I'm sorry, but it's gotten almost unbearable the amount of people who are dismissing Brian's analysis, passively or not, and SC feels the need to post 200 times in every picture page/UFR thread and establish his truth.  Whenever this group gets called out they say they aren't defending the coaches, but then their analysis blames the players for execution.  Then when Brian gets frustrated and front pages his thoughts after he was originally called out, these same people get sensitive and call out Brian for naming names, even though Brian gets run through the wood chipper almost daily.  I'm glad Brian posted this and it just goes to show that the fanbase still seems to be factioned.

I understand and am totally on board with Brian's frustration with Borges and his apologists; however, it is not my blog and I do not live with it seriously to a great degree, because it is my expectation that staff's stubborn insistence to repeat strategies that by and large fail is not going to be changing any time soon.  At least Bo got 3 yards or more often, with predictable and most times conservative play-calling. When the 7 passes he let Dennis Franklin throw or the counters to his ordinarly backfield movements happened, big plays ensued.  Yeah, maybe we had better players, but there was consistency and purpose in the movement on the field. It was often frustrating too, but goals got achieved even though Bo's conservative nature seemed to limit signature big wins more than everyone wanted.

This is a different era. It doesn't mean you cannot win with power, but if you do not have balance and adjust to what the other side is trying to take away from you, forget it. Minnesota has now won two big games in row by not going into a predictable shell at game's end, but by throwing at times the defense was committed to taking away the run.

PSU end game is not the only issue. We lack flow, function.  Borges, or Hoke, or whoever insists on repeating plays and schemes under game conditions that we should have proven to ourselves mean we most likely are going backwards rather than forwards is now laughable.  They can turn it around, it probably isn't happening without some changes in approach. I respect Borges, and Space Coyote, because of their dedication to intracacies of the game beyond me.  But it has become a forest for the trees issue with  Borges apologists.

In fact, I'll repeat the theory of my buddy:

Space Coyote Likely is Al Borges.

My life-long friend and I both matriculated to, and graduated from, UM in early 70’s.  We both have professional degrees.  My grandfather/father were/are UM grads with professional degrees. 

We admit we cannot definitely prove it, but feel that Space Coyote’s real identity likely is none other than Al Borges.

Having read and gleaned from numerous threads his defense of UM coaching in copious respects, of Borges’s PSU game strategy, particularly end-of-game PSU strategy, almost all things MSU, and now regarding Nebraska on various topics, I must say that I suspect my friend and game-day watching buddy is right.

I’m not getting into any logic debate with these two, er…., this guy, though.  I’ve experienced enough losing this year, several times even while winning.  I say, “IF we are wrong, and we very well could be, then to dispel all doubt, bring forth the evidence!!!”  If we are right, then we say many questions regarding to what is happening on Saturdays finally has a plausible explanation.  Can you just imagine, then, what it took for them, er… Borges, to stay abreast of all the blogging developments?  No man, even with his experiences and training, could then put 11 Michigan Men in spaces where 11 non-Michigan Men were NOT within well-defined territorial boundaries, even if they could “execute”.  Or, in the case of blockers, put them where the non-Michigan Men were, or were expected to be given past locations of a somewhat repetitive nature.

If Al Borges is out there, then let him reveal himself.  If he is not, and “change is gonna come” is but a truism for life rather than Michigan Man offensive philosophy and production, then maybe the lyrics to the MSU fight song are more clever than they first appear.

and his proclamation that he was "defending football" comment, as the Great All-Knowing sole voice of sanity to explain the "Borges Theory" (it's still only a theory, because it's never been proven) as he was defending the "indefensible" (aka - the PSU debacle).  I commented to SC - 

its obvious that you know your X's and O's and no one is challenging that.  However, there are a lot of head coaches and OC's and DC's that certainly have a much more thorough understanding than you.  That doesn't mean that "their" understanding makes them successful or even right.  Your defense of running the clock vs. playing an opponent in the PSU game ... is simply passe football.  Its old style ... I know, I'm old and I grew up with it.

