Willie Taggart interview with KEZI's Kristen Rodgers

[srsmiley007]

http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.s ... pital.html

First off, suggesting reporters be banned is weak. It suggests that the program has a reason to hide things. Second, read Grief's story. Certainly some may not care for quoting unnamed sources, but he also quotes school officials and players who give their sides. Unlike Canzano, he offers no opinions, just a reporting of the story. Personally I think Grief is a fair and thorough reporter. I'm more inclined to say that fans (and coaches) should stop being so sensitive about what amounts to straight reporting on stories.

I like Taggart allot. He's incredibly frank in that interview about his feeling that the players didn't like each other last year. That's pretty stunning to admit, and his willingness to address it publicly is in stark contrast to previous coaches. I don't mind his defending his side of the conditioning story, and I think he really believes little or nothing wrong was done. But his administration did, and I would have liked it more had he started that defense with a small amount of contrition for it. But I'm sure most here disagree.

Appreciate your take, but, having played, I totally disagree... We had guys herfing during winter conditioning consistently. That's part of the deal... No offense, but there are points in the game where you have to dig deep or you lose and that doesn't just magically happen. You have to be pushed to the limit and trained to overcome. At least these guys had parameters. The worse is when you don't know how long they'll make you go.

[Groundswell]

Hey, I'm cool with pushing players. I'm cool with trying to break them mentally. However, every time Taggart starts in with the "we weren't lifting weights, we weren't doing military style workouts" as an excuse, I start to cringe. Fact is, if the kids were lifting weights or doing certain military style workouts they probably don't get rhabdo. The repetitious, body weight push ups, sit ups, and up downs are all common links to Rhabdo. My point is: fine, complain about Grief not including your side of the story. But don't act like lifting weights is harder on a body than what the coaches had kids doing.

[Phalanx]

Appreciate your take, but, having played, I totally disagree... We had guys herfing during winter conditioning consistently. That's part of the deal... No offense, but there are points in the game where you have to dig deep or you lose and that doesn't just magically happen. You have to be pushed to the limit and trained to overcome. At least these guys had parameters. The worse is when you don't know how long they'll make you go.

Interesting comment. Having heard second-hand info from one of the players, it sounds like this is the general consensus among them about what happened. They apparently believe it was totally the players being out of shape in combination with doing the workouts wrong and that it was understood that anyone could rest if they wanted to. Also, this player confirms that Taggart has enough of a beef with one of the reporters that he has suggested banning him. I still feel like this issue is on the coaches as much as the players, but it is interesting to see the player perspective.

[pezsez1]

No, but the media are generally desperate, savage hyenas without a moral compass.

Having worked in newsrooms for many years, this is simply not true. In fact, reporters are generally careful, analytical and, if anything, overly cautious about trying to be fair. And their work goes through multiple rounds of editing and scrutiny to make sure it's level-headed.

We're all fans, and Taggart is the coach -- it's not the reporter here who is most biased.

Seriously, look at the most basic facts here... three out of a very small group of players were drilled hard enough that they were hospitalized with rhabdo. There is no way to rationalize this! It doesn't matter if they were doing rope climbs, obstacle courses or simply having tea parties and lifting super-heavy teacups. Rhabdo is rhabdo, and, as a trainer, you really have to #### the pooch for three of 10 guys to get it from one workout. It's not good enough to say "oh, the players should have just taken themselves out of the drill." From what Buckmarkduck said, the whole point is they were being told to do 10 absolutely perfect, in-synch pushups. That doesn't exactly seem to convey a "take a break if you need it" message. Obviously, it didn't -- or the coaches were asleep at the wheel, both are equally bad -- and the players paid for it. Not good. Not professional.

Taggart seems to be a hard-working, likeable coach, but every time he bitches about the media he's just making excuses. He needs to be about #dosomething, not #blamesomething.

[Phalanx]

No, but the media are generally desperate, savage hyenas without a moral compass.

