Lloyd Carr coached every game like he had a fantastic running game and great defense. He usually had an okay running game and a good defense, so this caught up to him from time to time. When Jim Tressel arrived and showed the men of manball what manball really was, Michigan's downward spiral began. In time, Tresselball would come to signify the exact same thing Lloydball did except without the oh and we lose the most important game of the year every time.
I grew to hate Lloydball.
The moment I threw in the towel is crystal clear in my memory, and by this point probably many longtime readers: punting from the opponent 34 against Ohio State in 2005. It was fourth and four. The clock read 4:18. Michigan had a two point lead. They'd recently had a nine point lead, but OSU ripped off a five-play touchdown drive in under a minute to change that. Michigan's defense had faced four do-or-die drives* already that year and failed on all of them. Faced with third and eleven, Michigan threw a screen to Antonio Bass for seven yards. They punted out of a field goal formation, which was so obvious to Tressel that they put a guy back there to field it. He would have had a shot at a touchdown if the punt hadn't exited the field at the twelve.
Just minutes before—literally in the same quarter—Lloyd had taken his frenzied quarterback's advice and gone for a QB sneak on fourth and one on his own 40. This caused everyone in the stadium to pick a partner with whom to share an incredulous look. This was not the way things went. The fourth down was successful; one bomb to Manningham later Michigan had staked itself to a two-score lead. That only made the knife cut deeper when in the moment of truth Carr reverted to form.
Michigan punted once Saturday.
I'm not sure if it's football in general that has shifted or if it's just Brady Hoke, but when Michigan had a fourth and two around the same area on Saturday, eyebrows were only slightly cocked when Michigan went for it. While Michigan was down 10-0, this was still the third quarter.
Lloyd wouldn't have even thought about it if his defense had given up 139 yards to that point. But he wouldn't have been down 10-0 in the first place. He would have squinted at his quarterback, wondered where the six-six artillery piece had gotten to, shrugged, and told his offensive coordinator to thud out a ten-point win based on Michigan's superior ground game. Only he would have had that faith, because he always had that faith.
But it was true. Take out a knee and ND averaged 3.2 yards a carry. Take out three sacks and a bad snap for Michigan and they averaged 5.1. That's a cavernous gap, one that a dinosaur coach would have driven through to a boring, field-goal-heavy victory.
Instead, we got several more entries in our database of what happens when Denard Robinson gets unblocked rushers in his face.
Is it good? No. Does it make any sense at all to run play action from under center on passing downs? No. Is it ever going to stop? No.
Well, maybe. Michigan did not throw a pass before third down on their two grinding second-half drives before the hurry-up was called for. Do that for the next eight games and run play action off plays you actually run and then Denard might get back to the things he was doing in an offense that was not trying to jam him into a hole he clearly does not fit. I thought maybe we'd learned that lesson after Iowa, but apparently not.
When stressed, people making decisions find it very hard to move away from habit. Everyone reverts to their comfort zone unless they are making a concerted effort to get away from it. Even then, you fall back into old patterns. Lloyd punted. Rodriguez installed a 3-3-5 defense. Borges starts calling plays from a long-ago offense helmed by a guy who was a better passer than runner. Denard throws the ball somewhere, anywhere.
Over the bye week, Michigan will refocus on what they're good at. This will get them through some games. They'll get comfortable with this, think they can install more stuff, and we'll get another Iowa, one they might pull out since the defense might be good and the Big Ten is definitely bad. And Denard will soldier through it, taking barbs from people who don't realize he could be in his first of two years at Oregon now, doing what he was born to.
He's not. He's doing this. This is "this": Al Borges has been Michigan's offensive coordinator for 17 games now. Five were against non-BCS opponents. A sixth was against Alabama and will be set aside. Of the remaining eleven, five were out-and-out debacles: both Notre Dame games, MSU, Iowa, and the Sugar Bowl. That Junior Hemingway rescued two of those doesn't change the fact that in about half of Michigan's games against real competition, the combination of Borges and Denard can't put up 200 yards until bombed out of the gameplan by events on the field.
