A Guide For Former Players Speaking In Public
YOU TOO CAN OPEN YOUR MOUTH IN PUBLIC WITHOUT GETTING PEOPLE MAD
NOT YOU
Don't. This is the easiest and best way to go about it. What does everyone think of David Baas? Exactly. We think David Baas won the Rimington award. We do not think he has some weird grudge against his younger doppleganger or is Joe Morgan.
If you have to, do not say anything about Denard. Nothing you can say about Denard will meet the standards of the Michigan fanbase, which thinks he is made of rainbows and sweetness and light and will brook not even the slightest criticism. For instance, saying…
You looked fantastic for five games against nobody. That's what you did.
…as a way to "blast college athletes' sense of entitlement" is taking a cheapshot at a guy playing opposite the worst defense in the history of man. Many people will make the internet annoying for a day until the next outrage.
More importantly, it's inane because Denard is the least entitled athlete at Michigan in a very long time. We get it: you hated Rich Rodriguez to the point where you'll roll your eyes at Denard Robinson. You can stop it now.
If you do say something about Denard, at least own up to it. Desmond Howard's response to this was to claim his comment was about "fans and the media," and while the fuller context of the quote does soften it somewhat it mostly emphasizes how bizarrely inappropriate it is to grab Denard Robinson of all people as a "perfect example" of entitled kids.
I mean, it's not like there's anyone else in Michigan's recent past that fits that bill slightly better—
If you have successfully piloted your speaking away from Denard, don't imply the kids currently on the team are lazy and soft. This is called "projection," a malady that often befalls middle-aged men past their glory days. The people on the team have worked very hard for little reward because there are a lot of people who aren't on the team for various reasons. So when you say the effort was "lacking" or Michigan "toughness" is back you are telling Ryan Van Bergen, who can stuff your desk-job-having ass in a can, that he's failing you.
This isn't very nice. Also, the opposite is in fact the case.
If you have managed to not talk crap about the players, you are most of the way home. Congratulations! Now you've only got three topics left:
- Rich Rodriguez is the devil. Accurate! So very accurate. But also played out. Everyone in the room will be envisioning you beating on a dead man. How did that go in the last season of The Wire? You didn't watch The Wire? You only read Rudyard Kipling books? Well, let me tell you: not so good. Also it was biting dead people but telling you that is pointless until David Simon writes a book of illustrated allegories featuring animals. How hard would I buy this book? So, so hard. I digress.
- Shuffling the fullback so you can run a power play at a defense that knows what's coming but is powerless to stop you is the only way to play football. Also very, very true but so obvious in the aftermath of Rodriguez being the devil that it hardly bears mentioning. You are trying to bring the Wisdom Of The Michigan Program to the public, but the public already knows that part in its bones. Fooling people is for communists. The wages of spread are turnovers.
- Brady Hoke is a cuddly bear-god who you, 6'9" high school tackle Zach Banner, should definitely play for. Now we are talking. This is a matter that the public is uncertain about—just look around here a few months ago—and Zach Banner is definitely uncertain about, being one of the few high school players in the country who has not leapt to play for our magic-poopin' cuddly bear-god. This is a topic of major interest amongst laymen and scholars and may result in honorary degrees from prestigious institutions if expounded upon at sufficiently withering, recruit-ensnaring length. Bonus points(!) awarded for pointed contrasts with Jim Tressel.
Escuche y repita. Like last year's Ohio State season, the last three years never happened. They are the Godfather III, the lying-newspaper-guy plot from The Wire, the Brian Ellerbe era… right… forgot. Kipling. Forget this bit.
Remember: the last three years never happened and therefore cannot be commented on BRADY HOKE MAGIC POOPING BEAR GOD SAY IT DO IT NOTHING ELSE
SPECIAL BO-ERA DUDE ADDENDUM: it is not racist that Corwin Brown was not hired by Michigan and you should stop saying that because it's not helping Corwin Brown any.
Your description could apply to any fan of any team.
What separates the former players from everyone else is that they can see things from the perspective of a player and have an idea of what is to be expected, and what it's like to be on the inside of the program. Fans can't do that. That doesn't mean that former players are infallible in their judgment, but they have an insight that most of the fanbase does not have. And obviously, they are going to be a lot more knowledgeable about the game of football than the vast majority of fans, too.
My issue with this mindset is that it gives way too much credence to a player's opinion about a program he hasn't been in since the early 1990s. He wasn't there during the Carr era, and certainly wasn't there during RR's. That is what annoys me - the way college football was played nearly 20 years ago is nowhere close to how it is played today, and the dynamics at UM have changed so much since Desmond was there that I'm not sure he really knows that much more about the program than any other fan.
