A call for calm / reasons for hope

Submitted by michgoblue on

Watching our beloved Wolverines suffer yet another frustrating loss to a team that is not all that good, while our offense continues to look inept for large stretches of time, has been incfedibly frustrating and tough on the fanbase.  That this is the 6th out of 7 years in which Michigan has really struggled (Lloyd's final season, all of Rich Rod's, all of Hoke other than 2011), has left us all depressed, angry, frustrated and pretty much emotionally fatigued with respect to Michigan football.  The emo / ennui has permeated this board, and even (especially) the front page content.  All of it is justified.

That said, with our biggest rival (are they still a rival when we never beat them?  Do they consider us a rival, or is it more like our rivalry with MSU pre-2008?  Oh, wait, positive post, sorry) coming into town this Saturday for what is always my favorite day of the year, I was hoping to generate some discussion on reasons for optimism, with a healthy side dose of reasons that we might not be too bad off if the coaching staff remains intact. 

I am sure that some of these will be met with disagreement, which is fine, but my hope is that we can try to keep a civil, high-level discounse on these topics, instead of the usual "Al Borges are fat" stuff.  Here goes:

1.  Let's start with the defense.  They have faded down the stretch a few times, but this unit is well above average, trending towards solidly good.  Now look at the roster?  Which real contributor do we lose?  I count all of nobody.  Avery hasn't been a significant contributor, and one of the up and comers may even be an improvement at his position.  As for QWash ans Black, both have been very good, but we get back Pipkins.  Also, Henry has really come on.  I am really excited to see him after another full camp.  Also, there doesn't seem to be any concerns about coaching on this side of the ball. So, we have a young defense that returns just about everyone, with another full offseason / camp under great coaching, next year.  Add in Peppers and some of the young guys for depth, and this unit should be anywhere from VERY GOOD to DOMINANT. 

Quick aside to address the only concern that I have heard about the D, which is that they have feded down the stretch.  That tends to happen a lot with younger teams.  Sure, coaches shouldn't allow it and all that, but it happens.  Younger units tend to be (1) more erratic, (2) prone to busts on a play to play basis, and (3) tend to collapses down the stretch.  Also, hard to fault them when they get stop after stop after stop and the offense just keeps shooting itself in the foot and giving the ball right back.  That would demoralize any unit, especially a young one.

2.  The offense.  I know, worse offensive output since ever.  Incompetent play-calling.  Lack of improvement.  Hard to dispute those concerns, but let me try.  First, a QB and a RB are only as good as their offensive line.  You could have Tom Brady at QB this season, and if he doesn't have 3-5 seconds to go through his 7-step drops, his reads and his progressions, it won't matter.  Tom Brady or Peyton Manning can't do anything at QB when there are defenders in their face before they complete their drop.  While Devin has been a disappointment this year, this whole season is almost a useless data point on him, given the state of the blocking.  The only conclusion to draw with respect to Devin is that he is not a very good QB in the situation where his line, RB and TE can't block for him.  That's it.  We have no knowledge from this season as to how he will do when he is put in a situation in which he can actually play QB as opposed to looking like a kid running from "it" playing tag.  I think that the better data point is last season and the beginning of this season when we actually did have some blocking.  In those situations, he looked damn good.  So, if we can get any blocking going for him, I still think that Devin is going to be damn good.

Same goes for the RB production.  I will say that Fitz has been terrible this year in two regards;  he can't block for shit and he falls backwards.  That said, since dropping a few pounds, #1 RB in the 2013 recruiting class Derrick Green has looked very good, even with our craptastic line.  For 2 straight games, he has shown an ability to get north/south and fall forward on contact.  Remember that this is a kid who missed much of camp with some injuries and who came in overweight.  I am absolutely psyched to see this kid next season after a full offseason in a college S&C program and then a summer camp.  He is going to be special, in my opinion.  Also, don't write off Mr. Leg Churn Smith.  Offseason S&C, summer camp - he is going to be damn good, as well.

How about TE?  I almost don't include Funch here, but Jake Butt has looked very good this season, despite being way underweight and a true freshman (as a position that is notoriously difficult for freshmen to play).  Offseason S&C and another full camp - I expect a very solid to good season from Butt.  When we line up Funch as a TE in a 2-TE set, we will have some serious match-up problems for defenses next season. 

