Tuesday Presser Transcript 9-4-12: Al Borges Comment Count

Heiko

Al Borges

file

MGoQuestion: If you had to play Alabama again, what parts of the game plan would you keep that worked well Saturday? What parts would you want to change?

“Very little would I change. Very little. Almost none. But that’s probably harder to grasp because of the way we executed. The game plan didn’t look very effective, but the whole thing was geared to if they loaded the box up, we were going to throw the ball. If they left the box light, we were going to run it. We ran the ball into a light box 12 times and had plus-four runs three times out of the 12. And we hit two out of 10 shots down the field. So the other alternative is to plus-one run with the quarterback. We did some of that, too, but they weren’t going to let you do that. As much as you wanted to give that a shot, that wasn’t going to happen. No one’s done that to them. Look at the numbers in the past. No one’s done that to them.”

(After the jump, Borges answers questions about Denard, Denard, Devin, Denard, and Air Force but does not answer a question about bubble screens.)

Is there any way counter a defense that doesn’t allow Denard to run?

“Efficiency is a counter. Efficiency is blocking, making plays with you have opportunities to make plays, making the right reads, making the catch when it’s there, and then making a couple of exceptional plays. That’s what they did. They made a couple of exceptional plays. Never in my life have I seen a corner knock a guy out of bounds, run back and intercept a fade. In 37 years of coaching, I’ve never seen that happen. But that one corner was a really good player. Did some nice things. But that being said, there was enough opportunity there to where you could get some first downs, move the ball, and keep the defense off the field. That was our goal. Beating Alabama and the way in the past that I’ve coached against them is you get into a fist fight. You play a close game -- they play great defense, so you have to hold onto the ball, not make mistakes, and hope you can punch it out and have one more point than they do at the end. That’s how you beat that team. Nobody lights the scoreboard up against them. You look at the numbers, that’s just not going to happen. That’s how you go about it. We were not efficient enough to do that. That’s pretty much it.”

Was it a preparation thing or was Alabama just that good?

“I don’t know. I don’t want to believe it’s a preparation thing. Our kids were ready to play the game, and we certainly worked our tails off to get them a plan that we thought was good. But their team, you have to understand, there’s very little margin of error with them. You can’t make mistakes and recover from them. They’re going to take advantage of your mistakes. They feed on your inefficiency. That’ll kill you.”

Was there a point during the game where you felt like you needed to rip the playbook up and just see what would work?

“No. No. Nope. No. Not at all. No. We stuck with the plan the whole game. We kept doing what we were doing. We tried some different things after a while because we weren’t running into the six-man box very well. We tried a few quarterback runs, but that wasn’t very effective. The whole plan was set up that we could exploit a loaded box or run into a soft box. We did neither. Maybe later in the season, if we’re a little more well oiled, we might play a little better, but we just weren’t in this game.”

How much will Devin learn from this game in terms of plays he almost made?

“Oh I think Devin’s going to really be a good player there. He’ll learn a ton. He’s still a work in progress at the position. Particularly in a game like that, where you’re facing a really really good press man team, where you know you need to get off the jam, you have to get down the field, you have to work your way open a lot of time, that’s baptism by fire playing them the first game when you’ve never played wide receiver before. But he’s going to be a really good player out there. I really believe that.”

How does Fitz’s availability change things for you this Saturday?

“We have another back, you know? We’ll see how it goes during the week, but it’s good to have him back. We’ll see how we want to plan that. But he has been working with us. It isn’t like he hasn’t. He’s been on top of the stuff pretty good.”

Do you anticipate him starting?

“We’re not going to make a decision on that yet.”

When did you make the decision to start Elliott Mealer at center?

“... And he plays pretty good. Him and Taylor Lewan played pretty good. Elliott was doing the best job of snapping the ball back. Ricky, who’s really good at -- the profile of center is perfect for Ricky, but we were struggling with some of the snaps, and Elliott was getting them back there, so we figured, what the heck, let’s get the guy that can snap and let’s give Ricky the position he’s played before and is comfortable with -- that part worked out well. One bad snap, which, you know, not good, but that’s why we did it.”

When was that decision made?

