This will totally end well.
Tuesday Presser Transcript 11-5-13: Al Borges
“Anybody? You guys are always slow on the trigger.”
How hard is it to game plan when your offensive line is so young?
“It’s not hard to game plan. You just need to put the pieces together and hope like heck that under pressure your young players can perform. A couple weeks ago against a lesser defensive opponent, we did a pretty good job. But like you asked me a couple weeks ago, ‘Did you gain any confidence?’ I said, ‘I’ll tell you after this game.’ Well this brings you back down to earth on where you are against teams that you have to play – the margin of error against really good defensive teams is small. We had just too many errors put us in bad situations. And it wasn’t always the younger guys. The middle of our offensive line is young, and things come up sometimes.”
What’s the frustration level when the shots downfield are open but you don’t have time to get the ball off?
“Yeah. That is. It’s really frustrating. When you set it up that way, you know what I mean? And your protections are such that your blocking with seven guys, and in some instances you have six guys. It’s very frustrating you don’t get at least – and they’re going to get you sometimes. I don’t care who the team is. But by the same token some of your bombs have to land, too. Now a couple did, but not enough, obviously.”
You talked about avoiding disasters. But it seemed like there were a lot from the blitzes up the middle.
“Not just up the middle. A couple different spots. We didn’t have the disastrous play that put them with a short field, but we had some disastrous individual plays that put us in terrible down and distances. And again, I don’t care who the defense is, if you do that, that’s just not good. It’s tough on the play caller, it’s tough on everybody.”
Brady said Fitz is your better pass protector of the running backs. Did he just have a bad game?
“He’s always a willing participant knows what to do. With the younger players doing that now, it’s tough. When you put them in that situation – I told you from the beginning, the slowest thing to come for a young running back is protection. Targeting the right player and the right technique that comes with that. Fitz, we just felt like was the most reliable entity in there doing it. A couple times he did a great job, a couple times he didn’t. But for the most part he’s always willing. He never turned it down one time. So we just felt he was the best candidate to do it … I’ve never had a freshman running back be able to understand all the blitz pickups. They usually don’t totally understand it until the second year. And when you have a team like that coming from different angles, if you put a freshman in there you’re just setting him up to fail.”
Do you think Fitz missed any holes in the running game?
“I think he ran when there were opportuniites, he ran well. I think he’ll tell you there were a couple he’d like to run through. But it wasn’t like we were opening huge crevasses he was blind to see. I don’t think that was a blatant problem.”
Devin got beat up pretty good. Is this a game where those running backs really need to turn the corner?
“To a degree. But our plan was to throw the ball on first down more than we had, or at least more than we had against Indiana so we can efficiently run the ball during the game. Our approach was not to throw the ball up and down the field. The idea was to pick your shots and pick them at times that were less pass-predictable downs. What happened a lot of times, we got into some bad down and distances because of that, and the running game, no matter who it was, just never got going. The statistics are just flat ugly. A lot of those sacks, a bad snap, that’s a little deceiving, but we didn’t run the ball well.”
MGoQuestion: What kind of benefit does this kind of game give you moving forward as you prepare for defenses that are similarly disciplined and aggressive?
“Well, it helps the guys – hopefully they learn from a lot of what went on. That’s what helps moving forward, in terms of just the experience gain. That’s the biggest game. This kind of game can help a guy three or four games down the line. Maybe the next game, to a degree, and years to come. Because you’ve already seen something and didn’t do it right, now because that happened, that’s experience. A product of your experience is good and bad. So I think that’s how it will help them.”
Is Devin Funchess strictly a wide receiver now?
“No, I think we’ll just do like we’ve been doing. He’s been playing wide receiver the most, but we still package him in certain instances to play tight end and still use him as a blocker as a tight end in situations we know he can succeed. So we pretty much do as we’ve done. Because Jehu Chesson’s done some nice things in the game. Jehu’s not catching the ball, but blocking, too. Jehu’s a tough guy who’s mixing it up.”
What do you like about Funchess, and what would you like to see out of him?
“Just keep providing us the ability to make the big play, take pressure off Jeremy Gallon. That’s huge. Knowing that certain games, it’s going to be one or the other. Some games, maybe both. But that’s really it more than anything. Provide the type of threat we need to balance out our passing game, because that’s what he’s done since he’s come in. And he’ll continue to learn that. He’s still not quite there, but he’ll get there. He’s a smart kid and he’s tough and he’s very coachable.”
Were you restricted on what you could call because he was getting beat up late in the game?