Having worked in newsrooms for many years, this is simply not true. In fact, reporters are generally careful, analytical and, if anything, overly cautious about trying to be fair. And their work goes through multiple rounds of editing and scrutiny to make sure it's level-headed.

We're all fans, and Taggart is the coach -- it's not the reporter here who is most biased.

Seriously, look at the most basic facts here... three out of a very small group of players were drilled hard enough that they were hospitalized with rhabdo. There is no way to rationalize this! It doesn't matter if they were doing rope climbs, obstacle courses or simply having tea parties and lifting super-heavy teacups. Rhabdo is rhabdo, and, as a trainer, you really have to #### the pooch for three of 10 guys to get it from one workout. It's not good enough to say "oh, the players should have just taken themselves out of the drill." From what Buckmarkduck said, the whole point is they were being told to do 10 absolutely perfect, in-synch pushups. That doesn't exactly seem to convey a "take a break if you need it" message. Obviously, it didn't -- or the coaches were asleep at the wheel, both are equally bad -- and the players paid for it. Not good. Not professional.

Taggart seems to be a hard-working, likeable coach, but every time he bitches about the media he's just making excuses. He needs to be about #dosomething, not #blamesomething.

The truth, of course, is that most journalists are trying to stir up controversy in order to gain notoriety and sell papers or promote their station. They would also like to build up their own reputation and advance their career. Where sports are concerned, that is their bias, not being fair or overly-cautious. Journalists make up details all the time, and they make decisions about which areas of a story to stress based on what outcome they are aiming for.
With that being said, this story does have some undeniable elements that the coaches need to take responsibility for. Multiple guys went to the hospital for something that can be very damaging. They dropped the ball, and it would be nice to hear Taggart saying that in these interviews.

[pezsez1]

Phalanx, that is comically untrue, at least among newspaper beat writers. Wow. It is painfully clear that none of you have spent time in newsrooms.

There are actual laws preventing journalists from making things up. If that happened, newspapers would be sued out of business. Reporters who make things up and get caught are fired and essentially blackballed. At every paper I worked at, you would be reprimanded for two mistakes within three-month periods. Seriously, you guys need to get a grip. Don't blindly beleive in a coach who can say whatever the **** he wants with no actual accountability. That is just bananas.

Also, newspaper journalists who get caught up in fortune and glory don't stay at newspapers. They usually leave, because most of journalism is an insecure, high-stress, low-paying industry. It is like teaching, but without public appreciation.

[wlduck]

http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.s ... pital.html

First off, suggesting reporters be banned is weak. It suggests that the program has a reason to hide things. Second, read Grief's story. Certainly some may not care for quoting unnamed sources, but he also quotes school officials and players who give their sides. Unlike Canzano, he offers no opinions, just a reporting of the story. Personally I think Grief is a fair and thorough reporter. I'm more inclined to say that fans (and coaches) should stop being so sensitive about what amounts to straight reporting on stories.

I like Taggart allot. He's incredibly frank in that interview about his feeling that the players didn't like each other last year. That's pretty stunning to admit, and his willingness to address it publicly is in stark contrast to previous coaches. I don't mind his defending his side of the conditioning story, and I think he really believes little or nothing wrong was done. But his administration did, and I would have liked it more had he started that defense with a small amount of contrition for it. But I'm sure most here disagree.

Kelly banned some reporters, was he weak?

Yes. Chip was a great coach. His disdain for and treatment of media ultimately hurt his career after Oregon ( please note I didn't say ruined it- not winning enough did that). I also believe that his isolation of the program in general didn't help.

Chips biggest weakness was his all out us vs them mentality. If you're on the inside, he'd go to the end of the earth to help. If you're not, he didn't have much use for you. That's a narrow view that Taggart doesn't seem to share. Which is why I get slightly worried when he veers toward that by focusing the issue on the reporting instead of just the incident itself which really was a petty minor thing.