“Last week. Yeah. Middle of -- not this past week, but middle of the week before that.”

What did you see out of Rawls against Alabama?

“There wasn’t a lot of room to run a lot of times. He’s still learning the position. Rawls is a lot like Fitz was when we first started coaching Fitz [last] spring. He’s still learning. He runs tough, he runs hard. He’s strong, but he still needs more seasoning at the position, but I think he’s going to be a good back.”

Do you think if you hit one of the big plays early they might have backed off more?

“Yeah. Yeah definitely. You’re not going to hit them all, but if you can hit, you know, half your shots, it makes a big difference in the run game. People just can’t force as fast. You completely change the mindset of the defense when you’re plucking away at them in the passing game. So yeah, I do think that makes a difference. Always has.”

You mentioned that it’s not a given that Toussaint won’t start. Is there an open competition for the job or is this an extension of his punishment?

“No. We’re still going to see how they do. We’re not going to want to put him in and say he’s the starter. I don’t think that’s fair to the other guys. So we’ll go this week and see how everything works out and make a decision -- I’m not sure when, but whenever. ”

Hoke said you had a great practice last night. Do you still sense that there’s confidence going forward?

“Oh yeah. Yeah, I mean, first game, tough opponent -- our kids are resilient. We’ve got some good leaders on this team. It’s a tough way to start for all of us. For the coaches, the players. But, 11 games. If I’m not mistaken, Oregon played LSU last year. Was it the same game?”

Yeah.

“What was the score that game?”

MGoOo!Iknow!: 40-24. (Ed: Actually it was 40-27. My photographic memory got instagrammed on that one.)

“Yeah, it wasn’t even close. How did Oregon do?”

MGoUh…I mean…: Not good?

“How did they do after the game.”

MGoOh.

“I think they won 11 games. So it’s not, you know, you don’t chuck it all. You have to be resilient, you have to get back to the basics. I’m never going to say get back to the drawing board, because if you have to get back to the drawing board, you didn’t do a very good job to start with. But get back to what you do best, and onward and upward.”

How do you think Denard will improve from this game?

“Well I think Denard -- the thing about Denard is he has to learn that he doesn’t have to carry the whole thing himself. I think he feels that onus sometimes and as a coach I have to make that clear to him, too. When Denard plays within his game -- run the football well, make good decisions in the passing game, he’s really a great player. Not a good player, but a great player because he has things that other quarterbacks don’t have. But sometimes when you’re losing, and particularly when you’re losing bad -- which hasn’t happened to us too much, we’ve been lucky that way -- you start feeling like you have to get it back in one fell swoop. You know, you put too much pressure on yourself. That’s natural thing for a competitive person. But as long as Denard can understand that he doesn’t have to carry the whole load, I think you’ll see steady improvement.”

Does he need more opportunities to run the ball?

“Well, we’ll play that game by game, but I would not have run Denard Robinson any more than we ran him Saturday. Absolutely not. No. I know a lot of people think that, but no way. That wasn’t going to happen. But in certain games you’re going to run the ball. It’s just like last year. You’ll see certain games he’ll carry it 25 times. You’ll see other games he’ll carry it 10 to 15 times. You can run him 20 times every game, but there’ll be nothing left of him by the end of the season, particularly when you’re playing opponents like that. That’s already been proven.”

Why not run him? Is it the injury factor?

“Well that, and in the Alabama game they weren’t going to let you run him. Look at their numbers, guys. They’re never going to let the quarterback run the football. They play a defense that forces the quarterback to throw the ball. You can run here and there, but if you think you’re going [to run] for 150 yards, it’s not going to happen all the time. But in other games -- in certain games you’ll see him run a lot more.”

How would you assess Denard’s reads? Both he and Hoke were pretty critical about that after the game.

“He did a great job on a couple. We missed a few throws that were really good reads, and we missed two crucial reads that really hurt us. But like anything else, it’s a work in progress. He understands our offense so much better than he did, although I don’t know that it showed as much in this game, but he does. I think you’ll see steady improvement there.”

Was that with the option hand-off to Vincent Smith?

