A nice comment or two for SC might have made this all go smoother. I like the conflicting viewpoints both being prominent - they help prevent groupthink.

While I agree that some of AB's calls are head-scratchers, I think there are some enormous assumptions being made here.

First of all, SC is not trying to discredit Brian, but is rather offering a counter-point to the analysis given.  A very intelligent coach (SC) breaking down plays for the board is a very good thing for the board.  To challenge him on the basis of frustration with his cogent analysis does not seem constructive.

Second, your writing style makes it seem as if there is some magical play-call that is easily executed and would solve all of our problems.  As if switching to the spread is the sovereign panacea for our offenses disease.  This ignores the fact that while several of college football's best offenses are spread outfits, several of college footballs WORST offenses are also spread outfits.  The spread does not make you a good offense.  Oregon just lost to Stanford.  Again.

Third, there is no "easy" play to beat a defense.  Kerridge was asked to make, IMO, a pretty easy block in space, and he failed to do so.  If he even redirects that guy, the play could go for big yardage.  What is your "easy" plan to make this offense successful?  Where are the picture pages of the plays that this team can execute?  Borges has tried virtually every type of play fathomable, and isn't getting results.  If we threw a few bubble screens and they didn't work, would you be satisfied?

Fourth, I agree with you on this: several of AB's calls have been poor, and this game was no exception.  But SC's point is that lots of our mistakes are NOT because the task is too difficult, but rather because the task simply isn't done.  In play two (above), for example, if Bosch blocks the LB, this could turn out to be a very good gain.  And Glasgow appears to identify the blitz pre-snap!  Bosch doesn't need to manhandle the guy--just get a hat on him.  That is not any "harder" than any blocking demanded by a spread offense.  Play three is the same problem, except Bosch is pulling.  That said, play four is a disaster, and should have been audibled.

Fifth, sometimes Brian makes mistakes.  SC does too.  In play one, I am pretty confident the slot LB is NOT blitzing.  Watch his first step--it is lateral to the outside to cover the receiver.  He reads the backfield and crashes down to make a tackle.  And as Brian said, this three yard play later set-up some more effective plays.

I think SC's point is that it's pretty ridiculous to assume that a schematic change would solve our problems, or that simply calling a different play would make things "easier" for our players who aren't very good at executing anything.  My main divergence from SC is that I agree with Brian that Borges does throw away downs too often, and doesn't pass enough on first down.

That said, Borges and Hoke have basically said, "Okay, this team is now composed largely of "our" players, and we need to start running our system so that we don't suck it running it forever."  While this has obviously cost us some downs and some games, it is EXACTLY what RR did for THREE YEARS at Michigan.

Bottom line: Borges is making some bad calls and deserves some criticism.  But there is no magic tonic for terrible blocking, no play that doesn't require OL execution, no system that magically erases huge shortcomings.  That said, it is up to the coaches to get the players to execute the system they are running, and they are failing in that endeavor right now.  For that, they should be held responsible, and SC has said that over and over.

Who coaches the fullbacks?

Blame that guy.

I would like to know why there isn't some sort of "trigger" that lets the QB know, at the exchange pont, that the running back is going to be stopped (potentially) by that slot LB (in Play One). The QB should throw to the WIDE OPEN slot receiver.

I'd also like to know why this offense doesn't seem to have any type of short throw out, to an RB, in the flat (open space). That's what frustrates me the most.

(granted, I have little to no idea how ths offense works or is supposed to work).

SC makes this site better, Brian.  You may disagree with him, you may even hate him but damn if these exchanges haven't been enlightening for all of us.  Even if I don't agree with everything he says, I've had a lot of "Hmm, I didn't know that, that's interesting" moments since he came on the scene.

You're on the same side.  You're both Michigan fans.  You both want the same thing.  It's not your finest hour when you get out-classed by one of your own readers.

Will someone just tell me when we should fire up Flight Tracker again?  I need to be emotionally and mentally prepared.

has become "Ur puttin' the players in position to fail!!!"  It's the same platitude, the same tripe, but in a different skin.  For three years "certain parties" [cough] have had it in for Borges.  Yes, at this point I agree the offensive coaching staff have failed -- mainly player instruction, but also some bone-headed playcalling.  But let's not pretend that what mainly happens on this blog is objective analysis.  

