UM on Mike & Mike this morning

Submitted by Waves on December 12th, 2014 at 8:48 AM

Gary Anderson was on M&M this morning, and afterwards the talk got around to the Michigan coaching hire.

Greeny brought up the topic of which is the better coaching position--UM or Wiscy. He had some stats comparing the two schools and the number of NFL players in the draft and on the field and it was markedly not in our favor. CC's take was that even the perfect hire wasn't going to turn things around quickly since UM just doesn't have the bodies.

Although I wasn't expecting a fair shake with three OSU, ND, and NW honks in the group, I couldn't argue with their findings completely. That being said, they agreed that UM was still a prestigious program with a ton of cash and the ability to hire top-shelf coaching talent.

 

EDIT: Let me clarify that I couldn't argue with Greeny's stats about the number of players in the NFL. I certainly don't agree with their overall negative take on UM.

Comments

Tater

December 12th, 2014 at 8:51 AM ^

Greenie hammered the football team and the basketball team in his intro to a Michigan segment earlier this week.  I had to turn it off to keep from being pissed.  Since I usually don't watch them anyway, it wasn't difficult.  

1974

December 12th, 2014 at 1:03 PM ^

I think that's the whole point with those two buffoons (and most of the programming from the "Worldwide Leader" {an interesting little mini-advertisement all by itself}). MAKE the news. Get people talking about *you* (ESPN).

GoBLUinTX

December 12th, 2014 at 9:57 AM ^

Was wetting his pants this time last year hoping that the Leon County (Tallahassee) DA would clear the FSU, Jameis Winston, so that the Heisman Trophy voters could vote in "good conscience".  Told me everything I needed to know about Greenie.

CincyBlue

December 12th, 2014 at 10:17 AM ^

He was talking about how small Michigan is and that he sends his players to UW all the time.   So UW has the large bodies and lost 59-0 to OSU, after Ohio State played a competitive game against Michigan the week before in Columbus.   Nice logic. 

Dawggoblue

December 12th, 2014 at 9:15 AM ^

Yes I can.  If you are getting paid to talk about the subject then you should be doing the background research into your topics. 

 

Lets not sit and pretend that the topics are surprises, it's not a pop quiz.  Do you think these guys actually know all the facts and figures they spew out?  No, the information is pulled and provided.

aratman

December 12th, 2014 at 9:21 AM ^

IF there was only an easily searchable tool to tell you about things.  I mean it isn't like there job is to talk about things with some knowledge.  

 

If you haven't done research about a subject and you bring up, I have to wonder if you are good at your job.   

Haywood Jablomy

December 12th, 2014 at 9:21 AM ^

Yes, really we can. If they are getting paid to talk about such things. I do not understand your point. hat's the problem w/sports "journalism" or just plain "journalism" in general these days. Lazy, retweeting, purposely inflamatory statements or just simply talking out one's ass.

Come informed or shut it. 

ChasingRabbits

December 12th, 2014 at 9:23 AM ^

Really?  Isn't that their job? To know something about the sports that they talk about? Do they need to know the 2 deep of every program? No, but how about the final four teams..  and oh I don't know..  the team that they are currently talking about. The winningest program in history that is currently in the middle of a coaching search that is being talked about daily all over the country...    3 minutes of show prep would have given them 50X the knowledge than they were clearly dealing with.   I would love to walk into a meeting and talk about the Ford Focus pickup truck..  and after my boss would say, its an honest mistake,  there are really a lot of vehicles on the market. You can't be expected to know about all of them. 

maizenbluenc

December 12th, 2014 at 9:29 AM ^

either research it before you say something, or don't say something about what you don't know.

His whole point was we haven't had a lot of people drafted, which is a trailing measure of the exact hole we have been wading through. But his error was using the trailing measure as a leading measure for the current roster talent.

charblue.

December 12th, 2014 at 10:58 AM ^

number of guys who are drafted into the NFL or make it there through free agency?

Apparently, Golic asked the other day in comparison to Wisconsin and Michigan who had the best known players in the league:  for Michigan, easy, two likely Hall of Famers, and two of the best players ever at their positions, Tom Brady and Charles Woodson. And then he mentioned Russell Wilson and JJ Watt for the Badgers.

And by namng the recent Super Bowl winning qb at Seattle and former rookie of the year who then had a mediocre sophmore pro season before bouncing back this year, Golic claimed that this cinched his point that Wisconsin is the better program because it has put younger stud players in the league.

Really? What a lame contention. First off, Russel Wilson was a fifth year senior when he played his one season at Wisconsin, and JJ Watt was an unheralded draft pick who ripped it up as a first year pro. Wilson developed his qb talent at NC State and then transferred in his final year of eligibility and has played for a very good Seattle team doing a great job directing their offense as a runner and passer, albeit not bearly in the same ballpark as Brady as a passer.

Woodson is an icon, Watt is a solid all-pro and may someday reach Woodson's stature.

The point of this was apparently to demonstrate that Wisconsin has done a better job of producing strong NFL players in more recent times than Michigan. I wouldn't argue this contention but Michigan starting quarterbacks going back since the 90's have regularly been drafted into the NFL or given free agent opportunities. They've had Olinemen drafted into the league under every coaching regime. Very few colllege programs can claim that.

I don't think it makes much difference because I college football isn't about getting guys ready for the pros. It's just that the NFL treats college football as their incubating factory and unpaid minor league systsem to obtain talent. So, If that's the point of college sports, then why don't we just call what Kentucky does in basketball, an NBA developmental team.