“I don’t think he had a time when he should have pulled the ball when he didn’t … They weren’t going to let him run, period. When we leave the edge free and he’s reading the edge, the guy’s standing there waiting for him every time. So in that regard, I don’t think he missed one of those. ”

When did you notice that Denard was trying to do too much?

“This is more after the fact probably than before. Just in retrospect. You’re trying to troubleshoot some of the problems, you know. I told him the other day, I said, ‘I don’t want you to think you lost the game, although there’ll be people who want to make you believe that.’ We didn’t run the ball. We had a chance to run the ball, and if you want to take the pressure off your quarterback, that’s how you take pressure off your quarterback. In games he’s played real well, we’ve been able to run the ball, but we didn’t. And now it becomes solely based on his ability to throw the ball, and sometimes in not very advantageous positions, like third down and long, which happened several times, too. So we just asked too much of him in terms of how we executed.”

You said you need to get back to the basics of what you do well. What is that?

“Well, running the football. That’s number one. Running the football, being able to play-pass. Being an efficient throwing team. We don’t have to be a great throwing team, but we have to be an efficient throwing team so it’ll complement our run game. That’s when we were good a year ago, and that’s when we’ll be good this year is when we do these things.”

How do you think Roy played?

“Roy didn’t do a bad job, but again, opportunities. We ran 56 plays. So opporutnities for guys to catch a lot of passes when you only run 56 plays, no one’s getting any numbers. I think as you see more and more as the year goes on, you’ll see Roy manifest himself more and more. You’re not going to do it running 56 plays.”

A lot has been made of Denard’s improved mechanics. Did you see that during this game?

“Oh yeah. Other than a couple of -- in terms of getting your feet in the ground. He threw one ball falling back to Jerald Robinson. He did that because the middle of the pocket was pushed so bad that he couldn’t get his feet set. But did you see any balls where he’s throwing the ball up falling backwards? He didn’t really do that in this game. He got his feet set pretty good. His fundamentals are significantly better. Now we just have to shore up every other part of his game.”

When you look at playing an option team from the offensive side of the ball, is it easier to get your team focused because they like to shorten the game in terms of possessions?

“Yeah well what we have to do in a game like this is like we have to do in probably any other game, but more so -- we have to control the ball, try to keep the defense off the field so the clock just doesn’t wind down. I know how option football can be. So we have to be efficient. We need to be more efficient on third down. That was something a year ago that I was -- we dropped off a little at the end, but for the most part we were a good third down team. If you’re a good third down team, you keep the chains moving, you keep the defense off the field, so we have to get better that way. So running the football, converting on third down, those two things are the best thing to beat an option team, because you’ll keep the ball.”

MGoObligatory: So you threw a bubble screen. Two of them.

“I have nothing to say about that.”

Comments

Sons of Louis Elbel

September 4th, 2012 at 9:42 PM ^

I'm not suggesting that running Denard more was guaranteed to work. But X-Man or not, he does have the ability to make a tackler here and there miss (I refer you to his TD in this game) - certainly more so than Smith or Rawls. At some point, we have to at least *try* playing to our strengths. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. What Borges gave no thought to going away from got us completely blown out.

jg2112

September 4th, 2012 at 10:04 PM ^

You do what worked against Alabama - you torch the Spartans deep with balls over the top. Gallon, Gardner and hopefully Darboh by that point will have enough experience to turn 2 monster receptions into 3-4. If that happens, Michigan wins.

Also, the secondary will be stabilized, the starting RB will be back, and the linebackers will hopefully make a play (and if they won't, they might as well get Bolden and Ross on the field full-time).

Sten Carlson

September 5th, 2012 at 12:01 AM ^

Denard's passing was far better than anything we saw last season, it just didn't show against a defense like Bama's.  I have a feeling that going forward, especially against Air Force and UMass, Denard is going to light it up through the air.  This is going to be very helpful going into South Bend.  I have no doubt that ND is going to try the old "stack the box" routine against to stop #16.  But, they will do this at their own peril as they're going to see a much improved #16.  You stack the box, he's going to burn you through the air.  You unstack the box, he a Fitz will gash you.  Not only wa it the first game, but it was against the best defense in the nation, so the progress didn't show completely.

