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

Sten Carlson

November 5th, 2013 at 9:35 PM ^

Having read every presser Hoke & Co. have done I honestly think that what we're seeing is Hoke & Co. taking a very dogmatic approach to the development of the team, especially the OL, because the roster is so young. They're basically saying, these plays will be the staple of our team (offense and defense) and we're going to run them NOW, even if you cannot execute them now, because that is the only way you will learn to execute them in the future." It seems that this infuriates many fans. But, think about learning any skill, especially something as complex and demanding as football. It takes repetition, repetition, and more repetition. Further, it takes failure (in many instances) to finally become proficient. I am not suggestin that the coaching staff is not trying to win, I think they realize that for the execution to be there in the future, the guys MUST be given the opportunity to try it now, and be allowed to fail. I know that doesn't make sense to a lot of people. But, there is only so much time allotted to practice, and a staff cannot continually be changing the base offense or defense. They can add nuances for specific opponents, and that is made all the easier with a veteran roster, but to truly get proficient they need to rep continually. We see incompetence, failure, losses, and wonder why they don't call something else that might work. Well, they don't (IMO) because they're trying to get the team to run their base sets effectively, and the only way to do that is to run your base sets until they execute them effectively. I think too many people play NCAA Football on the XBox/PS3, swing their play book to another team's or to the one that has all the plays, and assume the same can be done in real life. It cannot. People complain about the team not having an "identity" but then complain when the staff tries to establish one, and says the identity should be something different. An identity is established by doing something over and over p, not switching from one thing to the next. If we want an identity in 2014, '15, and onward, it MUST be established NOW through repetition so that ever kid that comes in comes into an established identity, not one continually in flux. My $.02...thoughts?

WM-wolverine

November 5th, 2013 at 9:53 PM ^

The only problem with your theory is that Borges has changed what he is doing. The problem with Al's changes is he doesnt implement them until a week later. When those prove ineffective, he once again makes adjustments NEXT WEEK. Mr borges, like yourself, thinks he is smarter than the evidence would indicate. Please tell me again how what we are seeing is really creative brilliance beyond the comprehension of those who don"t waste their lives posting on message boards.

 

6-2 is the new 8-0.........thanks sten

Sten Carlson

November 5th, 2013 at 10:05 PM ^

How has he changed? Stop being an ass and address my point. How does a young team build competence within a chosen identity if they're not allowed to try it out live, and potentially fail? In competitive golf, for example, you've got to put the peg in the groud and your score on the score board no matter how badly you fail, before you learn what it takes to compete successfully. People will sit back and ridicule you for shooting a poor score, but we all crawl before we walk, and walk before we run. If we never are given a chance to fall down, we never learn to walk, and never learn to run. I never said it was "creative brilliance" merely a dogmatic development for the future. Why so nasty towards me?

B-Nut-GoBlue

November 5th, 2013 at 11:56 PM ^

Good points. I especially like the dogmatic approach comment, it's very fitting (to me at least).

One point: It's killing people that we see success many other places across the landscape of college football win with youth.  We aren't, and we're left here wondering why, naturally coming up with reasons that make sense to our brains which are summed up as "the talent sucks" or "the coaches aren't developing the talent (or lackthereof) properly". 

The jury is obviously still out on those two notions and everything in between, but our brains are quite possible mistakingly bypassing other reasons.  Maybe the freshman who are playing at other schools are just studs, simply put, and we obviously envy them as our kids maybe are studs but are taking a slower time getting there, ergo we have some growing pains right now that they aren't going through.  Similarly, maybe this offensive philosophy is pretty damn difficult and it's taking a while to achieve execution and everything that precedes/goes along with it (confidence, strength, recognition of how things really work, etc.). 

It's been frustrating to watch, to say the least.  I very often agree with much of what SpaceCoyote and a few others have been saying but still feel the pain of what others he debates/argues with feel and can't help but wonder if at times we still aren't functioning at a level we could be (in games like Akron, Penn St.).  But I guess we must also realize we aren't a Baylor or Ohio St. team, we aren't going to be them, so as you say the time is now for this Michigan staff to incorporate what they ARE going to be, as it will payoff down the road.  It does suck, yes.  It's cool to see what other schools are doing and wish we'd incorporate more of it, I've been gulity of that in a sense, but we must realize there are other ways to play offense on football and our guys are going to be different than the stuff we see at other schools. 

The game last week was a no win situation, and that really is depressing, especially it being against who it was.  We have some really good players but they just weren't going to be given a chance to succeed with that O-line.  Some here think the O-line will be much better next year because of the growing pains this year and the failures you mention.  I tend to agree but it's also a bit of a "hope they do", at the same time.

