Unverified Voracity Is Basically Tom Brady Comment Count

Brian January 20th, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Brady Interview Football 
soak it in

This week in limited concessions to SEO. So it turns out Esquire googled AJ Daulerio and found this site's bluntly titled piece on him in the aftermath of the ESPN sex tantrum that outed some woman no one had ever heard of for dating some guy no one had ever heard of. They quoted me, so score. That makes me essentially Tom Brady. If I was not getting married in five months this might have had some utility.

I unsubscribed from Deadspin's feed a while ago when they removed full feeds because there was too much junk to wade through just to get to "Dead Wrestler of the Week" or Tommy Craggs writing something long, so I've lost track of what's going on with athlete dongs. Apparently this is:

The topic turned to a video Deadspin had posted of a drunk girl having sex in a bathroom stall at a sports bar in Bloomington, Indiana.  After a few days of trading emails with the girl, who was begging to have the video taken down, he refused to take it down.  Then the girl's father contacted Daulerio to let him know "You gotta understand, I've just been dealing with watching my daughter get f---ed in a pile of piss for the past two days."

So, awesome. We've moved beyond the thin veneer of "making ESPN acknowledge its sexism" or "Josh Hamilton is a hypocrite" or "Brett Favre is someone you've heard of" and we're just randomly holding up unfortunate young women not connected to sports in any way for internet leers. At least no one's pretending anymore. Except of course Daulerio is, so here's Tom Fornelli ripping him for it.

We'll always have Notre Dame. Tate Forcier transferred, completing his destiny. He used Twitter to make his announcement. It's sad and obviously omits "class" when it talks about the various places he worked hard. In retrospect it's all just so obvious. Homeschooling, yo. It either turns you into Tim Tebow or… not Tim Tebow.

This was cosmically ordained. Now Tate Forcier is the avatar of the Rodriguez era: high expectations, fun here and there, eventual letdown, premature termination. I'll miss the moxie. In memoriam:

 

BONUS INCEST SPECULATION: I wonder if he'll end up at San Diego State? He's from San Diego. He has a redshirt year, and SDSU's QB graduates after 2011. Those Montana rumors from earlier now have a lot of credence, but if he's willing to sit out a year home seems like an attractive option.

This is hard, veteran fluff. Mattison is saying some awfully nice things about Brady Hoke:

"When Brady got the job (at Michigan last Tuesday), I said to myself, 'If I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this with Brady,'" Mattison said. "I wouldn't have gone to any other college team. I wouldn't have changed what I was doing for anybody but Brady.

And you can't have a defensive coordinator hire without the magic word:

"You put the best front and the best coverage out there, and the intention is to be aggressive," Mattison said.

Jarrett Irons also says Mattison is a "helluva" recruiter.

Speaking of recruiting, not to be, like, you know but… Michigan has eight coaches. Seven are white and one is Fred Jackson. Most are old, and even the young-ish ones look like old white guys spiritually. This 1) is bad, 2) looks bad, and 3) can be offset if the last two guys are "energetic recruiters" in the same way Zack Novak is "heady."

If Vincent Smith is having problems I'm not sure he's got anyone he can talk to with any clue what it's like to be a poor black kid:

jeff-hecklinskimark-smithal-borges-headshotdarrell-funk
I am sorry to hear your troubles. In these times I always turn to the advice of Robert Goulet.

The only thing separating this staff from your local realtor is Mark Smith's terror at being photographed. For a lot of reasons, we need some people on staff who know who Waka Flocka Flame is. (No points awarded for knowing of the existence of a "Small Wayne.")

I've heard the last two assistants are likely to be guys without ties to Michigan but there's a guy out there who seems like a natural fit: Corwin Brown. He's a secondary coach, and Michigan needs a secondary coach. He's currently with the Patriots but his role one of those assistant (to the) position coach roles the NFL invented to give anyone who gets fired a job. He's probably not making an exorbitant amount of money.

