I don't get it.
Mason NEEDS this, Pistons, after all you've put him through
Word of the day?
“Huh? Uh, let me think about that one.”
MGoPetulant: “Fake bubble.”
“… Okay. Questions.”
Will you keep the same five offensive linemen that you ended the game with?
“We’ll see. It’s going to be competitive, but those five guys did a pretty good job during the game. It’s going to get tougher. And we’re going to have to demonstrate some consistency. But if they can do that, they will be the five offensive linemen. But we’re not eliminating anybody. We still have some talented kids in the wings. We’re trying to keep this thing competitive. Do we want the five guys? Yes, we do. I’ll answer the question before you ask it. But that being said, we got to this point where we’re pretty functional now because we’ve kept it competitive. We don’t like doing it this way. We’d rather just have the same five from the beginning, but it hasn’t worked out that way.”
MGoQuestion: After looking at the film, did you think Kyle Bosch and Erik Magnuson an upgrade at the guard positions?
“I don’t know if they were an upgrade. They were an alternative, and they had a chance to prove what they can do. They didn’t do a bad job. Upgrade is a pretty strong word. I wouldn’t say that.”
Were they able to accomplish what you wanted them to do?
“Well, we didn’t have a lot of play kills. A play kill is a guy is unable to block his guy, hence the play is dead. Ten guys playing, one guy not playing, and because one guy doesn’t execute his assignment, the guy’s hit in the backfield or the quarterback’s sacked or whatever. They just didn’t have a lot of play kills. Their technique wasn’t always perfect, but they didn’t cause the play to fail very often. As a coordinator, that’s important. It’s not the end-all now, because we have expectations that go beyond just not killing plays. But as a coordinator, if you call a play, you want to know everybody’s handled, everybody blocks so you can get the ball off and everybody’s blocking at the point of attack so the running back has a chance to do something. And they did a pretty good job of that.”
Jeremy Gallon said having Devin Funchess emerge has helped him. Have you noticed opponents shifting coverage off Jeremy?
“Yes. And I would never take anything away from what Jeremy Gallon. He had a career game. But some of it was because they were so conscious of Devin Funchess running down through the middle of the defense, because he poses that threat all the time and it gave Jeremy some opportunities. There were some were it was irrelevant. There were some where he just put some nice moves on the guy and just beat him. But there were others where there were two receivers out there and both of them can hurt you, and that makes a difference. There may be another game where it’s reversed, where Funchess has the big game.”
How hard is it to have the sort of chemistry that Devin Gardner and Jeremy Gallon have?
“Well it’s like the offensive line. You work together long enough, you know what the other guy’s going to do. That’s critical. That doesn’t happen overnight. Those guys have got to go out there and throw it around when we’re not coaching it. Like in the middle of July when coaches are on vacation. They’re out there throwing the ball and practicing back shoulder throws and throwing comebacks and doing all that stuff. Just building a trust where both of them understand he’s going to be here at this time, and I know when I release the ball I can count on that to happen. That takes time. That doesn’t happen overnight with anybody.”
At what point last Saturday did you think your quarterback needed to throw for 500 yards?
“I never realized that. I just knew that we wanted to be balanced. That’s all. We didn’t throw 30 passes, did we? How many did we throw? 29? When you consider the numbers, that’s astronomical to throw 29 passes and get those numbers. We’re just trying to – battle field decisions. You go in there and it’s a shootout and you’re just trying to hold serve.”
Formationally, you were more diverse, too. Are you going to keep that up?
“Yeah. As much as we can. We used a little more gun running in this game. We always had that in the offense. We just felt like against Indiana it was just something we were going to attack a little more. We’ll have some of that in our offense every week. A week ago we were pounding so much and we didn’t do a good job as you guys all know. So we just wanted a little variation here and there. Are we becoming a spread team? No. We’re not becoming a spread team, so get that out of here. I’m going to answer that question before you ask it. But we’re going to have that dimension in our offense. We’re going to have the ability to take you sideline to sideline, we’re going to have the ability to mow you over. In the final numbers, I think we had 446 yards accounted for in under-center offense. We certainly don’t want to lose that. We had another 300-something-odd in the shotgun. That’s good, too. If you have both, certain games one’s going to be better than the other.”
MGoQuestion: Michigan State has held you to some of your worst offensive performances over the last couple years. How will you attack them differently with a new quarterback?
