Brandon with Classic Response on WDFN

Submitted by Ziff72 on December 21st, 2010 at 10:18 AM

Yesterday Brandon came on WDFN in the afternoon.   He comes on,  they exchange pleasantries and the host goes on with a long winded question about the football coach and when he finally finishes he concludes with something like.....Is all the media pressure you're receiving make it difficult to stick to your timeline?

Brandons repsonse- "No it doesn't".    There is a long pause as the hosts try to figure out if he is done or not and when they figure out that he is they just move on.  Pretty funny, basically saying I don't care about you cockroaches, but I'll come on your show to pump up my school.   Aw too bad Mr. sports host I know you spent all day crafting your question to corner him into an answer and you weren't the smartest guy in the world. Reboot.

Also, I'm not sure if it was taken down off the board, but I was surprised I didn't see a RIP Drew Sharp post after getting booted off the radio.  I know how he is so admired here.  

Comments

jared32696

December 21st, 2010 at 11:01 AM ^

Thank god Drew Sharp is gone, but Tom Dienhart @ Yahoo Sports is filling pretty nicely...

Sorry if someone has posted this nonsense earlier in the week or day, but I stumbled across this yesterday

Excerpt from his Yahoo NCAA Football Chat (12/20/10)

12:08
TomDienhart: 

First, let me say that I hate the division names. Someone on Rivals Radio today suggested Heartland and Great Lakes as Big Ten division names. Now, I like that! Ohio State will be the fav in the Leaders; Nebraska will be the fav in the Legends.

Monday December 20, 2010 12:08 TomDienhart
12:09
TomDienhart: 

Leaders Division
Illinois
Indiana
Ohio St.
Penn St.
Purdue
Wisconsin

Legends
Iowa
Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
Nebraska
Northwestern

Monday December 20, 2010 12:09 TomDienhart
12:09
TomDienhart: 

How weak is the Legends Division?

Monday December 20, 2010 12:09 TomDienhart
12:09
[Comment From harry harry : ]

what do you think will be future of Michigan coach??

Monday December 20, 2010 12:09 harry
12:10
TomDienhart: 

The more I hear, the more I think Jim Harbaugh will be in the NFL. Dallas? Minnesota?SF? Carolina?

So, that means Michigan's next coach will be Les Miles or Brady Hoke. Either would be a GREAT fit.

12:30
[Comment From Rich Rodriguez Rich Rodriguez : ]

What do I have to do to keep the Meechigan job?

Monday December 20, 2010 12:30 Rich Rodriguez
12:31
TomDienhart: 

There's nothing you can do. I think the hand-writing is on the wall. The AD's silence speaks volumes. If RichRod was the guy, why wouldn't the AD just come out and say it now? Why wait?

 

I'm Officially against Yahoo Sports because of this clown... This guy is an imbecile. Please feel to contact this ass clown @...

http://twitter.com/TomDienhart

Callahan

December 21st, 2010 at 11:14 AM ^

Which part are you objecting to? Nebraska as the favorite in the division or his opinion that RR can't do anything to save his job? Why would either of these things make you "Officially against Yahoo Sports?" The man is entitled to his opinions.

Nebraska as the preseason divisional favorite is reasonable. I hate to say it but it would either be them or State as preseason favorites.

jared32696

December 21st, 2010 at 11:33 AM ^

I'm not going to read any articles and add to their unique website visitors count when they employ morons like that. Brady Hoke as the Michigan football is not an opinion. That is sheer lunacy. The division names are terrible, I agree. Doesn't take much a brain to figure that out. Nebraska as favorites, is plausible.

eth2

December 21st, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^

Somebody just crapped in my lunchbox.

I still have faith in Dave Brandon.   With viable options A and B, I just can't see him saying, "Surprise everybody, it's C.   And I bet you didn't see that coming!"

 

Callahan

December 21st, 2010 at 11:18 AM ^

I'm not an anti-RR person, but I really wish Lloyd Carr received the same support from some Michigan fans as RR is getting now. Carr is a great man that deserved better than he got, all things considered.

Colt McBaby Jesus

December 21st, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^

No, RR isn't getting anymore support than Lloyd. The same people who the RR needs to get canned, and that it would be horrible for him to come back are the same who wanted Lloyd gone. They aren't the majority, but on a whole are the loudest. You just feel RR is getting more support because you are reading stuff here, and didn't do that when Lloyd was still coaching.

Callahan

December 21st, 2010 at 12:03 PM ^

1) I did read this blog when Lloyd was still coaching. One of the first posts I've read here was "The New Math," which was in 2005 (I think).