Brown wasn't a good defensive coordinator but ND defensive backs developed pretty well under his guidance and he was a monster recruiter for them. Since I have mentioned him as a plausible candidate there's no way he gets hired, but the fit seems obvious.

The DL coach, meanwhile, can barely know what a defensive line is since Hoke and Mattison are on staff and should only touch down in Ann Arbor to drop off signed LOIs. Beyonce for DL coach?

[Side note on yesterday's post on Mattison: the 12.1 PPG number I cited isn't right. It was around 17 points per game. Oddly, I got this erroneous info from M's own database, which said opponents scored 157 points in '95.]

All tapes have not been erased. If you're wondering, there will not be a Gator Bowl UFR because what's the point? I do have the Utah-SDSU game from this year and I'll do the offense from that game after Signing Day. I might pull some Picture Pages from the defense if I can find something that illuminates the difference between Greg Robinson running a 3-3-5 he doesn't understand and Rocky Long running the D he invented, too.

But anyway someone did bother to look at the tape of Michigan's bowl demolition. Here's Craig Roh playing DT on first and goal:

msu-td

This would be a seven-yard touchdown up the gut. Surprise. That play features errors by Mouton, Demens, and Kovacs and is yet another item to add to the pile of reasons Greg Robinson was a bad idea.

Not a feature. I'm arrogant. I know this for a lot of reasons but there's a statistic to back it up: the Michigan version of quiz bowl (a dynasty, BTW) held intramural tournaments occasionally and my first couple years in college I played in them. They kept extensive stats, and I was in the top five in correct answers. I was number one by a mile in incorrect answers*. Arrogance is not a feature, it's a bug.

There's a response to my post about Will Smith and robots and Michigan's hidebound image of itself on Maize 'n' Brew that "loves" the arrogance of Michigan fandom that I can't disagree more with. Arrogant fans are above all unpleasant to be around, no matter if they're on your side or not. When I was in Chicago for Blogs With Balls there was barhopping wherein I hung out with various Chicago based bloggers. One was Brian Stouffer of House Rock Built. I'm not sure who the other was. Stouffer's a really nice guy. The other guy was ND Nation in the flesh, a guy who actually brought up the African-American grad rate canard in a conversation with a stranger he'd just met. That sort of clueless insecurity is arrogance.

Also, this:

We are an arrogant program, and I am an arrogant fan.  I don't argue with Brian's awareness of the arrogance, but I think there's more to it than that.  He's right - "certain outsiders" can't really teach me, or many of us, anything.  Yes, many of the things rivals say about Michigan are true.  And yes, our bowl game opponents and OOC opponents will say Michigan just "lines up and comes after you" because that's what Michigan does.  Sure, we haven't won a majority of those games (even in the past thirty or so years, Michigan's bowl record isn't fantastic) but the formula works.

Is this:

lemon-of-troy Ned Flanders: Pardon me, neighbourinos. Some of our boys are lost in your town. You wouldn't have happened to see them, by any chance?
Shelbyville Guy #1: Sounds like Springfield's got a discipline problem.
Shelbyville Guy #2: Maybe that's why we beat them at football nearly half the time.

The post is neatly summarized by Shelbyville Guy #2. This is not so good.

*(Which cost five points if offered before the question was over.)

Etc.: Kellen Jones reconfirms commitment, if you missed it in yesterday's recruiting post. Oversigning picks up steam as a media concept. JMFJ on JMFJ. Holdin' the Rope on the early days of Hoke—boy, is that blog name going to be one to explain in a few years.

Comments

ish

January 20th, 2011 at 12:59 PM ^

as it stands, this probably will be our worst recruiting class since they started tracking these things.  white or not, these guys have to get out there and minimize the damage.

burntorangeblue

January 20th, 2011 at 1:47 PM ^

For better or worse, everyone identifies with skin color, and it often serves as a proxy for shared life experience.   I know my group has lost clients becuase we're not at all diverse, and clients ask, why should I give you work when you're just a bunch of white guys. 