WR - hard to be optimistic about losing our #1 WR, but I actually am.  We should get Darboh back next season.  His camp buzz was pretty high last season.  If he returns to full strength, he could be very good.  Also, Chesson is still raw, but he has steadily improved throughout the season.  Exactly the type of player who could make a jump with a full offseason and camp (I know, common theme, but we are a really young team).  Between these two, Funchess and some of the young kids, I think that our receiving corps will actually be fine next season.

OK, I saved OL for last because it obviously is the biggest problem for our team.  We knew coming in that this was going to be a rough spot for the team.  Without assigning blame, RR taking all of 4 guys over 2 seasons, one of whom never played, followed by the "process" 2011 class, this position was a gaping crater when Hoke arrived.  When he came in, it was an area that he immediately addressed through recruiting, but the fact is that recruiting addressed the problem 3-4 years down the road.  For 2012, 2013 and even 2014 to some extent, this position was doomed before Hoke walked in the door, and there is simply nothing that can be done about it. 

With that as a backdrop, let's look at next year's line.  Mags, Glasgow and Kalis are all logging plenty of PT.  While they aren't playing well, I attribute that more to lack of experience than anything else. The tools are there.  If they all put on the requisite good weight this offseason (especially Mags), and work on improving their chemistry as a unit, they should all be serviceable.  As for the tackles, at the beginning of the season, I would have said that losing Lewan and Schofield was be insurmountable, neither has been particularly good this season.  Yes, Lewan will be a loss, but he has been far from what he was last year.  Also, I will not miss the 1-2 stupid penalties that get almost every week.  On balance, I expect that our line will continue to struggle at times, but that we will stabilize such that we will at least give our playmakes time to work, and will actually improve by next season.  Hell, I know that this is not a popular opinion, but I think that the line has actually improved over the padt two weeks.  The offense is far from there, but there were numerous plays against Iowa where Devin had time in the pocket.  Also, while I am still not overly optimistic for next season, after that I expect the line and the offense with it to really take off.  2015 will return the entire depth chart from 2014.  That's Wisconsin level line continuity.

Finally, coaching.  I know, we all hate Borges arouns here, and I will convince nobody, but I offer the following:

1.  The offense has sucked this season, with the aforementioned OL issues.  What does this tell us about Borges?  That he is not a good OC with a shit terrible OL.  That's all.  It doesn't tell us how he would do with a good line.  Maybe he is just not good at sealing with this particular type of situation, but he is excellent with a fully-functioning offense?  Maybe not.  They point is that being bad in one situation does not necessarily translate into being bad at everything.  Mitch McGary is a terrible FT shooter.  Does that mean that he is a bad shooter from the top of the key?  Or from the paint?  Remember that Al was the OC during our very successful 2011 season?  Sure,the players were RR's players, but who was calling the plays?  Al, and they worked just fine.  Shows that he can be very good given a halfway decent OL. 

2.  Transitions suck.  I know that many have discounted this, but this really is our first season running the offense that we will ultimately run.  When Denard was here, we run pretty much a RR spread with only a sprinkling of pro-style concepts.  There should be a 2nd year jump for the offense next season.

3.  Other coaches struggle in their third year.  When a coach is fired, it tends to be that his seat was hot for a while, and his late-tenure recruiting was bad.  RR's seat was hot from day 1, and his last season or two of recruiting was a complete mess.  Who care's why, it just was.  When a new coach comes in, their 3rd year team is made up primarily of the last coach's prior two classes.  As RR's last classes were disasters, and the 2011 class that followed was sacrificed to Brandon's "process," Hoke is really in the difficult position of a "bare cupboard across the board.  This third year was always going to be a struggle as the Late Lloyd / early RR recruits graduated over the past season, and their replacements are almost entirely young kids or low-ranked, different system oriented RR recruits.  This should work its way through over the next 2 seasons, such that next season will be better and by 2015 we will be "fully stocked."  One analogous situation:  MSU was 6-7 in Dantonio's 3rd season.  Hoke is currently 7-4.  Where would MSU be if they had prematurely canned Dantonio or either of his coordinators?