“Not really. No. He was – let me tell you something. He was a warrior. He stood in there and threw that sucker. Some of the things I think people were ridiculing him for early in the year, the last three or four games have pretty much gone away. And this game more than any game. He stood in there and threw that ball. Defied the pass rush and was unperturbed a lot of times. He got rocked. But as a quarterback, you’re going to have a game like this. You’re going to take hits and it’s going to test your mettle. You’re going to find out if this is really the position you want to play. He came through. I was so proud of him when it was over. You’d love it to have gone differently, but in terms of courage under fire, you couldn’t ask for more.”
Derrick Green got only a couple snaps. Have you seen him progress?
“Yeah. And a lot of the reason for that was because of the pressure. You just put too much on him. He would have gotten more snaps if we had been better equipped to run the ball. But he’s made good progress. He’s going to be a good back. We just have to find a way to get him into games when the game is in balance and put him in a position to succeed. That was not one of those games.”
Would you like to see the backs get more involved in the passing game?
“Oh yeah. Sure. As we progress. And we had it a little bit in the season, where Fitz was getting some balls. You always like to see that, as much as you can. Get everybody involved if you can. But the problem you’re dealing with is when you’re sending backs out, you’re sacrificing pass protection.”
Did you sense frustration from Devin throughout the game?
“Not really. No. Not really. He was good. I talk to him every series. He was fine. When you go in a game, the way it was set up, we were going to take some balls down the field on them. The quarterback was going to take some hits. But we weren’t counting on that. But he was ready. He knew what we had to do to win that game offensively. It wasn’t going to be a clean jersey at the end of the game. We just can’t have that happen to him in that game or any other game.”
How does Nebraska’s defense compare to other defenses?
“Some similarities to MSU but not as tight [with the] safeties, but similar coverage. They’ll pressure a lot, they’ll blitz in certain situations. Their MO is a little different. They play some tight match zone, which MSU does too but not really the same way. So it’s a similar approach but not exactly the same. It’s a little different.”
What allows you to rebound after tough losses?
“Our head coach sets the tone for that. The one thing, working for as many guys as I’ve worked for, I’ve got a pretty good feel for how guys are. The team will react a lot the way the head coach reacts. The head coach sets the tone. The key to not losing a lot of games, in my opinion, or not going into the tank, is not overreacting. Reacting, don’t get me wrong, that game was not played well and there has to be a reaction, no ifs ands or buts. But not overreacting so much that you do something that pulls the team right in the tank. And he’s as good as anybody I’ve ever seen about making sure mistakes are fixed but not dwelling on it so much that the next opponent will beat you, too. That’s all of us. Don’t get me wrong. But the head coach sets the tone. That’s why working with him for five years, I’ve just seen him do this more times, and he’ll do it again. He’ll bring the team back in again. That’s just the way he is, and that’s the way he expects us to be.”
What specifically about him?
“Just his personality. The way he is. Do you want your leader to freak out? Do you want George Patton to go crazy in the middle of a battle and get everyone killed? No. He had a bad temper, and Brady does, too. So do I. But if cooler heads prevail at the end of the day – you can have your explosions – but at the end of the day when everything settles, if your leader shows a leadership composure … then generally they’ll recover. But if you go in the tank or overreact or do something, the players will follow you right into the tank. This job is a lot of ebb and flow. I mean, it is. Last week, what did we have? 700-and-some odd yards. This week? You can count on one hand. That’s this job. That’s how it is. How you react when you don’t do as well will determine how you do next time. If you panic and do a bunch of stuff that isn’t conducive to getting yourself back on your feet, you can lose a lot of games. I’ve seen that happen a lot, too. I’ve been a part of that.”
How did you react during the game? Did you ever despair?
“No. When you’re not protecting, it’s always hard. And then they’re crowding the box, too, so it’s hard to run. That can be frustrating. The thing about playcalling, and again, you have to keep your head as level as possible, otherwise you’ll do what I was just talking about. You’ll start panicking and start guessing at plays. Every series, you have to sequence what you have to do next, see what they’re doing, and hope that the kids are accounted for. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t. You can’t lose your head. Hell, everybody gets frustrated. Several cuss words came out of my mouth during that game, but to be honest several cuss words came out of my mouth during the Indiana game, too. But that’s the job. If you keep your head level and not let your judgment get clouded, it gives you the best chance.”
If you could take a game like Saturday’s and take your young offensive line and fastforward two years, how different would it be?