You can blame Denard if you want. Sure, that happened in 2010, when Denard was a true sophomore and the second-leading rusher was Vincent Smith. I'm more concerned about the guy who isn't gone after this year, the offensive coordinator who vows to never work with a quarterbacks coach again and can't stand it when anyone dares to scream "RUN THE GODDAMN BALL" at him over and over and over and over and over, except whatever the press conference version of that is. Asking about bubble screens and stuff.
One day Borges will have a shining golden hammer of a quarterback, six-four, carved from marble, jawline for days. This man will coolly survey the field after faking a handoff to a two-hundred-thirty-pound bowling ball with knives sticking out of it. No one will run up in his face, because they are afraid the bowling ball has it. He will throw it to another six-foot-four man, this one long and graceful, built for escaping packs of hunters. This will be a good day. Nails are so dead.
Until then, here's to running, punting, and humility.
[Wisconsin: 52 yard, 11 play, four minute TD drive to win. Minnesota: eight play, 75-yard FG drive to win. Penn State: 13 play, 81-yard drive to wi—OH MY GOD MANNINGHAM. Iowa: 9 play, 74-yard FG drive to tie; Ferentz played for OT once in FG range, because he is Ferentz.]
All the INTs:
Bullets Yes More Bullets In The Head Please
Sanity check. I know I may not be entirely reliable on this matter, but stuff coming through my twitter feed from the folks I respect most as college football observers helped me think this was not just a mania. Smart Football:
Nice call Borges. Denard struggling? Let's run some kind naked waggle pass from under center where we let Denard throw vs unblocked DEnd
An Al Borges cooking show would be great if you like seeing someone throw everything into a blender even if it makes no sense at all.
Blaming it on "execution" is horseshit, plain and simple. When the offensive coordinator flat-out refuses to take free yards on the outside and has not once used the devastating play action on which Denard is moving towards the line scrimmage before throwing, it is on his shoulders for not using the tools he has in the way they are most effective.
A third of the way through the ND game, Michigan had run Robinson three times. Instead Michigan threw the ball all the time against a rampant DL. The first INT was a running back in the redzone. On the second, Michigan rolled the pocket and told a redshirt freshman fullback to block Prince Shembo. On the third an unblocked Te'o roars straight up the pocket. On the fourth he ran a waggle on second and seven, which got an unblocked Tuitt in Denard's face after having thrown INTs on back to back passes.
This is a consistent theme. They go into games doing something other than making their running QB a runner, and then are surprised when it goes poorly. They have the guy turn his back to the line of scrimmage and are surprised when 1) opposing defenses prioritize getting a guy out on him and 2) he reacts poorly. The exception was last year's OSU game, during which Denard threw all of 17 times.
Robinson failed, sure, but he was put in a position to do so by a guy who puts three tight ends on the field on second and goal from the twelve yard line and fools no one with the subsequent play action. Coaches have to execute too. Borges's gameplan was a disaster, again.
Come on Denard. Let's ask Peyton Manning to be Pat White stuff aside, at some point you've got to just eat the ball, or not throw it at a guy so covered you're trying to throw it through the chest of not one but two opponents. That first Te'o interception was probably the worst throw of Denard's career; if one of the two guys underneath it didn't get it a safety in coverage on the corner had a shot at a PBU.
I bet a dollar that someone else was open on that play.
The fumble was the real killer, though. Michigan has just taken their first drive of the half 71 yards and Denard has just made it first and ten at the ND 11, boom ball out drive over everyone thinks of 2010 when Michigan put up scads of yards and usually had ten points to show for it. Down two scores and suddenly running all the time, Michigan really needed that drive to pay off.
Blame Gardner? Some people on the twitter and then Ace suggested that the slant INT was on Gardner instead of Robinson. I don't think that's the case. It looked to me like he ran a fine route and was open and Robinson just missed.
When to go for high risk trick plays. When there is a payoff commensurate with the risk. The Gardner pass is fine. You've got a play that is potentially 70-some yards if everything goes well. The Smith pass gives you at most ten and is less likely to get a guy wide open just because there's far less space. Last year's Smith TD pass was 30 yards out, which gives the WR room to break past the safeties and the RB room to throw it long. Doing that in a constricted space is asking for it when Manti Te'o is raging his way into a running back's face.