This goes double for kids who, to be honest, have very little in common with 65 year old white men.  Randy Shannon, despite his flaws, did pretty well with recruiting south Florida because he was a guy from that hood, and recruits connected with that.  People who discount this factor aren't paying attention.

lilpenny1316

January 20th, 2011 at 1:53 PM ^

And that has nothing to do with race.  I think these kids mostly care about football.  But maybe what Brian and other people who play this up are trying to say is this: Where are some of these kids going to turn to for advice when their parents are miles away if they don't feel comfortable talking with their coaches about issues? 

Kids who are new to college mostly align themselves with people they feel most comfortable around.  And it is usually based on the demographics where you came from.

So when you recruit kids from Florida and other far off places, it helps to have someone on the coaching staff or support staff that you feel comfortable talking to and can relate to. 

jamiemac

January 20th, 2011 at 1:02 PM ^

So, having sex in the bathroom of a Bloomington, IN bar?

The more things change, the more they stay the same..........I suddenly want a Long Island at Kilroy's......although I thought sex in the bathroom was more a Video Saloon type of thing. So maybe its got classier!

blueindy

January 20th, 2011 at 1:08 PM ^

yes, it is "classier". The Vid now takes up almost the entire upstairs of its building and part of the downstairs. Mike still works the door and will throw a mutha down those 20+ steps.

jwschultz

January 20th, 2011 at 1:14 PM ^

Oh my god you just made me realize that people actually listen to this shit; I must be better at selecting media outlets than I had previously thought.  I thought it was an example of the most ridiculous and bad stuff out there, when NPR played a few seconds of it.

joeyb

January 20th, 2011 at 1:12 PM ^

Is it just me or does that picture of Craig Roh look like a version of the 46 defense? If that's what we did over those extra weeks of practice, then RR deserved to get fired.

BRCE

January 20th, 2011 at 5:01 PM ^

No one knew what Wermers was talking about. Brian, as great defender of poor black kids and Pahokee enthusiast, made it a race issue. Nice to see that you and other have run with it. If I was Wermers and I read this blog, I'd be furious.

michiganprof

January 20th, 2011 at 8:21 PM ^

If Wermers read this blog and became furious, he would learn some important life lessons: a) don't make nasty, offensive comments when leaving a team because you will find few defenders if those comments are interpreted in ways you don't intend. b) If you are going to make nasty, offensive comments when leaving a team, you'd damn well better craft them carefully so as not to invite fairly natural unintended, undesired interpretations, because see a). and c) Don't make nasty, offensive comments when leaving a team because if you do none of the people you left behind will give a damn if you are furious or not.

DubbaEwwTeeEff

January 20th, 2011 at 1:14 PM ^

From the article:

The blogosphere reacted with vitriol to Daulerio's tantrum. In a post titled "AJ Daulerio Is an Asshole," Brian Cook of the sports blog MGo summed it up best: "Daulerio's an embarrassment.... As someone who runs a sports blog for a living, his wanton flouting of common decency makes me look like an asshole by proxy, and I don't appreciate it."

I'm going to start calling this site Blog Mgo whenever the opportunity arises.

wolverine1987

January 20th, 2011 at 1:16 PM ^

black kid" in order to help Vincent Smith et. al. if they have a problem? Gee, the kids not necessarily from great backgrounds that credit Lloyd Carr with helping them adjust to Michigan call BS on that statement.

michgoblue

January 20th, 2011 at 2:03 PM ^

First, we have Fred Jackson.  I know, not young.

Second, I really just want the best coaches for the job, regardless of skin color.  I am sure that when Mattison walks into a young, black kid's home, they will look past his skin color and see his shiny rings.  Oh, and it doesn't hurt that he just coached Ed Reed and Ray Lewis.