“Oh it would be 100 percent different. A kid that’s played this game two years later? You’re looking at a completely different team. You’re looking at a completely different player. We went into Florida when I was at Auburn and started three true freshman offensive linemen and beat Florida. But they didn’t know what they were doing, they were just playing hard. Those same guys four years later won a national championship. That’s the difference. That position particularly – and all of them, don’t get me wrong – offensive line is so much learning and chemistry. Screwing something up, fixing it, working with the guy next to you. So many things. That’s why as much as we didn’t like having to shuffle these guys all year, you have to find the five that are doing the best job. Until you do, you’re doing the team an injustice if you’re keeping a guy in there that’s not doing the job.”
So you’re still set on those five?
“Yeah. We’re going to approach it just like we’ve done the last couple weeks. We could fire them and start all over again, and you’re asking for more problems. But if the same issues occur, we will put another guy in there. But you have to give them a chance to develop a little bit.”
With three true freshmen on the line, but can almost execute next to nothing with redshirt freshman? Why is that? Maybe Florida didn't run the same defense as MSU, but it has to be something fundamental, right? Maybe coaching? Maybe talent? Something's gotta give somewhere.
20 points in that game. In all honesty they should have rolled out the red carpet to their defense for winning that game. It helped that Auburn was +1 in the turnover department, too. Ironically, Will Muschamp was the defensive coordinator.
It wasn't the offensive coordinator.
I envy these reporters for being so professional, because I know I couldn't. My questions would be along the lines of:
"Why does your offensive line suck so bad? Do you not realize it? Have you tried fixing it?"
"Why do you deserve to keep your job after that awful performance?"
"Do you realize what you're doing isn't working?"
I would be an awful reporter.
a bum after a night of being schlitz blitzed.
Why? What is it dumb to ask hard questions? You make hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars and when you objectively fail at your job you SHOULD face hard questions.
Those are questions obnoxious ignoramuses' ask. Those questions insult the interviewee(which is a big no-no for journalists) which in turns almost guarantees a walk out or at least an entirely justifiable requesto kick your ass out of the media room. You then would probably be fired for a lack of professionalism.
Anyways, Borges doesn't answer to you or me. He answers to Hoke who answers to Dave Brandon who in turn answers to boosters. We are mere observers.
I'm not saying those were hard questions but in general asking harder questions.
While I understand agree with your sentiment about coaches answering to DB, but keep in mind he works at a public university so honestly I do have at least a minor interest as a taxpayer in seeing some accountability. I know that might sounds dumb, but its so ridiculous to me how we in society seem to give a free pass to certain powerful people, especially coaches. If you wanna be a dick as a coach and not answer honest and hard questions so be it, but someone needs to be asking them IMO.
saying "why do you suck" is not going to do much of anything. asking "what could you have done differently the last two weeks to have had a different result?" or "how would you assess your performance in preparing the kids to play the #1 defense?" would likely put him on the spot since he has to assess his own shortcomings and figure out ways to fix things. have to coach the coach.
The M Athletic Department is entirely self funded. It has nothing to do with the University from a tax dollar standpoint and never has. It does not receive anything from the University's General Fund or from anything the state may provide the University through tax dollars.
So if you believe the coaches somehow work for you or should be answerable to you on that basis, you're wrong.
Every public school Athletic Department is a division of that school and is supervised by the school adminstration...To go further back, every school started from tax payers' funding as well their athletic departments...so in short, yes, all of us who pay taxes have contributed in one was or another to all of the state college's athletic departments' funds and their paychecks....endowments are granted thru all of us tax payers, by you simply stating that the funds are on different ledgers does not mean that they are operated/owned as separate entities...the school can decide on a whim to shutdown all of their athletic programs and there is nothing the AD could do to stop it
is overseen by a Board in Control. The Director reports to the Board and the University President. So no it is not entirely autonomous from that standpoint; however, from a funding standpoint it is.
If you are saying that by going back in history you will find a funding connection, I would suggest that the farther back you go with M, the greater the independence between the Athletic Department and the University. For example, Canham hired Bo without ever consulting with anybody or getting anybody's OK....he did not have to. And nobody ever told Yost or Crisler what they could or could not do.
