Tater

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.

SalvatoreQuattro

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).

Don

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.

SalvatoreQuattro

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.

FreddieMercuryHayes

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.

unWavering

September 12th, 2014 at 4:08 PM ^

"So, I don't know if I have a question, exactly. But at what point does this reach critical mass? We have reassurances from Hoke that this team is "different," then the team proves on the field that in fact nothing is different, followed by the too-often repeated post-game mantra on the part of the players and coaches: "we have to do better." -- Linda"

I don't know what she's been watching, but this team looks nothing like the 2013 rendition. It still has its problems, but they are much different. The only thing they have in common so far are disappointing road losses. Not that that should make anyone feel better. But I really do think this team is closer to bring good than 2013. The line is performing well enough to run a coherent offense. Now the rest of the offense has to hold up their end of the deal.

We will get there. Or we won't, but in that case Hoke is probably gone.

PurpleStuff

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?

UMForLife

September 13th, 2014 at 7:39 AM ^

What you are saying is true. However, the key is if we would see improvement. There are 3 issues in this team (RBs, DG. CBs). CBs are going to improve. Not sure about RBs. May be they will use Smith more. That should offset the issue. DG is who he is. Can he do 3 step throws. Can Nuss educate him more before MSU. There is still a chance for them to better this year. If they lay an egg, then I agree with your assessment. Until then, I think some can still feel optimistic.
I hope you are wrong about the 4 losses. Please be wrong.

Gitback

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?"

MichAero

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?

PurpleStuff

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.

MichAero

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.

PurpleStuff

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.

uminks

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!

Gitback

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!! 

SirJack II

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.

michman54

September 12th, 2014 at 4:40 PM ^

Am tired of the BS statement " we have to do a better job". I like Hoke, but if I see him clapping after the opposing team scores again im going to throw a brfick at my TV....

Tuebor

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.

BloomingtonBlue

September 12th, 2014 at 4:44 PM ^

Nick is the man. He's by far the most honest and straightforward. Tells it like it is and doesn't let Hoke behind his crap statements.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

LSAClassOf2000

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. 

PurpleStuff

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.

PurpleStuff

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.

bluebyyou

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.