[wlduck]

http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.s ... pital.html

First off, suggesting reporters be banned is weak. It suggests that the program has a reason to hide things. Second, read Grief's story. Certainly some may not care for quoting unnamed sources, but he also quotes school officials and players who give their sides. Unlike Canzano, he offers no opinions, just a reporting of the story. Personally I think Grief is a fair and thorough reporter. I'm more inclined to say that fans (and coaches) should stop being so sensitive about what amounts to straight reporting on stories.

I like Taggart allot. He's incredibly frank in that interview about his feeling that the players didn't like each other last year. That's pretty stunning to admit, and his willingness to address it publicly is in stark contrast to previous coaches. I don't mind his defending his side of the conditioning story, and I think he really believes little or nothing wrong was done. But his administration did, and I would have liked it more had he started that defense with a small amount of contrition for it. But I'm sure most here disagree.

Appreciate your take, but, having played, I totally disagree... We had guys herfing during winter conditioning consistently. That's part of the deal... No offense, but there are points in the game where you have to dig deep or you lose and that doesn't just magically happen. You have to be pushed to the limit and trained to overcome. At least these guys had parameters. The worse is when you don't know how long they'll make you go.

Nothing in my "take" or the article contradicts anything in your post. My post was about the article, and Taggarts response to it. I feel like the incident itself was minor- but there was an incedent. And I have been part of many conditioning drills with players " herfing" myself. None ever developed Rhabdo.

[wlduck]

Taggart has a right to be peeved that he wasn't quoted in the article since Grief talked to him. And the Grief piece had a gotcha slant. But when 3 kids go to the hospital for a week it's a situation. Taggart should probably quit complaining about it. I always cringe a bit when he starts in because mistakes were clearly made.

I felt like the headline had a gotcha slant, but not the article which is why I posted the link. But overall I think we are in pretty close to the same position here. Acknowledge and move on from a small setback.

[Groundswell]

Phalanx, that is comically untrue, at least among newspaper beat writers. Wow. It is painfully clear that none of you have spent time in newsrooms.

There are actual laws preventing journalists from making things up. If that happened, newspapers would be sued out of business. Reporters who make things up and get caught are fired and essentially blackballed. At every paper I worked at, you would be reprimanded for two mistakes within three-month periods. Seriously, you guys need to get a grip. Don't blindly beleive in a coach who can say whatever the **** he wants with no actual accountability. That is just bananas.

Also, newspaper journalists who get caught up in fortune and glory don't stay at newspapers. They usually leave, because most of journalism is an insecure, high-stress, low-paying industry. It is like teaching, but without public appreciation.

Maybe slow down, here. Reporters can slant a story easily and still not be "making things up". I think you know better here. But since you worked for newspapers, would Grief have chosen not to include Willie's side of the story any other reason? I could see maybe understanding that lawsuits are potentially afoot and anything written in the press and associated to any coach could be a source for litigation. Grief clearly left Coach's side out for a reason. Do you have a theory?

To your point, almost anybody knows that if a person can't complete 10 perfect push-ups within a few reps they are a long ways from ever doing so. You don't have to have any sports training to understand this. And if a kid can't do 10 perfect push-ups over the course of an hour, what makes you think anything is going to change over the next three days, which is said to have happened? Every attempt past the 3rd try is an act of trying to break a player, and the player knows it. Obviously, a coach doesn't want players getting hurt and risking themselves. But what was going on was going on. Don't kid yourselves. Grief's article, looking back, wasn't even particularly unfair. At the time of publication, this might become a story requiring more stories, and there may have been editorial reasons for not including Willie's side. It's not like Grief is writing a blog and gets to post whatever he wants. Yeah, maybe the slant was to get clicks. But it wasn't salaciously so.

[Phalanx]

Phalanx, that is comically untrue, at least among newspaper beat writers. Wow. It is painfully clear that none of you have spent time in newsrooms.

