Carr allegedly advised 2008 commit to flip to Iowa

Submitted by Leaders And Best on August 22nd, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Lloyd Carr allegedly advised 2008 Michigan QB commit John Wienke to flip to Iowa during the Rich Rodriguez transition because it would better fit his style of play as a pro-style QB. And it clearly worked out as Wienke is now a punter at Iowa. I wonder if Carr will finally address the story from Three and Out about his willingness to sign off on any transfers.  Doubt it.

http://thegazette.com/2012/08/22/former-michigan-coach-guided-qb-to-iowa/

Scott Dochterman @ScottDochterman

Former Michigan coach guided QB to Iowa | TheGazette http://thegazette.com/2012/08/22/former-michigan-coach-guided-qb-to-iowa/ 

Comments

turd ferguson

August 22nd, 2012 at 1:37 PM ^

Exactly.

I think a lot of the Carr hate comes from either a misunderstanding or difference of opinion regarding Carr's priorities.  I always had the sense that the student-athletes' well being was more important to Carr that virtually everything else - including Michigan's football record.  He wasn't going to ruin a kid's career (or life) just because doing so made Michigan slightly more likely to win football games.  That's my impression, at least, and it's the view that I'd like to think I'd have as a head coach.

On the other hand, If you believe that Carr's obligation is to put Michigan before everything else, then he comes across as a traitor when he's looking out for people at the expense of the Michigan football program. 

BigBlue02

August 22nd, 2012 at 3:16 PM ^

Just because someone thinks they were doing the right thing doesn't mean it is the correct or proper thing to do. Carr can try to help all he wants, but influencing personnell decisions before the next guy is introduced as the coach is not a good practice. It isn't so much this decision that irks me, it's the thought of him doing this with others that has me questioning the decision. It isn't as though he just drifted off quietly into his retirement. He took a job in the athletic department. His advice to recruits should have stopped the minute he announced he would be retiring at the end of the season.

ijohnb

August 22nd, 2012 at 1:13 PM ^

story could cut both ways. At that point in time I think Carr was still on board with RR and even had been the one to suggest him.  The "transfer papers" event could have been more motivational than degrading, more like "I don't want to hear anything about it, either you are in or you are out, and if you are out, don't let the door hit you on the way out."  The incident is ambiguous at the very least.

snarling wolverine

August 22nd, 2012 at 9:22 PM ^

Could be.  After the bowl game against Florida, in the locker room Carr told his players something like, "Now go and finish what you started, and graduate."   (It's probably somewhere on Youtube.)  It sounded to me like a challenge to stick it out through the transition.  I don't know why Bacon didn't mention this speech at all in the book.

 

 

robbyt003

August 22nd, 2012 at 1:13 PM ^

Why's everyone hating on Carr?  Even if he did advise them they'd have more success in a pro style, what's the big deal?  He was being honest....

artds

August 22nd, 2012 at 1:14 PM ^

If Carr really did this, I support him 100%. I would have been disappointed in him if he refused to grant a kid a transfer, or didn't shoot them straight about his opinion of how they would or wouldn't fit with the new schemes.

Seth

August 22nd, 2012 at 1:14 PM ^

You should probably mention that Carr was right about Weinke having a better shot at starting at quarterback there. What good would his advice be if it was always "you should go to Michigan." Would he have started over Threet in 2008? Or even Sheridan? Maybe, but I can't think he would have made a very big difference that season to us. Meanwhile he would have been a total wrong fit unless his head coach was fired.

Schembo

August 22nd, 2012 at 1:15 PM ^

The article didn't say Carr encouraged him to transfer, but rather gave him good advice.  He might have made his mind up before he talked to Carr.

mGrowOld

August 22nd, 2012 at 1:18 PM ^

If Wienke had played ANY other position besides QB I'd be the first one to be critical of Carr over his seeming betryal of Michigan to serve his personal agenda.  Ok wait....not the first, that would be Section 1 obviously but I'd be right up there in the thread.

But a pro-style QB?  He'd never play or contribute and unles he flipped to D and tackled people he wasnt going to help Rich anyways.

Section 1

August 22nd, 2012 at 3:55 PM ^

Sorry to disappoint -- I don't see the big deal.