“I don’t know. We’ll see. I wouldn’t say it if we were. Hopefully we can execute better. And they’re a good team. You have to give them a little credit, too. They’re stopping a lot of people. We can’t concern ourselves with how good we think they are with how much we have to concern ourselves with execution. If we go into the game and don’t turn the ball over and play solid, you’re not going to roll up 700 yards every week, and certainly not on them, but you have to do things that help you win the football game. That means convert on third down, running the football efficiently, take your shots, hit them when you need to, be able to move the chains. It will result in different gains based on who you’re playing, but a lot of it is how you’re playing. That’s the big thing. Don’t give them short-range opportunities, all the coach speak you hear every week. We look at this game much like we look at every game. We’re very respectful of what they do defensively, but a lot of it is our ability to execute.”
What’s the biggest challenge when calling plays against them?
“Well just staying in a good down and distance. It’s a challenge when playing any defense. When you’re in a good down and distance, play calling becomes a lot easier. When the play calling becomes difficult is against Penn State, Connecticut, when you’re in bad down and distance all the time and you’re playing against the chains and constantly trying to pull plays out of your comfort zone. I don’t play golf anymore, but when I played golf, it was like my golf game. It was a drive and a series of recoveries. That’s the way those two games were. You’re trying to recover from second and 10.”
MGoQuestion: You said last year you didn’t have Denard audible because you didn’t want to get involved in a chess match against Michigan State’s defense –
“That’s not true. That’s not true. He may not do as much audibling. We have never gone into a football game and told a quarterback he has no audible. But there are certain games we’ll tone it down because we don’t want to get in chess matches. To say never audible, there are certain plays that he’ll still audible. Just try to keep it to a minimum against certain opponents.”
MGoFollowup: Does having Devin at quarterback change anything?
“Again, I wouldn’t say if it did. That would be tipping my hand. But every game we have a certain plan that we’re going to try and execute. Sometimes it goes exactly the way or pretty close to the way you expect, and other games it doesn’t.”
How much does the game against Indiana do for your confidence?
“I’ll tell you after Michigan State. I’m not saying anything right now. Ask the question after that regardless of the result, and I’ll let you know what it did.”
Do you like the timing of this bye week?
“I love these two bye weeks. I do. It gives us time to really evaluate where we are, what we’re doing. Sometimes you play bad after a bye, sometimes you play good after a bye. But it just gives us a chance to get our feet on the ground. The only problem with byes that I wouldn’t like as much is if you were really rolling, if you were having an eight-game rampage and moving the ball, playing good defense. Then I don’t think I’d like a bye, but the way it is now, we’ve been hit and miss in some games. It’s always good to stop and take a breath and look to see what we’re doing. Coaching wise, personnel wise, it gives us a chance to say, we don’t have a game, we have some time to think about this.”
Have you been surprised that it’s been so hit and miss?
“No, I’m not surprised, but it’s not an excuse. I mean, yeah, we have a lot of young guys. I could say that every week. Hey, we fumbled the ball. Bleblehehasdjflaksjf. It’s not an excuse. There are certain things we’re doing that go beyond being young. Even if you are young, you shouldn’t be doing it. Yeah, we’ve got some young guys, some things are going to show up. It’s not an excuse. We have to play. Other guys have young guys, too. And now we’ve played seven games, we should start doing some good things. Some of that stuff ought to go away.”
How much does Jake Butt allow you to move Funchess around? How beneficial has that been?
“Huge. Jake Butt is a guy that I told you before, he’s the nicest surprise because we could use him. We didn’t plan on using him. It’s been a big deal because he’s given that U, that move, that H-back type guy where Funchess, now that he’s playing outside some, didn’t have to tow the whole load. It’s been just gigantic for us. He’s done such a nice job. Some games he’s been bigger than others. It hasn’t always been receiving. But eventually Jake’s going to have a good receiving game because he’s a really good receiver, but just being able to do some of the stuff we’re asking him to do in that package and not put all of that on Devin Funchess.”
MGoQuestion: Brady said the only time a road environment has affect your communication was the Michigan State game in 2011. What happened specifically during that game, and how do you plan to address it?
“You know, it’s funny, and I’m trying to remember now. I just know there were some time clock issues. That happens here and there or every once in a while. I just remember that part of it. I’m not drawing on exactly what happened. I wish I were better prepared for that question. That was a couple years ago. My wife says I forget how to get home some nights.”