Sorry for the length of this post.  Discuss.

PeteM

November 25th, 2013 at 12:30 PM ^

I do think that Devin will be fine if he gets protection.  My question -- are Michigan's depth/experience issues at O line so severe that we are really worse than Illinois, Penn State and Indiana -- who are all teams ahead of us in rushing offense.  The only teams to have given up more sacks than us are Northwestern and Purdue -- every other team has more talented/experience blockers?

jmblue

November 25th, 2013 at 12:49 PM ^

That said, with our biggest rival (are they still a rival when we never beat them?
Call me crazy, but I could have sworn we beat OSU in 2011.

Vasav

November 25th, 2013 at 12:51 PM ^

I am concerned with the offensive regression we saw in 2012, but chalked it up to "fusion cuisine." As disappointing as this season is, we did know our O line would struggle - we just hoped our beastly tackles could mask that.

But now we know Borges isn't good at fusion or dealing with very raw talent. But there is talent. Next year is huge for this coaching staff, and so is this weekend. Our D is on the cusp of greatness, and our O has the tools to be good. I hope and believe we can see the start if something beautiful this Saturday. GO BLUE!

readyourguard

November 25th, 2013 at 12:55 PM ^

I'd rather read this than the endless "Borges sucks" threads. iMO, I think we should go to a Two QB system next year with Gardner and Morris. It'll get Morris valuable time while giving Devin a break.

BoWoody

November 25th, 2013 at 1:06 PM ^

For next year, I would go Morris qb and devin another receiver, there is no hope that devin will get drafted as a qb, best case scenerio is he goes WR and get drafted from there.  Morris will be sophmore and I hope big AL can develop him into somewhat accurate passer, limit the play book and play to his strength surrounding him with lots of playmakers.

DowntownLJB

November 25th, 2013 at 1:00 PM ^

i did a quick list in my head when i read your premise before i read your analysis and you mentioned most of my thoughts.  given the opportunities for playing time that much of our young OL has gotten this season, while they'll still be young next year, at least they will have experience.  and they really have been in nearly every game, and mounted some good comebacks in some tough conditions.  still a long way from learning how to win in the close ones necessarily, but they're staying in games and seem to be staying together much better than the fanbase is.  

jackw8542

November 25th, 2013 at 1:04 PM ^

All year, Borges has seen what the players can and cannot do.  Apart from trying to help players cure deficiencies, a coach is supposed to try to take advantage of strengths and hide weaknesses.  He does not do that.  He also does not even try things that could address some of the problems.  Just as an example, he saw how effective it was for Indiana to run its plays very quickly.  One thing that running plays quickly does is minimize the opponent's time to change personnel and figure out what the offense is going to do.  He has been told that our opponents know our plays from our personnel and formation.  Has he tried at any time to assemble a string of plays and go no-huddle so the other team would not be able to substitute and get snaps off very quickly so they would not have so much time to decipher our next play?  Not only has he not tried to see if something like that would work, this past weekend, it seemed as if half the time the team was not even back to the line of scrimmage until there were only 7 or 8 seconds on the play clock.  He does nothing to try to help address issues, hide weaknesses or take advantage of strengths.

michgoblue

November 25th, 2013 at 2:36 PM ^

Here's one of the problems with what you are suggesting:  It is not the offense that Borges wants to run long term.  So, while many on this blog love the spread, the pistol, the option attack, the hurry-up no huddel, whatever, that's not where the coaches want to go.  Could doing so work in the short term to cover up some of our deficiencies?  I think that it is debatable, at best, but even if we could get some incrimental benefit from running some non-Borges offense in the short term, we are further putting off the transition to where we want to be, so we will remain in flux.  At some point, you just have to get the transition over with, take the pain of doing so, and be done with it. 

hfhmilkman

November 25th, 2013 at 1:11 PM ^

A common thread is Michigan is young, when Borges has his players the offense will improve.  Unfortunately if you look at Borges body of work his best work was with other staff's players.  In his most succesful years a legacy staff had identified and recruited quality players and they performed well under Borges watch.   When skill players were recruited under Borges watch the offense underperformed.  What we are witnessing is no different then what happened at UCLA and Auburn.  There is a big initial jump in offensive productivity and then it decays until Borges is fired.