M-Dog

September 5th, 2012 at 9:37 AM ^

We will play Alabama's defensive scheme against MSU.  We don't have Alabama's front seven . . . but then again, MSU has Maxwell.

I do know one thing, the mere presence of us having 8 or 9 in the box will not make MSU automatically give up on running Bell right at us.  They will make us prove we can  stop him, regardless of what scheme we show.

 

gbdub

September 4th, 2012 at 10:30 PM ^

I get Borges' game plan, I really think I do.

But what still bugs me is that he was so willing to concede that Alabama could stop our best weapon (Denard's legs). Basically, he said, well, Bama's gonna throw everything they've got at Denard to stop him, so I'll give that up. They're just better than Denard. Oh well let's try our much less effective weapons.

 Why not at least try it? Especially when nothing else worked? Why outsmart yourself?

Could Bama have stopped Denard from running? Quite probably. But maybe not. Maybe, even if they could, it would have been harder than they thought. Maybe one run Denard squeaks out 10-15 yards right through the teeth of their best laid D scares 'em just enough and is just hard enough to stop that they overcommit. But we'll never know, because Borges made his mind up before the game that Bama was just too good to run Denard against, so why even try? It's like a boxer with a vicious left hook and a weak right jab saying, well, I'm only gonna throw right jabs because my widowmaking left hook is just what they're expecting.

That, to me, is the exact opposite of the Hokeian MANBALL philosophy. MANBALL is all about enforcing your will on the opponent. It doesn't matter if stopping the run is their strength, you're better than they are and by gum you're gonna run right over them whether they expect the play or not. Wasn't there something to that effect in the Bo biography? A time when an O-lineman flat out told his opponent (who had been guessing M's signals) exactly what he was running, and just ran it (successfully) anyway?

Now MANBALL can certainly be too rigid. It probably got us beat in those Rose Bowls against USC when we hit a superior opponent. But there's something to be said for making your opponent take your best shot before you concede that their strength outmatches yours.

dragonchild

September 5th, 2012 at 7:44 AM ^

Denard's longest run of the game was 9 yards.

They had 2-3 defenders dedicated to containing him all game.  They didn't sack him until the 4th quarter because our pass protection was good; they didn't sack him because containment is how you stop a guy like Denard.

I agree with Borges that the way to beat Alabama is to stretch the field vertically.  They played Cover-1 and trusted their corners.  Against Michigan's better passing teams that would've been shredded like taco meat.  With 8 guys out to stop the run, you don't run.  You HAVE to execute against that sort of pass coverage, but Michigan just wasn't good enough.  A successful defense forces an offense to play away from their weaknesses not with talent, but by forcing them to make decisions.  Alabama can do that without even putting 8 in the box, has been doing it for a couple seasons now.  They keyed on the run, but they didn't need to bring up a safety.  8 in the box is what a weak defense does to stop the run.  This was Alabama.  You don't run at the #1 run defense dedicated to stopping your run just because they're not overplaying the run like Southwest Basketweaving U.  If you refuse to see that, you're being stubborn.

The problems were that Denard's a mediocre throwing QB, Borges' read option has been scouted since forever and he refuses to change it, Vincent Smith has no weapons and Borges called only two bubble screens.  Basically, Borges had little to work with against Alabama's balanced (6 in the box) defensive sets and castrated what little he had.  Denard can't thread a needle like Tom Brady and Smith can't make the first defender miss like Toussaint.  (I'm not questioning the suspension, but you can't pretend Smith is Toussaint.  That's being stubborn.)  Borges' read option is the easiest thing to defend with Smith on the field (take away the edge with the DE they're going to block ANYWAY, force the handoff, unblocked defender greets Smith at the hole), and he threw two bubble screens.  Borges likes to say you take what the defense gives you, but he didn't do that.

He was going to throw against their run defense and run against their pass defense, which looks good on paper but for an OC that's backwards.  It assumes the defense will overplay your strengths, but again, that's a sign of weakness.  Borges was gonna throw if they showed 8 in the box but ANY OC can make that call.  A Northwestern or Minnesota has to pick its poison before the offense even lines up.  An elite defense starts with a balanced set and adjusts to what's working.  The ONLY way to loosen one up is to force the adjustments.  You HAVE to execute anything that isn't completely shut down.  Borges pretty much said so himself, so we agree here.  He failed because he called plays that asked too much of his players (read option) and not enough of those that didn't (bubble screen).  That allowed Alabama to dictate the terms of the running game, leaving Borges with the high-risk-high-return Hail Marys, which got Michigan two TDs but also got them two picks.