I will never presume that as a fan 700 miles away from Ann Arbor that I am as connected to the program as a former Heisman trophy winner, but I'm not going to assume that a guy who made it VERY clear he didn't like the RR hire is completely objective in his views surrounding the last 3 years and how the program was before and after the changes. I respect Desmond for what he did at UM, but as I've grown up these former "gods of the gridiron" have become far more fallible in my eyes, and I value their opinions as much as any other TV pundit with his/her own biases and preconptions.
It is emphatically NOT still "theirs". To the extent that Michigan Football "belongs" to anybody, it belongs to the current players and staff. Alumni (be they players or boosters or fans) have one acceptable function: help and support the current team. Bad mouthing current players or former coaches does not help the current team. Ergo, they have a first amendment right to say whatever the hell they want, but that doesn't mean they should.
hat all the jawwing about how "Michigan is BACK, baby! Yeah!" and "Hoke totally gets it!" by the former players is going to do an about face if we lose to Notre Dame in Game Two.
I really doubt this would happen. They've been around Hoke to know what kind of person he is. They're not going to flip out over a loss or two. And as much as it bothers some to acknowledge it, it's true that RR did not know a lot of our traditions when he came here. It took him time to understand what is expected of this program. Hoke obviously isn't going to need that learning period.
And as much as it bothers some to acknowledge it, it's true that RR did not know a lot of our traditions when he came here. It took him time to understand what is expected of this program.
See, I've never understood this argument about RR. He coached for years at WVU, and seemed to understand the rivalry with Pitt. And I doubt he didn't understand that beating MSU, OSU, and ND are big deals, as is making it to bowl games and not giving up 60+ points to Illinois. His biggest problem wasn't that he didn't understand what was expected at the programs; it was that he failed to win enough to deliver on those expectations. I'm not saying that wasn't his fault, but to say that Hoke "gets" winning big games against rivals while RR doesn't misses the point IME.
I think Desmond was thinking of the first 5 games of the 2009 season.
It really is weird that Desmond dropped the Denard quote. Not only is "You looked fantastic for five games against nobody. That's what you did." aimed at a genuinely nice and unassuming young man, it's flat wrong.
What Denard did, as a sophomore, was (boosted from Wikipedia)
- set the single-season Division I FBS record for rushing yards by a quarterback
- became the only player in NCAA history to both pass and rush for 1,500 yards
- broke the Big Ten Conference season record with 4,272 yards of total offense (2,570 yards passing and 1,702 yards rushing)
- led the conference in rushing
- won the 2010 Chicago Tribune Silver Football as the Most Valuable Player in the Big Ten Conference
- was selected by the Football Writers Association of America as a first-team All-American
- set the Big Ten single-game record for rushing yards by a quarterback
- is the only player in NCAA Division I FBS history to both pass for 200 yards and rush for 200 yards in a regular season game twice in his career
C'mon Desmond - you're better than this.
nice list for future boogers who mess with Denard.
Although I am a Denard convert and am sorry I ever doubted him, Desmond was NOT far off in his assessment. Denard Robinson had a good year and I think he will be better than people think in the new system, but the statistics are a little misleading. Our offense put of 42 points against Indiana and Umass, and went crazy vs. BGU and Ill. However, in the three biggest games of the year we scored 17 pts, 7 pts and 14 pts. You can argue that Denard was hurt a lot during those big games, but that just strengthens the argument that he did a lot of his statistical damage against lesser competition. That is not to say it wasn't a tremendous season for a sophmore QB, but lets not crucify Howard for saying something that has a lot of truth to it.
That being said, I have never heard Denard say how great he was or will be. I have not heard Howard's comments in their entirety, and if he is commenting on Robinson needing to check his ego I will be right back on the bash Desmond bandwagon.
I don't disagree that Denard struggled in the bigger games, but I also never saw him carry on like he was "better" than his performance or that his teammates let him down. I'm too young to remember Howard's every game, so I can't comment on his level of entitlement, but Denard honestly is one of the most humble players I've seen recently in CFB, and I think people would be making a bigger deal if he said some dumb quote after losing a game and "promising to work harder than anybody else" that UM could smack on a plaque outside of the stadium.
But it's kind of funny to hear him declaim "entitlement" - particularly using Denard as his foil.
Only one of these two Michigan football greats showboated the Heisman pose in the endzone. Granted, he went on to win it, but did he already feel entitled to it during the season?