The only time I can recall Michigan running a trick play like that inside the red zone was during the 2007 Illinois game when both teams were actively conspiring to lose. With Henne shuttling in and out of the game and Mallett insane, trying the Arrington end-around pass after a muffed punt was a defensible decision. At the end of an 11-play, 78-yard drive maybe not so much.
What is this huddling business again? There's a case that you shouldn't be doing it at all; not only is huddling a useless anachronism but going away from it locks defensive personnel on the field and gives you easier looks as the opponent struggles to keep up. See Oregon, of course.
But even if you're intent on huddling the time to do so has passed when you're down two scores with 6:46 left. There's something to be said for the idea that an offense should be using tempo as much as possible so that in situations like that they are naturals at it. It's a lot easier to slow down than speed up.
Anyway, I had bad flashbacks to that Iowa game as Michigan took 3:19 and used a timeout on their last drive.
OTOH, didn't mind the end of the first half playcalling since in that situation you're worried about giving ND a possession they can use and you've just thrown interceptions on three straight plays. Why throw a Hail Mary with 16 seconds left, though? And what was Roundtree even doing there?
Defense! Woo defense! Also filed under "if you told me before the game…" with "Michigan would punt once": "Notre Dame would have under 200 yards of offense with three minutes to go." Before Floyd stumbled on that third down bomb to Eifert, Michigan had held two ND QBs to 5.6 YPA and two interceptions, with the only completion over twenty yards another tough fade on the sideline.
From way up in the stands I had a great view of the routes developing and nobody was open basically all day. Combine that with Quinton Washington problems like "is not tackling when he bursts into the backfield on three consecutive plays" and you have a soothing balm to apply as you look forward to the rest of the season. I'm actually eager to get to the UFRing just so I can see how the guys on D did. Live I saw Ryan make plays, Campbell make plays, Washington make plays, and that allowed the linebackers to flow freely, with the 3.1 YPC results mentioned above. Kenny Demens looks a lot better when he's not trying to fight off two different blockers on the same play.
If Washington can translate those plays against UMass and Mattison hype into an impact day on the interior line against a real opponent, Michigan's biggest question that isn't "how will Denard fail to be Peyton Manning this time" is a lot closer to resolution.
Potential caveat: ND's interior OL may not be very good. They got annihilated by Purdue (Riddick: 53 yards on 15 carries, five sacks on Golson, two by Kawann Short) and ND didn't do much against MSU that wasn't deception (counter draw) or Wood getting cutbacks similar to the one he busted for ND's only big run of the day.
Caveat caveat: "only big run of the day." The shot above is Michigan corralling the play I started calling "That Goddamned Counter Draw" after DeAndra Cobb staked MSU to the lead they'd give up during Braylonfest. I call it TGDCD because Michigan has never stopped the thing (except once, I think). They did it up there.
Brady Hoke Epic Double Point of the Week. I have no idea yet, but it's obviously someone on defense. There is a weird lack of stats for such a dominating performance, with no sacks and just two TFLs, one for Kovacs, another split by Morgan and Washington.
For now, Jake Ryan gets the nod for most impactful-seeming impactfulness, but I reserve the right to switch this to Kovacs or Washington pending review.
Freshman linebackers. They're basically co-starters at this point. I'm still nervous about them but if the D continues to perform like that in the Big Ten season, expectations for that crew will be enormous next year with four-ish returning starters, all of whom will still be around in 2014.
Demens did rotate in during the second half. He was in on six tackles, Morgan seven. Ross had one and Bolden did not register. IIRC Demens was the preferred option on passing downs, which makes sense since zone drops are often a struggle with young linebackers.
Norfleet. Please do not jump like that again. The air up there is dangerously low on oxygen and people are trying to kill you. Stay low, where you are under the radar and can execute deep infiltration missions.
ND future. I wouldn't get too worried about a full-on return to glory. If that interior OL is what it seems to be and they're flipping between Rees and Golson against the rest of their schedule, they'll drop some games. They'll still probably get that BCS bid so they can get stomped on by someone a lot better.
Funchess. Didn't really have much impact; I'll pick up the Mandich thing the next time he takes a significant step towards it. Did feature in this picture:
In the week preceding this game, some random internet poster guy asked what was the worst performance you’ve seen by a QB. I ran screaming from that post, but couldn’t escape the images of Demetrious Brown throwing seven interceptions – SEVEN INTERCEPTIONS!!! - in a game against MSU many years ago.