TyrannousLex

September 5th, 2012 at 8:03 AM ^

But if Denard breaks a couple of decent runs, it really doesn't change anything about how Alabama plays the defense. Unless Denard could run into the teeth of the Bama defense, gain yards in big chunks, score touchdowns, and win the game by himself it doesn't change anything about how Alabama plays the game. (and would have led to Saban holding a press conference saying that he planned for the game well enough but the execution wasn't good enough to stop Denard)

For Denard to run successfully here, they needed to soften the box up. To do that you pass and make the defense defend the short and intermediate routes. He didn't say that he would not have run Denard in the game, and my guess is that if they could have backed Bama out of the box a little, Denard runs. Bama comes back down to stop Denard, you get behind them with a few passes.

As to your conclusion, again, does Denard beat Alabama all by himself if he runs more? That's our best shot, right? We take it and they don't have to adjust their defense because it's exactly what they planned for and they have the talent and the execution to take that shot a few times.

radfan5

September 5th, 2012 at 2:42 AM ^

 with all the Denard should of run more comments. Its ridiculous. He was NOT going to run all over that defense. What is more likely to have happened was he would have picked up a few more first downs, and probably have taken a ton of abuse.

So for the sake of argument, he gets hurt. out for 4-6 weeks with a seperated throwing shoulder. All we would be hearing about, is how we werent going to be able to run on that defense, and shouldnt of risked losing Denard in week 1, with atleast 11 games to go!

In the words of goldmember "There is no pleashing you!".

If this were the final game of the season, (bowl game) i think you would have seen Denard run more. You dont risk the guy that makes this offense go, in week 1. If we lost close i would have understood the bitching.

PurpleStuff

September 5th, 2012 at 2:49 AM ^

On the first series we picked up a first down, on the second we had an incomplete pass (well thrown slant to Roundtree with DB all over his back) and a run for no gain (the read play to Smith that Brian Picture Paged).  On third and long, Denard scrambles for a nice chunk but is short of the sticks.  Unfortunately the play is called back for Lewan's helmet removal and after another incompletion on 3rd and 26 (Denard rolls out, gets pressured and throws high to a pretty open Roundtree on a corner route close to the sticks) we are punting from our own 18 instead of our own 40.

We went 3 and out on our second possession with a run for no gain (I believe the other Picture Page, where Rawls gets stoned by a blitzing corner, a guy who if he beats there is loads of space in front of him) and two incomplete passes (first a high throw on a good decision that goes off Gallon's fingertips, second a deep pass to an open Devin who veers inside and essentially runs himself out of the catch).

On the third possession we picked up a first down, then the phantom holding/no call on the Rawls facemask put us in 1st and 20 (on that play Denard had Devin in a tight window on a corner between the DBs but again just overthrew his guy).  On 2nd and 20 Denard threw the pick where Roundtree got knocked down.

14 plays and the score was 21-0.  14 plays is not a gameplan, especially when one is a 1st and 20, another a 2nd and 20, and yet another is a 3rd and 26.  You certainly can't make too many halftime adjustments when the score is 31-7. 

We needed to be sharp and we weren't.  The game was over before much of anything happened on the offensive side of the football.  In that time, Denard didn't make a bad decision in the passing game, we had a shot for two big plays if first time contributors do things they probably will in the future or against lesser competition (Devin just taking the right path to the ball and Rawls trucking a corner), three more big plays happen with a slightly better throw, and Milliner made 3 great plays/maulings on our receivers.

After watching it again, this team is going to be really good.

B-Nut-GoBlue

September 5th, 2012 at 8:56 PM ^

Not insane.  It's called breaking down the intracies of the game and making sense of what really happened.  There is much more going on than meets the initial eye, in the game of football.  Reviewing it, like many others are doing, and coming out with an optimistic vision/outlook is not insane.  It is quite the opposite actually.