To me coaches (any set of coaches) MUST know their team's strengths and weaknesses, and I believe most of us could agree on Michigan's weaker areas (/s).  Why plays are called that rely on our weak areas is the mystery to me.  If the Oline didn't do it in week 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 ... why would a rational person think that this is going to change in week 10?

To compound this, both Hoke and Borges has flatly refused to even give a hint that they are frustrated with anything other than execution.  This is akin to Michigan football's version of "The Emperor's New Clothes".

Go Blue!

Or another play.. it is the amalgamation of plays which confounds us. Agreed that if Kerridge does x, the play works.. .however we've not seen Kerridge do x. In practice one can only assume if practice is run at full speed with a competent defense on the other side that Kerridge still can't do x.

Therefore, if Kerridge never shows the ability to do x, or the offensive line never shows the ability to block in a certain manner, how in the name of footbawl (misspelling intended) can you run that play if you know it has zero chance of success. (I know if it's executed it will, I buy that in the first couple games of the season. Run it out there... ) Yet we've just finished game 9 of the season. 75% complete (regular season) Quick question to the football coaches out there: At the 75% point of the season do you know what it is your team can and can't do on a regular basis? (I think the answer is obvious, but hey I could be wrong)

If you do, how can Borges not know? Hmmm 8 guys in box.. important play... hmmm maybe I should throw scissors here? Since the defense has rolled out sheets of paper 50 ft by 50 ft..... nah let's throw rock.

Someone above noted that the team is slow, no tempo. Yet Hoke says we practice tempo. Well if one assumes they practice tempo as well as they practice inverted veer, one assumes that the tempo is turtle like in it's efficiency.

So what's the solution? Next year's offensive line will be different, more experienced in the middle, but younger on the ends. The backfield will be more experienced, but who will teach them how to block. Gardner will be more experienced, but with the way he's moving backwards will that be better? Arrggggg. This is how it felt to look at the defense of RichRod's teams. Sure they'll be more experienced but they're not better.  We all knew what the solution was then, but RichRod wouldn't make it. I think the same issue faces Hoke. We know what the solution is, will he make it... If he doesn't and the offense doesn't improve, or heaven forbid regresses further... next winter we'll see The Process II, Brandon's Last Stand.

This has been world-class storm created at a time when we all would otherwise be trying not to think about Michigan football. We're at a lot of comments here!  Well done to Brian and SC.

More seriously, I wish Brian's tone had been a little different, but his larger point is fair: SC has taken over many, many threads explicity disagreeing with Brian's analyses without actually addressing their content. Brian has been very clear - his point is that the coaches are putting people in a position to not excute. SC responds - It's not the coaches, it's the execution. SC has been saying really interesting things, but I do think he's missing the point.

everywhere I look mistakes and missed assignments are being made. Criticism of the OL, the QB, and the RB's is all warranted on offense. Little or no gain on 1st and 2nd downs results in 3rd and long and predictability and then failure. It happens over and over now. Crazy.

The defense is better, but sooner or later a freshmen DB is gonna get burned by being out of position or missing a tackle, or just finishing a play. Unfortunately very reminiscent of RR year 1. Yikes!

Does not seem to be getting any better. Double yikes! Doesn't make that bill for seat licenses for next year's tickets any easier to swallow.

To me the problem is that Brian and SC aren't actually arguing against each other. SC looks at a play and says "here's how this should have gone down". This is good, enlightening, and appreciated.

However, Brian's actual argument is not "this play is turrrrrible and should never be called", it's "here's how the opponent gets to have a much easier job than the offense, and the number of times this happens is too damn high".

Brian says that, SC says "well yeah but if player X had made adjustment Y (see, it's totally simple and only takes 10 diagrams and a couple thousand words to explain), this would have worked". Then SC gets frustrated because rather than debate the content of those diagrams everyone wants to argue "big picture". Repeat ad nauseam.