Third, the following individuals have been described as "tremendous" recruiters while at Michigan:  Lloyd Carr, Brady Hoke and Loeffler.  All are white.  Heater (a former alum) was a monster Florida recruiter - also white.  Charlie Weis was a large man, but was also a great recruiter - he was white.  I don't think that the fact that the staff consists largely of white guys will prevent us from recruiting well.

Fourth,  RR's staff was diverse, having several black coaches and RR (who, while he was of European descent, was believed by most to be hispanic).  How well did he recruit?  We had less 4 and 5 star kids and more 3 star kids then ever before.  Obviously, outside factors came into play, but the diversity didn't save us.

The bottom line is that most blue chip kids coming out of high school want to go to the team that (1) will maximize their NFL chances, (2) get them significant time playing on the national stage, (2) has top level coaches who can help them attain goal #1, (4) has a chance at playing for a NC, and (5) has great facilities.  There is an obvious #6, which is that the relationships with the coaches is an important factor, and it is in this area that I see the "old white guy" issue being a concern, but I don't believe that it will hurt us, given that some of these old white guys are great recruiters.

BrnAWlrne

January 20th, 2011 at 2:26 PM ^

I agree with your "first" and "second", but your third and fourth sounds like you're making an argument that white coaches are better than black coaches :(...Maybe you and Brian can go hold hands and work on your wording.

I do agree with your "bottom line" though.  We have an experienced staff that will be attractive to the blue chips.

michgoblue

January 20th, 2011 at 2:30 PM ^

I am definitely NOT making the argument that white coaches are better recruiters.  Nothing of the sort.  Rather, I was contradicting the point that white coaches are WORSE recruiters.  Perhaps I could have been more clear - but to say it simply, I think that skin color is entirely irrelevant to how well one will recruit.  Of course, this is not universal - there will always be black kids that may identify better with a black coach or white kids that will identify better with a white coach, but I believe that the number of kids who will be swayed by this is VERY limited.

jlvanals

January 20th, 2011 at 4:17 PM ^

It wouldn't hurt, but I don't think its necessary.  Hoke might sound ridiculous for all his "touching kids" comments, but I really think in the end that's the most important thing.  As long as whoever he hires mentors these young men and genuinely cares about them, in my experience as a white teacher in a 90% black school, that overcomes alot of racial and cultural barriers.  People universally respect hard work and genuine concern for the kids' well-being. 

Also, the staff has been such a pleasant surprise thus far, why judge it until its complete?  We all hated the ad-hoc nitpicking that surrounded Rodriguez where people would search for something wrong with everything the guy did, so why start it with this coach?

jlvanals

January 20th, 2011 at 4:06 PM ^

Credited Lloyd's father-figure-esque demeanor as a major reason they signed with Michigan in the first place.  They felt like they would be taken care of at Michigan and that UM was more of a family than a football program.  Personally, I think Hoke's priorities are in exactly the right place when he says he wants guys he trusts having an impact on these players' lives.  To me, that is much more important than skin color or ability to recruit. 

Also, Hoke is an amazing recruiter.  If he focuses on that as a head coach with the quality we have at coordinator and position coaches, I think we're going to have some great classes coming up, just MHO. 

theytookourjobs

January 20th, 2011 at 1:22 PM ^

to Brian's point on arrogance I beleive that after Homer and Flanders stole the famous Shelbyville lemon tree, the Shelbyvillians declared they tricked them into taking it because it was haunted and they all enjoyed a nice glass of turnip juice.  Kind of reminds me of some people's attitudes of the kids who transferred under RR or the ones who have decommited since he was canned.

[email protected]

January 20th, 2011 at 1:33 PM ^

Someone talked me into doing Quiz Bowl my senior year of high school.  In my one season, I had twice as many correct answers as anyone else had attempts--and I had three times as many attempts as corrects.  I think my attempts were greater than the rest of the team put together . . . and yes.  Arrogance: I haz it.

For what it's worth, I made second-team all-conference that year.