2) Maybe there was a silent majority of Lloyd supporters, but "Lloyd must go" was the theme of the 2007 season. Since he's been gone, he's been the scapegoat for virtually every single one of RR's failures/disappointments.

 

Section 1

December 21st, 2010 at 1:23 PM ^

Yes, there were always a few people who wanted to see Lloyd Carr get fired.  Mostly the same kinds of people who, every other year, are clamoring for the Lions' coach[es], whoever they are at any given moment, to be fired.

I was a solid Lloyd Carr supporter throughout his tenure.

There was an awful lot of talk about Lloyd Carr's impending resignation, because a lot of us knew it was coming.  For many months before he announced.  There wasn't a lot of talk, at least not any intelligent talk, about any firing of Coach Carr, because anybody who was legitimately close to the situation knew that Carr could stay as long as he wanted, and that he simply didn't want the head coaching job much after 2006.

Now, the battle with Rich Rodriguez is a qualitatively and quantitatively different matter.  We have a coach who wants this job (unlike Lloyd Carr in 2007).  We have self-appointed forces in the media and elsewhere who want to push our head coach out.  Lloyd Carr never faced that kind of pressure.

Speaking for myself, I don't need to "scapegoat" Lloyd Carr.  There are others, apart from Carr, who have made Rich Rodriguez's job much more difficult.  We have a local media that saddled the University and the football program with a consuming NCAA investigation through the 2009 season and recruiting calendar, and into much of 2010.  We've seen all too many off-field distractions and some incredibly bad circumstances hamper the defense, all through no fault of Rich Rodriguez's.

Again, speaking only for myself, I am much more generous, and happily more charitable toward Lloyd Carr, than some of Rich Rodriguez's detractors are willing to be to him.

michgoblue

December 21st, 2010 at 10:58 AM ^

I fail to see how athletic prowess relates to his abilty to view and analyze a team that he follows closely, or to comment upon things that are obvious to all (i.e. defense, turnovers, special teams).

Do you think all of those praising RR's offense are D1 athletes?  If not, do you consider their opinions equally worthless?

Maize and Blue…

December 21st, 2010 at 10:53 AM ^

the previous coach should have left some talented upperclassman.  If this happened maybe we wouldn't have the youngest starting lineups in college football.  That being said almost everyone is coming back for at least one year and in most cases two years.  We're not even the worst in the Big 10 in punts or punt returns yet alone the nation.  We do have issues at kicker.

The current coach has had all of two full recruiting classes.  Hard to pass judgement when a coach's first recruiting class are either true sophomores or RS freshman even though most of them are starting.

mfan_in_ohio

December 21st, 2010 at 11:33 AM ^

it's no longer his fault at all.  Remember when Michigan had good defenses?  They usually had quite a few 5th year seniors, and almost no players below the true junior/redshirt sophomore level.  Those youngest players usually had to be NFL-caliber stars to see the field (think Dhani Jones, who split time during his sophomore year, and saw that time due to another player's injury). Lloyd Carr's last class, the one he split with RR, is currently true juniors and redshirt sophomores.  Here is a list of Carr players that start right now, and remember that if he had done a good job recruiting there should be 11 of them:

1.  Van Bergen

2. Martin*

3.  Mouton

4. Demens*

5.  Ezeh

6.  JT Floyd*

7.  Rogers

8.  Kovacs*

* Members of the Carr-Rodriguez split class

No fifth year seniors.  Four players with four years experience.  Four on their third year, only one of whom (Martin) is the NFL-caliber star that usually breaks in to a strong defense at this point in a career.  Yes, we should have Woolfolk instead of Rogers, and maybe Warren instead of Floyd, but if that were true, the defense also would be less awful.  And even with those players, still no fifth-year seniors, and three spots given to redshirt or true freshmen. 

In short, it's not all Lloyd Carr's fault, as the injuries completely depleted the secondary and forced us into a bend-don't-break style to keep the corners from getting toasted deep, but the fact that we had so few seniors, and even some of those (Ezeh and Rogers) would hardly see the field if they had played for U-M ten years ago, is attributable to Lloyd Carr's recruiting. 

Now, if we still suck on defense next year, we can blame the  current coaches.  This is why you give a new coach four years. 

WorldwideTJRob

December 21st, 2010 at 11:58 PM ^

Right and somehow Lloyd is to blame for GERG getting hired and RR's implementing of the 3-3-5. And the better players on that Defense for the past couple years have been LC players ( Warren, Woolfolk, Graham, Mouton, Van Bergen, Martin). So some blame has to go on RR because you possibly couldn't tell me Lloyd would've had this bad of a D with this group had he still been coaching.

joeyb

December 21st, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^

I've said this before and I'll say it again. You might not have 4th and 5th year players on the team because of LC, but having to resort to true freshmen in the secondary is RR's fault. The bend and break scheme that they ran this year is RR's fault, not LC's. Having a lack of Seniors on the team doesn't make it OK to have the worst defense in the country.