MGoFollowup: Is it something you have to address this week or next week?
“Oh yeah. I think we have to deal with it without embellishing it too much. Deal with some of the things that happen on the road, but not – you know, sometimes this road game thing can be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. You talk about some of the problems you have, and then you have problems. But the good teams are aware of what they have to deal with on the road, yet they’re not intimidated or don’t really think that much of it at the end of the day. Any place I’ve been where we were a good road team, we always talked about that’s what you have to deal with. But that’s where we stop. We talked and say, ‘Okay. Same dimension of the field. Everything’s basically the same.’ ”
You talked about a quantum leap in Devin Gardner. Is that footwork, mechanics?
“Footwork and mechanics. And he took another one this week. I mean, goodness gracious, he’s just done a wonderful job of standing in there and throwing the ball. I mean, he’s not making a lot of off-balance throws. A couple times he got flushed out of the pocket and he was a little indiscriminate on one or two plays. But within the confines of the pocket, when he’s got to step and throw, he was really good at Penn State and really good last week. But three weeks in a row of him working on it hard. He’s taken that so seriously. Devin wants to be a good pocket passer. The only way you’re going to be a good pocket passer is if you’re unperturbed by the rush, knowing that the rush is going to get you sometimes. He’s been good. Really good.”
I don't get it.
Must be the word of the day after he thought about it...
Assuming Hoke wasn't just coach speaking or Borges is just playing the dullard, does anybody else find it concerning that Borges has no idea of the communication issues that happened last time UM visited MSU? Isn't that his job to file away every little detail from every past game in order to not repeat mistakes?
The communication issue probably wasn't something that was specific to playing at MSU. Remember, that was the very first road game under the brand new staff, so the problems were likely more to do with that than anything else. At this point, those are things that they have gone over enough times that those types of issues shouldn't really have an affect on the players outside of what is typical for a road game.
No. He did not have the specifics on immediate recall. That is what tape is for. He will look at the 2011 game this week, see what the issues were, and address them.
If he does not know what the problems are after reviewing the tape, then worry. Not sure why he needs to have eidetic memory.
is now eidetic. There did seem to be some communication issues at PSU too.
Wow. Almost busted the thread with the cut and paste. You guys will have to look it up yourselves.
I think you are looking for something to be "concerned" by.
He always comes off arrogant nowadays. "Everything is fine. We just have to execute. Execution is the only problem ever"
You were reading into the answers the way either you wanted to or because of the way you perceive Borges. I think Heiko could back this up, but my guess is if you're at the press conference that you are just hearing a guy answer questions within his own personality, with his own humor. The way he jumped ahead to answer that they weren't going to be a spread team, for instance, is dry humor on Borges part. I get it, because my humor when talking to crowds tends to steer in that direction at times as well.
of the three coaches. From my (admitted) English professor perspective, his answers are by far and away the sharpest. He makes good sentences, period. And I don't see how he shies away from anything--here he's saying youth is no excuse. He's saying they're going to continue to mix it up, even acknowledging that the blunt instrument approach didn't fly at PSU. What more do you want?
We get that you're a critic, btw.
Yo Heiko, you trying to get into a fight with Borges?
And apparently, Michigan's quarterback success is important to the future. But MSU's defense looks pretty tough...oh, boy.
Nice...liked that show.
Things got weird when Al turned out to be a Cylon.
reference Joe Btfsplk, and autocorrect was responsible for the rest.
At least he was looking at some numbers and is thinking about Manball vs. Spread. Unfortunately he may be seeing a correlation and not causation. I really hope he understands that Indiana's D is bad and especially their run D. If we try running it up the middle even after fake bubbles it could get ugly. I'm not sure I liked everything I heard in here but it sounds like shotgun is here to stay in some form. If we try two series under center and they go horribly wrong I hope he gets that, at least for now, we are more of a spread than Manball team. A couple of questions I would like asked: Why not use Dileo more as having three passing threats is better than two and could even open up the running game even more. As a followup: Have you studied the offense Michigan ran in the Capital One Bowl 2008 against Florida? We didn't abandon the run in that game but made it that much more effective because Henne was slinging the ball all over the place. We have the receivers and quarterback (and pass pro from the line) to have an amazing passing atack. Let's emphasize that to set up the run.
pass to set up the run! It's brilliant! I really wouldn't have believed he had it in him to think about manball v. spread, but you're so right.