WHY DID YOU DO IT RANDOM INTERNET POSTER GUY, WHYYYYYY
When I was 16 and learning how to drive, my Dad, trying his best to impart some constructive criticism without being overly harsh, said, “ST3, your driving lacks a certain smoothness.” I think it’s wonderful how Devin Gardner has moved over to WR to help the team, but at this point in his career, I think his route running lacks a certain smoothness.
The results of this game and a record of 2-2 are not indicative of the abilities of this team, and it would do every Michigan fan good to forget about what has happened and to concentrate instead on what can be accomplished in the BIG. I rest easier after seeing the O and D-lines gel and play very well. Denard will bounce back.
The rest of the BIG continues to look shaky, to say the least, and Michigan should be licking their chops against the likes of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and I dare say Michigan St at this point. Ohio has obvious problems as well, letting UAB run wild on them. Michigan should have distinct talent advantages against Northwestern and Purdue.
It’s well known that the media is prohibited from cheering in the press box but it’s not just a collection of writers upstairs at Notre Dame. After Denard connected with Gardner on a third down conversion in the first half some dude belted out, “DAMN IT!”. When Denard took off on a run later in the game, I heard, “GET ‘EM!”. And so on. I’m actually glad this happened because it created some much needed lighter moments on the glass.
The group sat in the family and friends section of Notre Dame Stadium. Steve wore his best friend’s varsity jacket. The two girls wore “Shoelace” and another Robinson-themed shirt.
This section is different. Here, the hits sound louder. The mistakes sting more.
From here, you can reach out and touch the bass drums in the Michigan band. When a Notre Dame wide receiver was open on the goal line, the parents shouted and pointed, so Thomas Gordon bumped over and covered.
Robinson’s supporters sat in the fifth row, tucked in between friends and family of freshman linebacker James Ross III and the family of fifth-year senior J.T. Floyd.
Robinson’s parents come to games “very rarely, very rarely,” J.T.’s father, James, said. Normally the Robinson clan gathers in Robinson’s grandmother’s house in Deerfield Beach, Fla. around a television.
“Every Saturday,” Durrel said. “Everybody (goes). I can’t even tell you who don’t go.”
I was amazed how JC would throw the ball away at the drop of a hat. He preferred losing the game to hurting his passing stats, and I am not sure Coach Charlie disagreed with him. Whatever his flaws, Denard does what he does because he wants the team to win. I hope he learns in his final year that throwing it away (or bolting!) sometimes helps the team more than attempting impossible passing feats.
Mechanically, how did Gibbons err during the missed FG attempt exactly? He put plenty of leg into it but the ball seemed to contact too far up on his foot and roll off to the right. I admit to not paying much attention to our kicking over the years (Zoltan being the exception because - wow.) and so wonder if Gibbons has always struck the ball that high up. At the time, I had thought the miss was a bad omen given the history of Michigan field goal attempts at ND stadium. Curious.
I used to kick so I may be able to offer some insight here. I haven't seen the replay so I can't say this with certainty, but usually when a kick is pushed wide it is because the kicker "didn't bring his hips" all the way through the ball at the time of impact. Its a slight mechanical issue akin to a golf swing. It wasn't horrible, it was a slight miss and my guess is that he was focusing on getting enough power on his kick rather than having perfect mechanics and he just pushed it right.
He's a left footed kicker, so I wouldn't consider the kick a push. Gibbons was kicking from the left hash and the kick hooked ever so slightly and went just right of the right upright. I think the kick was fine but Gibbons aim was just a tad off.
Ah yes silly me with my right footed bias. But anyway that actually makes more sense for him to hook it when trying to get more leg behind it. Swinging harder would pull is foot through the ball after his hips and cause pulled it.