In this regard, M is much different than nearly all other universities including MSU which is among many that are dependent on funding "subsidies" from the General Fund. Hell, the M Athletic Department even pays the University for the tuition of its scholarship athletes including out of state rates if applicable!
can do that (pay-back the schollies) because they are one of the few schools who can do this...and by few, I mean one of 6 or 7 AD's in the country that actually make the school money/not use general fund money to offset the negative balance sheet at the end of the year...but it is a false sense of terminology to say or think that the Michigan AD operates on its own accord just because it has the revenue to do so (or a coach or AD hiring/operating whoever/however they choose)...public schools are run by the school administration, and they are hired/supervised by a body of people elected by the voters of the state...the massive endowment that Michigan boasts is largely due to the massive support they get from tax dollars/federally supported loans (and of course alumni donations)...the voters/school admin. control the AD, not the other way around, they are simply granted the freedom to do so since sports (especially football) have gained such popularity with regards to corporate sponsoring over the past 20 years (give or take)
The M AD does not and cannot dip into any Univerity Endowments; never has. Those are strictly related to the U and have nothing to do with the AD. It has only been in the last 20 years or so that the AD even borrowed any money for improvements to facilities; in the past nothing was ever even started without first having the cash in hand to pay for it. If the AD did not have it, then they solicited donations for that particular project, and did not commence it until they had the money. That still happens, but now with the scope and magnitude of these projects, the AD is borrowing money.
The fact that the AD is a part of the University and subject to supervision by the Pres. and Board in Control has nothing to do with the fact that it is financially completely independent from the University and always has been.
Nor does the AD "make money" for the University. Its year in year out budget is basically a break even deal over time. Yeah, this year they may get ahead on the balance sheet, but that just pays next year's not so much. Except for the rent they pay to the U and the tuition and other charges the U imposes on them, none of their "profit" goes back to the U or the General Fund. That's a fact and saying otherwise won't make it so.
And by the way, the U has always required the AD to pay for itself. It has never been, let us know if you need any help. When Goss left because the AD was deep in debt, the U never said, don't worry, we will bail you out. Instead, Martin was hired and he worked for free until he got the balance sheet out of the red.
everything you are saying and i agree with it (since they are facts)...the point I am making is that any public AD got its start (and continuing success) due to the university/tax payers that afforded it to do so (and continue to afford it to do so in many other colleges where the AD's are far in the red on the balance sheets)....i guess I am just pointing out the general philosophy that without massive public support/funding (largely thru direct or indirect tax dollars), none of these sports programs are possible...Michigan is an exception, not the rule, due to our massive fan base that continue to contribute loads of money...im not saying there is anything wrong with such a great fanbase with a lot of wealth, i am simply stating that the public/tax payers made/continue to make it possible as well
athletic competition is possible at Michigan because other schools AD rely directly on tax dollars taken from that school's General Fund, without which that school could not operate an AD or have a sports team, that's true. But if you are saying M's AD is somehow even indirectly dependent on tax dollars, that is just wrong.
For example, go out to Radrick Farms golf course (U owned and run by the AD) and tell them you are a taxpayer and demand that they allow you to play and see how far that gets you.
now that you are the one missing the point....tax dollars support public schools, without them day-to-day operations are simply not possible...the point i (tried) to make to you was simply that the success Michigan has experienced with our AD/programs is an exception to the rule...Mcihigan (and a handful of other schools across the country) have the unique ability to operate without direct funding from their school's general fund...but to say that Michigan athletics have not benifited indirectly from tax payers is a complete joke...and of course I would not try to walk on any golf course (public or private) without paying greens fees...that statement is completely foolish and condescending and tells me a bit more about your overall philosophy of "I built it" vs. "We built it" when it comes to public institutions
just like any private business builds itself. Although Radrick is owned by a public university, it is a private course run by the M AD and no you could not play it as a "taxpayer" even if you paid greens' fees. The tax dollars that go to M do not go to the AD or any part of it, and no rights arise or accrue to anyone who may be a taxpayer on that basis.
This "notion" that because I am a taxpayer and since M is a public institution I have a voice in how the AD is run at M is completely false. Your point ithat the M AD has benefitted from tax dollars is so indirectly obscure as to be almost non-existent. Yeah, tax dollars built the road to the stadium.....that's about it. Not surprised that you would draw conclusions about an "overall philosophy" from this....sheesh.
Bluegoose, it appears you and I are at a stalemate and for some reason you think a public institution has little-to-no control over its AD...i understand the points you have made, they are logical and make sense...I am simply pointing to the larger picture that made it possible for all of that to occur and continue to occur (without going into the exact details that allow the U to continue to thrive thru said tax dollars/public support)....but hey, if you want to be the one who says its all possible because of private donors and how i can't golf on a private course, go right ahead, im glad that makes you happy....far be it for me to throw a dose of reality into your small-view of how public instutitons work (or should work, according to you)
16.5% of the budget. I think it could find another way to make up that money, as all private institutions do. So I think it could manage day to day operations without tax dollar public support.