You are correct, many bad things occured in the game.  Throwing a list out there based on incomplete observation (with no research done), though, is not the way to go about finding out what went wrong nor a way to critique the team,

gbdub

September 5th, 2012 at 6:47 AM ^

Hate to say this, but didn't Al just lay all the blame on the players? His gameplan was perfect the players just weren't good enough? I seem to recall us being much less accepting of that attitude when shared by a certain West Virginian who shall remain nameless.

go16blue

September 5th, 2012 at 11:23 AM ^

There is a difference. In RR's case, when asked about how bad the defense was, he would just say things like "Vince Lombardi couldn't make these guys good," and put almost no blame on the coaching staff. He was clearly wrong, as last year's defense showed. Al Borges knows that execution is key and that good execution starts with good coaching, that's been the coache's narrative all along. All he's doing is defending his specific gameplan for this game, he's not saying the players are terrible and that's the root of the problem.

lexus larry

September 5th, 2012 at 1:20 PM ^

Not nearly an exact quote.

Since we're making inferences, why not take this opportunity to infer that what RR meant was that we're too young and inexperienced, and "even Vince Lombardi couldn't fix this defense."

But go ahead and keep mauling the actual quote to fit YOUR narrative.

Bodogblog

September 5th, 2012 at 9:37 AM ^

I find it odd that there are double the number of comments in the Borges presser thread than the Mattison.  Just as Ace and Brian seem most upset about the offense.  It's a meme.

Our DL getting trucked and our LBs getting swallowed were the story of this game.  That is the critical concern - not being able to stop the run at any point.  The offense was a shining city floating in the sky compared to our run defense.

M-Dog

September 5th, 2012 at 10:24 AM ^

I think it's because we know our defensive players were overmatched.  There was not much that could be done about it during the game.  Charles Woodson was not going to show up.  Unfortunately, the solution lies 3-4 years down the road.

On offense, we had a "Charles Woodson".  We had lots of weaknesses but we also had a strength that seems like it could have been exploited more.  So we're having a good 'ole time debating how much.  

 

TheBigAC

September 5th, 2012 at 10:25 AM ^

I had resigned myself to a relatively poor showing from the defense on Saturday.  A relatively thin and inexperienced D-Line going up against the #1 O-Line in the country just looked like trouble to me. So when Alabam used that O-Line to great effect I just accepted it and moved on. I had hoped we would do better against a Defense replacing 7 starters.

 

 

coastal blue

September 5th, 2012 at 10:46 AM ^

Because with Denard, offense should be our strength. 

Instead, we played away from our biggest strength in hopes of catching a superior opponent off guard. 

I'm not that critical of the defense. Think of the 31 points in the first half.

7 came on a pick-six.

7 came after we gifted Alabama a short field at the 17.

7 came after Avery slipped when he was still getting adjusted coming on for Countess.

I mean, I'm not saying our defense played great or that you can just excuse them for the last two, but from a luck standpoint, not much was going right. 

On top of that, we all kind of expected our DL to be manhandled by their OL juggernaut and that to affect the defense as a whole. 

I didn't expect our offense to be THAT bad. 

Bodogblog

September 5th, 2012 at 12:31 PM ^

The comparison has been made before, but look at the stats from the Arkansas-Alabama game last year (38-14).  It was much closer at halftime, and we got whipped worse than they did (though I watched this game, and Arkansas never seemed to be truly in it), but see the stats.  If some of the bad luck/calls/mojo hadn't fallen against us, it probably would have been a similar game.  Aside from our horrendous penalty yards, and much better performance on the ground, the stats are remarkably similar. Granted, Arkansas played in Tuscaloosa.  But we weren't horrible, and we could have been much better with some breaks and key catches.  Not near enough to win, but a much better outcome.  Arkansas was the #5 team in 2011.