Brian wonders about certain blocking schemes and how they seem to be more complex/seemingly wrong at times.  I don't know enough about O-line blocking to really opine on that but some of it makes sense in what he says but when others disagree with him and say it was simply executed wrong, I see their points as well.  It's a bit scary to think that either side of that debate are right at times as it can be atrocious; then it's either the coaching and blocking philosophy really does suck or we concede (which I think we've done at this juncture) that they really just aren't good now and we again place the hope that it's all about learning and going forward with it.  The going forward with this pain, like you say, is what will get us go becoming a really good team in the near future.

I don't even know, essentially.  (I'm thinking what I just typed out isn't very coherent and probably doesn'y flow very well.  Sometimes the opposite of writers block exists and there's so much going on it's hard to concentrate and properly convey the thoughts; such is this post most likely.)

 

 

B-Nut-GoBlue

November 6th, 2013 at 3:39 AM ^

Agree.  It's wearing thin.

2011's offense was an aberration at this point, anchored by a very, very good Sr. Center.  I don't think the defense is or has been an issue.  Mattison's had maybe a few bad gameplans (execution etc. etc.).  But yes, here we are 2013 and we're really back to a struggling point.  And then we hear that "well, it's not likely to get that much better in 2014,  especially looking at the schedule"; depressing, I know.

We really are in a limbo here.  Too early to tell if it really isn't working out with coaches (or certain ones) and player development, yet the next year probably may be as well, and sh*t's really going to get nasty replicating what we're seeing now.  That's a difficult position to be in but as Brian states, I see the University riding this out for a bit still.  Again, I personally just don't know what to think.  I see bad games by this team but I know and agree with those "backing Borges" or at least backing the philosophies and can see what he's/they're going for at times i.e. when others are seeing pure sh*t I/we're seeing actual reasoning and philosophy.  The player development is scary to think about; I hope it's a youth thing, though again I understand how that argument can wear thin, and that next year will really show steps made by people we're expecting to maybe be contributing already.

ccarna

November 6th, 2013 at 1:02 AM ^

  • Borges can't game plan to save his life, get a good versitle OC
  • Michigan has absolutely no pass rush, get Barwis back strengh and conditioning seems to be lacking on the lines
  • Michigan can't protect the QB, get a good O Line coach, M is taught to fold back
  • for Michigan's OC to call runs for Gardner in the 4th quarter is complete insanity
  • the game went exactly how everyone thought it would
  • Brady Hoke should be working for Greg Mattison not vice versa
  • Michigan's OC has no idea how to play call against the blitz
  • Michigan got out coached again
  • Devin did all he could and might be seriously injured
  • it's time for a change in the coaching staff, the offensive coaches should all be let go after the Texas Bowl  (Borges and Funk!)
  • Michigan needs a real QB coach, this is a real joke Penn State and Michigan State have one and it shows in their freshment QB's...It was crimional not to provide Denard and Devin with a good QB coach
  • the defense played hard and tried to keep the Wolverines in the ball game.......They need to score more to compensate for Borges..lol
  • Brady Hoke has no idea what an F'ing offense is.  He is dropping F bombs when they break a long run with 2:00 minutes to play.   Really, that is the time you show emotion?  I'm not sure he understands what how to manage a game at all. If Hoke is going to stay we need a good OC that can manage the clock too...perhaps even finish up the halfs! 
  • Get Borges a bag of depends so he can finish the halfs......He threw away a minute and a half against PSU and 30 sec against MSU just because he couldn't wait any longer to pee!

MGoManBall

November 6th, 2013 at 2:19 AM ^

My points in reply:

  • That's like, your opinion, man.
  • This font is annoying
  • You could have summed your tl;dr comment into one point where you say "fire all the coaches."
  • Most of "What M needs to do" were simply comments and not bullet point material.

robmorren2

November 6th, 2013 at 2:07 AM ^

We just don't have a good team. It's a hard pill to swallow. Firing coaches isn't going to do any more than playing musical chairs with the Oline has done. These players in their current state can't execute what the coaches want to do. The coaches don't want to alter their style to cater to what these players may be better suited for. Even if Michigan did cater to the strengths of their current talent, the talent isn't there to win a Championship or a Rose Bowl. The coaches are building the framework for what they want to do long-term. We're behind Ohio State, and probably behind Notre Dame in this process. However, you can't change your framework just because the pieces aren't there or aren't ready. Will it work when the talent is here? ... who knows. But even if we catered to DG's strengths, played more of a spread, blitzed more on defense, and whatever other ideas people have -- we still wouldn't be good enough to win anything important. So, do you really scrap everything and tear down the foundation so that you can lose 4 games instead of 5? The talent just isn't there. I was as mad as anyone after the MSU game, but I finally faced reality. This year is a building block at best, and it may not even be that. Chances are that we might not even be able to compete for anything next year unless the Oline makes huge improvements. Then you're looking at the year after that, which will feature a new QB -- always a huge hurdle. It's going to be awhile people. Firing coaches, changing schemes, and everything else isn't going to make us a championship contender overnight. In reality, we're a top 1/3 caliber B1G team that happens to have more history and resources than most other schools. We're recruiting well. Take some solace in that. Watch some Michigan basketball, and scream at your TVs on Saturdays to help alleviate the stress caused by watching a storied program struggle to find its identity.