So the question to the Borges backers, why do you believe something different is going to happen?  I propose a counter argument.  Borges may be a savy X/O guy.   But perhaps he is not a good teacher of the fundamentals.  Understood that it is the position coaches job to teach the basic technique, but it is all done in the context of what Borges wants to do.  This could be an explaination of the initial success at UCLA and Auburn followed by failure.  Do we just have Charlie Weis 2.0?  That was my concern 3 years ago.

Chunks the Hobo

November 25th, 2013 at 1:14 PM ^

I may be in the minority, but I don't read every single thing ever written on MGoBlog, so I appreciated this calm, reasoned post giving reasons not to panic and jump off the nearest tall building.

That said, even though I tend to reserve judgment as someone who doesn't know much about how to strategerize and play the fooballs, I do think historically awful offense was not necessarily in the cards even given the current deficiencies in talent and experience at key spots. Conclusion: Replacing Borges at the end of the season, assuming there's someone better out there, is probably the prudent course.

michgoblue

November 25th, 2013 at 2:30 PM ^

Thanks.  The thing with resplacing Borges is that a change in OC could have benefits, but it will almost certainly have negatives. 

The biggest negative, to me, is that we might be transitioning to a whole new offensive system.  Sure, Brady is not going to hire a spread guy, so it will still be a MANBALL proponent, but there are so many MANBALL philosophies out there.  So, we will have our offense once again learning a new system (as it did in 2011 to some extent and again this season).  As we are seeing, moving to a new system takes time and is not smooth. 

So, even if Borges is . . . let's just say "non-ideal" . . . we need to see if the potential benefit of replacing him is worth accepting the risks of a new hire.  Also, we have to replace him with sobebody. not just a fantasy "great OC".  Who are we getting?  If we can get the OC from Stanford, I could see making the move.  That guy has that program running well and doing it in a MANBALL way that Hoke would accept.  But other than him, are there any obvious names out there that would be interested?

Chunks the Hobo

November 25th, 2013 at 3:10 PM ^

I don't really disagree with you; I'd slide all of what you said under my qualified "assuming there is someone better" clause, albeit there would have to be some definition of what consituted "better," of course.

My choice for interim OC? LEE ROY JENKINS!!!!

Sten Carlson

November 25th, 2013 at 3:03 PM ^

There is only one thing that is going to quiet down the Michigan fanbase (especially in here) at this point, and it is Brandon, Hoke, and Borges to come out and give us a candid explanation for what is wrong, how it got there, and the solution.  The problem is: 1) this will NEVER happen; and 2) many in here wouldn't believe them if they told us anyway.

Michigan football is suffering through a poor harvest whose seeds were sown a long time ago -- well before Hoke took over the helm.  The roster and its limitations aren't the only problem, but they are at the root of pretty much everything that ails the Michigan program.  Do I think that Borges' decision making is suspect?  Yes, I do.  Do I think that there is some magic playbook that would make Michigan even an average offense?  No, I do not.  The issues are fundamentally related to the lack of depth and experience at the OL

As I have detailed in other posts, 62% of the players on the roster are in either 1st or 2nd year players, and barring atrittion on the (which there is bound to be some) in 2016 Michigan's OL will have 11 players in their 4th & 5th year in the program.  I know guys don't want to wait until 2016, and I am not saying that we will have to wait that long to see improvement.  What I am saying is that seeds the seed sown in '09, '10, and '11 are what are producing this bitter harvest.  One can shit can that idea all they want, but it is the reality of college football cycles.

Things are dark, but they're always darkest before the dawn.  The young guys that are the issue got a lot of very valuable experience this season that will pay off in the long run.

Cold War

November 25th, 2013 at 3:33 PM ^

There is only one thing that is going to quiet down the Michigan fanbase (especially in here) at this point, and it is Brandon, Hoke, and Borges to come out and give us a candid explanation

for what is wrong, A good deal of inexperience in the interior of the offensive line along with a transition to an offense some of the players, including the quarterback, weren't recruited for and don't particularly fit.

how it got there, RichRod

and the solution. Time

PurpleStuff

November 25th, 2013 at 4:04 PM ^

The last guy here didn't inherit a QB at all.  So he recruited one, and that guy was the conference player of the year in that coach's 3rd year.  How did this staff solve that (alleged) roster weakness?  Signing Russell Bellomy in 2011 and not signing a QB in 2012.  One 4-star QB in 3+ recruiting classes has been brought in.  All our eggs are in the Shane Morris basket and there is no one on the roster capable of helping the team now.