THEY ARE BOTH RIGHT. SC is right or close to right about the minutiae, but Brian is arguing about the meta. There is no clash, which is why this goes back and forth.

To be fair, I found this a bit too snarky from Brian, and I don't think he gives enough credit to SC for ripping the coaches' inability to teach the kids how to play. But I guess I can see where the frustration is coming from.

I'd actually really like SC to devote a post/diary to "Here is what I think Borges is doing wrong, and here's what I would propose doing differently". He's hinted at a few things and I'm curious about his big picture view of what's broken. But he usually only gives that a quick glance (Brian's "few non-insane points") and then returns to basking in the blocking nuances. I like seeing that, but I'm never going to play competitive football and what I really want to see is smart people arguing about the big picture.

Which is a shame, because the points are valid, and a writer with Brian's gifts could have made the points stand out better without the back-handed "at some totally different level" style slams.

My own opinion is that at this point, the ineptitude of the offense is a Rorshach test - everyone looks at it and sees their own biases confirmed.  Anyone who thinks we should be running the Air Raid or spread-to-run will look at this and say "see - if we just never called under-center formations we'd be so much better".  Anyone who thinks that up-tempo/NFL-style-K-gun-no-huddle is the future can see that reflected in our abject failure too.  And so on ...

Let's look at it from a logic flow/debate flow perspective

Here is the core thing they are arguing about: 

Is the Michigan Offense a coherent system that can create yards? Pro/Con

1) SC is PRO. He is saying that in his opinion as a football coach, these schemes are sound, represent a coherent game plan, and that they are reasonable plays to execute, and that the coaches are failing to teach the kids how to execute them. 

The PRO position relies on arguments organized around a history of how these schemes work in the larger scope of a game plan, a history of defenses against these schemes, and an argument that proper execution of assignments would have worked in this model, particularly with a fullback.

In summary, proper execution of this scheme, given its history in the world of schemes of this kind against defenses of this kind, have worked in the past.

2) Brian is CON. He is saying that the schemes were doomed from the outset and it is unrealistic to expect them to get pulled off. 

The CON position relies mostly on examples of places where Michigan's offense has failed using similar schemes with different tweaks to what the backs were doing.

In summary, the scheme as a whole is flawed, which is why the players repeatedly fail to exeucte.

So far so good. Nice initial points made by each. 

Note that in both cases the coaches are letting their players down, just in different ways. 

But Brian is making three fallacies here in his arguments which undermine his position:

1) He is using an appeal to authority, basically saying "look high school coach--IF THAT'S WHAT YOU REALLY ARE--you don't know what you're talking about this is big boy Div I college ball and things are different here."

2) He is making a straw man argument, saying that SC is ignoring his initial position about scheme.

The first is just unfair; look, none of us are experts here but at least SC is putting his cards on the table about why he thinks what he thinks. For that to have less validity than Brian's study of film in UFR is a draw and we should let it go.

The second seems to be a misinterpretation of SC. SC spends almost three pages in his diary explaining why he thinks this play is the right one in this context. 

3) Which leads Brian to his most egregious fallacy in this post, which is a false cause example. Brian basically says, "well, here are three more plays that suck, therefore it's the OC's fault. QED." 

This argument does not prove that the OC has bad schemes. This proves that the play didn't work. This does not in point of fact address SC's arguments.

Brian may well be right. SC may well be right. But from a debate charting perspective, SC is pantsing Brian.

There are interesting things to say about scheme here. Brian may well be right. But he seems to be at a loss at how to respond to SC's core argument, which is that it's the right scheme in a larger body of work and traditions of effective work of this kind in the past.

I keep seeing that refrain mentioned here. That the coach has to play to his team's strengths and "put the players in the best place to succeed." but rarely is there a constructive alternative mentioned beyond "FIRE BORGES!" 