There are actual laws preventing journalists from making things up. If that happened, newspapers would be sued out of business. Reporters who make things up and get caught are fired and essentially blackballed. At every paper I worked at, you would be reprimanded for two mistakes within three-month periods. Seriously, you guys need to get a grip. Don't blindly beleive in a coach who can say whatever the **** he wants with no actual accountability. That is just bananas.

Also, newspaper journalists who get caught up in fortune and glory don't stay at newspapers. They usually leave, because most of journalism is an insecure, high-stress, low-paying industry. It is like teaching, but without public appreciation.

I don't have to spend time in newsrooms to know that reporters add details to stories, or omit details in others in order to make them fit the desired narrative. I have been in a position to watch it happen on a number of occasions, including a few times where the reporting was about me and people I know, so I knew exactly what actually occurred. Also, unlike you, I don't ignore the scores of people, politicians, actors, businessmen, athletes, who say it has happened to them. I have spoken to media members who have told me they never get sued because of how difficult it would be to prove malfeasance, etc. The accountability in that field is nowhere near as pronounced as you seem to believe.

Everyone has a bias. You are correct that Taggart's is on the side of downplaying the story. You are incorrect that reporters don't have their own bias. Some are obviously worse than others, but biased/slanted reporting is pretty standard in the industry, and anyone with experience with the media knows it. You make a distinction for beat writers. In my experience, it depends on the writer. Some get smart and realize it isn't good business to do a biased report about someone who may provide you with other stories in the future, e.g. biting the hand that feeds you. Others don't. Sounds like Greif may be learning that lesson sometime in the near future, if he hasn't already. He got his name out there on this one though, so maybe it was worth it to him.

[srsmiley007]

http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.s ... pital.html

First off, suggesting reporters be banned is weak. It suggests that the program has a reason to hide things. Second, read Grief's story. Certainly some may not care for quoting unnamed sources, but he also quotes school officials and players who give their sides. Unlike Canzano, he offers no opinions, just a reporting of the story. Personally I think Grief is a fair and thorough reporter. I'm more inclined to say that fans (and coaches) should stop being so sensitive about what amounts to straight reporting on stories.

I like Taggart allot. He's incredibly frank in that interview about his feeling that the players didn't like each other last year. That's pretty stunning to admit, and his willingness to address it publicly is in stark contrast to previous coaches. I don't mind his defending his side of the conditioning story, and I think he really believes little or nothing wrong was done. But his administration did, and I would have liked it more had he started that defense with a small amount of contrition for it. But I'm sure most here disagree.

Appreciate your take, but, having played, I totally disagree... We had guys herfing during winter conditioning consistently. That's part of the deal... No offense, but there are points in the game where you have to dig deep or you lose and that doesn't just magically happen. You have to be pushed to the limit and trained to overcome. At least these guys had parameters. The worse is when you don't know how long they'll make you go.

Nothing in my "take" or the article contradicts anything in your post. My post was about the article, and Taggarts response to it. I feel like the incident itself was minor- but there was an incedent. And I have been part of many conditioning drills with players " herfing" myself. None ever developed Rhabdo.

Sorry, my bad, I wasn't clear. Still like your take even if I disagree with it which is what makes a good blog.

The part of your comment I disagree with is Willie and contrition. Especially when they fail to include his comments in the story. How does one have contrition for his workout plan? One not unique to college, the military and so many others? Is he upset that his players were hurt. Absolutely. That's not contrition though.

Also, I didn't agree with Grief's reporting on this. I too like him for the most part, but disagree with the slant on this story. As for banning journalistst, I wonder if that's really directed towards Canzano? Grief for the most part reports with subtle slant. Canzano though is a nuclear bomb.

The problem is the story doesn't reference how difficult it is to determine Rhabdo, thus leading the reader to assume the headline of "grueling." How do you see, in advance, potential Rhabdo symptoms? Symptoms are muscle pain or urine. Lactic acid buildup, players with a high tolerance for pain and pushing themselves continuously are going to know the difference? Nope. When informed of the urine, they took action.

