Tuesday Presser Transcript 11-5-13: Al Borges Comment Count

Heiko

file

“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.”

Comments

JohnnyV123

November 5th, 2013 at 11:51 PM ^

It's alright. I completely get it based on what "fans" have said recently and like I said I agree with you for the most part. I do not agree with everything I have seen you say about Borges but it is nice to see someone defending his intelligence as an offensive coordinator. The way people are talking about him they act like he's some bumbling fool that just picks random plays to try in games.

I suppose I would just prefer that the person with legit evidence (you) can win the argument without resorting to being well....you know.

Don't stay away from the board for too long if you feel you must take a break! Your insight is needed around these parts to help those who might succumb to the recent doom and gloom opinions plaguing this board.

Blue in Yarmouth

November 5th, 2013 at 6:49 PM ^

My Father once shared a quote with me that has stuck for over 30 years. "Better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

That quote has kept me from looking like a complete imbecile on more than one occasion. Now I don't pretend to be a football guru, but even I know the strategy you described would have been asking for trouble against an aggressive defence like MSU.

Mr. Yost

November 5th, 2013 at 5:40 PM ^

...is where I wish we just didn't post pressers.

There's nothing that can be said to change anything, it's just bitching. So now I'm bitching about the bitchers.

Answering questions in a manner that is suitable for fans doesn't do anything. Winning games does. Who cares about the answers on Tuesday to a disappointing loss on Saturday.

Unless Borges flat out had a legitimate reason why they performed the way they did, then I don't care what he's got to say and thus I'm not going to cry when he gives an answer that I don't like.

I didn't read Borges say "well, Coach Dantonio found the cure for cancer but said he'd only share it if they could play 12 guys on defense and we could only run 8 plays...Tecmo Bowl style on offense."

I could go for that answer, Cancer sucks. I'll take the L to cure it. But that isn't the case...so keep it moving. Hoke, Borges and Mattison aren't going to tell you guys what you want to hear. There is no magic answer.

glewe

November 5th, 2013 at 5:44 PM ^

I actually thought this was a really refreshing press conference. Candid, and whether you like it or not, he knows what he's talking about. Whether he's excellent as a coordinator or coach is anyone's guess, but he's certainly no novice.

I dumped the Dope

November 5th, 2013 at 9:43 PM ^

After seeing a few of these, I get the impression Borges weaves philosophy of the game into the logic thru which he sets his calls. In my mind, when one understands the underlying themes, the point and counterpoint, it can only come from a lot of thought and experience of/with the game. I do respect that the coaches appear to have a problem solving mentality rather than a reactionary scorched earth mentality. The philosophical question I leave you with is...if Borges were given a great/dominant OL, what could he do with this? I think we will find out...give it time

StephenRKass

November 5th, 2013 at 6:19 PM ^

I like Borges and think he and Michigan's offense will be fine down the road a year and more. At this point, haters are gonna hate. I'm just thrilled that between Brandon and Hoke, Borges should be fine through next season. None of this "hot seat" nonsense. For that matter, given the terrible OL recruiting, I strongly believe Funk should be given a pass through 2015. Some see coaching continuity as a cause for despair. I see the current coaching continuity as a sign for rejoicing.

Ohio has gloated for years about the talent deficit between them and us. This disparity, especially the lack of experienced seniors, is hitting us hard this year. The deficit will narrow every year going forward . . . provided that we keep the coaches in place. It simply takes several years of solid recruiting and having your guys in the system with most red-shirting to see the results.

The family atmosphere among the coaches is huge, especially between Hoke, Borges, and Mattison. They and their wives have a great relationship. This extends throughout the position coaches, and is perhaps one of the most significant reasons we are recruiting so well. What so many on this board don't understand is that messing with these interpersonal dynamics is fraught with danger. My son's 7th grade season just ended (6 - 2, won a game in the playoffs.) A large part of the reason his team is doing well is the great chemistry among the coaches. I don't want to see anything mess with this.

Space Coyote

November 5th, 2013 at 6:28 PM ^

And I'm outta here before the rest come. Imagine you just came down off your Guatemalan Merciless Peppers of Quetzlzacatenango insanity-pepper induced hallucinatory high. That's what just happened.