I was never much of a Carr-hater.  And I don't see that there is sufficient detail in this fluff-profile about Wienke, to make any grand judgments about Carr.

It is always Carr's prerogative to address stories about him; tell his side of the story, and answer questions.  Write a book.  I'd welcome it.  I'd have a few questions for him.  And they wouldn't necessarily be any kind of a cross-examination.

But here's my question for the MGoBoard:  Why did this post get a massive neg-bang?  What did the OP do, or say, that was so terrible?  He found, far afield from the usual Michigan news media, an article that mentioned Carr in some significant aspect.  And he posted it.  Don't you appreciate that?  The way that a community can self-aggregate news?  What exactly was wrong with the OP?

reshp1

August 22nd, 2012 at 1:19 PM ^

Carr's crime was looking out for the best interests of his players and recruits over the interests of the incoming administration, which is forgivable in my opinion, even respectable if not a bit mis-guided. If you praise Hoke for creating a "family atmosphere" and being a straight shooter with the player's interests in mind you can't turn right around and complain that Carr should have convinced player's to stay in a less than ideal situation for a couple more W's.

Besides, we got Denard and Iowa got a punter, so things worked out.

reshp1

August 22nd, 2012 at 2:33 PM ^

That's quite the expansion of scope. Carr gave solicited advice to one recruit (that we know of) that he'd be a better fit somewhere else. He also allegedly stated he wouldn't stand in the way of anyone transferring, which while not sending a great message, isn't the same as convincing everyone to go elsewhere.

BigBlue02

August 22nd, 2012 at 3:24 PM ^

While I understand the point, can you imagine the outrage if Denard and Gardner both transferred and then told a reporter they talked to RichRod who said Oregon was still running their type of offense and they should probably transfer there because Hoke won't run an offense to utilize their talents? I'm guessing the sentiment wouldn't be "RichRod was just looking out for their best interest as a run-first quarterback....what a good guy."

reshp1

August 22nd, 2012 at 5:19 PM ^

I admit the fact that Lloyd's guy is now a bench riding punter type substance makes it easier to forgive than would be the case with a Heisman hopeful whom we've all come to know and love over three seasons. However, it has nothing to do with favoring Carr over RR. In the end, what's right is right, and coaches looking out for their players is generally a good thing.

evenyoubrutus

August 22nd, 2012 at 2:10 PM ^

I agree completely.  While I may disagree with LC on this (Rodriguez would have created a system to use most of these guys if they were good football players), I understand his intentions and if I remove myself from being a Michigan fan (one who's been irritated by Coach Carr since midway through his career) I can't fault him for looking out for a kid's best interest.

Captain Obvious

August 22nd, 2012 at 1:27 PM ^

if everyone praising Carr's advice would have the same conclusion if it came out that RR lobbied Denard, Molk, Gallon, Smith, Dileo and others ill-suited for the new offense to transfer to another team in the league that runs a spread?

I realize we are talking about starters vs. a backup but the logic still holds - you could make a strong case that these players' talents would be put to better use at another school.  My opinion is that Carr should not have been involved in the decisionmaking process and should have referred all questions to the new coach.

PeterKlima

August 22nd, 2012 at 3:27 PM ^

Magnus has said throughout this thread that Carr should have been honest with Wienke and told him to go to Iowa.  Magnus then argues the only other thing Carr could have done was to lie to the kid or send him into RR's sales pitch.

That is wrong and he is lying to himself if he doesn't see that Carr screwed up by not deflecting the question.  Carr had another path and he failed to take it.

 

Carr screwed up and Magnus is not man enough to admit it.

 

As for the transfers, the word of Bacon goes much further than an anonymous poster on a website.  Magnus may be playing games with "signing" transfers vs. "recommending" them vs. "approving" them or whatever.  He has already shown himself to be a Carr apologist to a fault, so who would you believe?

 

And, the crappy thing about this whole thread is I really like Carr A LOT.  I am a Carr fan.  I guess that's why I get offended when other Carr supporters make us look bad by taking overzealous/indefensible positions.

 

 

M-Wolverine

August 22nd, 2012 at 4:05 PM ^

Just because "you" see other choices, doesn't mean everyone does.