Admittedly, I'm no expert on Rhabdo but from what I've read, I'm not sure how they could do anything much different other than have them pee before/after each workout.

[pezsez1]

I don't have to spend time in newsrooms to know that reporters add details to stories, or omit details in others in order to make them fit the desired narrative. I have been in a position to watch it happen on a number of occasions, including a few times where the reporting was about me and people I know, so I knew exactly what actually occurred. Also, unlike you, I don't ignore the scores of people, politicians, actors, businessmen, athletes, who say it has happened to them. I have spoken to media members who have told me they never get sued because of how difficult it would be to prove malfeasance, etc. The accountability in that field is nowhere near as pronounced as you seem to believe.

Everyone has a bias. You are correct that Taggart's is on the side of downplaying the story. You are incorrect that reporters don't have their own bias. Some are obviously worse than others, but biased/slanted reporting is pretty standard in the industry, and anyone with experience with the media knows it. You make a distinction for beat writers. In my experience, it depends on the writer. Some get smart and realize it isn't good business to do a biased report about someone who may provide you with other stories in the future, e.g. biting the hand that feeds you. Others don't. Sounds like Greif may be learning that lesson sometime in the near future, if he hasn't already. He got his name out there on this one though, so maybe it was worth it to him.

No, reporters do not add details to stories to push narratives -- that is literally what sources do. It's up to the journalist to use all that information given by sources to write a fair-and-truthful story, all things considered. There's no such thing (or shouldn't be, anyway) as open mic night for sources. (Which is why I dislike TV news, but that's another conversation). You seem eager to give a free pass to anyone who has ever disliked how something is written. And yet, how do you expect politicians/coaches/etc. to react when media reports don't bathe them in awesomeness? "Oh, the media misrepresented me!" "The media didn't do it right!" "The media is corrupt!" "That reporter has an agenda!" "Whaaaaaaa!" It's always s*** like that. When is the last time you heard, "You know, I was able to see through that media report how a third person with no dog in the fight views what I'm doing, and maybe I should actually seek to improve this." Hahahaha, hell no! It's always complain, complain, complain. Discredit, discredit, discredit. And that's not surprising -- that's the perfectly "human" response when folks criticize you -- but that's why we have journalism, to cut through that noise.

You are correct that everyone has a bias. Journalists are trained to accept their biases early on in journalism school. In fact, not once have I said reporters are unbiased, and if you went back through the history of my posts, I'm certain you'd find me talking about the myth of pure objectivity. But, unlike politicians/coaches/etc., journalists are actually bound by professionalism and expectations to minimize their bias as much as possible. Compare that to Mr. "the story was covered wrong!" Taggart. Did you actually READ Grief's stories? I did, and I just went back and read them again. What did you find to be so unfair and biased as to justify Taggart's complaints? In his Day 2 story, Grief even describes -- almost to perfection -- the exact same workout that Buckmark did up above. He was balanced, correct and included perspectives from school officials and players.

The fact is, the Oregon coaches conducted a poorly designed workout, and the players (who aren't professional athletes or trainers) paid the price. And now Taggart is crying over the media not focusing on all the positive things the program is up to -- and this is a week in which three players went to the hospital with rhabdo and then a new assistant was arrested for drunk driving. Seriously, WTF, Taggart? How about just man up, acknowledge you had a bad week and quit blaming that on the media? It's just pathetic.

This quote from you, Phalanx, is especially troubling:

Some get smart and realize it isn't good business to do a biased report about someone who may provide you with other stories in the future, e.g. biting the hand that feeds you. Others don't.

This is your whole view in a nutshell. So you think Grief should be Taggart's mouthpiece -- that, or refrain from writing anything that makes the program look bad -- and if he doesn't, then Taggart should be able to withhold information from him?

Dude. How can you even say something like this, then attack Grief for being biased and unfair in his reporting? That's totally contradicting. I hope you think about this for more than a few moments and try to understand how this point of view doesn't fit in with your earlier contention that journalists need to be MORE fair and MORE objective. A purely fair and objective journalist -- or one as close to that as possible -- would NEVER be anyone's mouthpiece.

