 2011 at 9:53 PM ^
'"On page 135, Bacon is discussing Rodriguez, the spread option, and Michigan's personnel. Rodriguez being questioned about his system, and he gives the general answer that pisses a lot of people off, "I would change nothing."
Bacon seems to agree with this:
"Here he was obliquely addressing the frequent criticism that he should have waited until he had the right players before installing the spread. When I asked him about this, he replied, 'The players always struggle at first. But if we tried something else, then NO ONE would know what the heck's going on. Is that better?'"
Hit me over the head like a baseball bat. After spending weeks telling all that would listen in public that he'd adapt his scheme to the players, he was privately stating something entirely different.
I don't know if Hoke looked at what happened in 2008 and told Borges that he and the program couldn't afford a repeat, or that he and Borges knew as a matter of professionalism they'd have to make what they had work. Whatever, they made it work.
December 13th, 2011 at 11:56 AM ^
Maybe RR just thought he'd have more time and that a couple extra losses in year 1 would be offset by a better team in year 3? The opinion that 3 years of all spread would result in a better team than a couple years languishing in a hybrid that the players and coaches were ill-suited for is not that far-fetched.
The 2011 Wolverines are a different beast - many of the offense's growing pains were masked by great D and mature offensive talent, luxuries 2008 RR did not have. And Borges has been something of a chimera his whole career - running a hybrid offense is, I suspect, a challenge he relishes. In contrast, RR/Magee are very much "system" guys whose real strength is installing a consistent offense and then adding wrinkles. In that regard, RR's statement may have been entirely true for his coaching style (and, I suspect, many other coaches' styles) but not true for Borges.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:05 AM ^
Steven Threet and Nick Sheridan, God bless 'em, are not Denard Robinson.
People STILL need to be told this when comparing the transititions.
December 13th, 2011 at 1:22 AM ^
That's very true. At the same time, Rodriguez enjoyed a much more talented returning defense than Hoke.
December 13th, 2011 at 8:27 AM ^
I don't think that Defense in 2006 was more talented than the defense we fielded in 2011. More experienced, yes. More talented at some positions, sure. More talented overall, I disagree.
December 13th, 2011 at 7:18 AM ^
Hoke's starting QB had just finished 6th in the Heisman voting the previous year. RR's starting QB had just finished as an All-League Honorable Mention in whatever league Saline HS plays in.
December 12th, 2011 at 8:25 PM ^
Even though this isn't a question technically, I'd love to hear the things about Lloyd Carr's stonewalling of RichRod and company that didn't make it into the book.
December 12th, 2011 at 9:04 PM ^
I just got done with the book over the weekend, and my head was spinning at the absurdity of the last 3 years of M football. Did any of you feel the same way? Portions of the book made me want to poke a needle through my eyes. I probably couldn't even come up with a list of questions at this point because it was such a strange story and my head is still kind of spinning through it all.
But the thing that annoyed me most is that Les said he'd never say no to Michigan, and they just didn't want him. Their personal animosity ran that deep? It surprised me because he's such an accomplished coach, and had ties to M. I know the MGo readers are not huge on Les, but I think he would've been great here.
The other thing that bothered me was how those factions developed. And the only conclusion I came to is that the Michigan family is all talk. Bo is the only one that kept it together, and that's pretty sad.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:14 PM ^
I think the fact that the bloom on the Les Miles lily has come off around this site has masked the excellent point you're making. It's one I've worried about too.
Les Miles is an accomplished coach, there's no doubt about that. And much of the ugly recruiting stuff and general crazy streak was not apparent in 2007. Did Lloyd et al really hate Miles that much that they'd shoot down a seemingly slam-dunk hire for personal reasons? If so, that's pretty sad, and seemingly an equal sin to the non-support of RR.
December 12th, 2011 at 9:07 PM ^
I don't think that picture is Denard's staph "boo boo". Wasn't it near his elbow on his throwing arm, not his left hand? Remember the big bandage he wore on his arm for a while?
December 12th, 2011 at 10:34 PM ^
I had a staph infection some years ago and the sore on Denard's left hand is exactly what it looked like. It also evidenced itself in several places on my body where I had broken some skin. So, the boo-boo was a staph infection on his elbow with some fluid build up undoubtedly (a friend of mine was hospitalized for that from a basketball floor burn on his elbow that got staph) and the picure is a small scrape on his had that is also infected with staph.
