How can we get video that includes the first few moments of these pressers? Can someone take a bootleg cell phone video or something? Seriously, I want to see this.
this week in unintentionally grim-sounding recruiting headlines
“There’s Heiko. What’s up? … Where’s your glasses?”
I left them in Minnesota.
“They’re cerebral. That’s why Heiko wears his.”
“That’s why I wear mine. Put glasses on and makes you look smarter. I’m just a dumb guy with glasses. What’s up? I’m sure you guys don’t have any questions, so.”
Did you vote today?
“Of course I voted! That’s a ridiculous question. I won’t go into it, but I am very politically minded, okay.”
When did you know Denard wasn’t going to play?
“Kind of right up until we played, because we kind of nursed him along all week just to see how he’s doing, so we’re going to give him a chance to take it all the way to game time. He deserved that. The team deserved that.”
Did you see something in warmups?
“Yeah, warmups. We just hoped that he would improve to a point, and it just didn’t work out.”
Do you look at Denard’s situation differently now that you know you have a capable backup in Devin? Are you more likely to play it safer with Denard?
“Yeah, when Denard plays, we do certain things. When Devin plays, we do a lot of the same things, you know. Both have individual skill sets which caters to different thinking.”
I mean, in terms of being in a hurry to get Denard back, can you wait longer now that Devin can handle it?
“There’s only three games left, you know? You don’t want to wait too long. The kid’s a senior. If he’s ready to go, I want to give him a chance to play, and I know he wants to play. I don’t think we’re thinking that way.”
You’ve talked about Devin’s preparation for quarterback in the past. He said he prepared last week like he never has to before --
“Well he kind of had to do it anyway, but when you’ve been playing wide receiver all that time and all of a sudden you get thrust into that role … And he’s good about prep now. He’ll spend the time on the video regardless of what position he’s playing. And he’s a bright kid that picks things up quickly. Yeah. So he did. He got thrust into a situation where you require somewhat of a cram course. Not that he was at a complete loss because he’s played so much quarterback -- he knows the mechanics of the position. He knows the footwork. He basically knows the reads. Just a few things we’ve done differently since he’s played quarterback, but not many. He hit the ground running pretty good. A little rusty at the beginning, but after he got his feet underneath him, he did fine.”
Would you say you went into last week preparing as if Devin would start?
“We went in preparing for any possibility. Anything could happen. Because we didn’t know right up until the time he played. But I think he thought that way. I think you have to. I think the third quarterback’s got to think that way.”
Was it more enjoyable for you to be calling a game where you spend more time under center?
“Not necessarily. I like calling a game that moves the ball the best without being prejudiced by what my favorite style is. So whatever it takes, it doesn’t make that much of a difference.”
Who is the third quarterback now?
“Well that’s still pending. Depending on how things turn out with all these guys, we can make that decision, but that has not been declared yet.”
Is it easier for any quarterback to get ready to go when they have a strong feeling that they’re going to be the guy as opposed to maybe a second string guy behind a well established starter?
“That’s another one of those questions that’s probably better for the guy that’s doing than it is for me, but I would think -- the one thing that we do, and I’ve always done coaching this position, is as much as you possibly can have the kid understand that he has to prepare like he’s the starter. Now is it easier or not? I don’t know. You can ask them. But they have to think that way. Because if they don’t think that way, they’re just a play away from being in the game, and if that surprises you, you’ve got issues now. You have problems. It’s going to be enough of a rude awakening to just be in there all of a sudden without having the mindset that is right for that situation. It’s tough, guys. This position now. I’m just telling you. This position’s hard to play. To me, it is probably the most rewarding position to play when you’re successful, but it is hard to play because everything’s kind of different once you get out there as much as you try and train them and give them all the scenarios and help them understand that when this happens you have to do this and when that happens. It never happens exactly -- or I won’t say never -- but it seldom happens exactly the way you do it. Sometimes it’s instincts, some of it’s just making a play when you have to make a play, which Devin did a few times in the game. So it’s hard. It’s a hard position to play, but it’s fun. I love it, but it’ll test you mentally, physically, and emotionally.”
Was Devin more prepared because he had more game experience or time in your system than Russell?