But I think the point people are trying to make is that if anyone realizes these facts about Denard Robinson, it's Denard Robinson.
He doesn't need Desmond Howard bashing him (and even if he didn't mean to, he did trash him in that speech) because he understand himself that he needs to improve and that he did fall short in those games.
As fans, we need to recognize that this was Denard's first season playing quarterback at a high level. It takes time. Older more experienced defenses usually feast on young quarterbacks and that's exactly what happened in the second half of our season.
If anything, it would have been better to use Denard as an example of an athlete who understands that no one is bigger than the program in comparison to any of the examples others have already mentioned.
His delivery came across as disrespectful to a very good person who has shown a high level of loyalty to the program.
Let's not say that Denard is entitled when after a FIVE HUNDRED AND TWO YARD GAME and the LONGEST RUN IN ND STADIUM HISTORY, this was his interview, didn't claim greatness, thanked seniors and linemen, etc:
Embed troubles:
I don't think a singe person here has said that Robinson is acting entitled, and I am not sure Howard said that either.
And I don't think Desmond meant to say that Denard was entitled. I think what Desmond meant was "Focus shouldn't be on Denard, it should be on the Program". The Media/Fans create the entitlement, and Desmond didn't say what he meant
I love the subtle jab by the Nard Dog.
Making a joke about Notre Dame is now flamebait on a Michigan discussion board.
New system needs to go.
You just don't understand the system. What happens is, 95% of the people use it to rate comments based on reasonable factors and 5% just negatively rate anything that is remotely against their opinion or is posted by someone who once disagreed with them. There will always be that 5% percent stomping around with their fingers in their ears regardless of what system Brian implements, so this one is as good as any.
But at least with the old system, my posts weren't shrouded and grey and covered up by that 5%.
Also, my ability to "moderate" comes and goes because of these unreasonable 5%ers.
I think its just a poor set-up.
I'd rather have the Wild West of massive neg/pos bangs.
I was at Michigan for Desmond's Heisman season. Saw every home game in person, and watched all games that were on TV. So I have a pretty good idea of the heights he attained. I was (and am) a fan. So this situation leaves me feeling conflicted, but at the end of the day I think Desmond deserves criticism here.
Denard is the polar opposite of someone who needs to be publically knocked down. He's a young guy whose performance thrust him into the spotlight all season long. Denard handled it remarkably well, remaining humble throughout a whirlwind year. And the fact that he set so many records injured (and missing significant portions of games) only makes Denard's 2010 accomplishments that much more impressive. When you add in the fact that he was playing behind a so-so line and as a sophomore, his season was mind-boggling.
The problem is that Desmond's quote can only be read as imploring Denard to stop exalting himself (which Denard didn't do), and to minimize Denard's accomplishments on the field (which are staggering).
So there's really not "a lot of truth" to what Desmond said. And I'm not exactly "crucifying Howard" by citing Denard's accomplishments.
But I agree with the general sentiment of your reply. I'm not at all trying to write Desmond off (and yes, I understand he probably does not care much one way or the other). I'm just hoping he'll conduct himself better in the future.
"The problem is that Desmond's quote can only be read as imploring Denard to stop exalting himself (which Denard didn't do), and to minimize Denard's accomplishments on the field (which are staggering)."
Not at all true. Desmond said that (paraphrasing) after RR left, everyone was talking about Denard. He thought that the program is bigger than Denard and said that he only played big in 5 games. I think he got off point in his argument and started talking about how the fans and media were making Denard bigger than he is. In fact, if anything, he was saying that "if" Denard left it would be a sign of him feeling entitled, but he didn't leave.
Desmond said "You looked fantastic for five games against nobody. That's what you did" referring expressly to Denard.
I get that Desmond did not set out to harm Denard, but he spoke recklessly against Denard. And he used words that are used only when you intend to bring someone back to Earth. And Desmond is a 40 year-old man and very intelligent. And he makes public statements for a living (college football analyst). So we don't really need to cut him excessive slack when he makes a hurtful statement about a young man who deserves better.
Again, I'm saying this as a fan of both Desmond and Denard.