Team Stat Comparison

 
 
ARK
 
ALA
1st Downs 14 16
Total Yards 226 397
Passing 209 200
Rushing 17 197
Penalties 3-17 5-55
3rd Down Conversions 4-15 5-13
4th Down Conversions 1-2 1-1
Turnovers 2 0
Possession 27:09 32:51

Team Stat Comparison

 
 
MICH
 
ALA
1st Downs 11 20
Total Yards 269 431
Passing 200 199
Rushing 69 232
Penalties 8-99 7-55
3rd Down Conversions 3-12 3-10
4th Down Conversions 0-1 0-0
Turnovers 3 1
Possession 28:34 31:26

 

dragonchild

September 5th, 2012 at 10:00 AM ^

At least on Borges' stupid read option, the QB's looking right at the DE.  In a bubble screen, the linemen block and then release while the QB throws to the receiver.  The O-line blocks the back 7 while the D-line makes themselves irrelevant by running themselves out of the play.

The problem is that for a split second, the O-line isn't protecting the QB, whose eyes aren't even looking at the pocket.  If the throw is late, the QB's crushed.  Yes it's illegal to hit the QB after the throw, but it can be accidental or even a calculated risk if it knocks the biggest playmaker out of the game.  If I was a jerk, and plenty of coaches are, I'd happily take a roughing the passer penalty if it breaks Denard's collarbone.  You can bet MSU would try it.  You can time the route so the D-line can't even try to pretend they're killing Denard by accident, but then it'll only work a couple times before the corner jumps the route.  And god forbid, if the QB or receiver tips the bubble screen -- and the first time you'll know is when it happens -- it's an automatic pick-six.

Those are the downsides, anyway.  It's not like I asked Borges, but given the way he's so squeamish about optioning a DE in the zone read, I'm speculating it's the same philosophy at work.  He's won't even trust Denard and his 4.32 to outrun a single optioned DE, and Heiko's asking him to let the ENTIRE D-line through?

El Jeffe

September 5th, 2012 at 10:01 AM ^

Free yards are for pansies?

#ThisIsMichiganFergodsakes?

No, srsly. I don't know. But I was the leading proponent of the Trust the Coaches mafia, and I did trust the coaches on offense up to and including the MSU (NTMSU) game. So I will trust the House of Borges as well. If Denard gets no better this year at doing what Borges wants, I will be surprised because of the latter half of last season, and I will also drink a lot.

But for now I trust the coaches.

Promote RichRod

September 5th, 2012 at 10:05 AM ^

It almost seemed like a presser given by a politician rather than a football coach - he had a message to convey and made sure he repeated it 5-6 times: "We didn't make a mistake by not running Denard more, it never would have worked."  Heiko's innocuous first question prompted a pretty defensive response.

I don't know where he is getting the "we tried running Denard, it didn't work, it never would work" from.  Evidence doesn't support this at all.  The couple times he ran he did much better than the other backs and even scored a TD after WOOPing a couple guys (how often does that happen on Bama?).  It's what he does.  Hell, even if they load the box you have to try running Denard.  He has made a living gaining yards on the ground against defenses with the gameplan of stopping him.  How can we know it wouldn't work if we didn't really try?  When you have a once in a generation talent at something I will never accept "trust me they would have stopped him" as an answer.

I think Borges knows he could have a done a bit better or tried some different things during the game and is basically just doing CYA duty here.  I'd probably do the same so I can't really blame him.

Ron Utah

September 5th, 2012 at 10:59 AM ^

Borges is right.  Running Denard would not have worked.  Look at 'Bama's numbers againts running QBs.  The Cam Newton guy that everyone here spends so much time saying, "Auburn did it with him!"--here is his stat line from that game:

  • Passing - 13/20, 216 yards, 3 TDs, 0 INTs
  • Rushing - 22 carries, 39 yards

RUNNING WITH YOUR QB DOESN'T WORK AGAINST ALABAMA.

What would you all be saying if Denard had gotten (more) hurt because he ran the ball 22 times?  I mean, just in his limited duty we had two scares with him.  Did you see the way the 'Bama WRs and TEs were hitting our team, let alone their LBs and Safeties?

Here were Al's choices:

  • Run Denard a lot.  Maybe--even probably--get a few more yards than we got.  Maybe even a few more first downs.  Maybe, just maybe, even a few more points.  But there was never going to be real success with this strategy...look at the film.  It wasn't there. Look at the few times he did run.  It wasn't there.
  • Try to win the game.  Use the strategy that has worked and can work against 'Bama.