None of which goes into athletics.
that "now" it could support itself since it has obtained an $8 BILLION endowment thru public resources, land, and funding
Just as soon as you can show me that most of that $8 billion came from public resources.
along with mutliple grants is where the majority of all endowments are earned/built up...the majority of that tuition coming from federally backed loans (in most cases, likely the majority of Michigan students have mommy/daddy pay out of pocket)....and the public land on which U lays on which was given by the public and is calculated in the value of the endowment....so yeah, its safe to say that the majority of the endowment was/is directly thru public funding and support...which i agree with, this is a great University and does a lot of good for the statem, country, and the world....but to simply say it is only/mainly possible because of private funding is a complete joke
Really wasn't that much. It's worth tons more now, but a great deal because the University is here. And land they acquire now they pay for, and usually at a premium.
The loans may be federally back, but they're loans, and they're paid back. With interest, so the public is actually making a profit off of it.
And to say a major University couldn't survive without private funding is ignoring all the major private institutions that do just fine without tax funding. I don't think Harvard is really hurting.
that nearly every university needs private funding as well, that is most likely fact (although it would be hard to prove, but i digress)...the current student loan debt just eclipsed $1 Trillion, and a large amount of that isn't paid back and we eat the cost (not saying that UM grads don't pay it back, but nonetheless the system is supported by all tax payers just the same)...and of course the land is worth more now due to the city's/U's success, but the point is that their success was allowed and largely as supported by the initial (and continuing) public investment....same goes with why the USA produces the best medicine year-in an year-out: massive public grant funding that in turn allow these universities to become so advanced and succeed....im not against private funs by any means (i am glad so many wealthy donors give back to the schools that helped them become successful), i was simply pointing out to Bluegoose that is a two-way street and that the main reason we have the best public universities in the world is largely (at least half, i would say is a fair estimate) due to our constant public funding to further the betterment of our society
EDIT: are you seriously using Harvard as an example? That is a completely different argument that will turn poltically almost immediately that I am not going to engage on this here board
Is Harvard the only successful private university in the country?
but it is by far and away the largest endowment ($30 Billion) due to the large funnel of wall street and political money (is there really a difference between those 2 entities??)...next largest private is Stanford at $17B, and so on and so forth...i cannot make my point at this juncture without getting into a heavy dose of politics (although i just have a bit but that is not needed for my original argument)...so i take it you at least see/agree with some of my argument as you have not combatted me so heavily like Bluegoose did?? although that is just an assumption on my behalf
But I respected your desire not to drag it into politics and not egg you on by making comments you can only reply to with political statements and just let it go.
I have a question that Borges will never respond, but here goes: Are the RB coach and the OL coach pulling their weight?
Are you being surrounded by the proper coaches to succeed on offense?
Is the head coach not allowing you to dictate the tempo and playcalling you want to dictate?
Btw, I completely forgot Borges has beaten Meyer before.
just like any other coach with half a brain. Either that or he would answer it very diplomatically. No staff is going to air their dirty laundry.
How about the QB coach?
I don't consider myself a tremendous football expert but it looks to me like some of the things that Devin's not always good at (quick check-offs, decisions under pressure, recognizing open receivers) are skills that can be worked on with a QB coach...which is a role that Borges reserves to himself.
Borges is the qb coach...
edit. premature comment didnt read full previous comment. :x
They, like most gifted athletes at QB, aren't being taught to check down. This isn't a Borges thing, this is a thing where they, themselves, are the most dangerous third option.
You also don't see Michigan QBs looking off their first read and going to their 2nd read? Really? Really? You seriously think they are completing every single pass by just tossing it to the guy that's number 1 on the progression? Do you think all you do is look receiver to receiver and that's how a progression works? You don't have to read the defense?
You also want a guy, who doesn't have protection, to sit back in the pocket and minipulate the safety with his eyes, and then find an open receiver on the other side of the field. I'd like you to name the other college QBs that are doing this. Your list is going to be absolutely minimal if any because that's a trait that is more often than not developed in the NFL. The most you teach in college is typically to stare down the barrel to hold safeties, because there is already so much new that defenses are doing, and the reads are complex enough, and they don't get the practice time, to do the things you're asking.