Desmond is wrong either way. If Denard had left, Denard would have been doing what is best for Denard (namely, finding a spread offense to thrive in, since that's the reason he came to UM in the first place). There's nothing about that that makes him "entitled". He certainly doesn't owe it to Michigan to stay if staying would jeopardize his future, and I don't think we as fans really could have blamed him had he left. I'm thrilled that he stayed, and I think he'll do very well in the new offense, but I couldn't have blamed him had he left, either. The purpose of college is supposed to be to prepare kids for their futures. For Denard, that's (hopefully) the NFL. If Michigan fails to do that (e.g., if he had felt the change to the spread jeopardized his chances), he is perfectly justified in looking elsewhere. So basically, either way Desmond's an idiot. Entitlement is when you expect someone to give you adulation - or free tats - because of who you are. It is not transferring schools in an attempt to secure a better future.
Denard did struggle with some of the better teams: better defenses and they realized they had to gameplan mainly to stop Denard to stop UofM's O. He still played really well in them as wasn't exactly outplayed by the opposing QB's. The reason we lost those games is because of the whole team. It's a team sport and every player contributed (Denard's supporting cast isn't as talented as Wisco, MSU, Ohio, and Miss State:
Wisco: we had 53 nonDenard rushing yards; they had 351. Tolzien 14/15 201 and 1 int; Den 16/25 239 2 td 1 int, 121 rush 2 td 5.5 avg
MSU: UofM nonDen rush 76; them 249. cousins 18/25 284 1 td; Den17/29 215 1 td 3 int, 86 rush 1 td 4.1 avg
OSU: Uofm nonDen rush 88; them nonpryor 209. pryor 18/27 220 2 td 1 int, 49 rush 4.1 avg; Den 8/18 87, 105 rush 5.8 avg. Additionally at least 6 drops maybe more and we had no punter.
Miss St: uofm nonDen rush 29; them nonrelf 174. relf 18/23 281 3 td 1 int, 30 rush 1 td 2.0 avg; Den 27/41 254 2 td 1 int, 59 rush 5.4 avg
Denard played nearly as well in Miss St game as Relf, better than Tolzien (Tolzien didnt need play well), and was not as good aginst MSU and OSU. Nonetheless Denard was not the reason we lost these games and these aren't Heisman numbers but my guess is Desmond's teammates had a little bit more talent/experience then Denards.
Problem is Desmonds comment on Denard seems to be his interpretation of Denard's motives, he seems to think either Denard thinks he is the best or he isnt that talented. Both are incorrect. Desmond should have said something like this, "Well, losing Denard would hurt, but he is not bigger than UofM and our history, and we will survive and eventually flourish without him," as a comment about the media blowing everything out of proportion
If I could upvote you, I would.
Denard was great last season. That said, AI always put up spectacular numbers in the NBA. How many titles did he win? IU was always hyping up Randel El's stats. How far did that get them? Denard is possibly the coolest, most humble star I can remember playing for Michigan. But, Desmond is right, Legends who have "done something" at Michigan beat OSU, beat MSU, won Big Ten titles. Problem is Denard from what I know was never acting like he was bigger than the team... but some of the media has.
But Denard Robinson lacked the necessary help to win anything last year.
Michael Jordan didn't win a title without Pippen.
Lebron James left Cleveland because he needed Dwayne Wade.
AI was a ball-hogging guard who could never adjust his game to better his team.
Denard is sticking around to learn a new system because we believe it will make Michigan a better team.
He'll get that Legend status.
I guess my issue with your analogies are that both AI and Randle-El never struck me as non-team guys. Yeah, IU talked up Randle-El because he was the best player they've had in years, and he was legitimately amazing at times. And AI, for all the crap about "practice" and his partying ways, played his heart out every time he stepped on that court. I mean, the second-best player on his teams during his prime is either Keith Van Horn or Eric Snow. Yeah he didn't win any titles and his ball-hogging definitely hurt team chemistry at times, but the fact he dragged that sorry bunch to a Finals is one of the more amazing accomplishments in recent basketball history.
And by the way, guys like Jordan, Wilt, and Kareem were at least as big of headcases as AI, but they had better teammates and won more, so we remember them differently. Oh yeah, they also didn't have a bunch of middle-aged journalists bemoaning their "gangster lifestyle" because they looked to have cornrows and tattoos.
I don't fault Desmond for calling out college athletes and their entitlement (though it is a little funny that the guy who basically invented the "Heisman pose in the endzone" routine is bemoaning athletes thinking they are bigger than the team), but taking a shot at Denard was unnecessary and counter to his point. Call out Cam Newton, Mallett, or Pryor if you want an a-hole example.
