FWIW ESPN's College Football Final Crew criticizes Borges.

Submitted by wolverine1987 on

It's not my intention with this thread to start another who's fault was it thread about last night. Perhaps I'm naive in that, but I'm just pasing along that when I watched College Football Final, Rece Davis, Mark May and Holtz all agreed that in their opinion the offensive game plan called for way too much pocket passing from Denard, and they criticized Borges by name, particularly May. IMO May is wildly inconsistent and Holtz is a parody (I admit to liking Rece Davis) so that critique does nothing for me, but since it's a national show I thought I'd pass it on. As for me, 6 turnovers does not necesarily equal poor game plan, but WTF. I think there may be some strategy changes made in the bye week.

KAYSHIN15

September 23rd, 2012 at 2:35 PM ^

One play can swing momentum drastically. Two questions for you. 1) did we have momentum before the HB pass? 2) did we have it after? The play call is just as important as the people executing the plays. I thought Borges has had great game plans all year. It seems we have a guy open every pass play, its just whether Denard can a) find the guy and b) accurately throw it. Anyone that knows sports whether MMA, boxing, basketball or football knows that one moment can change an entire game. Our moment was the INT by 2 Guns...

M-Wolverine

September 23rd, 2012 at 3:03 PM ^

As we had after. All game we moved the ball effectively and had drives die in the redzone because Denard threw a pick or took a sack. Not sure how moving the ball later isn't having momentum because it ends in a turnover while having it early because we moved the football isn't negated by a turnover. There wasn't a lot of momentum period. It was an ugly, mistake filled game. ND hardly rolled with momentum after the trick play. They just made less mistakes than we did.

M-Wolverine

September 23rd, 2012 at 5:43 PM ^

And the momentum after a long drive that ends in a turnover in the 1st half is no different than a long drive that ends in a turnover in the second half. It's not like they stopped us from moving the ball after the trick play. And considering we couldn't capitalize on any of the later ones assuming we would have on that drive is a leap. For all we know that could have been Denard's first turnover instead of Vincent. We moved the ball before and after it; we didn't score touchdowns before or after it. That it drastically changed how the game went isn't really based on anything.

taistreetsmyhero

September 23rd, 2012 at 5:53 PM ^

momentum swing after a long drive in the 1st half is no different than a long drive that ends in a turnover in the second isn't really based on anything either. I could explain why I don't think that is true, but I doubt my opinion will add much of substance.

I do see your point about not knowing what would happen had the play not been called, etc. 

snarling wolverine

September 23rd, 2012 at 5:43 PM ^

Why would Vincent Smith throwing an inaccurate pass cause Denard Robinson to suddenly force a bunch of crappy throws into coverage?  

It sounds to me like you're uncomfortable criticizing Denard's play and are fishing for some alternate explanation.  "Momentum" is cheap buzzword.  Momentum can shift on any play.  I don't believe that a senior who has started 30 games would have his confidence so shaken by his teammate throwing a pick that he'd suddenly start throwing them.

 

 

 

 

KAYSHIN15

September 23rd, 2012 at 5:55 PM ^

Because getting somebody upset on this blog would send me into a deep depression and Denard pays my bills. Get the hell outta here. I'm saying exactly how I feel. The play call was bad, and whether you want to accept it or not, it was the start of one of the worse series of Offensive plays in UM football history. I'll be the first to admit that Denard played bad and probably should have been yanked for Gardner or Bellomy, but the kid has been crushed enough.

Even while the play was developing I was saying to myself "this crap better work" because immediately I thought it was a horrible play call.

snarling wolverine

September 23rd, 2012 at 6:29 PM ^

I'm not defending the trick play.  I didn't think it was a great call.  I just don't see the connection between that play and Denard throwing four picks.  ND didn't do anything on their next possession and in fact, they pulled their QB from the game not long after.  If they had killer "momentum," why would they do that?

 

 

 

 

jmblue

September 23rd, 2012 at 6:02 PM ^

I wasn't in love with the halback pass, but the idea that it created some soul-crushing loss of momentum that lasted half the game is absurd.  You know what happened after that pick?  ND punted it back to us.  

Denard has always been interception-prone.  It's not a phenomenon that started last night.  At some point we have to accept that it is what it is.  He has shaky footwork, stares down his receivers frequently and too often tries to force passes into coverage instead of throwing it away.  Guys who do those things will throw interceptions. no matter how much momentum is on their side.