“I don’t know if that’s the case. I just know that he has been playing quarterback in our system longer than Russ has, other than he’s played some wide receiver. He had been with us a little longer. He had a couple spring balls to prepare for it. I think that helped, you know.”
Did you feel like Devin got a lot of help from his wide receivers?
“Oh yeah. I thought the wide receivers played good. I thought they did a nice job. They made some plays out in the perimeter, you know. And that helped. That really did help, so I think that was part of it.”
Were you surprised by how good the timing was between Devin and the receivers considering he only had a week of practice?
“No. Not really. I wasn’t surprised. I wasn’t real surprised by -- I was surprised by a couple things happening in the game, but not a lot. I knew that Devin was capable. I knew that our wideouts were capable. You know, assuming you just kind of get the rust off. Once that takes hold, I think we’re good to go.”
What were you surprised by?
“Oh, I don’t know. I’d have to think about that, but I’m sure there was something. There’s always something.”
Taylor Lewan said Elliott Mealer makes the first call and then he makes the second call. Is that normal? Last year Molk made all the calls.
“Well, the center generally sets the point. He kind of starts the whole thing off, and then calls come off those calls, you know what I mean? But sometimes there are calls within the offensive line that are not geared to the center, so I think that’s a lousy answer to that question, but the center does kind of set the point. He sets what’s going on. And then off that, based on what we decide we’re targeting, the other guys make their decisions on who they’re going to block and how they’re going to block them.”
Has Elliott done a good enough job of that in the running game?
“Yeah I think so. Yeah, he has. He hasn’t played the position much, but there’s some transition and growing pains that go along with all that, but Elliott’s a smart kid. He’s on it pretty good. And he wants to do it. It’s like any other spot. When you haven’t played the position a lot, something seems to come up every game that hasn’t happened before, you know. You said, ‘Oh God, well he’s played six games, he should know that,’ but some scenario might have happened that didn’t happen the first six games. So that’s any position, but the center, being in the middle of the offense just like the quarterback and the tailback, anybody in the middle of anything, any error tends to be magnified, you know what I mean? When the quarterback throws an interception or the running back fumbles. Center, if he doesn’t set the protection right or target the front right, it can be a bad place.”
MGoQuestion: Would you say that the interior offensive line’s struggles against Minnesota were mostly mental errors and maybe lack of preparation, or do the issues go deeper than that?
“Mental ... I would not say that. We didn’t have a lot of targeting issues, missed assignments and such. We’ve only had one game where I thought that was an issue, and that was Notre Dame, but since then -- you always have a couple, and everybody always has a couple. But I don’t think it was mental. I think the biggest thing we have to do a better job of is finishing our blocks. We’re getting bodies on bodies for the most part, and I’m talking more about the running game than anything else, but getting through and winning that gap. We always talk about winning gaps. You’re responsible for knocking this guy out of that gap or moving him enough so that the back can read it -- we have to win that gap. We just have to do a better job of winning those gaps, getting those plays started, and giving our tailbacks a chance to go.”
What do you see out of Northwestern’s defense?
“Good run defense. Extremely sound. Coach Hankwitz, I’ve coached against him before at a couple other schools. He’s a great coach. Does a wonderful job. Seldom out of position. They play very very hard. That’s kind of been the way Northwestern’s been for a long time, is they do things right. Try and make you run a lot of plays to beat them. It’ll be a good test for us. It’ll really be a good test for us.”
Does Devin’s progress at quarterback make you reconsider using the deuce package?
“Michael. You don’t really think I’d answer that question. You had to try, is that it?”
I had to try!
“No. I’m not answering that one.”
Maybe a better way to ask the question is does that open up more possibilities than what you showed last year?
“Nah. If you can run and pass that opens everything up. That’s a general coachspeak answer, but that’s as far as I’m going with that one.”
What did you think of Devin’s decision-making?
“Well, other than the naked bootleg, the first decision was a bad decision, but I didn’t -- we have three grades, basically. Footwork grade, read grade, and throwing accuracy grade, and then some general comments that may go over and above that. I think in terms of decision-making with regard to reading the defense, he may have had two or three. That one was the worst, obviously because of the interception, but his decision-making was pretty solid. His footwork was pretty solid.”