Colby Jax

November 5th, 2013 at 7:16 PM ^

Honest question for someone to shed light on:

Does UM plant any of their own PR people in the gallery to ask some of these questions? Specifically, were the first two asked by employees of the AD? I have a hard time believing they are all being paid through independent sources.

Indiana Blue

November 5th, 2013 at 7:20 PM ^

like his strategy was to devise a method to stop the blitz rather than creating plays that would deter MSU from blitzing.  I don't remember ever saying to myself ... wow, I've never seen that play before (which I said twice during the Minnesota / Nebraska game). 

Go Blue!

Space Coyote

November 5th, 2013 at 7:27 PM ^

But it's extremely difficult to make this claim when you don't see the routes that are being run on the majority of pass plays.

Also, there is only so many different looks you can use in the run game. People are already complaining (to a degree, rightfully so) that Michigan has had too many things to do in the run game.

Also, Brian just picture paged a new look, so there's that as well. There are small wrinkles added every week, even if they aren't obvious, but more in the grand scheme of the offense as a whole.

DelhiGoBlue

November 5th, 2013 at 7:29 PM ^

would be, Would you discuss the play during which Calhoun came free off the left end leaving Lewan standing in space like a lost statue?

That single play, to me, is quite indicative of the greater failure. 

Space Coyote

November 5th, 2013 at 7:30 PM ^

That was a slide protection that was called because the offensive line was struggling with their man pass protection schemes. So they went with a more general gap blocking scheme which slides the OL one direction and has the RB fill in the gap behind it all. This is easier, but often times less effective (as seen). The hope there would be that Lewan would see that there is minimal threat coming around from the inside, pivot, and help Fitz while keeping his eyes inside incase he needs to peel back for some sort of twist stunt.

But those are the kinds of adjustments that need to be made when the OL isn't getting it. You have to do things that are simpler but often times less effective. That's probably not the answer he'd give in a presser, but if he actually sat down with you and you discussed football, that is likely the answer he would give.

LJ

November 5th, 2013 at 9:14 PM ^

SC, kudos to you for wading through this thread teeming with lunacy and trying to respond with reason to so many of the posts.  You're pretty much the only thing holding this board together these days.

markusr2007

November 5th, 2013 at 7:31 PM ^

that could have yielded good yardage consistently against the Spartans? 

I'm understanding the answer to be "no, none exists" and that Borges' gameplan and plays should have worked if not for the inexperienced and at times confused UM OL (execution).

 


 

 

Space Coyote

November 5th, 2013 at 7:36 PM ^

In the past, there are two things that have been able to get big chunks, although they haven't been consistent: Inside zone/Iso, and a between the tackles counter.

The inside zone or Iso can pop simply because it's such a quick hitting play and if someone takes a bad angle (which is rare) then it can gain yardage. I believe that's how Indiana had their one long run. Counters between the tackles can work because of how fast the LBs flow. Go outside the tackles though and you're going to get hit by the safety filling in the alley.

WM-wolverine

November 5th, 2013 at 9:42 PM ^

The one good thing about this staff is that your incessant need to defend them moved you to leave the board.The first 6 "questions" placed direct blame on the players. These , were in fact, statements on which Borges built. Your superiority complex would find close companionship with brady and the boys. Borges is on record as stating he does not make adjustments, he makes defenses adjust to him. He calls what he calls and if it doesn't work blame must be placed elsewhere.

 

One legitimate line of questioning on which I would like to hear your expertise.

If there truly is nothing these coaches could or can do to overcome player performance, which is what you continually preach......

If we went back to the start of spring practice and completely swapped coaching staffs with Alabama, are you going to tell us that nothing about either teams season would change?

Would Brady and the boys have Alabama #1?  Would that be because superior talent?

Would Saban and company be scraping along at 6-2 while setting various records of ineptitude? Would he then be constantly placing blame on "execution".

We know you love to go on and on, so, lets hear it.

 

SalvatoreQuattro

November 5th, 2013 at 10:16 PM ^

This meme of the coaches 'blaming" the players is complete bullshit. Noting a failure to execute is not "blaming", but pointing out a fact. Do you really think that it was Borges intent to get Gardner sacked and hit 20 times? Do you think they planned for UM to end the game with -48 yards? If not, then that is execution. That is on the players. Certainly, Borges and his staff are deserving of criticism for the lack of execution. But that is as much on the players as it is the coaches. 