That said, I think RR should get another year, but only if he is willing to make major changes. However, I don't think he will get that extra year.

joeyb

December 21st, 2010 at 4:38 PM ^

No, but I think he deserves a little blame for him not being here any more. If it was just one or two players that had left the team before graduation, you probably can't blame him, but when you are talking about 4 DBs on the team that have left and 2 that were recruited, but didn't make it into the school, that's on him.

michgoblue

December 21st, 2010 at 10:56 AM ^

"6th best offense in the nation"

Yes, the 6th best offense in the nation.  That scored a whopping 7 points against OSU.  That couldn't score against MSU until the game was out of contention, that couldn't score against Wisconsin until the game was our of contention, that couldn't score against PSU until the game was out of contention.

Look, I am not trying to be negative on our offense - I see the potential, but this whole "6th best offense in the nation" thing is really a distortion.  Our offense put up a shit load of points against crappy defenses.  Every time we faced a solid B10 defense, we had trouble scoring and we stalled out. 

maizedandconfused

December 21st, 2010 at 11:42 AM ^

OSU - 13 pts/gm allowed    2nd in the country

Wisconsin - 22 pts/gm allowed      26th in the country

MSU - 20 pts/gm allowed              21st in the country

 

 

Im not saying that we should be thrilled, but OSU is a top 4 defense, with numerous pro talents peppered in at every position. Wisconsin is essentially all seniors, and MSU has some of the best LBs in the country. Realize that the B10 is a tough conference, where anything but top10 talent on both sides of the ball will finish middle of the pack

michgoblue

December 21st, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^

I don't disagree with your points.  My only issue is with people talking about how amazing our offense is.  Am "amazing" "top 6" offense should be able to score, even against good to great defenses.  Obviously, even great offenses will stumble at times.  It happens at all levels of competition.  Our offense, however, has struggled mightily against EVERY SINGLE good defense that we have faced.  To me, our offense may be dominant in many statistical categories, and has shown flashes of brilliance and the potential to be Oregon-like (we looked amazing against Illinois), but until we can come out and consistently score (before the game is out of reach) against decent to good defenses - and not just against Illinois, Indiana, BGSU, Purdue - we are not a top offense.

Monocle Smile

December 21st, 2010 at 1:42 PM ^

 

Scoring was an issue against some teams, but it's not like we didn't rack up yards consistently. The offense just needs to get better in the red zone.

 

Our offense, however, has struggled mightily against EVERY SINGLE good defense that we have faced.

I disagree entirely. Illinois? Iowa? They got shelled and don't exactly have weak defenses. For the record, we DID put up 28 in one half against Wisconsin, who never backed off on defense because Bielema's a cock. The truth is that there would be no talk about the few weaknesses of our offense (besides turnovers) if our defense could stop someone once in a while. Oregon's offense struggles at times. California is NOT a good team. By your standard, that game means Oregon can't consistently score even against BAD teams. But no one says that because their defense is just good enough to cover their ass.

michgoblue

December 21st, 2010 at 7:01 PM ^

Scoring was an issue against some teams, but it's not like we didn't rack up yards consistently.

And when win-loss records are decided by yards and not by points, this will be a relevant metric.  Moving the ball is nice, but when your offense doesn't put it in the endzone, it is meaningless.

The Barwis Effect

December 22nd, 2010 at 1:53 AM ^

Our offense, however, has struggled mightily against EVERY SINGLE good defense that we have faced.  To me, our offense may be dominant in many statistical categories, and has shown flashes of brilliance and the potential to be Oregon-like (we looked amazing against Illinois), but until we can come out and consistently score (before the game is out of reach) against decent to good defenses - and not just against Illinois, Indiana, BGSU, Purdue - we are not a top offense.

This.  Our amazing #6 in the nation offense is no better than #35 when it comes to scoring in games vs. conference teams.  That number drops to #49 when you look at how we performed in games against ranked teams.

jsquigg

December 21st, 2010 at 10:25 AM ^

So he answered a poorly worded question with a short answer. First rule of interviewing:  Don't ask yes or no questions.  And I'm taking the wait and see approach on the DB awesomeness....

dtod

December 21st, 2010 at 10:38 AM ^

Since I don't have enough points to start my own thead, I thought I would post this here.

 

Justic Hayes tweeted the following:

We bout to pick up some more commits. :)

 

Feel free to repost this in its own thread if you want.