Is it amazing with the limited practice time he’s had?
“I credit him for it. But our expectations are such that he’s going to play the position right. So amazing? I didn’t use that word with him, but he knows this. We’ve talked about this. He has not arrived. He has a lot of rust, a lot of little things that weren’t done as well as they could have been done. He’s keenly aware of it. He will remedy that situation. Some of our tracks and our footwork was not what it could be in the run game, but for the most part, I mean when you consider he hadn’t played the position, I thought he did a nice job. Helped us win the game.”
Is splitting the carries between running backs the way it’s going to be going forward?
“Yeah. Pretty much. Pretty much. We want to give these kids a chance to continue to do what we’re doing for the most part and see which guy’s running hot, but give him enough carries to find out. That was a good thing last game, was we didn’t get a ton of yards -- although we weren’t terrible. We rushed respectfully, I’ll say. Not great. But the tailbacks got the ball. They got a chance to carry the ball some and for obvious reasons. Our quarterback situation -- the tailbacks will have to carry the load in that situation.”
But Fitz wasn’t the only guy anymore …
“No. And that was by plan, too. Because the quarterback wasn’t going to carry the ball so much, so there’s a method to our madness.”
If Denard ends up starting, would Fitz get more carries because of the plays that they run together?
“Could be. Could be. Yeah. Again so much of it is game time, battlefield decisions, but yeah, it could end up similar to that. That doesn’t cancel Rawls either, because if Denard’s playing, you don’t know what’s going to happen. We’re just business as usual if Denard’s playing.”
Are you guys more back to square one like you were last year in terms of the running back situation since there’s less separation?
“No. No. We know so much more about our team now. We’re a long way from square one. But yeah, we’re pretty much going about our business the way we’ve gone about our business, knowing that we have to prepare for any possibility, okay, whether it’s Devin, whether it’s Denard, whether it’s whatever. It’s not easy, because preparation-wise, when everything is set in stone with regard to personnel, it’s a lot easier to put the pieces together in our game plan, but when you’re not completely certain, there’s a lot of possibilities and you have to be ready to shift gears if the occasion arises.”
With Devin in there, were you happy with the balance between the two backs?
“Yeah, I mean, to a degree. I always favor having a guy, but yeah. Like I say, the thing that was good about it was both kids got some carries. I mean, they did. They got some carries. Finally we finally cracked the rock at the end when Fitz broke through there for the long run. Sometimes that’s what happens. Sometimes it takes a while to wear them down for somebody to get through there, but I was happy that both got opportunities.”
How can we get video that includes the first few moments of these pressers? Can someone take a bootleg cell phone video or something? Seriously, I want to see this.
Seconded. Vids or it didn't happen!
Until I see Borges actually say "Heiko," I won't believe there's anything going on before the pressers. I think Heiko's just writing that stuff for fun.
Borges is definitely much more entertaining after a win than a loss. He didn't even get offended when Heiko questioned preparation as being a problem in the O-line play.
If there had been a bubble screen question....
hope, right? Because if he's right that the team knows their assignments, that would be a relief. Brian seemed to think they were pretty confused. If it's a next step now of really opening up holes, . . especially with the Artful Dodger back. . . maybe we finally get a game or two where all the backs get into the open field.
I wonder who Borges voted for. I'm betting he's a Jill Stein guy.
He's from the Bay Area, so yeah, Jill Stein.
Borges on the OL:
“Mental ... I would not say that. We didn’t have a lot of targeting issues, missed assignments and such. We’ve only had one game where I thought that was an issue, and that was Notre Dame, but since then -- you always have a couple, and everybody always has a couple. But I don’t think it was mental. I think the biggest thing we have to do a better job of is finishing our blocks.
Pretty much the opposite of what Brian has been saying about it, interesting.
It depends on what you mean. No, I don't ever see Borges naming names when it comes to blame, which is fine. However, his vague answers can often leave me with an impression that the accountability is lacking overall. As in, if it's not the players, not the prep, not the playcall. . . but you're getting 2 yards a carry against Minnesota's run defense. . . well, you can't fix the problem if you don't see it!