Peace

Ty

Big Boutros

January 20th, 2011 at 1:34 PM ^

I'd like to know who started this goddamn snowball of self-psychoanalysis so I could punch him in the face. Are Michigan fans more arrogant than others? More impatient? Do we have a higher nickel content? Do we eat more mostaccioli than Arizona State fans? Who cares? I don't. I used to forego an answer to those questions because I thought they were stupid, but I'm starting a write-in campaign for Thing that Michigan Fans Are the Most: self-loathing. No other fanbase beats this topic to death quite like we do, if they even broach it in the first place.

Scraven77

January 20th, 2011 at 1:35 PM ^

I hope the pessimism about this coaching staff wears off soon because I have loved checking this site for years - recently some of the stuff is hard to swallow.  Not sure how it matters what race our staff is.  Race should play no part in determining who we hire as coaches and that goes both ways.  As to the Vincent Smith comment, are we hiring football coaches or guidance counselors here?  I'm an alum and lord knows there are plenty of organizations, groups, and support systems for minorities at U of M. If our players are having troubles unique to poor black kids, there are plenty of places to turn to at U of M.   

I'm "all in" no matter who the coach is, hope you can get on board too.  Go Blue

Clayzer

January 20th, 2011 at 1:47 PM ^

Sometimes, being a guidance counselor and a coach are one in the same. These college kids have problems and any coach worth a damn would want the athlete to feel like they could turn to them for help. They certainly can make these connections with coaches of the opposite race, but the initial level of comfort the athlete would feel may be higher if there is a coach on staff they feel they have more in common with. They're probably going to have a closer relationship to their coaches than some on campus group. By having a more diverse coaching staff, it can help connect with the diversity of the team

Scraven77

January 20th, 2011 at 1:57 PM ^

I agree that it is important for the kid to feel comfortable with his coach, but is that the priority?  Brain completely ignores the years...errr...decades of experience that our coaches have working with kids in this context.  Basing our new staff's ability to establish a bond with players off of age, race, and how they look is childish and in poor taste.  Brian is smarter than that.   I can't help but feel like he is looking for anything possible that highlights the negative, while I felt he did not take this same approach with the former staff.  I didn't like "the process" and would have gladly accepted another year with Rich Rod, but I'm going to give the new staff the same benefit of the doubt that I gave to Rich and his staff. 

Scraven77

January 20th, 2011 at 2:24 PM ^

Took the post to be more emphatic than a simple note of deficiency.  And it is only a deficiency if we assume that older, white men cannot relate to the kind of kids we expect to recruit.  There is no evidence beyond blanket stereotypes to say this is absolutely and always true.  Not mentioning that they have been coaching kids from these type of backgrounds for decades is akin to ignoring it.  His point is well taken and I don't neccessarily disagree but I do disagree that this should be our criteria for determining who the remaining coaches are...a factor maybe, IMO not top priority. 

My larger point is that I don't like the tone with which Brian has covered OUR TEAM's coaching staff.  I'm not saying to ignore negatives, but it's a night and day difference from how Rich Rod and his staff were covered.  He made the Mattison hire seem like a mediocre hire at best.  You think the kids are going to overlook the fact that Mattison worked with Ray Ray, Ed Reed, Suggs, Ngata...etc...(who are from what type of background?) because of his hair, skin color and age?! 

MI Expat NY

January 20th, 2011 at 2:53 PM ^

You think that Brian thinks that Mattison was a mediocre hire at best?  These are actual quotes from Brian about Mattison:  

Both the circumstantial evidence and number suggest that Mattison is for real and the kind of A-list hire that Michigan sorely needed after the GERG/surprise-3-3-5 era.

And

Mattison is the best possible hire of all rumored names, a veteran with a history of excellent defenses in both college and the NFL.

The only "negative"I read in his two posts on Mattison is this statement:  

This isn't exactly hiring Gus Malzahn—Chizik was a great DC himself before becoming a head coach—but it's the closest possible thing, an indication that Michigan is no longer skimping on assistant salaries.