The players were reruited for MANBALL (ggrrrrr!).  Tough, power football!  If we go to spread concepts now -- well, the players weren't recruited for that!!!

I've learned a lot reading Brian's analysis. I've learn a lot reading Space Coyote's analysis. Both provide great value for fans who want to learn more of the fundmentals of football and get insight into the game. Others with coaching or playing backgrounds also provide solid different or supporting or counter evaluations of various plays and strategies. This interaction produces far ranging discussions that make mgoblog a great place for football fans.

A while back there was a 100+ comment thread debating the blocking assignments and possible errors in those for a SINGLE play. We can find other recent examples of this level of iluminating discussion. 

These interactions make it clear to me, that there are many instances, typically when a play is blown up, where it is not possible to resolve with certainty who missed what or what was called. 

No one's analysis "proves" anything, it provides support for the analysts opinion. People accept the opinion based on their view of the supporting analysis and the degree to which it agrees with their own views. We all get to weigh in on whose opinion we think is right, or more likely, or more persuasive, and someone like me, who knows little about the intricacies, develops a more nuanced view of all the aspect of the game. 

When I was growing up we had dinner table discussions. People were free to voice any opinion they cared to rationally and logically defend. Undefended opinions did not last long at my parents table. It is the thoughtful presentation and defense of opinion here that makes this site worth reading. 

We have lawyers on here so let's go back to law school or debate team and play "defend the indefensible"

On play #3 you have our 2 best offensive players in space in 1 on 1 situations with very little chance of getting help from anybody on Nebraska because the safety is standing in the deep middle.  Seeing that box and that alignment you have 3 acceptable checks.  Slant, 5 yd hitch or fade.   We have the advantage on everyone of those plays.  You could run other plays, but the one play you can't run is tailback up the middle which of course we run.

Someone try to make a case that this play is not a complete fail from the coaching staff and Gardner if he is allowed to check( which I know Borges and Hoke say is possible but as fans the last 3 years we know from seeing with our eyes almost never happens and Borges has said he is against it like bubble screens and easy yards so yeah he probably can't because Borges doesn't like chess being played without him.)

Setting: I agree with you Brian. Aside from issue #2 below I agree with all of your content, but

(1) It's not really cool to have this argument with SpaceCoyote from two separate speakers of very different capacity. Especially if you're going to go all pejorative. It would have been far more appropriate to either (1a) post a long-winded response within the thread corresponding to SpaceCoyote's diary or (1b) post a counter diary of your own. Front paging your side is kind of bush league.

(2) I've always felt you were wrong about "The expectation is for the position." You seem to interpret that as implying the coaches who espouse this slogan have at the heart of their coaching philosophy one rigid system and intend to bend the players to fit that mold rather than bend the mold to fit the players. I believe that is wrong in ways that are sensational. I believe the more straight-forward and less inflammatory interpretation for "The expectation is for the position" is that players are expected to rise to the occasion for their starting position no matter their inexperience because this is Michigan. (...) Which is why I find it so auto-stultifying that you could also use your fingers to type:

Either you believe that players can be put in positions they can succeed or players are expected to succeed in the positions they are put in.

and then identify with the former camp of believers.

I think we can all agree that no unit on the offense blocks worth a damn.

At this point, the blame for such a comprehensive failure must be placed on the coaches.

If you can't block people and you can't execute then you suck and the coaches have done a shitty job.

I don't see much point to stressing the criticisms of the game plan so much because if you can't block or execute then you suck with any game plan. These plays could have worked. Some other plays could have worked. But they didn't and they don't because no one can block or execute worth a damn.

Brian, 

This is a shitty, dissapointing post by you. By calling out SC publicly on the front page, you are discouraging thoughtful debate and quite frankly, you sound butthurt.

95% of people here agree with you and would follow you into the mists of avalon to battle that "fat, idiot" Borges. Why are you so upset about someone with an alternative viewpoint? He even agrees that there are coaching issues -- just not primarily schematic. I don't think that's inherently asinine.

I find shit like this to be shitty: 

"Space Coyote makes certain concessions to not seem totally insane and then goes back to hammering the fact that it's all execution."

It's your site and all, but, get a grip.  

I'm trying to envision alternatives, so I'll just throw this out into space.

Would this work? I'm thinking that the EMLOS to the field side would drop and take away that slant.