If we're keeping Bosch and Magnuson at the guard spots, I have to believe we're going to be in the shotgun more. Mags is definitely not a masher at this point in his career, and is better served using his athleticism to block in space. Don't me wrong--we'll still try some under center stuff to set-up play action, but if Magnuson is your starter at RG, expect a heavy dose of shotgun.
I hope Borges uses the multiple calls he used against Indiana, although I'm sure he won't get 83 plays against MSU. 60% or more shotgun, please.
wondered why Michigan is ever under center. Gardner is a great dual threat QB! How often is B. Miller taking a snap from under center?
We should do exactly what the BTN guys say we should do! And a program that runs a different system with a very different program and schematic philosophy should also dictate what Michigan does. This is all great advice and I'm excited to hear more or it.
I agree because any fracking time Michigan goes under center we fumble the snap. I'm sorry but thats on the coaches, when you have a patchwork line and more specifically a change at center stick with the one thing that works.
Which is also a problem. The fact that snapping is an issue at all is ridiculous.
Michigan got big play after big play from under center last week. We put up over 300 yards from under center. There are actually multiple ways to play offense that work. Some of you guys just see what you want to see.
under center...against INDIANA!!!!
How did the under center plays go against UConn, PSU and Akron(!!!!!!)
Shotgun works better, the numbers prove it...Borges needs to call a great game against Sparty that involves a lot of shotgun, its that simple
Alot of big plays from under center?... yes... almost none of which were manball types of plays though... mostly pass plays and a few draws.
Its pretty simple (or pistol)... the shotgun gives u a numbers advantage over being under center... then u add in the fact that u can remove defenders from thw box bt moving WRs out wide and now u have to execute half as many blocks
But each block becomes more important and more difficult to accomplish because the defenders have to fight through less traffic. And it's easier to bring down defenders to gain a numbers advantage in the box without a way for the offense to adjust to block the point of attack. And the defense still has to respect the QB otherwise the QB can boot or roll and attack the edge and still become a run threat or more importantly a pass threat with all the time in the world.
I'm not saying the spread isn't good. Spread is fine. Pistol is fine. But this idea that spread = saving grace and under center = death is just not true. Both have strengths and weaknesses. Both fail if you miss a block directly at the point of attack, regardless of where the other players are aligned. That's a fact. Going to the spread only isn't going to fix what this team struggles at. It's not going to magically make this offense consistent and explosive. There is no clear answer, but it appears mixing up the two and not being some predictable on first down for a decent chunk of the game is a much more plausable solution than just going shotgun and spread.
You are so wrong it's silly. The spread makes it easier on the line, because the margin for error on making the perfect block is way higher. When you are under center running isos or power, the defense doesn't have to account for the QB, as almost every team has shown against M. I don't care if Borges has under center sets, but to run the idiotic, insane plays that he has when they clearly don't work when not set up by the pass is absolutely inexcusable. And if you bring extra defenders into the box against a spread team you are asking to get burned over the top or on the perimeter, and many teams go no huddle so they can read your tendencies pre snap. It's not even close from a quality perspective. It's 2013, and I'm sorry but if you are a coordinator who calls plays knowing that play will be unsuccessful or even won't give you a chance to score, then you aren't doing your job well enough. What sucks is that it seems like Al strips down his game plan for better defenses, but opens it up against crappy ones. I'm skeptical until he calls a brilliant game against decent competition.
You don't need to make a perfect block in either system. Yes, in the spread you can get away with a block that isn't as sound because the ball carrier has more room to work, but if you wiff a block the play is even more dead because there is no wash to get caught up in. The spread gives a lower floor, higher ceiling for success when it comes to blocking.
You don't have to account for the QB when running Iso or Power, so then how does Gardner keep picking up first downs on boot plays? How does Gardner keep buying so much time on play action? Because teams are failing to account for him. It's a different way, it's a different reason teams must account for him, it's not because most of the time he's a direct threat to run the ball, but it doesn't mean it isn't the case. It's just a different method of forcing the defenses hand. Yes, the spread is better at forcing the defense to account for the QB in the run game. It doesn't mean you don't need to account for him when he's under center.