[wlduck]

http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.s ... pital.html

First off, suggesting reporters be banned is weak. It suggests that the program has a reason to hide things. Second, read Grief's story. Certainly some may not care for quoting unnamed sources, but he also quotes school officials and players who give their sides. Unlike Canzano, he offers no opinions, just a reporting of the story. Personally I think Grief is a fair and thorough reporter. I'm more inclined to say that fans (and coaches) should stop being so sensitive about what amounts to straight reporting on stories.

I like Taggart allot. He's incredibly frank in that interview about his feeling that the players didn't like each other last year. That's pretty stunning to admit, and his willingness to address it publicly is in stark contrast to previous coaches. I don't mind his defending his side of the conditioning story, and I think he really believes little or nothing wrong was done. But his administration did, and I would have liked it more had he started that defense with a small amount of contrition for it. But I'm sure most here disagree.

Appreciate your take, but, having played, I totally disagree... We had guys herfing during winter conditioning consistently. That's part of the deal... No offense, but there are points in the game where you have to dig deep or you lose and that doesn't just magically happen. You have to be pushed to the limit and trained to overcome. At least these guys had parameters. The worse is when you don't know how long they'll make you go.

Nothing in my "take" or the article contradicts anything in your post. My post was about the article, and Taggarts response to it. I feel like the incident itself was minor- but there was an incedent. And I have been part of many conditioning drills with players " herfing" myself. None ever developed Rhabdo.

Sorry, my bad, I wasn't clear. Still like your take even if I disagree with it which is what makes a good blog.

The part of your comment I disagree with is Willie and contrition. Especially when they fail to include his comments in the story. How does one have contrition for his workout plan? One not unique to college, the military and so many others? Is he upset that his players were hurt. Absolutely. That's not contrition though.

Also, I didn't agree with Grief's reporting on this. I too like him for the most part, but disagree with the slant on this story. As for banning journalistst, I wonder if that's really directed towards Canzano? Grief for the most part reports with subtle slant. Canzano though is a nuclear bomb.

The problem is the story doesn't reference how difficult it is to determine Rhabdo, thus leading the reader to assume the headline of "grueling." How do you see, in advance, potential Rhabdo symptoms? Symptoms are muscle pain or urine. Lactic acid buildup, players with a high tolerance for pain and pushing themselves continuously are going to know the difference? Nope. When informed of the urine, they took action.

Admittedly, I'm no expert on Rhabdo but from what I've read, I'm not sure how they could do anything much different other than have them pee before/after each workout.

Not qualified myself to know how realistic it is to see the onset of Rhabdo in that particular situation. As far as not quoting Taggart for the story are we sure he was willing to comment at that time? Seems like an unusual decision for a reporter to make if he omitted WT quotes from the story. Besides being pertinent, they would also drive readership one would think.

I am basically done with this. I would finish by saying I like the direction towards more openness with the program and would hate to see that change because of a few blips.

[pezsez1]

Not qualified myself to know how realistic it is to see the onset of Rhabdo in that particular situation. As far as not quoting Taggart for the story are we sure he was willing to comment at that time? Seems like an unusual decision for a reporter to make if he omitted WT quotes from the story. Besides being pertinent, they would also drive readership one would think.

I am basically done with this. I would finish by saying I like the direction towards more openness with the program and would hate to see that change because of a few blips.

It's not realistic to see the onset of rhabdo in real time... but that's not the point. Rhabdo is a rare occurrence that goes far beyond typical exhaustion. For three in a group of 10 players to develop rhabdo means the trainers screwed the pooch, period. (Even three out of 100 would have been extremely bad.) There's no way to talk about this in a realistic manner without the program looking bad, because this WAS bad.

Otherwise, I'm with you. I'm basically done with this. I'm also excited to see what Taggart brings to the field. I'm extremely confident he knows far more about football than he does about the media.