Mlive UM beat reporter Nick Baumgardner critiques Hoke and staff.
This is one of the more honest takes by a mainstream reporter on the team in some time. Everything he says is correct in my opinion. He says what I feel.
http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2014/09/ask_nick_why_is_michigan_still.html
Bravo, Nick, bravo.
September 12th, 2014 at 4:04 PM ^
The piece seems pretty tame to me. It's solid and professional, but nothing special. Then again, he was just answering reader questions. Most of the readers with good questions are at MGoBlog instead of MLive.
September 12th, 2014 at 4:12 PM ^
Anything more would involve insults. He is saying that Hoke is not getting the job done. That is as damning of a criticism as a reporter can make without getting personel.
September 12th, 2014 at 4:44 PM ^
"Bravo" is a sacred word. Let's not throw it around all willy-nilly.
This take doesn't seem any more "honest" than another. Pretty tame and generic.
September 12th, 2014 at 4:54 PM ^
I don't know what you expect from a beat reporter, but it isn't going to be a verbal or literary takedown of a coaching staff. His statements are generally going to be limited in their harshness because he needs to maintain a healthy relationship with UM in order to have access.
If you want H.L. Mencken-style critique you'll have to go to a Bleacher Report or some other site that does not care if it offends UM(and thus losing access).
September 12th, 2014 at 4:35 PM ^
Considering the uninformed drivel that is normally written by alleged "journalists" in the so-called "mainstream media," I think Baumgardner's piece was appropriately critical, informative where necessary, and quite reasonable in its critique of Hoke and his staff.
September 12th, 2014 at 4:05 PM ^
MGoBlog for the masses.
September 12th, 2014 at 4:16 PM ^
That is the significant advantage of running one's own blog.Brian does not need to bow to a hierachy. He does not need to kiss Dave Brandon's ass to do his job. Baumgardner and other beat reporters have to watch what they write and say which is why this frank statement surprised me. Most beat reporters tippy-toe around the issues and stick mainly to describing the game and the players and coaches responses to it.
September 12th, 2014 at 4:08 PM ^
September 12th, 2014 at 4:11 PM ^
being so frank in his criticism. Most reporters are bland because they don't to offend the coaches. This is a far from bland critique from a beat reporter.
September 12th, 2014 at 4:13 PM ^
Don't know if you follow Baumgardner on Twitter, but lets say he's had a few rants about Hoke during press conferences. I really don't think he likes the guy right now.
September 12th, 2014 at 4:20 PM ^
because their writing tends to be short on indepth analysis and long on shallow purposefully bland reports. This is why MGOBLOG is a godsend.
September 12th, 2014 at 4:09 PM ^
Baumgardner is going to be the next Michael Rosenberg. This season he has really, really thrown some hissy fits about Hoke not giving him the answers/access he wants. You can tell he really doesn't like the guy right now. He senses blood in the water and is now ready to strike. That said, I actually agree with his thoughts in that column, mostly because it's stuff that's been pretty rehashed at this point.
September 12th, 2014 at 4:14 PM ^
Future headline, "U-M beats MLive Reporter Nick Baumgardner Who Critiques Hoke and Staff".
September 12th, 2014 at 4:08 PM ^
September 12th, 2014 at 4:46 PM ^
I'll take "The Last Ten Michigan Football Games" for $1,000, Alex.
September 12th, 2014 at 5:04 PM ^
Always thought Nick was a guy!
September 12th, 2014 at 5:34 PM ^
FIRE BORGES!!!
September 12th, 2014 at 7:08 PM ^
We're two games into 2014 and there is improvement for those that care to see it. Some are determined not to.
September 12th, 2014 at 7:12 PM ^
We just got shutout for the first time in decades and lost 31(38)-0 to a rival we've owned recently. A team that, in addition to being undermanned, probably loses at least 4 games this year. Not to mention that in year 4 things should be rocking and rolling, we shouldn't be grasping at straws to prove we're slightly better than 7-6.
Who is "determined" to see something again?
September 13th, 2014 at 7:39 AM ^
September 12th, 2014 at 4:52 PM ^
Your average fan is simply results based. All "Linda" sees is that we lost games last year, and have now been blown out once this year, which equates to "bad." If you asked the average fan to look at game film from last year's Akron game and this year's Notre Dame game and start to point out the similarities and the differences on the field, they couldn't do it. They'd want a box score and would only talk in vague terms about sacks and penalties and blocking. They can't do what Brian does in UFR; indeed no one does. That's why this site is invaluable.
I try to steer people here, and many come away hooked, but others go "eh... I go there but I can't understand half of what anybody's saying!" They don't just get confused by our memes and inside refrences, but also by the sheer detail MGOBLOG puts on the screen every day.
Real information comes from REAL analysis, something the UFR gives us. Brian can break down each play, look at his past data, and make specific comparisons. I read it, then re-watch the game and begin to notice the things he points out. It *almost* makes a loss somewhat tolerable because l'm learning what to look for.