There are times when throwing an interception because you have pressure on you is indeed falling into your "comfort zone" however there are also times when you learn from previous experience and you take the sack. Not everything can be described as Al Borges' problem. Throwing five interceptions in one game is not Al Borges' problem. Throwing three interceptions on 3 consecutive passes is not excusable for any experienced senior quarterback whether you're 5 foot eight and a speedy little guy or you're 6 foot four and a chiseled passor. The bottom line is, Borges' game plan worked. One punt! For the drives were we didn't turn it over we move the ball without any resistance. This game was lost because of turnovers it's that simple. And yes the quarterback does have to own up to that. The square peg round hole argument only holds water if the game plan doesn't work because the quarterback is not able to execute that type of game plan.
Denard has one central flaw: he always tries to make something out of nothing. He's able to do this with his feet, to the joy of his disciples. But unless bailed out by a super leaping Hemingway in double coverage, he fails with his arm.
Ii for one am happy to return to the statuesque quarterback days of old and developing big backs that punch through the defense over and over and over....
"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good."
- Samuel Johnson
Having watched the five picks (I was fairly drunk on Saturday and couldn't remember the details behind them) again, I've come to this conclusion:
Int #1: Totally on Borges. Sorry, but just a dumb call. We aren't the Mighty Ducks, we don't need the flying V. That was 3/7 points erased. The second worst playcall since Hoke took over, trailing only the 4th and 1 last year at MSU.
Int #2: Denard's fault, no questions asked. He's had some bad picks in his time here, but that one was just inexplicable. Even on the replay, I don't see anything he could have possibly seen to think that he had a chance at a completion.
Int #3: This is another play where I get Brian's criticism. The play-action makes no sense because you know Notre Dame isn't scared of Vincent Smith. Its still not a great throw from Denard, but you can see what he sees. Potentially a bad route run by Devin Gardner, as he didn't seem to be going full-speed. Bad play, bad throw, bad route, lots of blame to go around.
Int #4: I believe Fitz was in the game, so the play-action makes a little more sense. Still, watching the replay, no one on Notre Dame is at all fooled. It buys no time. Once again, a bad throw by Denard and in an alternate universe, that ball falls harmlessly to the ground and we might only be down 3 at the half. Not a great play call considering that the play-action hadn't really worked all game, but still, Denard needs to throw that ball away, take the sack or try to make it outside with his feet. Mostly Denard's fault, but at that point in the game, not the best call by Borges either.
Int #5: End of the half, didn't really matter, just kind of amazing that we had five straight pass attempts that went for picks.
As I said earlier: This is not just Denard and its not just Borges. Brian is probably a little overboard with his criticism, but he does have some good points as well. The play-action seems thrown into the gameplan simply because Borges wants it to be there. Its to no one's benefit but the opponent. I hope, like Iowa last year, that a bad loss like this rallies the team rather than sends them into a spiral. But for that to occur, we need one of our running backs to step up like Fitz did last year, someone to get through to Denard that a sack isn't the worst play in the game and Borges needs to realize that some of his set-ups don't give his quarterback much chance at success.
This offense is already fully tailored to Denard-- common sense
Borges is fine. They practice this stuff too many times to count every day. What's good for his job and the team is to call things Denard can run effectively against a given defense on each play.
He has no incentive to be stupid by making the quarterback do something he can't do. When the lights are on, sometimes the quarterback simply doesn't do it like he did it in practice. Maybe it's pressure? Maybe his improved mechanics disappear in game situations? Maybe he is easily fooled by certain wrinkles?
If he did those plays in practice the way he did it Saturday, it wouldn't get called. If a determination was made he couldn't execute the things needed to win that day's game, you'd have a different guy under center.
It's a hard thing to admit, but sometimes the obvious but uncomfortable truth is: Denard at his best gives Michigan it's best chance to win, but that isn't what a better quarterback (not currently on the roster) could give Michigan. So we accept the results.
There just isn't any evidence that what they are doing with him isn't what is best for the football team. Bloated 2010 stats against Bowling Green is weak. There is way more evidence that how he is doing it is the problem. Hurling him into the line on lead draws play after play works here and there but it isn't sustainable against good teams. 2010 proved that.
If they are passing the rock with these plays, you can bet he's better at these in practice then all the alternatives we see suggested here and on other fan sites.
We ran into these same issues in 2010 when the team could only muster 7 wins against all lousy teams and defenses. The big boys shut him down until the games were blow outs.
Doing it Borges way (based on what he sees can actually Denard do), got that number up to 11 wins including some actual quality wins.