Is the solution to go full on Air Raid Spread and have Devin throw it 50+ times a game? We'd probably score more points so that's something. Oh sure, we'd also probably set the single season turnover and sacks allowed records as well, but who cares about that? If we win more games then it would be worth it; but I doubt that would be the result. Devin would probably get hurt frequently too, because that's what happened when the offense had to rely on Denard, but to a fanbase I guess wins are wins.

I also see many people mention playcalling schemes, saying how repetitive we are and how often we try plays that obviously can't work because of our players. Again rarely are there alternatives, but there are a few here that tend to be "more quick screens and passes." Those are fine, and the screen can work wonders if an aggressive defense is rushing right up your gut. But I've seen many, many "quick passes" from DG either go right to the defense for an interception or a very near pick. His quick reads are usually lacking. And most often, he's made up his mind pre-snap where he thinks he can throw it. The worst part is that when those plays go bad, they go very bad, usually a score for the other team. I've seen in this year Borges try spread tactics in vain, then try manbawl in vain, then try new things in vain, then go back to the simplest things he can come up with.. in vain. This has been repeated, but if he goes simple, people get mad at the predictability. If he goes complex or spread, people complain that he's changing things and not devoting practice time to it. I guess such is life as the offensive coordinator at Michigan where even you score 40 every game a large portion of the fanbase will hate you regardless, but damn. A clear example that he is trying new things to get players where they can succeed is putting Funchess on the outside. If Borges were as stubborn as some would like to believe, we'd still have Funchess and AJ Williams lined up together, hands in the ground trying to block.

The next frequent complaint is at the line adjustments. I don't think anyone, even SC, defends the lack of these. I would guess it comes down to 1 of 3 things. 

1) Borges doesn't allow DG to make audibles

2) DG is allowed but doesn't like to

3) DG makes a few, but not always good ones and they're discouraged.

I'd lean towards 3, maybe 1. I've seen Gardner make numerous line shifts and blocking adjustments at the line. These are almost always wrong. Especially in the last couple of weeks when he liked to shift his line away from a pass rusher and ask the RB to cross by himself and block that DE. It never worked. That coupled with the fact that Gardner rarely makes a read beyond "Gallon check, Funchess check, then 1)throw to one of them 2)wait and get sacked or 3)PANIC TURN AROUND AND RUN" makes me think Borges tries to keep it simple for Gardner to reduce mistakes (isn't that what we wanted before?) and that leads to lining up and running the called play even if the defense is set up for it. Maybe if Gardner does more at the line we can make adjustments that succeed; maybe if he does there are even more blown assignments because it's changed and there are even more mindboggling throws to the wrong team because he locked in on Gallon. 

Lastly, as a new person here the thing between Brian and SC seems silly (and because despite disagreeing I've yet to see SC make passive aggressive jabs at Brian). It seems like they rarely disagree on the root problem (SC said like 59948 times he thinks coaching is at fault) it's just that SC acknowledges execution IS a real problem and that infuriates Brian for some reason. I think they just have slightly different conclusions, where Brian's is to blame everything that goes wrong solely on Borges and SC tries to distribute it more equally (and IMHO realistically). Both are fine and well defended opinions, it shouldn't make either person or side mad, though.

if Space Coyote is a pessimist or an optimist.  Based on the performances the past few weeks--and the limitations of our young young (add more youngs) offensive line--does he believe things will get better yet this year (optimism)--despite the downward arc?  Or does he believe we are doomed for the year (pessimism)?  Though it might be both--doomed this year, but roses next year--if we just continue to plug away at the scheme.  I suspect its the latter.  I'm just skeptical another year is going to fix everything that couldn't be taught/implemented this past Winter, Summer and Fall.

I think SC made a reasonable argument for the play he countered, but I think the greater point is the one that Brian has here where, even if you think that one play was almost okay, there were a lot of other plays that flat out didn't work (running into a wall of defenders) that were just thrown away, and the ones that did work didn't come easy.

Coaches/Managers need to put their people in the best position to succeed and I really don't think that is happening here.