The problems with this year's team are very distinct from the problems of last year's team, but that's not obvious to most folks. The only data points most people use to "compare" things are:
"Did we win?" "Should we have won by more?"
"Did we lose?" "Should we have lost by less?"
September 12th, 2014 at 4:55 PM ^
I still don't understand why everyone feels so confident that 2014 Michigan = 2013 Michigan
We've seen this team play one game of any significance. I swear a lot of people are going to look stupid when we're 6-1 going to MSU
September 12th, 2014 at 4:58 PM ^
Things might be a whole lot different around here after the Utah game.
Personally, I think 2013 Michigan is a team that underachieved (in part because of a lack of fresh talent coming into the lineup). 2014 Michigan just doesn't look to be very good, IMO. We'll see what happens.
September 12th, 2014 at 5:13 PM ^
We lost no significant starters on defense from last year (depending on how you count T Gordon), and everyone else is a year older. And should have a mostly healthy Pipkins by the start of Big Ten play.
We lost Gallon, admittedly a large blow, but Funchess in the primary threat now, and we get back a healthy Darboh, who was going to start last year before his foot injury. No other significant WR losses.
The OL has been talked about plenty, but there is already evidence to suggest that this OL could be better than last year's version, even minus two draft picks.
We lost Fitz, who you could argue underachieved, but gain two more RBs who look to be underachieving thus far as well.
I don't see how you came to that conclusion whatsoever. Do you think the team actually regressed? How can you say last year underachieved but this year is not every good?
September 12th, 2014 at 6:15 PM ^
Even assuming Funchess is the lead dog (and I think he certainly is), who is as good as Funchess was last year? We had Funchess AND Gallon and went 7-6. Unless a guy like Canteen emerges or one of the backs really turns it on going forward, this looks like a very pedestrian team at the skill positions (especially if Gardner is no longer an effective threat with his legs).
On defense I think we'll be a good deal better on the interior of the d-line (especially compared to late last season sans Q-Wash), but everywhere else? Guys like Countess, Taylor, Ryan, Morgan, Bolden/Ross, Wilson, Clark/Beyer, all have multiple years of significant playing experience (they pretty much all saw the field as freshmen and started after that). They are all good players, but they were good players last year too. I don't see anybody from that group suddenly being ridiculously better than they've been.
I see a very solid, if unspectacular in terms of pass rush, D and a very easy to defend offense. In the modern game that looks like a recipe for 8-4, at best, to me. And that assumes a pretty horrific B1G. As for last year, if we had had two really good RS freshmen emerge on the offensive line (a guy like Baas/Long/Molk/Lewan at that age and another solid future starter) I think that team wins 10 games and we aren't speculating about new coaches.
September 12th, 2014 at 6:36 PM ^
I understand where you are coming from now. I was mixing your ealier negativity into the post I replied to when I probably shouldn't have. I think it is definitely fair to be skeptical of the offense at this stage. If Butt returns to form this year though, that should be a large improvement there. Then you have Norfleet being utilized like an actual slot reciever, that could help as well.
Thanks for explaining your post further. I still personally believe the D can be good enough to keep us to 9-3, 10-2 if everything falls into place and the offense continously improves. But we haven't seen it yet, so I'm probably the one reaching here.
September 12th, 2014 at 6:54 PM ^
My pessimism has also been shaped by the last few years. I've gotten my hopes up when the staff hinted guys like Omameh/Barnum/Mealer/Schofield/Fitz/Roundtree just weren't talented enough or that guys like Kalis/Pipkins/Thomas/Green were going to be immediate upgrades and difference makers, only to be disappointed and frankly a little disgusted every time.
I also think Nussmeier is an upgrade, but I don't think he has much to work with (unlike Borges who bitched about not having "pro-style" talents that keep ending up with NFL teams).
I'd be a lot more optimistic if we beat the Utes, but at this point I see that game going very poorly. Part of that is almost certainly shaped by Carr-era experiences with Pac-12 teams, but holy shit does that team frighten me. A bad loss there and even 6-2 in the conference would have to be attributed to "LULZ B1G" and we'd still be very far away from being an elite team, which I think is what we should expect by year 4 and beyond.
September 13th, 2014 at 7:47 AM ^
September 12th, 2014 at 11:25 PM ^
if we are better or worse than last year. I think the UT game will be a turning point on having a good season or a poor season. If we lost to UT at home we will probably end up losing to PSU at home, and MSU and OSU on the road. We will end up looking for a new coach at season end. If we beat UT then we can build on momentum, beat PSU at home and play well at MSU win or lose. Then we have a chance of beating OSU on the road and we'll be back to on the 2011 track and should continue to improve next season.
The longer this losing continues and we do not see improvement in the team then the coaches will be the ones to blame and they should be fired!