 

Secondly, that isn't a legitimate line of questioning. It is speculative nonsense that no one can possibly answer. 

 

I find it highly hypocritical to criticize Space Coyote for exhibiting "a superiority complex" when you have as your signature a statement insulting the intelligence of the members of MGOBLOG.  

GMHW

November 6th, 2013 at 2:51 AM ^

What's really sad is that in the back of my mind, I see it taking another 2-3 years of losing to OSU and MSU before people realize that the "brain trust" (save Mattison) isn't good enough.  Life is pretty damn short, and it will be torture waiting for the people in charge to see the light.

The stakes have been raised in this conference and DB picked the wrong time to go bargain shopping for the HC.

These guys relentlessly defending this regime just make the whole thing more annoying.

anyway, Go Blue!

Space Coyote

November 6th, 2013 at 12:03 AM ^

I actually think, while one is very spread and the other in very man ball, Michigan and OSU would be very similar in this regard. Both want to be able to run and run very well. This forces defenses to really respect it (every defense that OSU ahs played has been borderline terrified of their running attack) and that has opened up a lot behind it to give Miller very easy and simplified reads to make plays downfield.

I think the vast majority of their TDs against Purdue were passes last week as well, if not all of them.

UMForLife

November 5th, 2013 at 8:23 PM ^

I know they had extra protection on some long developing pass plays, but it still didn't work. It happens even to a really good team. I watched Drew Brees struggle against Jets the other day even with extra protection. I saw someone suggest a FB as a RB. May be we could have tried two FB max protection and hope that Funchess gets open. It didn't seem like there were enough counters in the game. May be 2011 will repeat itself and we go to a BCS game by beating OSU. I remember feeling the same way in 2011. But that team had an experienced line and they adjusted. Let us see what this team is made of. Sadly, still hopeful... Go Blue!

A2D2

November 5th, 2013 at 9:04 PM ^

Why should we think that there's a snowball's chance in hell that things are going to get better, given that the coach and his plan stay the same?

Not that it matters, but Borges seems to be a master at deftly deflecting blame.........the mark of a true leader.

 

Urban Warfare

November 5th, 2013 at 9:07 PM ^

The question I would have asked is "Given Michigan's utter failure to establish the run, and the continuing problems with the O-line, why would you keep calling slow developing play action in the second half?"

Reader71

November 6th, 2013 at 1:02 PM ^

More than likely, the desire was to run a certain route combination against an anticipated coverage. This route combination was probably long developing, as are most that are aimed more than 15 yards deep, which is how far we were from a first down. It is probable that this route combination takes long enough that a seven step drop would not properly align temporally. Since no one runs an 8 or 9 step drop, this route combination is paired with play action. The play action was not the real intent of the play. The routes were. The play action is built into that route combination. If the action slows the LBs up, even better. But that wasn't really the purpose. I say this with full confidence because I know what a football playbook is like. That play was EXACTLY akin to John Wangler faking a handoff to Butch Woolfolk before throwing a last-second effort to Anthony Carter. Indiana wasn't biting on the fake. But that call was our best chance, and the routes were tied to that protection. Is this answer sufficient? I've repeated it ad nauseam every time this question is asked. It is a good question. This is a good answer. Now you know. Still don't like the call? Fine. What would you call?

Reader71

November 6th, 2013 at 4:50 PM ^

Good question. I won't try to speak for him. I just don't understand the uproar behind that particular play. I mean, I do -- bad loss, that happened when we were pretty close and near midfield, it was replayed a few times -- but no one who has ever played, coached, or really studied the game would have an issue with that play from any conceptual standpoint. You might argue for running another play. Maybe something short to get us into a manageable third down like you suggested. I'd argue that if that doesn't work, you would be complaining about running a conservative play when we really could have used a big shot. You're complaining about results, and that's cool. But the results are not controlled by the coordinator. We should make an effort to see if the ideas are sound.

I Bleed Maize N Blue

November 5th, 2013 at 10:10 PM ^

I disagree a bit.  Patton wouldn't mass his forces and create a weak spot where the enemy was strong; he'd go around the strong points.  That's not waiting to find a weak spot.  Maybe spread isn't quite right, but a war of maneuver seems more spread than the way Monty was conservative.

@Salvatore:  Yes, well, Borges mentioned Patton (who read Rommel's book).  But maybe the question is, is a schwerpunkt more like manball?