"because character wins in life and character wins on the football field....." 1-11-11
How long will it take for Borges to realize that Denard is SEVERELY limited in the passing game and Mentally? How many complete failures will it take before he understands that the few really nice passes that Denard makes from time to time are not sustainable over the course of a game? This QB is blessed with an amazing gift to run the football and is capable of a functional short passing game. Put Denard in the Shotgun and run the football and devise a gameplan that has short quick hitting pass routes that he is capable of completing CONSISTENTLY. Oh and tell Denard to take off running at the first sign of pressure.
Denard can be hot and cold passing the ball. Against ND he was cold and did not throw well at all. MSU will probably rush Robinson hard like ND...so I hope Borges can mitigate Robinson throwing down field 20 plus yards. I just hope our OL gets nasty and blows the spartan's D line right off the line!
Denard will win us a lot more games than he will lose! I'm confident the team will improve through the B1G season and we'll be battling for the division and conference championship!
Based on that halfback pass the game plan was to rout the opponent like Minnesota last year. In front of Touchdown Jesus. Though against Minnesota, Denard had already scored three touchdowns.
The only fault on Borges was being too eager with that thing. He should have had points on the board first. As far as the interceptions, an OC should be able to rely on his senior quarterback. The last chance of the game was DR's fumble. Mattison and the defense were stout throughout, and ND basically looked horrible.
The last time ND went undefeated against the B1G? 2002.
On the bright side the defense looked good and the offense will probably not repeat that performance again this year. The B1G beckons.
OK I'm clearly late to the commenting game having worked a long (14 hour) day but I read this and couldn't say nothing. Clearly you weren't thrilled Brian with Denard's play but when I write this post my post goes "Arrgggh Denard" for the amount of space you dedicated to Borges, and vice versa. Here's why:
-The INTs are largely on Denard no matter how you draw up those plays. None were tight windows where a DB simply made a great play - all were either poor throws or bad decisions. Denard's first INT, there wasn't really anyone open and the line did a poor job blocking for Denard, so it's partially on the O line, but Denard is a senior QB. He needs to know by now you either throw it out of bounds, or eat the football - you don't throw it directly to two ND players. 2nd INT - not sure who this is on but seems like O line again - V Smith didn't seem to have time to chip the blitzing LB. Question of who is supposed to call out the coverage, is it Denard or Mealer? In any case - what are you coached to do when you have an unblocked blitzer in your face, for whatever reason? Eat the football, or throw it away, not up for grabs. 3rd INT - a guy is sort of in Denard's face and what does he do? Throw it up for grabs. What should he do? Eat the football or throw it away. 4th INT - whatever, who cares. But I think the point is clear - it's a simple coaching point, and a senior QB should have it down pat: you have a guy in your face and no hot read / easy throw, you either eat the football or throw it away. Simple as that. Did Borges put Denard in some bad spots? Sure, he definitely could have coached a better game. But Denard massively amplified any schematic disadvantage by completely ignoring the most basic of coaching points. Even if you assume unblocked blitzers are the direct cause of the INTs, and completely acquit Denard, in 2/3 cases these looked like a breakdown in O line protection and had little to do with the called play (3rd one on the play action rollout seemed like play call issue). Also - you have to concede that Denard fumbles fairly regularly, that was obviously on him.
-What would you advocate we do differently? My assumption is you would have us run the football with Denard early and often. But tell me - did you, as I did, believe we were going up against the 2nd best front 7 we would face all year? My expectation was we would not be able to run on the defense, but as it became clear we could, it seemed like Borges went to the run more and more throughout the game. I think he saw we could run and adjusted the game plan accordingly - I don't blame him for assuming running Denard would be tough going at first given how keyed Kelly and Te'O were on stopping him. Logically this tells you to come out throwing. I agree though - running play action from under center when never running from under center, that is retarded. But I fully think Borges put us in enough good spots to potentially win this game against a very good defense, we (mostly Denard) just didn't take advantage.
-I think we should also remember that Borges and Hoke are trying to keep Denard healthy. It doesn't help us to have him as dinged up as he was for all of 2010, I would think a large part of not running him / throwing is trying to keep him healthy. Do you really want to see how Bellomy fares against the meat of the B1G schedule at this point?