One key difference I noticed in these pressers is that Greg Mattison is not shy about calling out individual plays and saying "that was on me" or "he should have done this". Not often and he won't do it proactively, but if he's asked he'll answer straight up. Like Borges, he doesn't throw players under the bus in the sense that he blames them for a loss or overall lack of production, fine. But he's far more inclined to say, "So-and-so made a mistake, but he's learning and playing hard; I should've coached him better, and as soon as he did it he knew what he did wrong." The disclaimers can get rather redundant but at least he's not vague about where the breakdowns were, and even despite naming names you don't feel like any blame's being thrown around. More like he identified a problem and committed to fixing it. Warm fuzzies all around.
Borges, on the other hand, usually doesn't name names (tho sometimes it's obvious, like a bad read leading to a pick), but he's said stuff like "ten man football" and vague references to "finishing plays" and the sort. That, to me, is a backhanded way of throwing the players under the bus. For example, when an unblocked linebacker is in the backfield a half second after the snap because of a five-on-six situation with no optioned defenders, there is nothing to finish. The play is doomed at the snap and Borges doesn't have the guts to admit it. He doesn't call out the players in that case, but he doesn't call out anything so if he's not pointing the finger at himself there's nowhere for the blame to go. Yet unlike Mattison I can't recall him ever admitting that he flat-out called the wrong play. That's not directly blaming the players, mind you, which is fine. He hasn't used the phrase "ten man football" since last season as far as I know, and I'm not waiting for him to point fingers. Also, I don't necessarily want him to fall on his sword if the players are the ones blowing assignments. But if he doesn't identify a problem anywhere and we're talking a post-game presser where the results are already a matter of public record, it's not reassuring.
Your polygraph is gonna explode because there can't be only minor problems everywhere on an offense that didn't score a TD in nine quarters.
and wrong. Are you reading these things? The guy repeatedly says it's on him that they don't perform. If you're not predisposed to him, just say so. Save a few words.
during the game, and did see it a few times. Especially in the early series. One of our guys would have a hand on someone, but not be fully engaged and the defender would burst by them to make a tackle.
So I am not sure what it takes to teach finishing technique, but I sure hope the lights come on at some point in the next two weeks.
Brian has noticed something, and he's noticed a pattern of that something. But he hasn't played football at even the high school level to my knowledge, and the closest to coaching he's gotten was a few football clinics where his brain was very quickly filled to overflowing. But given that, I had a different understanding of what Brian was trying to form into a hypothesis than, "it was mental". One speculation went the route of the position coach not trying to teach that if you miss your guy move on to the next level and hope either it won't matter or it wasn't your guy. This is a pretty complex thing to prove without watching every practice and measuring how much the coach has to teach and reinforce that skill and how much the player is just never going to pick it up. On top of that, the overall reference is the OL of last year.
And then as Hoke said, the other team has good players and coaches, so even Taylor, Denard, etc. are going to lose a one on one battle from time to time. I went back to Nebraska and in the first series there is a play where Mealer looks completely lost, has no one to block, and the MLB just blazes past him to tackle Fitz at the LOS. When I replayed it, the DL were both lined up slightly on the outside shoulder of the guards, and Mealer tries to do a brush block first to the left, then the right, but has no one to block, but he could have just run out onto the MLB and pushed him out of the hole, because he was the only guy in the hole at the second level, and then at best a safety has come up off of coverage and Fitz is one on one with a safety 5 yards down field. I'm not sure why Mealer didn't see that Nebraska was either misaligned, and thus he could have trusted both guards to wall off the DT's one on one, or if he just forgot who to block. All Brian or any fan can analyze was that the MLB was unblocked on that play. Now is it reasonable to expect that Borges drew up the play to leave a MLB unblocked? Or is it more reasonable that either Nebraska has noticed Mealer has a tought time getting to the second level, and thus tweaked their DL to try to prevent the guards from getting out to the LBs, and Omameh is the quintessential second level blocking star of Brian's UFRs. Maybe it was just luck that Nebraska made a mistake that ended up working out. It's likely Molk would have been licking his chops at that alignment and gone on to crush the MLB and then looked for the safety after that.