September 12th, 2014 at 5:01 PM ^
If the "problems" from last year were the same, carrying over to this year, per what we've seen after two games, I'd be very worried. As it is, I'm only "regularly worried." Any time you get blown out like that you're concerned, and that concern is hightened by what's gone on recently with this team... but the fact that the mistakes we're seeing now seem less "chronic," less "it's the same thing over and over!" and more "on this play THIS one thing went wrong and on THIS play THIS one thing went wrong."
Neither is good, but the latter takes less to correct. We get better at a few key positions, either by a player getting better or getting replaced, and we could be okay; especially in THIS conference.
BIIIIGGG TENNNNN!!
September 12th, 2014 at 6:03 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 12th, 2014 at 10:45 PM ^
Penn State and Utah are good. This team will deserve some credit if they are 6-1.
September 12th, 2014 at 4:09 PM ^
Nothing new, really.
September 12th, 2014 at 4:14 PM ^
Baumgardner went to MSU
September 12th, 2014 at 4:24 PM ^
Ms Lippy's car is green.
September 12th, 2014 at 4:21 PM ^
These guys have to write things that get clicks so what better than writing something potentially inflammatory. Its the Terry Foster school of journalism.
September 12th, 2014 at 4:29 PM ^
Good lord. Yes, I understand that you read Mgoblog all the time and that you value its content over others' when it comes to M football. This is natural, this blog is the best for that, we know. But it's okay to acknowledge that sometimes something written about Michigan football not located on this website is decent. Yeah, it might not be "earth-shattering" and it might not bend your mind with new concepts and enlarge your grasp of college football in ways you never could have foreseen, but it could still be a decent piece of writing about the state of the program.
September 12th, 2014 at 4:40 PM ^
Norfleet has top end speed. That is the first time that I have heard that.
September 12th, 2014 at 4:40 PM ^
September 12th, 2014 at 4:48 PM ^
Agreed. I'd like to see some fire and emotion after somebody makes a mistake. Not to the levels of going purple in the face but enough so to please my desire to see anything other than clapping and butt slapping.
September 12th, 2014 at 9:23 PM ^
September 12th, 2014 at 4:41 PM ^
damn double post.
September 12th, 2014 at 4:44 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 12th, 2014 at 4:46 PM ^
I must admit that I didn't understand why someone would ask the question about Ryan possibly moving back to SLB because I thought the one of the potential advantages to going to the 4-3 Over was having someone like Jake Ryan up the middle. The arrangement makes sense, I think, and I do agree (now that I've had time to actually sit and watch so I can better grasp some of the discussion) that he looked effective there.
September 12th, 2014 at 6:46 PM ^
While I agree another switcheroo is probably not too feasible or advisable after spending the entire offseason making the move, but Ryan had 11 TFL as a freshman (close 2nd on the team to RVB) and 16 as a sophomore (Clark was 2nd with 9).
The pass rush would almost certainly be helped with Ryan in that role as opposed to playing MLB. If guys like Ross and Gedeon are on the bench (and Morgan as well, though obviously due to injury) but Ryan is at MLB and our only pass rush is coming from Frank Clark, then there is plenty of room to question the move, even if Ryan plays well at MLB.
September 12th, 2014 at 9:26 PM ^
September 12th, 2014 at 10:44 PM ^
Pretty sure Ryan could replace Beyer in a nickle defense if we wanted to go that route. Or the coaches could find another role where he is close to the line of scrimmage and attacking the QB instead of reacting.
At this point we really don't know how this experiment is going to go, but acting like there is no reason for trepidation is just as silly as condemning the move. At the end of the year if we look back and this is a bad pass rushing team there is going to be room to 2nd guess things.
September 13th, 2014 at 11:12 AM ^
September 12th, 2014 at 4:48 PM ^
Let's see here, our D-backs are using press coverage, and the DB coach never played the position nor has he ever coached the position, and this is the year we transition from zone to this form of coverage.
We have a RB coach in Jackson who hasn't fielded a really good back since Mike Hart, notwithstanding considerable numbers of four and five start talent.
We have a O-line coach in Funk with a background that is way less than stellar if you look at his stats but remains here after one of the worst years in program history, youth movement notwithstanding.
Nuss gets a pass until later in the season, although calling lots of running plays in the second half last week was less than impressive when you are behind by three TD's and forgets to go long to a guy who is almost a foot taller than the defenders that cover him. And we still huddle. Is that Nuss's doing or Hokes?
Tons of talent yet slow development. I would suggest it is not the recruits.
Please let me be wrong, and the rest of the season turns out stellar, but I simply cannot see this program moving forward to where it should be until Hoke gets out of the way. Good guy to be sure, but the job does not seem like it is being done.
Sorry for the rant after a week of rants, but I don't think we will ever get it done with Hoke.
September 12th, 2014 at 5:55 PM ^
But I agree with you :-(