I have agreed 100% with what you have written the last few days re: Lloyd & RR, and now you took the thoughts right out of my head re: the Heisman pose. (No /s)
Thanks. The view from my horse was getting a little to close to the ground for my liking. :-)
Historically speaking, more Michigan legends have been created in Notre Dame games than in MSU games. Just from what I've seen. What Denard did in his second career start in South Bend already gives him a great start on his 'done something' resume at Michigan. And, the Irish ended up a pretty good team last year, too.
And, just how legendary are Henne, Hart and Long on your scale?
Also, Denard has had as many 100-yard rushing games against OSU as Hart and Perry did.
... He is not better than this. This is who he is. As a fan, I respect how a player conducts himself after he leaves Michigan, including how they support their Alma Mater. I am disappointed and lost respect for a few ex-players, including Desmond Howard, Braylon Edwards and Brian Griese.
<br>
<br>Not that they care what I think, but it is what I think.
Not to mention Denard put up some pretty gawdy numbers against the likes of PSU, Illinois, and Wisconsin in addition to the "five nobodies". Also, does Desmond not remember that ND is included in that first 5? ND was a very solid 8-5 squad that blew out Utah and Miami in addition to winning AT SoCal and Denard did nothing short of putting up 502 total yards in South Bend. The man who kicked off his 1991 Heisman campaign with a 4th down diving catch against ND of all people should realize the greatnest of Denards feat.
We need an O/U on the number of comments on this post.
I'm probably going to take the over no matter what it is.
towards the end total?
if by "the end total" you mean "whether or not i get in to heaven," then yes, they definitely do.
MGoPoints does it take to get into heaven?
Certainly more than it takes to post a new topic I'd hope.
I love Desmond
AND
I love Denard.
Ima treat this like I would a divorce of two people I love. I love them both. Whatever goes on betwixt them is their bidness and ima just keep on keeping on loving everybody.
On an unrelated note, I like to think that in that picture of Mallett we are actually looking into his soul. His soul sneers at us lesser beings.
But Mallett never did nothing to me, and while I do not love him, I enjoy his rakish ways now that he is no longer in maize and blue.
In closing, PAXIL.
"Ryan Mallett did nothing to me"?
Ryan Mallet bugging the hell out of AA was the reason we had a no QB and had to try and win games with Threet/Sheridamnit. You can lay a large part of Michigan's agony in 08 on the compete and utter lack of a quarterback brought about by his departure.
No, my friend, my hatred for Ryan Mallet rages through me with the fiery intesity of a thousand burning suns.
So you hate a kid for having freedom to choose where he wants to go to college?
That's odd.
I hate pretty much every person/object/idea in the known universe with the fiery intensity of a thousand burning suns right now**, so maybe my contempt for Mallett is only slighty higher than the base hatred.
Still, it's hard to have a lot of respect for a guy bailing on his team when a new coach comes into town, especially when holding him against the paragon of virtue, goodness and speed we currently have in Robinson.
**exceptions include cake (food), Cake (band), my bass guitar, and Denard Robinson.
Ryan Mallet wasn't going to help himself by staying when RR came here. Any QB that wanted to leave and didn't fit his offense would have had my full blessing. This program, as much as I love it, IS NOT bigger than an individuals life. If that person's path has NFL potential then who are we to hate on anyone trying to reach that goal. Nothing should stand in the way of that, especially a year of possibly playing in an offense that didn't fit just because there were no other options at Michigan to play QB. And that was before anyone actually knew if TP was going to come here or not.
Point:
"This program, as much as I love it, IS NOT bigger than an indivial's life."
Counterpoint:
"No man is more important than the Team. No coach is more important than the Team. The Team, the Team, the Team."
I will only ask that you consider how many times in the life of an athlete that they get to choose the head coach who suits them.
I believe that number might be once, unless they are a super high profile pro who can pick and choose where he ends up as a FA.
I think where a kid chooses to go in college shouldn't be held against them in any case, but especially given the circumstances in college football under a coaching switch.
I guess I'm holding Mallett to an unfair standard. I mean, I understand why he left. he's the perfected incarnation of the pocket passer archetype and under RR he wouldn't get to show that. And I get that a guy of his talent wants to make it to the NFL so he can earn an impossibly large amount of money. I can understand it, I just can't respect it.
I guess my biggest error here is wishing every person who ever played college football could be held to Denard Robinson's standard. That they go to a school they love because they love it, and not because they see it as the vehicle to advance their careers.
If I saw Ryan Mallett on the street and didn't know who he was, I would hate that guy. Just look at that picture! I hate a person with that look on their face.
EDIT: Just to clarify, I do not hate him and hope he gets a chance after Brady is done.
Nice line.
i'm glad about the humor. humor is back!
Comments