There are so many variables that are within the game, and so many that change over time, that I don't think an armchair analysts can do more than just say, "Michigan did poorly on blocking MLBs and thus the run game suffered, too bad we don't have a strong passing attack to go to in that situation, or Denard".
And remember in the beginning of the season where the Michigan LB's were "too hesitant" and getting blocked frequently? did anyone speculate, "hey the OL was just really good at blocking them?" Well yes, kind of, first it was the Alabama, "well duh" excuse, then the "hey Air Force is wierdly good" and then finally we started stopping the run. Although still not as good as Alabama, ND, or MSU.
OL, DL, and the Receivers were always the weak points of this team. They still are, except maybe the DL. But I think that Mattison is still got it easy in that "most improved bowler" category. He inherited a defense with unsound fundamentals, poor tape review, and an every changing scheme and terminology soup du jour. I think he also has the early edge on fresh talent coming in as well.
This is Borges's year to make it work with "spit, grit and a hole lot of duct tape"
Hopefully he gets his Denard back, duct tape and all.
Respectful and insightful.
Brian - can we sign this guy up for a regular view?
And remember, Mealer is in his 1st year playing center. We didn't know he was going to be the center until the Bama game. He's replacing the best center in CFB from last year, and honestly I think he's struggling. I do not think he'll grade out well in the Minnesota game, I noticed a lot of missed blocks while watching it.
That being said, Al is not going to toss his RS Senior 1st-year-playing center under the bus. I think Al understands that he has to coach these guys up, yet he can't block anybody for them. It's not like anyone is missing assignments on purpose, or that these kids don't want to succeed. Also, it's not like this is a fixable problem. "Our center isn't as good as the one we had last year" isn't going to fix itself the last 3 games of the year. Al knows he's got to do the best he can with what he's got. Berating his players to the media wont help him do that.
"We didn’t have a lot of targeting issues, missed assignments and such. We’ve only had one game where I thought that was an issue, and that was Notre Dame, but since then -- you always have a couple, and everybody always has a couple. But I don’t think it was mental. I think the biggest thing we have to do a better job of is finishing our blocks. We’re getting bodies on bodies for the most part, and I’m talking more about the running game than anything else, but getting through and winning that gap. We always talk about winning gaps. You’re responsible for knocking this guy out of that gap or moving him enough so that the back can read it -- we have to win that gap. We just have to do a better job of winning those gaps, getting those plays started, and giving our tailbacks a chance to go.”
I really wonder what Brian thinks about this.
I think Borges is off here. I mean come on, Minnesota was shooting the gaps all game. If Gardner isn't quick on his feet he is taking 5-6 more sacks in that game. Dudes were coming unblocked from everywhere. The o-line got absolutely zero push and Minnesota was shedding blocks all game, I thought it was a below average performance. Getting a hat on a hat? Not really....
I think the quote is referring to the run blocking; Hoke has already admitted a few blocks were missed, but lots of those other blocks were whiffs...watch the tape. They often get to a man and then miss or get beaten quickly.
you just paraphrased Borges
I was hoping there would have been a question on who the two back-up QBs were for the Minnesota game. Kennedy, then Wilson?
I read everything, then went back and saw the tags:
- al borges likes lazer screens
- al borges likes me
- i am a lazer screen
Borges seems like he's a little more willing to open up the play book these next few weeks and in some instances where it may be necessary, pass to open up the run. That may be an area that we can take advantage of in the future because we are such a "run heavy" team as he says. Now whether or not we actually run well remains to be seen....
Heiko, did you introduce yourself at some point and he just remembered your name or do you think he did some research to figure it out? perhaps by reading MGo?
I love watching Denard play. I think he is now my second favorite wolverine of all time, after Tyrone Wheatly for some reason. (I think it may have been ncaa 98?) However I hold my breath every time he throws a pass.
I know I want to enjoy his last few games at UM but I cant help but wonder what kind of an nfl player he is going to be. I bet his 40 yard dash will be one of the all time fastest. would love to see him on the titans handing off to Johnson. That would be quite a backfield.