So many fans scream to put the ball in Denard's hands, but all that would have done is expose him to more hits, maybe get us a few more yards, and make the fans feel better.  The reality is that Cam Newton and Auburn beat 'Bama through the passing game and some good defense.  LSU beat them last year almost exclusively with good defense.

Our defense couldn't stop them.  Our offense needed the passing game to work--not just to score points and move the ball--but to give Denard a chance to run.

I wish Denard was good enough to have run against that 'Bama defense.  If that was true, than this Michigan team would be national title contenders.

I know we're all frustrated with the loss, and with not getting to see our best player run the ball more.  But it wasn't going to work, and might have cost us our whole season.  Watch the tape.  There are several free 'Bama defenders on every play.  It wasn't going to work, and it might have cost us the chance to watch Denard for the rest of the year.  Winning the B1G is still our goal, and should be.  We couldn't block.  We couldn't catch.  We couldn't defend.  Running Denard would not have worked either, not without some success loosening up 'Bama with the passing game.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we cannot be or beat an elite team unless Denard can do a better job as a passer.

So here's what you have to ask yourself: Would you feel better if we had run Denard 10 more times?  Because we still wouldn't have won.  They scored 41 points.  We weren't going to do that.  And then ask yourself, is it worth the risk to run Denard 10 more times just so that you can feel better?

Sten Carlson

September 5th, 2012 at 12:26 PM ^

I think many of the people critizing Borges for his game plan have a point(s), but I think on the they're looking at the situation wrong.

The book on stopping Denard is no mystery -- load the box and make him beat  you with his arm.  As many have correctly pointed out, passing -- thus far -- hasn't been Denard's strength.  But, what critics are not seeing is what Borges sees in practice.  I contend that Denard's passing and his overall understanding of the passing offense has taken a huge leap forward, and Borges wanted to put it to the test versus Alabama. 

As someone else aptly pointed out, Michigan had 14 plays and the game was basically out of hand.  As Borges said, when playing Bama you have to be in a fist fight, play field position, and you cannot mistakes.  Well, between a few drops/breakups of well thrown balls, a over throw, a penalty or two, Michigan's offense was trying to knock the rust off.  Against EMU for example, we would have seen what you almost always see in openers -- a close 1st qtr, even 1st half, then the superior team catches it's grove and pulls away.  OSU struggled early with Miami, and numerous other big programs struggled with their lesser opponents.  Michigan just didn't have that luxury versus Alabama.

Again, as someone else pointed out, had a few of those opening passes connected, it might have been a very different outcome.

So back to the book on stopping Denard.  The way to defeat a team who loads the box is to pass on them.  To pass on them, you have to have a QB that can execute.  To have a QB that can execute, you have to let him try to execute, and then coach up his mistakes.  The Bama game was Denard's first chance in 2012 to execute as the New and Improved Denard -- unfortunately, his performance was skewed by Bama's defensive dominance.  Every snap that Denard took was a chance to continue to develop his passing game for the rest of the season.  He doesn't need more practice running, and the game was beyond the point where running him was going to make any difference.

Had Michigan kept it close and forced Bama to adjust to the success of the short passing game, I have no doubt we would have seen Denard running a great deal more.  Michigan just got whipsawed right from the very get go, and couldn't recover.

teldar

September 5th, 2012 at 2:27 PM ^

Michigan is the best team ever and is the team i root for and should have beaten a team with nfl level talent who had 5 months go get ready for our run-first qb. Waaaaahhhhh!!! There is no reason the team i root for shouldn't have beaten perhaps the best team in the country who is the defending champion and currently ranked 1 when the team i root for has what's left of a roster after epic attrition and questionable in the first place. Waaaahhhh! Our coaches are asses who hate me and the best team in the country because this amazingly talented team with great coaching and great continuity beat the team i root for. Which is thin on talent. And had terrible defensive coaching until 1 1/2 years ago. And not a while lot of coaching on how aqb should throw the ball. OuOr how receivershould run routes. WWaaaahhhhh! It's impossible the team i root for was beaten through badly superior recruiting and talent development through years of consistent and high level technique coaching. The real problem is our coaches are idiots.