You seem to be a guy that asks a lot of people that doesn't understand how football actually works. I figure it's because you either play a lot of video games or watch a lot of NFL Countdown and feel you understand what college QBs should know and learn. But you don't go doing the most advanced things (or completely unnecessary things) before you learn not just the basics, but the fairly complex details of playing the position.
FYI, you've called me out a few times now. I'll either ignore your stupidity or completely expose it going forward. I would like to warn you that you've made a mistake in doing that, because this isn't a case where I'm not sure you know what you're talking about, I am certain you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. That's not a threat, that's just telling you that you're going to look very stupid pretty much every time you try to comment with some complete nonsense.
That is just an awesome response. Go Space Coyote!!
Seriously, I am getting fed up reading this board with all of the 12 year old X-Box players who think that just because they can play Madden 2013, they now know how to coach football. The criticisms of Borges that I am seeing lately are just flat out stupid.
Why doesn't Devin move safeties off of receivers with his eyes? Aside from the reason that you articulated, how about the fact that Devin is too busy avoiding 1 to 3 275+ pound men that are barreling down on him unblocked with regularity. Also, doing so takes 4-8 seconds, that Devin never had against MSU.
Same thing with the whole "why not run screen passes" thing. Because that is easy for a defense to take away. Do people really think that Borges, who has been a respected OC for decades throughout the country, isn't aware of the existence of a screen pass?
SC, keep fighting the good fight. I have been a die hard football fan for over 2 decades, but as someone who has never coached, I appreciate all of your knowledge.
I went back and forth about whether or not to include this, but I guess I asked it, so ... here it is:
MGoQuestion: Brady said he thought the game plan was correct, but hindsight is always 20/20. Knowing what you know now, what would you have done differently?
"I won't answer that question. I won't answer it. That's a loaded question. There's no way to answer that. Obviously we thought we were doing what was best. Looking back with 20/20 [hindsight] has an effect on Nebraska. It has no effect on Michigan State."
Al Borges hates me!
If it makes you feel any better, I hate Al Borges!
Hate is such a strong word and horrible emotion. I hope you're kidding, and pity the fact that you might be serious.
There is a great question. Instead of saying, "Most of your playcalls sucked. Now knowing that, what plays do you have that don't suck that you would have called?" And when a tough insightful question is asked, he refuses to answer it. Another great question to ask would be, "why do we have press conferences, if any non-coach could give every answer that they give without being in the lockerroom.
He's probably contractually obligated to have these pressers. This is because of a mutual agreement between the school, conferences, NCAA, and the press. The press gets access, the others get free publicity. Not that complicated.
I understand everyone's frustration with some of the things that have happened this year, but I've never seen any reason for a coach to be open with the media about much of anything, and I caution against becoming upset with what is or is not said in a press conference. I remember RR, when asked whether Forcier or Denard would start a given game, saying, "I still haven't figured out why I would answer that."
People may not like this example, but here it goes: I think we can all agree that Jim Tressel was a pretty good football coach, putting aside for the moment whether you consider him to have been a cheater. He could win football games, at least, right? Anyway, he was unhelpful to the point of being nearly rude with OSU beat writers when he was still coach, and it never stopped the Buckeyes from winning a lot of games under him.
The coaches that try to win the press conferences don't win as many games. See: Bill Belichick.
"It's a loaded question"?!! No, it's a legitimate question that deserves an answer. It is so frustrating that Borges ducks the most poignant question, one that Michigan football fans everywhere are asking. Let's face it though, we all know what his answer would have been, he wouldn't have changed anything about the game plan if he knew then what he knows now.
Thanks for asking the tough/relevant questions, Heiko!
It's not a bad question from Heiko. But why is Borges not within his rights to say, essentially, "look, there's no profit to the team in me giving you a post mortem on the MSU game" and noting that doing so would likely benefit Nebraska? That seems like a reasonable response from Borges.
Also, on what basis to you assert the following?
(W)e all know what his answer would have been, he wouldn't have changed anything about the game plan if he knew then what he knows now.
I don't know that at all. I don't think anyone on this board knows that. I suspect he'd make a number of changes if he saw the blitz packages, etc. I rather strongly suspect that he'd make a number of changes, in fact.
No, you're wrong. Obviously fbreckne knows exactly what he is talking about! Oh, you didn't know that?
don't owe us anything. Football involves strategy and I certainly don't want the coaches of teams that I root for tipping their hands by discussing their philosophies on strategies and game time adjustments with the media so all future opposing coaches know what to expect as adjustments.