Again, Borges could have been better in this game, maybe a lot better, and in the other five you cite where he crapped the bed (actually I excise the Sugar Bowl... you can't judge a man without his Rimington winner, imagine how bad this offense would be if Lewan went down all of a sudden, God forbid). But I maintain he put the team in enough spots to win. Guys were open, runs were working, and the team couldn't capitalize.
Call Mr. Plow, that's my name, that name again is Mr. Plow
The "Disagree with Brian" crowd is out downvoting in full force. I hate to sound like a non-commitial ass, but I fall somewhere in the middle.
A small background. Like many of you, I played football for many years, but I also had the privilege to coach at the high school level for 10 years. I coached wide receivers, defensive backs, and called offensive plays at various levels. I don't say this to say that I know more, just to give you where my perspective comes from.
I'll touch on various things that I have not seen discussed in the 264 posts that I've read here.
The ND Game
1) The HB pitch play - it is a well designed play that had no business being called at that point in time. Besides the fact that we were moving the ball successfully without gimmicks, and that the toss sweep from under center is not a play that we run, the HB pass is a play that should be called from no closer than the 15 yard line. Why? The closer to the goalline you are, the smaller the field becomes, and the more accurate the pass has to be--from a running back. However, if the play was executed properly, it still would have worked. The fault lies with Devin Funchess. He was the point man in the bunch trips set and his job was to seal the edge. At the snap the DE inside Funchess slanted inside and Funchess chased him. Teo shot the gap where Funchess was...and you know what happened from there. Funchess SHOULD have let the DE go and stayed on the line of scrimmage. Had he done that, Teo would have never pressured Smith.
2) The 2nd Denard INT - This is where I disagree with Brian...We ran the play with a single WR (Gardner to the right). Pre-snap ND is in a 2-deep safety look, however they rotate their secondary to our strong side (our offensive left), resulting in a single high safety. Most importantly, the CB over Gardner set up 3-4 yards inside Gardner. However, if you watch closely, Denard does not seem to notice this important adjustment. Rather, he seemed to have his mind made up that he was throwing to Gardner. As you know, Teo blitzed the A gap and pressured Denard. Now, here is where I disagree with Brian. Gardner ran a skinny post route, but failed to adjust his route for the CB's alignment pre snap. His break out of his route was sloppy and rounded. What I am not sure of is how Hecklinski coaches the receivers to come out of the break...accelerate or gear down to make the throw easier. Either way, Gardner's reaction to the ball is woefully slow--almost like he did not expect the ball to come his way. Bottom line, the throw was inaccurate but Gardner should have--at least--gotten a hand on the ball to prevent the INT.
3) Elliot Mealer is our 2nd best offensive lineman. It's pretty impressive considering that there was a lot of talk about Burzynski beating him out for LG in fall camp. What a great story..
4) Our defense is better than we thought--but not as good as they played against ND. Brian Kelly was possessed by the spirit of Mike DeBord in the second half and it made us look better than we are. However, if we can play run defense like that against Sparty, they will have real trouble moving the ball against us.
1) Anyone who thinks Gardner is a good WR as of now is not watching closely enough. The long pass that he dropped on the final drive should have been an easy catch. After his break out of the post-corner route he ran, he is supposed to turn over his left shoulder. He turned over his right shoulder instead, so when Denard threw the ball to the outside, he had to awkwardly adjust and he turned what should have been a basket catch into a circus attempt. The fact that he has been effective is a credit to his elite athleticism.
2) Borges' passing game is very well designed. It consistently gets receivers open downfield and he has route concepts designed to beat both man and zone coverages. That is not the problem. He has been running this offense for a very long time. The trouble that you have as a play caller is when a play that you love (and all coaches have them), that WR's always run open on isnt working because of execution - ie) QB play. It is very, very difficult to stop calling these plays. This is what I believe is part of the problem.
3) Denard's accuracy decreases as the indecision increases. He "panics", his mechanics break down, and in many cases, disaster ensues. The more developed and complex the plays/route combos are, the more fire we play with, IMO.