When the only negative is that the hire probably isn't quite as good as the coordinator who took a terrible offense and turned it into a national championship one, that's being pretty positive.  

I get it, Brian was/is skeptical about the whole Hoke hire, far more so than he was about the Rodriguez hire, and you don't particularly like it.  I'm not going to rehash the argument for why that is reasonable, but it is a reasonable stance.  Brian wants to be wrong.  He wants Hoke to succeed as we all do.  That doesn't mean he shouldn't point out concerns now and then.  And you may be right, the entire staff may be great at relating to poor black kids from pahokee.  But at the same time, it might take significant time for young recruits and their families to get to that point, and it will be something used in negative recruiting.  If there's a qualified possibility for one of the last assistant positions that takes away this apparent weakness, that factor should be strongly considered.

Scraven77

January 20th, 2011 at 3:34 PM ^

I re-read the post on Mattison, as you pointed out, I was wrong about that.  Can I retract that statement?  I wish to. 

There is no evidence that our coaches can't relate to poor black kids from anywhere including pahokee...unless you are stereotyping and making assumptions.  I am also unaware of this inability to relate bc we aren't from the same cloth issue actually being an issue other than because Brian says so.  There is lots of evidence to suggest that they can relate...look at who they have coached, the length of time they have coached, and the people who have said positive things about them...including former players, who, at one time, likely were the same sort of kids Brian is concerned about.  Making an issue out of nothing in my opinion.

I agree that it is reasonable to be skeptical about the Hoke hire, I don't think it is reasonable to let that disspointment or skepticism carry over to the coverage of our TEAM.  That's all, I love this blog and appreciate the obviously hard work that Brian puts into it.  I just don't think there has to be such a pessimistic attitude about our team because he didn't like "the process".  Am I afraid that we are headed back to Lloyd 2.0?  Hell yes, but I am taking more of a wait and see approach.  Attacking how our coaches look and hating on some of the things that make up Michigan's identity is not why I come to this blog and read...that's all I'm saying.

Oh, and all that being said, I'm all for Corwin Brown, I think that would be a great hire.

MI Expat NY

January 20th, 2011 at 3:45 PM ^

So we disagree whether the racial makeup of the coaching staff matters, or rather the degree to which it matters, moving on...

I think you're being overly sensitive on Brian's coverage of the team.  It's been just over a week since Hoke has been hired.  Brian was on the record for not wanting Hoke as head coach.  What did you want him to do?  Walk back every reasonable criticism of Hoke's resume simply because Hoke could recite some Michigan traditions at the press conference?  Brian had one or two days to talk about the hire and the process that led to it.  Since then he's been as analytical as ever, even being positive on the Borgess hire in the long run while expressing the obvious concern on Borgess' ability to incorporate Denard's strengths.  If you don't want a blog to raise concerns occasionally, stick to reading the athletic department's press releases, you'll get all your news without any skepticism or negativity.

Scraven77

January 20th, 2011 at 5:22 PM ^

I have no problem with raising occasional concerns, hell I don't care if you raise a ton of concerns as long as they are legitimate... you are twisting my words or maybe completely misinterpreting them. Make legit criticisms, not oh they all look the same and are white: this is bad, this is really bad.  Don't walk back the reasonable criticisms, but keep the grade school ones to yourself.  Don't grumble that elitist Michigan factions never gave poor old bumpkin Rich Rod a chance because of how he talked and then turn around and make the same sort of baseless criticisms of our now current staff.  It's stooping to the same level of the people who pissed us all off while Rich Rod was coach...he is better than that and that's all I'm saying.

What I notice is that he felt it was more important to talk about the physical appearance, race and age of our coaching staff in a negative light than to point out some positives like Kellen Jones as someone mentioned, or that the hire has brought about strong support from past players where it was previously lacking (he only points out support in a mocking way or with a little jab...Mike Hart for instance).  Did he express the same concern about Magee because he couldn't incorporate Mallet's strengths? 