December 12th, 2011 at 9:09 PM ^
Ok I guess I'm not done writing about it because there is so much to talk about. But I was taken aback by how little support RR got from not only the administration, but the LC clan as well. It angered me that Lloyd seemingly put his own personal interests ahead of the program's. Of course, the book is sympathetic to RR, and a lot of the board hates talking about RR more, but it's relevant because it wasn't that long ago and led to where to program is now. It's just bullshit because now that Hoke is here, he's apparently getting support from the old guard of the program. You don't hear about the kind of stuff that happened with RR at all. Don't get me wrong, I love Hoke and what he's done. I'm excited about where the program is headed. But RR deserved better, and probably would've performed better had he not been dealing with that lack of support.
December 12th, 2011 at 10:00 PM ^
Keep in mind that we never get Carr's side of the story. We don't know what his take on those three years is. We get Bacon's interpretation of Carr's motives, but nothing from the man himself. It's interesting that basically no one who is negatively portrayed in the book (whether it's Carr, Martin, MSC or Brandon) ever gets to offer his own perspective. We only get second- or thirdhand accounts. Meanwhile, the man who participated the most (RR) is portrayed the most positively (and his shortcomings, such as defensive mismanagement, as downplayed). Should we take all of that as fact?
December 12th, 2011 at 10:17 PM ^
...can answer questions any time they choose to. They can write books, do interviews, clear the air. Or not. Their choice. No one will force them to do anything. If they have a real story of their own to tell, they ought to tell it.
I'm not terribly critical of Brandon. Brandon had the backbone to come out and call the Freep reporting "false and misleading." Despite the fact that he still has a program to run.
Carr, I actually believe, will probably write a book of his own. The man is a bona fide book lover. I cannot imagine that he won't write one. I'll enjoy that book tour.
Bill Martin was largely caught in the position of being the dutiful NCAA punching bag, until such time as our own investigation roared to life, by which time Dave Brandon was the new AD.
Mary Sue Coleman seems to me to be a uniquely, peculiarly, cowardly figure. Based not just on Bacon's reporting, but her own stubborn inertia in just accepting the NCAA investigation for what it was and never once lashing out at the paper that so wrongfully put Michigan in that miserable position.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:14 AM ^
This from someone who was completely predisposed to NOT believing anything negative about Carr bracing himself for the worst and already spinning on here before the book was even released.
You already showed your cards on this long ago, JM. Your jury-rigged deflections don't hold water.
December 12th, 2011 at 10:59 PM ^
He would have performed better if he'd have hired a competent DC. Yeah Casteel, blah, blah. He's not the only DC that runs a 3-3-5 and if that's what RR wanted to run why didn't he go out and get someone who knew something about it.
December 13th, 2011 at 9:38 AM ^
and username, are an interesting combo.
December 12th, 2011 at 9:10 PM ^
I brought this up in a board post a few months ago, and would love to hear Bacon's take, even though (like with much of the potentially damaging hints/rumors) there may not be enough evidence for him to openly state his opinion.
In any case, I'd like to know what Bacon thinks really went down the day that Herbstreit announced on ESPN that Les Miles has agreed to be our new coach (with Tenuta as DC, no less!). Based on the responses on the board post (and fitting with what was maybe sorta hinted at in the book) the consensus seemed to be that someone from the Michigan inner circle leaked that info to Herbstreit in order to sabatoge any chance of Les becoming our coach. It seemed most members of the search committee wanted Les, and he was certainly interested, but he would be forced to deny it if confronted on the day his damn fine football team was about to play in the SEC championship.
So, what happened? This was not some hack on ESPN reporting a rumor or something likely to happen (like with the Lebron sweepstakes), this was a guy who never breaks this type of story coming on and announcing it without a hint of hesitation...it was presented as absolute fact. Then, no repercussions or even criticism whatsoever from the fact that he was completely wrong, and botched a search in the process. No apology from Herbstreit, no anger at Kirk or ESPN from Michigan. The only logical explanation is that someone from within, with a good amount of sway and a strong dislike of Miles was responsible.
If there's an alternate explanation I'd love to hear it.
December 12th, 2011 at 10:07 PM ^
there was a leak.
The only logical explanation is that someone from within, with a good amount of sway and a strong dislike of Miles was responsible.
I don't think there was necessarily a dislike of Miles as there was somebody having the need to tell somebody that they were on the inside and had something to tell. Quite possibly this is the same person(s) that was quite accurately predicting Brady Hoke would be hired after the bowl game. This was a prediction made public on the MLive forum within a week following the OSU loss. This person remained emphatic that Harbaugh and Miles would not be hired, that any contact with them was window dressing for public consumption.
Evidently there is a self-serving mole (weasel) in the athletic department and he/she is still present.