4) The problem starts before the play even starts. I have not seen one person mention this, which surprises me. Watch Denard's head closely. He looks to be concentrating on the center & any motion by his own WR's. He is not scanning the defense to check alignments, diagnose coverages, and start the decision making process. Combine complex, slow developing route combinatins with a QB who isn't scanning the defense pre--snap...and you have a recipe for problems.
5) I hate that we huddle so often. I understand that a big reason we do it is to protect our defense by reducing the number of plays, but we do not audible out of plays, and due to this you see many -2 RPS on the UFR's more often than you see +2 RPS. The fact that we were hudding down by 2 scores with 6 minutes left in the game is inexcuseable at this level. High school coaches are scorched for doing it, why should BCS schools be given a free pass?
So are we doomed to failure?
Do we need to pin our hopes on Borges completely changing his play calling or Denard somehow developing Brady-like pocket presence--neither of which I would place money on??
No. I think there is a way to meet in the middle, however I don't think that it is likely to happen. That is to go back to what a piece of what RR did...no huddle, call the play early in the play clock, and let the coaches upstairs determine if the play call is a good one. This gives Denard time to read the defense, Borges time ensure a play that has a good chance to succeed against the defense, but you can still run the play clock down to give your D time to rest.
In the meantime, expect to see MOAR blitzing. Borges & Co. need to come up with a way to counter this or we are going to have serious issues. So unless we can line up with 3 TE's like Stanford and run the ball against a pseudo goalline defense, the easiest way is to hit more bubble screens and quick crossing routes--both of which were wide open vs. ND. He need to limit Denard's opportunities to unleash the dragon to 3-5 times per game and get the ball in Gallon's hands with an opportunity to make something happen.
I have more...but this is more than enough for a post reply.
I think you have got it correct in terms of our offense. My problem is that I don't have Borges' direct line to relay the information. Not that he would listen to me but I do wish he would give consideration to your points. For Team 133, I think you nailed them. The big 'if' is continuity/transition to Team 134, and so perhaps we sacrifice this year, worst a 8-4 regular season, for better days to come.
at the end of each half. It seemed like we couldn't decide whether to try to score points at the end of the first half until after allowing 30 seconds to run off for nothing. The last possession Michigan had was also poor clock managing, given that we knew we needed 2 scores to tie/win yet we let 4 minutes out of 7 left run off the clock.
During the rest of the game, clock management wasn't really an issue, though this game can be used as an illustration of how useless time of possession is.
No, Rodriguez was not fired because of his record. He was fired because Michigan didn't think he could improve the team beyond mediocre.
It's a bit rich to question time management given our past performance and the actual and historical score margin versus ND. Arguably, it was the final play calling, coaching assumptions, and QB foot management that made it look that way. ND gobbled more time late than it appeared at the moment. Mostly, we turned over the ball, is all, and they won. 0.02
I'm sure everyone understands that when you are losing by 2 possessions with 6 minutes remaining in the 4th quarter, your objective is to score quickly and extend the game. Wasting time in the huddle while the clock runs is counterproductive to this goal.
Perhaps you are not wasting time with a huddle given 6 minutes remaining if the offensive unit cohesion has been disrupted by several perceived mistakes on the part of key leaders on said unit. Eye contact and physical contact may imbue confidence when otherwise that confidence may have been shaken. QB and receivers on the same page for sure with huddle. With 6 minutes left, and considering past performance, you have adequate time within which to work as in prior years. Make the right big gains, score, defend since your defense has stepped up, and then use the 1 minute or less to strike and win. Huddling didn't spell this game outcome, turnovers did. Period.
" That is to go back to what a piece of what RR did...no huddle, call the play early in the play clock, and let the coaches upstairs determine if the play call is a good one. This gives Denard time to read the defense, Borges time ensure a play that has a good chance to succeed against the defense, but you can still run the play clock down to give your D time to rest. "
I clearly stated that you can run a no huddle WITHOUT running up tempo. You snap the ball at the same time you generally would, you simply give the coaches in the booth more time to call an audible and more time for Denard to read the defense.
You seem to believe only in the physical dimension of the game. Fact is, hands on and eye contact within a huddle can motivate extraordinary on-field performance when needed most. Football is mental and emotional foremost. If you didn't play the game, I guess you cannot apprehend this. Cheers.