When defenses stack the box against the spread you are forced to pass over the top because you have no other method of success, because defenders won't get caught in the wash. The point is that it is easier to bring defenders off the edge, such as slot defenders, or bring safeties down, and not allow the blocking react with the play call that is on. Because surely you can't change the play mid-play. It's the reason spread offenses necessitated the installation of packaged plays, because defenses could bring extra defenders into the box post-snap that couldn't be accounted for like they can when you have more blockers. These packaged plays take a lot of reps to get right, which is why teams don't just run them willy nilly.
But, bringing extra box defenders still does allow the spread to beat defenses over the top. There is tons of truth to that. Just like it does for any offense. It doesn't matter if it's from under center. Have you been watching the games? How has Michigan been getting over the top of defenses? From under center.
No idea where the no huddle thing is coming from. Yeah, teams go no huddle so they can see how teams align against them and they take tendancies (they aren't reading tendancies) from that alignment to try to put them in the best play. Yeah, a lot of teams do it, that's why. I've never argued differently.
I don't get a few things about a lot of people on this blog. People seem to like the spread, which is fine, it's a good offense, but they seem to find the need to attack things that come from under center, even if they are making up their reasons why it sucks. People don't like Borges. Again, so things get made up about him, or maybe the players are going rouge and that's why Michigan is successful now. But if Borges just ran the spread we'd be great because the spread is the perfect offense that cures all problems, up to and including a terrible OL.
I think you should keep sharing your opinions.
Don't get caught up with the 'haters' who are arguing just to argue...
When we attempt I-form run, Gardner holds the ball out at arms length from his body the second he gets control of it. Like all 115,000 people can see its a run for an entire second and a half. Agreed he could pull it back but that rarely happens. Seems like a dead giveaway to me in terms of split second timing as opposed to sort of handing off closer to the body with a simple 90 degree turn. I can see the counterpoint in terms of less collisions, less fumbles, more chance for defense to bite on play-action etc. It just seems to be a departure from the backfield timing that I've been accustomed to over many different teams, years, etc, and not just M.
The reason I bring up Manning is because that's the way they are being taught. Hold the ball out clearly. The distinction between a pro that has perfected it (Manning) and someone who hasn't (Gardner) is their ability to pull the ball back into their belly. It's similar to a QB that is good at riding the mesh point in a read option and one that just pulls it back. If you don't have the ball handling skills, the fake will always be less convincing.
The reason they hold it out like that (usually they do that on stretch plays, but you'll also see them hold the ball out initially like that on counters to give a stretch look, only to switch the side of their body) is because the QB can't get to that angle without doing that. It's about keeping the RB on the correct path so he can make his reads and cutbacks, etc.
Now I assume what you're referring to with the 90 degree turn is pistol. That is one of the benefits of the pistol, that it gets the ball to the RB on the stretch play without the QB having to extend too far. It does tend to make it so that the RB doesn't attack down hill quite as quickly because he must account for the time it takes the QB to handle the ball and turn still, so he can't step downhill immediately, but it is easier for the QB to drop straight back off PA. The difference becomes if you want to roll the pocket or create movement with how the QB handles the PA fake. The pistol makes it more difficult to do so because of the position he is in. A PA still leaves him relatively stationary, and rolling will often create too much depth to make his throwing angles and distance more difficult. He can roll too the action a bit easier, just as he can run the veer option but with a bit more depth, but then you aren't forcing the defense to play both sides, only the action side and so they're rolling to action the same way they'll roll their coverage. So, yes, you can do things from the pistol to make the run less obvious, and things like pop passes are easier because the footwork to get into a quick throw is easier. But there are other things, such as rolling from PA, that become more difficult.
As far as rolling the pocket, many people assume it's just to roll away from pressure. But it also helps the QB takes his eyes to certain areas. It gives him shorter throws which means you can run routes that are a bit closer together so the reads are a bit clearer and easier, but the ball needs to get out on time because it also eventually rolls coverage. Long roll outs tend to be to become a moving target and to give a run/pass option on the edge.
So....you don't want to throw for like 300+ yards? If Michigan threw for 500 yards against MSU, all from under center, some of you would still be complaining about any run not from shotgun. Play action out of the I and ace seemed to work pretty well. Think maybe there's a reason for that?
Again, there's multiple ways to run a successful offense. I know you guys love the spread and only the spread, I really do. But not running 100% spread stuff doesn't make a guy an idiot just because you personally don't like it. There's a contingent here that would knock not using the spread no matter what Michigan's under center run game looked like because it's not the "best" way to run the ball in their minds.
this makes your otherwise spotty assertion more credible.