 

 

 

 

5th and Long

September 23rd, 2012 at 2:37 PM ^

Interestingly, your neighbor's dog and Mark May also have other things in common.

 

They both have the same football IQ

Both get groomed with hair clippers and a #6 guard

They slobber slightly less than Lou Holtz

They both can lick their own balls...and do

 

so there's that

Rather be on BA

September 23rd, 2012 at 2:09 PM ^

Yeah, trying to take advantage of what should have been the biggest mismatch in our favor (our WRs versus their DBs) is bad coaching.  Borges didn't make Denard throw the ball to ND a million times.  Other than the HB pass call I didn't mind the play calling.

turtleboy

September 23rd, 2012 at 2:13 PM ^

The turnovers were on quite a few people, but I questionsed Borges' playcalling too. I can blame Te'o being an unblocked blitzer on a few turnovers, Denard for a few, receivers not running their routes, or letting balls go through their hands for a few, ect. I wouldn't really exclusively blame Borges for Denards turnovers, but the HB pass into good coverage? That was unnecessary by any measure. 

jmblue

September 23rd, 2012 at 6:06 PM ^

The reason you run that play with a tailback is to sell the fake.  It starts out like a conventional pitch play.  If you run that play with a guy like Gardner (who had thrown a pass on a trick play earlier in the game), it's much more of a red flag to the defense.  Smith is supposed to have the best throwing ability of our backs, so he's the guy there. 

I didn't think it was necessary to run that play at that point in the game, but I understand the personnel choice. 

orobs

September 23rd, 2012 at 2:15 PM ^

I don't blame borges.  The game plan was working.  The execution was lacking.

 

I don't think he told Vincent Smith "hey, if you see pressure, do a blind jump pass into the end zone"

M-Wolverine

September 23rd, 2012 at 2:17 PM ^

And while Holtz was once a good football mind bring up Notre Dame and he becomes someone better suited for a ND posting board. I'm not sure where all this started this week (maybe May read Bacon) but Denard is not a better passer rolling out (How can you be on MGoBlog and not realize this after all of Brian's analysis), it makes it harder for him to run, and we JUST had a tread and front page post showing Denard throws better from under center. Just because stupid people say it doesn't mean we have to repeat it.

SteelBrad

September 23rd, 2012 at 2:20 PM ^

Denard is not a pocket passer. But he is a gifted college quarterback. Borges needs to utilize his strengths. These still include passing the ball.

We successfully utilize Denard and we can win any game. It's really that simple.

triangle_M

September 23rd, 2012 at 2:20 PM ^

If Denard doesn't throw the picks, the game isn't lost.  Break it down any way you want, but Denard had a terrible game.  Everyone has a bad day.  Time to move on.

HollywoodHokeHogan

September 23rd, 2012 at 2:21 PM ^

Other than that, I thought it was a well called game.  When your QB is averaging an INT EVERY 6 THROWS, plus fumbling, there isn't much you can do.   Denard was turning the ball over running and turning it over throwing.

NiMRODPi

September 23rd, 2012 at 2:24 PM ^

The UFR and other things my say otherwise, but I am not putting one ounce of blame on Borges. Even in the second half, when Denard fumbled, we put an excellent drive together. We had lots of promising drives. This was NOT Alabama all over again. 

Recognizing the limitiations of your quarterback is one thing, but just giving up on the pass altogether? I'm sorry, but just throwing the ball away when it isn't there isn't advanced quaterbacking. It is QB 101. Which a senior, three-year starter should have under their belt at this point. 

jfk

September 23rd, 2012 at 5:08 PM ^

No doubt Denard's been coached up about taking care of the ball; he just made awful, awful decisions and poor throws.  Coaches can only do so much, at some point it's on the players to put into practice what they get taught and harped on in practice for.

 

When they were executing the game plan, we drove 60, 70 yards.  We just kept DERPing in the redzone.

umchicago

September 23rd, 2012 at 5:29 PM ^

i really can't think of any play where Denard has just thrown the ball away when he's pressured.  i find it hard to believe that they drill that into him in practice only to see him never do it in a game.  it's possible but i doubt its' "stressed" in practice.