But what he said was "Carr didn't sign anyone's transfer papers." And he didn't. That's just fact. Because no one transferred while Lloyd was still coach.  Some did after Rich was coach, but Rich signed those, not Lloyd.  Did he say he would? Bacon thinks so. But even he isn't sure how it was said. And frankly, Bacon has been shown to get a lot of "facts" wrong, and confuse them with "opinions"...most of which he got from Rich, so he wasn't exactly doing an unbiased report either. And then you have guys like Craig Ross saying "Bacon is wrong, that didn't happen."

Who do you believe?  Frankly, I'm not sure I believe any of them. You've picked people you want to believe. And that's fine.  But it doesn't make it fact.

What is "Fact" is what Magnus stated- that Carr didn't sign anyone's papers, and if all anyone wanted was for a player to talk to Rich, Rich and the players who did leave each had that chance, because Rich signed off on them leaving.  As for recruits, this story doesn't make it clear at all if Lloyd said in good faith "this probably isn't the place for you...Iowa might fit you better" or if the kid said "I don't think I'm going to Michigan...what would you recommend?" And he said "Iowa would fit you well."

You see brushing off questions from someone who has trusted you as the smart idea. Others see it as dishonest in and of itself. Doesn't make either wrong.

The only person who doesn't seem to be able to "man up" about right or wrong is the one who thinks what they believe is truth and what everyone else believes is dishonest.

PeterKlima

August 22nd, 2012 at 4:18 PM ^

...considers not answering a question to be dishonest.

"You see brushing off questions from someone who has trusted you as the smart idea. Others see it as dishonest in and of itself. Doesn't make either wrong."

If you are talking about "true to one's inner feelings" or something other than honesty, you may be getting to whether Carr had a moral obligation to this HS kid or something.  You would be hard-pressed to argue he did.

There is no reasonable way to argue that deflecting that question was "dishonest."  It is not a matter of opinion.

M-Wolverine

August 22nd, 2012 at 9:32 PM ^

If you spend months creating a relationship, telling a kid to listen about what I have to say to do with your future, trust me to look out for you, and let me be your dad away from home, then you get a call and are asked "what do you think I should do?" and give a "no comment" that's intellectually dishonest. "Listen to me then, but I don't know what you should do now?" Either you care about a kid and want to be straight with him, or you're a hypocrite. Saying it's an absolute is silly.

Magnus

August 22nd, 2012 at 9:18 PM ^

You're right.  I can't be honest and reasonable because I said that Lloyd Carr didn't sign anyone's transfer papers, when the fact is that he didn't sign anyone's transfer papers.

If your friends are dumb enough to believe you, then I'm not really worried about them visiting my site.  I'll just have to argue with them over there, anyway.

Captain Obvious

August 22nd, 2012 at 1:41 PM ^

People would have been equally pissed if it came out that RR told current  spreadlike commits or near commits to drop M and go elsewhere in the Big Ten...they would not be praising his straightforward helpful nature as many are doing with Carr here.

Also, didn't Carr allegedy offer to help current players transfer when RR was announced?  Not too sure people would have been happy about RR doing the same.

Magnus

August 22nd, 2012 at 1:45 PM ^

Smart people wouldn't have been upset with Rodriguez.  Only the same or equally dumb people who are upset about this Carr/Wienke thing.

And yes, he did "allegedly" help current players transfer; but this year's HTTV article by Craig Ross proves (or claims to prove) otherwise.

Magnus

August 22nd, 2012 at 1:54 PM ^

Who said anything about transfers?  Wienke was in the fall of his high school senior year, and he had yet to sign a NLI. 

There's a difference between signing transfer papers and telling a high schooler to verbally commit to another school.  I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

jabberwock

August 22nd, 2012 at 3:12 PM ^

But what about if RR had told Dee Hart to sign with someone else . . .  (I mean before his brief commitment)
Hart may not be Hoke's ideal running back, but most everyone here (not just the stupid people) would have put a hit on RR's life if he'd done that.

For the record, I don't have a problem with Lloyd giving a kid the most honest advice he could when asked, but I don't doubt for a second how pasionate people are about recruiting either.

If my above RR-HArt scenario had ever happened, it would look an awful lot like West Virginia around here.