So when's the Jake Butt article coming out? Three straight weeks of asking the same question about how Butt has allowed Funchess to move to WR.
Good day Al, I heard MSU watches a lot of film on Michigan, I mean A LOT, it's like it's there fucking superbowl or something. is there some way to maybe change the snap count or make the center not "bob" his head right before he snaps it?
Also is there a way to get the O to the line of scrimmage quicker, you know so the Oline and maybe the QB can see the two ILB's creeping up to the line for what's that play called...Double A something? This goes along with my other question when the Line gets set with 4 seconds on the play clock and he snaps it at zero?
I don't like his answers. I don't like him. I'm not sure which is causing which.
fan really just likes the heavy-breathing type coach better. Bo was actually pretty cerebral, but he was better at keeping it under his Michigan cap.
Anyone heard AB use this term previously? How about self-fulfiling prophecy?
And his golf analogy ... so if your driver sucks, maybe you need to hit a 3 wood off the tee (go ask Phil Mickelson). Never forget ... 27 for 27.
So that you're not starting every hole at a disadvantage relative to your peers.
That was a pretty awful analogy. Also, I think an OL being terrible is closer to your putter being terrible.
I think that's a pretty solid analogy. Sure, you should learn to hit your driver, but if you currently can't keep it in play, it's insane to keep pulling it out and whacking it into the woods. Would you rather start 15-20 yards behind your peers or be hitting three from the tee when you sliced it into the road?
Use your time on the range and get some lessons to get your driver in order, but when your match and / or money are on the line, do whatever gives you the best chance to win.
the team is practicing the gameplan (the driver) and plays that are in it. In reading the denouement posts I think he went to the 3 wood at PSU within the confines of his system (I didn't think that before reading SCs and others' posts.) If that is frustrating it is a frustration that will probably never resolve as long as Borges is OC.
Agree as well with SC that the Golf metaphor sucks - I have no idea what SC means about the putter and the OL.
Bottom line - when the money is on the line - within Borges' system - you don't want to call plays you haven't practiced recently. Borges is not coaching this team to react to the defense like other schemes do. It is what it is wrt Borges and that is frustrating when you see the offensive talent on the field today is better than a year ago (IMO) and the results are not.
Still sucks, I admit that, the point was that the issue with the offense (OL) isn't something you can get around (using a driver) by doing something else (hitting a 3 wood), it's something that you need to use and needs to work every single play (putter).
Yup, still sucks, but I think it's more accurate than saying Borges putting the QB under center is like him using his driver.
...distance isnt everything if your ball is 50 yards to the left/right of the fairway. Change the play calling to match what you can/cannot do and then you will succeed. Dileo and Gallon have shown a awesome ability to find holes in a defense so a dink/dunk strategy will work instead of run up the gut 1st/2nd down and pass on 3rd and 12.
That analogy is more in line with "Gardner can't throw the ball deep so don't throw the ball deep". What you're looking for is something like "I suck at hitting long Irons so I use a hybrid instead."
the analogy is directly from AB's presser. Hit quit playing golf because his driver sucked ... and this makes sense? I've played golf since I was 5 - played in college and was a scratch (before I became old) ... the game is not about length, its about playing the game using your own talents and abilities (which is different for everyone). I'm not going to try to carry a 250 yard water hazard - because my skill set doesn't allow me to do that ... and yet plenty of other players have no problem in carrying that hazard. Does that make them better than me? nope just different abilites. No matter how hard I practice I won't be able to carry that hazard.
Likewise, this Oline's talent and skill set isn't going to allow MANBALL to be successful - it may in a year or 2 with development and practice - but its just NOT going to happen this year - so you better have a way to carry that 250 yard hazard, other than trying to run into it.
Indiana Blue....my brother can carry 300 yards off the tee with his driver, I'm lucky to carry 260 to 275 due to a heavy draw/hook i have with my driver....a lot of times I have to play my 3 wood, much like Borges needs to stop running up the middle against good defenses (cough-sparty-cough)
why don't you tell Phil he's stupid for not hitting driver /s
So what Phil does doesn't register for normal people. Honestly, have you ever seen a commercial he's in? He refuses to blink and instead just gives a creepy death stare the entire time.
so when logic leaves, go for the personal insults. Classy, SC, classy.