As I've said, I've read for years and from what I can see, there is a double standard.  What were his reasonable expectations for Rich in year one, two, three? and what will they be for Hoke?  I share many of the same concerns that Brian does, not a big fan of Llllllloyd and that's putting it nicely.  His lack of support for Rich was disgusting.  And I know it is still fresh and will have the patience to wait for him to cool off, but like I said in my first post, I hope the pessimism wears off some. 

MI Expat NY

January 20th, 2011 at 5:55 PM ^

I still don't understand why you think Brian is so pessimistic, and the examples you cite lead me to believe that you are actively looking for pessimism.  Ok, so you don't think the racial diversity of the staff is a concern, others do and it has even been brought up on Board.  I too don't think it is an overriding concern, but it would be a nice bonus to hire someone like Corwin Brown.  On the other examples, you are looking for pessimism when it just isn't there.  Kellen Jones reconfirming his commitment has been all over this site and had already been on the main page, if anything Brian highlighted it again to make sure everyone had heard.  I don't understand how you think he was mocking or taking a jab at Mike Hart, Brian clearly is looking forward to the day he's on the Michigan coaching staff.  He hasn't highlighted past players positive notes on the hiring on Hoke because he feels past players should speak highly of the coach of their alma mater.  He's been consistent on this point for years.  

If you look back, I bet he did express some concerns about losing Mallett because of the coaching change.  I also know that the team failed to live up to Brian's expectations each year.  He didn't call for Rodriguez's head, and I doubt he'll call for Hoke's head if the team is 7-6 in year three, because he'll understand that in year three we will lose a lot of experience and this recruiting class is unlikely to fill the void.  

If you want the pessimism to fade, stop looking for it.  You'll stop seeing it and probably feel better about the team and the site.  

Scraven77

January 20th, 2011 at 10:25 PM ^

I could be overstating the pessimism, didn't mean to, but that's the vibe I get.  Maybe it's more what he hasn't said?  And I could have missed this, but is there no excitement about rivalry games, especially tosu, being an emphasis?  Missed what I thought was a dig at tosu when Hoke talked about the rings and how he understands their importance and he knows they are important to the guys in the back of the room.  I don't know, yeah I probably overstated the pessimism but certainly not actively looking for it.  I think it is telling what he doesn't mention, but it's a blog and I don't have to read here and he has every right to post what he wants.  I see a different standard but I understand that and I also could be wrong, just my opinion.

Highlighting the age and race of our coaching staff...I feel there are so many other more important and interesting things that he could have put in its place.  Saying that it "is bad and looks bad" because of our staff's age and race is what made me feel the pessimism.  And it's childish reasoning with no facts to back it up, not very cook-like.  Don't want to get back into that though. 

Done posting on this one, seeya in a different thread or something. 

CSKinCINCINNATI

January 20th, 2011 at 3:52 PM ^

I grew up a poor white kid in a black neighborhood.  With a lot of these kids, and their parents for that matter, old white men are the cause of all that is wrong in the world. 

 

I am not saying divirsity is even a black or hispanic coach, but having a someone under 50 on the staff could be benificial to getting a foot in the door.  Do we really want the whole staff to look like they were in JoPa's graduating class, and then expect them to roll into South West Detroit and have the trust of the HS coaches, the kids parents, and the kids and gain the trust of everyone by saying, "Everyone on the staff looks like me?"

It just seems counter productive on the recruiting trail.

jlvanals

January 20th, 2011 at 3:58 PM ^

Some people are natural leaders and others aren't.  Kids gravitate towards those kind of people, regardless of age.  I know that one thing the UM players I knew loved about Lloyd  was that he was a father figure to them.  Whatever you think about Carr, he was an amazing leader.  He worked his butt off for those kids and they knew how much he cared about them.  Sometimes that kind of integrity and stability can be just as enticing for a young kid from a rough background.  I could live without a trooper taylor idiot on our staff.