Hello: Roy Manning, LB Coach

Submitted by Brian on March 4th, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Roy Manning has broken news that Roy Manning is the Jerry Montgomery replacement guy on his twitter:


Let's check that most recent tweet.

Wow this cat on American Idol just killed it..


Manning's brief history as a position coach was covered in Friday's UV. He was a backup who emerged into as starting role as a senior, played well enough to get drafted late and have a brief practice-squad NFL career, and then turned to coaching. After a GA stop at Michigan, Manning headed to Cincinnati in the same capacity, got hired as defensive position coach the next year, was left behind when Butch Jones went to Tennessee, and was hired at Northern Illinois as a running backs coach.

Montgomery was the Beyonce of this staff and Manning seems to fill a similar role as the young energetic dude who does not love Hall and Oates. That goes double when a team wants to hire you to be the RB coach, which is usually where "guy who just recruits his ass off" goes on any staff. Triple when you have absolutely no history as a RB coach.

Note that Manning's coming in as an OLB coach. That indicates a bit of a shift from the previous setup with the three DL coaches. I presume this means Hoke will continue with the nose tackles, Mattison will take the SDEs and 3techs, and Manning will be in charge of both the SAMs and WDEs. That's more of an even distribution than before.



March 4th, 2013 at 3:50 PM ^

i know right?


though given what folks have said, its seems like a term like "eye candy" or "shiny object" or "free t-shirt person" might've been a bit more helpful.


but yeah, basically its a matter of being more of a recruiter and motivator than an instructor or technical whiz.


March 4th, 2013 at 3:54 PM ^

But it's not like memes or inside jokes are intentional, they just happen. Brian didn't decide one day that Montgomery's position would be the Beyonce position. He just said that, before Montgomery ways hired, that the person hired for this spot was to be hired more for his ability to attract recruits than to coach them, since all of our positions were covered. To be funny, he suggested we just hire Beyonce, and it stuck.


March 4th, 2013 at 3:58 PM ^

oh yah, ofc - its just a matter of finding a translation or explanation for these new terms that pop into the lexicon.  its like spreading awareness of terms like "cooler pooper" or "buckstache".

its just that unlike most of the other items, there wasn't a great story or big event that gave rise to the term.  rather it was an incidental joke that propagated. 

eamus_caeruli (not verified)

March 4th, 2013 at 8:48 PM ^

And yet people have to annoyingly always defend the authors or try explain something that others don't get. Doesn't that seem like the "if you have to explain the joke, it really isn't a joke at all" premise; or it is really properly executed? Once again, we are having this discussion about this topic, i.e. it doesn't work so stop using it thought process. Kind of like most of the things the authors do. Ace's crutches and going to the pharmacy joke in the other thread was horribly done, but people didn't even read it and skimmed over it. I just think things are getting stale and sour around here. But it's cool, evolve or die.

Blue in Yarmouth

March 5th, 2013 at 8:52 AM ^

I really don't mean to offend the other two poster's above you who expressed the fact that they didn't get it, but your idea that just because someone doesn't get a joke makes said joke bad is off base. Many times jokes sail over some people's heads, it doesn't mean the joke stinks.

I haven't been on the site a lot lately, and honestly was not privy to the original post that gave rise to the "Beyonce spot", but I have to say that with just a little deductive reasoning I figured out what Brian meant and got the joke (even though it isn't really a joke so much as a metaphor). 

I'm just saying, simply because you don't get the joke or understand the use of a metaphor doesn't mean said joke/metaphor is a bad one. It could just be that it sailed over your head.



March 4th, 2013 at 3:11 PM ^

That anyone could fill the role because they had Mattison and Hoke with D-line experience working there too, and just needed someone who would attract recruits, like Beyonce.


Edit: Hard to find,  but it may have started here:


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?




March 4th, 2013 at 3:55 PM ^

makes you appreciate what you got and how differently things could've gone...

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.

eamus_caeruli (not verified)

March 4th, 2013 at 8:40 PM ^

And Brian just mocked his entire readership, who criticized him and his co-authors for making up weird stuff like this that know one really gets but them. That is Michigan arrogance at it's best. Pretty sure he just bitch-slapped everyone and farted in your faces and yelled nah nah, nanny boo boo. Tisck tisck


March 5th, 2013 at 11:28 AM ^

There were a lot of us in that thread who said we liked his style and that is a big part of what drew us to the blog in the first place. Why would he change his style? And can one simply change their style?


March 4th, 2013 at 3:00 PM ^

"I presume this means Hoke will continue with the nose tackles, Mattison will take the SDEs and 3techs, and Manning will be in charge of both the SAMs and WDEs."

So basically you're saying we're switching to a 3-4 defense then? /trolling


March 4th, 2013 at 3:17 PM ^

Trolling argument: "If the WDE is an "OLB" coached by the OLB coach Roy Manning, then we have 4 LBs on the field, which is a 3-4 defense."



Questions about switching to a 3-4 defense kept coming up last year (because of DL depth issue), and Brian and Co. explained at length over and over again how a 4-3 under is basically the same thing.  So no we're not "switching" to a different defensive scheme.


March 4th, 2013 at 3:22 PM ^

The answer to that is yes and no, but really no. We're not switching anything, but our 4-3 under base D has similarities to a 3-4 since the WDE and SAM have similarities so it looks like a 3-4 at times, but then it looks like a 5-2 as well, and no one claims we run a 5-2.

Usually, the only guys with their hands down are the four true DL guys, but sometimes the SAM plays like an end and sometimes the WDE plays like a LB. This is likely why the same guy is coaching those two spots.