FrankMurphy

September 23rd, 2012 at 8:00 PM ^

Do you really think that any QB coach or offensive coordinator worth his salt doesn't try to drill into his QB to throw the ball away when the pocket collapses and no one is open? Do you think that any coach can make it to this level without appreciating the importance of such a fundamental concept and emphasizing it to his QB?

EGD

September 23rd, 2012 at 2:24 PM ^

The thing about halfback passes is, when they work you are a genius, and when they don't you are an idiot.  

Of course, if we'd run a more conventional play and turned the ball over, then the ESPN people would be saying, "That gameplan was way too vanilla.  When your QB is struggling in the red zone, that's when you need to get creative or run a trick play to change things up..."  

IMO, it was a reasonable call.  Whatever.

greenphoenix

September 23rd, 2012 at 2:26 PM ^

He called a good game, but he was outmanned and Notre Dame's Defensive Coordinator pitched an almost perfect game. I think that UFR will show that Notre Dame took advantage of their talent edge and identified the key weaknesses of this offense. Someone referred to Notre Dame as "Alabama Light" and I totally saw that. Their linebackers are just unbelieveable.

trueblueintexas

September 23rd, 2012 at 2:26 PM ^

Wait untill UFR. I would bet the RPS score is almost as bad as Denard's passing chart score. You can't run roll outs into outside pressure and not expect throws into coverage. The QB has absolutely no time to make a decision that will not lead to something bad happening.

OMG Shirtless

September 23rd, 2012 at 2:37 PM ^

The person who compiles the UFR is one of the most biased people in the Borges/Denard discussion and RPS is the most subjective/least quantifiable (thanks David from Wyoming, this is what I was looking for) measure on the UFR.  There is nothing wrong with that and the UFR is interesting to read, but relying on the UFR to determine who deserves the blame is foolish.   

greenphoenix

September 23rd, 2012 at 3:19 PM ^

I've accused Brian of bias in the past, but at least with UFR you have something tangible to look at to examine or dismiss that bias.

Look, let me give it to you this way: I assert that Notre Dame absolutely whipped our asses in that football game, and not because of the turnovers. The score doesn't show it, and the yards don't show it. But if I'm right, the game plan, as expressed by scheme, and the matchups are easier to see when you do charting than when you just talk about the game. Brian does the charting. FOR FREE.

If you just skip to his scoring summary, you're basically taking Brian's word for it. But you can also go through it play by play and have the conversation with Brian as he describes what he sees. Sometimes you agree, sometimes you don't. But there's nothing of comparable quality, detail, or insight in college football.

trueblueintexas

September 24th, 2012 at 3:26 PM ^

Trying to find one source to place the blame for a loss is more foolish than arguing the subjectivity of one man's review of the game (i.e. a UFR, or anyone else's opinion on this board, yes, even those with a football background).

My comment was simply stating that my opinion was that Borges made some poor choices as well as Denard.  I also was stating that Brian may have the same opinion after reviewing each play in more painstaking detail than I ever will. We will have to wait to see.

Glad you got so insightful about it.

Naked Bootlegger

September 23rd, 2012 at 3:36 PM ^

It's obvious that everyone thinks the following:

(1)  Denard should've rolled out on all of his drop-back pocket passes.

(2)  Denard should've stayed in the pocket every time he rolled out.

Victory would have been ours if these rules had been followed.  Yesterday's turnover debacle was clearly Borges' fault, except on the following plays:

(1) When it was Denard's fault for a bad read or throwing into double coverage with no WR in the area;

(2) When it was the OL's fault for not blocking well enough;

(3)  When it was the WR's fault for not running the correct, or crisper, routes;

I think that covers it all.

 

 

StraightDave

September 23rd, 2012 at 2:37 PM ^

trying to make DRob a pocket passer bullshit.  Get him out in open space and cut him loose.   Roll him out on every pass and stop the Tom Brady shit.   

Better yet:   Move Gardner to QB and DRob to slot or TB.  That way Al can really get Robinson ready for the NFL.

lhglrkwg

September 23rd, 2012 at 2:43 PM ^

Denard was a good pocket passer for most of the game except for when he threw those 3 or 4 consecutive picks. Borges had a good game plan. It would've freakin won us the game if we hadn't turned the ball over a million times