The bottom line is, Golic and Green aren't worth listening too for any kind of football analysis. They are at best a couple of ESPN brand names who entertain on the radio. Good for them.

pescadero

December 12th, 2014 at 5:50 PM ^

Woodson is an icon, Watt is a solid all-pro and may someday reach Woodson's stature.

 

Watt is a little more than a "solid all-pro".

 

I'll agree he has some time to put in to achieve the sustained success over time that Woodson has, but Watt is already a pretty strong HOF candidate in the 4th year of his careeer.

 

 

 

bluebyyou

December 12th, 2014 at 10:04 AM ^

It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself when you say we have a very talented two deep but it needs to be developed. How do you really know what the outcome will be until you actually see on-field performance? If you are relying solely on recruiting rankings, I think that might be a bit of a slippery slope.  

I am very concerned about our QB situation and with Funchess' departure, we are not quite as deep as we thought we were at WR.  Until Green or Isaac really start showing something behind an O-line that may be improving but still is not at a level that remotely approaches better programs, I just can't share your optimism.

When you look back at the level of NFL talent we had in 2006 and before and compare it to what we have now, it is not even close.

EZMIKEP

December 12th, 2014 at 5:06 PM ^

Too many other successful programs/coaches were going after these same players.
Scouts cannot be wrong on 79 freshmen and sophmore athletes.

The quarterback situation is one thing because you only have a couple guys at the most important position on the field, but outside of this if there is one thing that Brady Hoke has done while he was here that is restocking the talent pool.

this team is loaded. Whomever the coaches as long as they are competent they are going to come into a situation that is very good from a talent standpoint.

Indiana Blue

December 12th, 2014 at 11:19 AM ^

is soooo easy!   Anybody remember Alabama pre-Saban?  That was a tire fire / monkey rodeo for 10 years ... which included the Mike Price coaching hire (what ! - I can't go to a strip club ?  WTF !!!).  This is Michigan are not just words. 42 B1G championships is still #1.  

Fuck them.  Harbaugh would bring "fire" back into Michigan football.  

Funny - now I'm hearing how being an NFL coach is so much easier than a college head coach.  I know - there's too many people out there looking for the "easy way", versus what they love.  Harbaugh loves coaching and he knows damn well that millionaire football players don't care for his enthusiasm and fire.  However take an 18 yr. old kid that knows his college success can lead to that "millionaire status" and they'll want that challange and leadership.

Harbaugh is a proven winner, as a player and a coach.  Michigan needs him, and sorry anyone but Harbaugh will be 2nd choice.  And who wants that?

Go Blue! 

Brodie

December 12th, 2014 at 10:09 PM ^

Mike Price wasn't fired for going to a strip club. He lost his job because a stripper claimed he paid her for sex, bought and used cocaine with her and because when she recognized him and said "Roll Tide" he replied by screaming "IT'S ROLLING, BABY, IT'S ROLLING!"

almost none of which was ever proven to be true, btw... he sued SI over the story and I believe they settled out of court.

bleedzblue

December 12th, 2014 at 9:12 AM ^

Just to clarify a little.. When they were talking about bodies, they weren't reffering to the numbers, they were referring to the "body types" of our players compared to those of the Wiscos, OSU and MSU teams, saying are team looks much smaller with far fewer NFL type players. I'm not saying I agree, because I don't, but that's what they were talking about.

Bergs

December 12th, 2014 at 11:29 AM ^

Based on what? The progress pictures that these guys post? The majority of those pictures were from guys who are skill position players who are at an advantage if they remain lean.

More importantly, at what position isn't Michigan sufficiently bulky? The only position group that could possibly fit that description is the offensive line.

WolvinLA2

December 12th, 2014 at 12:03 PM ^

Which position group on our team is undersized?  Serious question.  
 

I don't fucking buy this at all.  We've had guys who were underdeveloped and the scheme wasn't always great.  Our DBs were disappointing, but that doesn't have anything to do with bulk.  Our OL was pretty young, but still not small for Big Ten standards.  

So which guys on our team should have been bigger?

coldnjl

December 12th, 2014 at 9:46 AM ^

I am not sure we truly know that...especially at QB. What do we have at that position? As far as I am concerned, we have an unacceptable option in RB, a highly talented but uninspiring QB in Shane, and two freshman status players who we haven't seen throw the ball. We truly need the QB whisperer here...

gwkrlghl

December 12th, 2014 at 11:50 AM ^

Anytime someone is talking Michigan and says something like "Michigan just doesn't have the talent / depth / etc" I immediately tune them out because they clearly have no clue what's going on here. Michigan has tremendous amounts of talent and pretty great depth at every position.

A good coach can come in and have this team be good almost immediately

mgowill

December 12th, 2014 at 8:52 AM ^

I think the returning class will be just fine with the right head coach. If a third string QB can win the B1G Championship Game, that says a lot about the talent bar in the B1G.

MGoRob

December 12th, 2014 at 9:41 AM ^

It's not the stars but the fact that he was 3rd string with little playtime. Likely limited reps in practice. You can look no further than our own Shane Morris, who was 4-5* range as a direct comparison. Sure didn't see him put up a performance like Cardale did.

BlueRaines

December 12th, 2014 at 9:05 AM ^

I don't understand this argument at all.  Has there ever been a point where you knew what to expect from 2 out of 3 QBs that have yet to play a college game? Did you know what to expect out of Henne when Gutierrez went down? Or what to expect out of Threet, or Tate, or Denard before they played a game? The only one on the roster that we have any idea about is Shane: Laser rocket arm with questionable decision making (but how much of that was him and how much was coaching?).