December 12th, 2011 at 10:19 PM ^
I was referring to the first time Miles' name was mentioned, back before RR was hired, not the most recent go-around before Hoke.
December 12th, 2011 at 11:04 PM ^
JUB spoke of a possible leak in 2007, I spoke of the real possibility of a leak in 2010 and that perhaps both are the same person. Furthermore, I'm suggesting that it is possible that the person doing the leaking is doing it to stroke their own ego, not necessarily with malice.
December 12th, 2011 at 9:10 PM ^
And...Screw the Free Press, and Rosenberg. That can't be stated strongly enough. That was complete nonsense, and was so obviously fueled by some personal vendetta that completely flushed journalistic ethics down the toilet.
December 12th, 2011 at 9:15 PM ^
That's a logical way of looking at it and it's exactly what I thought. It had to have been a way to sabotage the chances of Les coming here, but my biggest question is why? If they care about the football program as much as they claim to, then that would'nt have happened because Les would've been a successful coach. But clearly they let personal animosity get in the way of the success of the program. How bad could that really be? It's baffling.
It was also hilarious that Les would only talk to MSC, and not Bill Martin. That tells us everything we need to know about Martin and the program at that time.
December 12th, 2011 at 9:53 PM ^
I believe it was the Oklahoma St. center who was awesome at 3s, but that game was great regardless.
December 12th, 2011 at 10:03 PM ^
I would like to know why he allowed the book to arrive when it did. It could have come out two weeks ago, in the gap between the end of our regular season and, assuming we got one, the bowl game. Bacon asks for a lot of credibility. It would be much easier to grant that if one believes that he put the players he writes of at a higher priority than maximizing his dollars. The timing of the release of the book suggests to me that either it was about the dollars or about helping RichRod land a new coaching job at the expense of a bunch of players who did not need to be asked about Bacon's book in their pressers.
December 12th, 2011 at 11:13 PM ^
Bacon certainly had no say over the book's release date. That's a decision made by FSG (the publishing house), and they clearly timed it to be released in the midst of October, in the height of college football season, and on the cusp of the spike in holiday book buying.
December 13th, 2011 at 9:42 AM ^
How does Bacon feel about that? Any regret?
December 12th, 2011 at 10:14 PM ^
(1) With Bacon's access to the players (see: Mike Martin's party), did any of them express distrust in GERG or even RR's meddling in the defense at the tail end of Shafer? I'm thinking more the Brandon Graham / Donovan Warren types who may have had enough experience to realize, holy shit is this thing not working and why do they keep putting us in positions to fuck up? the whole RVB saga this year about the back and forth with the coaches on how to change the defense and giving responsibility to RVB to make line calls and such strike me as something a coaching staff with a Brandon Graham would have trusted him to do...
(2) What really happened with Tate Forcier? Did his supposed hippie-ing up start in the middle of the '09 season after his success started to get to his head? JUB only hints at the Tate issues in between the 09-10 seasons. Did JUB have access to the players during the lengendary summer '10 workouts where Denard leapfrogged Tate and gained the confidence of the whole team seemingly?
(3) Echoing questions above.. not so concerned about the firings per se, but what went on with the *hiring* of the DC's Shafer and GERG? Was RR caught so off guard by not getting Casteel in Year 1 and having to find a scape goat for Year 2 that he bad two such poor hires in a row? If so, that speaks volumes to his weaknesses as a head coach, and probably more so that he got lucky with Casteel.... If you believe this line of thinking, it could be that RR was and is much more Hal Mumme / Norv Turner than Mike Leach / Nick Saban.
December 12th, 2011 at 10:46 PM ^
In the section discussing the summer before the 2010 season, Bacon makes it sound as though Denard leapfrogged Tate because the seniors were upset that Tate was not "all in" and coming to the summer workouts. But on page 338, after Lou Holtz is quoted as saying that Denard only became the starter a month ago, Bacon says he had been "first string since the spring game."
December 13th, 2011 at 9:49 AM ^
It is pretty amazing that there were 3 pretty bad to disasterous seasons, and Bacon never heard any player discontent with the staff. Yet heard a lot of it from carryover players. That doesn't seem likely with any coach, even one who's currently successful. Ones that are making weird decisions (like on Defense) while losing big seems even more unlikely. And doesn't really jibe with some of the talk of parent and player discontent at the end of the 2010 season that was heavily rumored.
December 12th, 2011 at 10:42 PM ^
It is all about losing assistant coach Pearson.