He also needed to fill holes on the offensive line.  So he signed guys like Patrick Omameh (solid starter in year three) and Taylor Lewan (freshman All-American) to supplement the two talented guys (Molk and Schilling) he inherited (just like Hoke did with Lewan and Schofield).  Where are the corresponding players in Coach Hoke's 2+ recruiting classes on campus? 

And presumably they need "their" running back to run "their" offensive system.  So they signed unheralded Thomas Rawls in 2011 (vanished into the depth chart abyss), signed unheralded Drake Johnson in 2012, signed Green/Smith in 2013 (neither look like superstars, despite one's lofty ranking), and don't have a RB in their 2014 class.  Once again, all our eggs are in one basket.

They have signed one talented WR, and spent 17 games trying to get him to block big guys instead of throwing him the ball.

Time is not a solution to substandard recruiting across the board on the offensive side of the ball.  I'm just curious what the excuse will be next year.

 

Monocle Smile

November 25th, 2013 at 3:40 PM ^

Gardner is worse next year and we rush for even more negative yardage, will you find a way to absolve the coaches of all wrongdoing and still blame Rich Rod? And the year after that? And the year after that? And the year after that? And when we suck in 2025, will you still blame Rich Rod's poor recruiting?

Funny, the previous regime NEVER got this benefit of the doubt. Everything was Rich Rod's fault during AND after his tenure, and maybe even a bit before, according to you wankers. Nothing will ever not be his fault.

Sten Carlson

November 25th, 2013 at 4:59 PM ^

First of all, I tried repeatedly to give RR's regime the exact same benefit if the doubt because the roster issues were even worse -- remember the 20+ scholarship athlete deficit? -- but people told me I was crazy. Further, I think RR was mistreated, and the plug was pulled on him prematurely, and that decision is a factor in Michigan's current struggles. RR's influence over the current state of Michigan's program diminishes every year, and will not be fully eliminated until all of his recruits are gone. That point, however, is difficult to determine because the '11 class was part RR's, part Hoke's. So, the last of the 100% RR OL recruits -- Burzynski and Mateus (who?) -- are RS JRs today, and will be done after the '14 season. Neither of those two have made any contribution to the OL, and I don't expect them to in '14. The OLinemen from that '11 class -- Miller, Bryant, and Glasgow -- are RS SOs today, and barring injury or something, will be on the roster through 2015. I am not tying to imply that all RR OL recruits are toxic or worthless, only that there are so few of them. Throw in Lewan, Schofield, and Samuelson (who?) and that 5 OLinemen in their 4th or 5th year, and only 2 of them have contributed anything -- that is just not the kind of depth that produces good OL results. Again, contrast that with the 2016 season where there will be 11 4th or 5th year OLinemen -- more than double today's number. To your question, if the offense struggles as badly again, I'll be shocked and will most certainly be there with you guys concerning the coaching issues. I've said this before that OL pressed into starting as "default" starters or before they're ready due to lack of depth often times don't seem to progress and even to regress. This is easy to see in any sport at any level. They're thinking too much, they're physically not able to control their opponent, and they likely lose confidence due to repeated failures. Coaching, in those instances, revolves around a consistent message, and maintaining attitude and confidence as much as possible. It is in the offseason where the most improvement is made as this is when they can draw on their experiences of the past season without the necessity to perform. They can take an objective look at their skills and develop them in isolation. They will have a greater understanding of the playbook, and they'll have more time with S&C. I think we'll see significant improvement across the board on the OL. As far as DG goes, I think this season was his Sophomore Slump, even though he's a RS JR he is still a 2nd year (partially) starter. I think he tired to do too much, got very little help from his OL, and lost his confidence due to INT's and sacks. Everything I said above concerning the improvement of the OL will likely be the case with DG a well. Failure is a very powerful and useful tool if use properly and kept in perspective.