michgoblue

November 6th, 2013 at 7:29 AM ^

This wins best post in this entire thread, in my opinion. I am as frustrated as anyone that we haven't been good in 7 seasons. It sucks. But as you noted, we just don't have the talent on the roster to compete with better teams. Sure, we could make some of the tweaks that the fanbase thinks will solve our woes, and even if those worked (which they wouldn't bc of our our rent roster) we are still not going to compete for a championship this year. I am still optimistic for next season, given that just about our entire young defense returns. I am also optimistic for our offense. Those growing pains on the OL may pay dividends when our otherwise young line is more experienced next season.

Den-blue

November 6th, 2013 at 11:21 AM ^

"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."

Hey Al,

 

Just a heads up..........................hope is not a strategy!

SWFLWolverine

November 6th, 2013 at 11:30 AM ^

Hope wasn't THE game plan....the HOPE was in the players and that they could execute the game plan. Should he not have HOPE in the players... you know, a reasonable expectation that they would perform the way they were coached to?

Sten Carlson

November 6th, 2013 at 12:10 PM ^

You're right, hope is not a strategy -- unless you'r dealing with the stock market in which the hopium is flowing like wine.

That aside, as SWFLWolverine aptly pointed out, the hope is directed at the executionn of the strategy it is NOT the strategy itself.  I kind of points back to what I said in my post above about playing XBOX NCAA Football in which the gamer can switch schemes and playbooks at will, with little to no deleterious effect on performance.  The only thing a coach can do is try to prepare a plan to exploit an opponent, and then sit back and see if the players can execute it.

It seems like there are so many haters who are rabidly, and irrationally IMO, attack every word that comes out Hoke & Co's mouth.  Whatsmore, these same haters want to analyse their mood, their tone, and find every reason to criticize them, assume incompetence as compared to other coaches, and project continued failure into the future.

It's really sad.  At this point I'd rather see our fanbase be more "irrationally optimistic" like other fanbases whom we criticize than this constant doom and gloom.

cjpops

November 6th, 2013 at 12:52 PM ^

“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.”

---------------------------------------

Yep. Just keep blaming the kids, Al. Youth, inexperience, injuries, errors, blah blah blah.

Nevermind the fact that you apparently can't design or implement any kind of quick passing scheme that might be able to take advantage of aggressive defenses or suspect OL talent/synergy issues.

Sell crazy somewhere else. We're all stocked up here.

Sten Carlson

November 6th, 2013 at 1:43 PM ^

Well Dr. Rosen Rosen, Rosenbaum, Rosenstein...

Did you read what SC et. al. wrote?  Obviously not.

MSU doesn't allow for a quick passing scheme.  Borges did try many quick passes, but MSU does a great job taking them away.  Thank god DG didn't throw a pick 6, because MSU's defense lives on undercutting the quick outs.

Show me a offensive scheme that will "take advantage of...suspect OL talent/synergy issues."  You're assuming that there is such a thing.  And I think that is a very dangerous assumption.

The OL looked fine and gave DG a lot of time to hit Gallon on the double moves vs. IU.

cjpops

November 9th, 2013 at 10:26 AM ^

I don't remember that many quick passes. I do remember a couple of short throws over the middle into LB traffic to Funchess. One dropped. One caught for minimal gain.

I guess I was just looking for more passing plays that weren't so slow in developing. Play action under center, 7 step drops, etc, all ask the OL to read/hold their blocking assignments for a longer period of time. That's what I meant about "suspect OL issues" and what not. Why ask your OL to do more than they are apparently capable of at this point? Especially against such strong opposition? With a week to prepare?

This may seem like a strange comparison, but, just roll with it. 2 years ago the Detroit Lions make the playoffs with nary a running game to be found. TE screens, quick passes, et al were a worthy substitute for their lack of running game. That seemed to take advantage of their OL "issues" pretty well.

I suppose we just agree to disagree here. I want Michigan to maximize it's current talent and put their players in the best position to compete and win. I just don't see our current offensive scheme doing that.

Nice Fletch reference, btw. Kudos.