December 12th, 2011 at 11:25 PM ^
I have read the Bacon text and take it for what it is. A book. One that I have read and discovered for myself in terms of all the fantastical mysteries it contains. The folks who author such texts these days are looking forward mostly to payday. Fine. Our Whitman's and Twain's are still out there.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:02 AM ^
- Has Brandon found out all the "saboteurs?" If so, has he rid the program of them? If not, will he?
- Was RR (on his own accord) planning on making a switch at DC, or any D position coach?
- If RR had been told by Brandon he would be retained if he got a whole new D staff, would he have done it?
December 13th, 2011 at 1:31 AM ^
Just finished the book on a long flight. The whole Carr thing still puzzles though.... Any more insight would be interesting.
Could it be that he meant well in the beginning but in the end couldn't put his ego aside and become transcendental ala Bo? Could it be that a perceived innocuous move to AAD, a retirement gift as it were, suddenly and unexpectedly takes on huge importance because of the incompetence all around? Carr's stature and perceived aesthetic nature, being a bit above all the petty machinations of mere football coaches and money grubbing school administrators, etc. gave him incedible weight in the M community. But when Michigan needed it that same nature prevented him from moving out of Bo's shadow and stepping it up to the next level. In other words, he had reached his level of incompetence.
Masterpiece Theater anyone?
Coleman certainly doesn't appear presidential, and compliance people like Van Horn etc. come across as mindless spawn of academia and artifical world of the NCAA: bureaucrats so lost in the paper chase that they have a tenuous connection with the real world at best. Avatars of a sort I guess. Not unlike their Ohio (or Penn State for that matter) counterparts for that matter.
December 13th, 2011 at 4:19 AM ^
My question for Bacon is about Gary Moeller. I don't recall him appearing much, if at all, in the book save for the backstory on the Bo-Mo-Lloyd transition. I do, however, remember seeing video and photos of him at Michigan practices while RR was coach. My question is twofold: What kind of relationship did RR and Moeller have, and did Moeller ever weigh in on RR? If anyone could have talked some sense into Carr in regards to support, Moeller may have been one of the few people out there who could have, along with guys like Jerry Hanlon and Tirrel Burton.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:10 PM ^
1. The poor play of the defense was the real reason Rodriguez was fired. Bacon mentions a few factors that went into our defensive decline: the administration's decision not to pony up for Casteel, a spate of injuries and attrition and an relatively large emphasis on offensive recruiting (he mentions at one point that Rodriguez allocated a larger than usual share of scholarships to offensive recruits).
What's missing here is the nexus among Rodriguez, Greg Robinson and the position coaches. Bacon alludes to growing tension with Robinson, and makes brief mention of Rodriguez telling Robinson he had to run the 3-3-5, but we get little insight into either the hiring of Robinson or the relationship between Robinson and the position coaches, which other sources suggest was not good. There is also little discussion of the relationship between the position coaches and Shafer, though we know from Shafer that this was a major problem for him in 2008.
I thus have two questions:
A. What insight can Bacon give us into these situations, beyond what is in the book?
B. Why does this not play a bigger role in the book, when it is clearly a major--if not the major--part of the story of Rodriguez' firing?
December 13th, 2011 at 12:48 PM ^
Did he get a sense of why during RR's tenure he constantly had defensive recruits de-committ? And what RR's reaction to these decommits were?
December 14th, 2011 at 11:57 PM ^
1. Why no mention at all of the alienation of Michigan HS coaches, some with deep ties to the program and many who were fans and supporters? Why nothing on the skills camps that used to be these coaches chance to network with a few staffers and create positive vibes as they return to their hometowns?
2. Justin Feagin?? I know if he was inside the program for 3yrs he heard all about him getting arrested for selling coke in south quad. Not that his is particularly important but certianly when writing the section about Dorsey and the "character" of RR's recruits vs. the previous staff(s) it was relevent enough to merit at least a mention.
3. Jon, you're a damn fine writer but c'mon now. You made all of those games sound like we were just a whisker from victory. Knowing full well that 90% of the people who would buy and read this book sat through these games. Most were ass kickings of the 1st degree where it was clear from the opening drives that we were being pushed around and beaten soundly.
4. The fact that in 450 plus pages describing in detail the events of 3yrs of turmoil and tribulation within the Michigan football program the only direct or semi direct indictments of RR are his postgame temper, poor press conference preperation and a few indirect incinuations that the defense debacle just might have been at least partly his fault. Really?? thats where you want to leave it? You actually want to pretend that the only mistakes and malfeasance were on the university, former staffers, former players and some misguided fans? You're objectivity went out the window by chapter 3. You were Sean Hannity writing a book about Ronald Reagan in this endeavor.
Comments