This Week's Obsession: Dual Threat Comment Count

Seth

9740847797_94594d5bf7_b

[Fuller]

The weekly roundtable wonders about this whole "let's not get another Gardner" plan (that isn't the plan). Our depth chart:

9743849178_81f954ce5e_o
What, my Henson-ian athleticism isn't good enough for ya? [Upchurch]
  • Brian Cook: Field General!
  • Seth Fisher: Legit 4.4 Speed!
  • Ace Anbender: Top Recruiter!
  • Heiko Yang: Huge Arm!
  • Blue in South Bend: Super Accurate!
  • Coach Brown: Reads Defenses!
  • Mathlete: Academic All-American!

This one comes from the mailbag, a guy appropriately named "Dual Threat." If you notice a whole lot of positivity in it, it's because it was sent before last Saturday. I'll posit his question as he sent it:

My point of view is we should be recruiting more dual threat-ers. While Morris and Speight are no doubt going to be good pocket passers, leaving the running aspect of the position off the table leaves a huge hole in the offensive arsenal going forward.

I feel dual threat QBs are going to be the future of dominant college football programs going forward (I see Alabama as a current exception, not the norm in the future). Would you not sacrifice a bit of QB passing ability for a chunk of QB running ability to open up that attack dimension? Wouldn't you be foolish not to? Thoughts?

Brian: It's clear that all things being equal, Michigan's going to prefer advanced passers to guys who can glide for 35 yards without looking like they're moving particularly fast. And that's a little bit of a bummer to me, since a guy who can make people pay with his legs opens up many more possibilities in your offense. 

What remains to be seen is whether Michigan is going to completely eschew athletic types that need some molding. Would they go the Charlie Weis route and recruit Terrelle Pryor as a wide receiver? I have nothing to base this on but I don't think so. If there's a Gardner or Pryor in the area, Michigan will probably go after them as hard as they would Morris.

[Jump]

We have no evidence to support this because there's an utter dearth of dual-threat types in the Midwest this year. Ohio State chased two out-of-region guys who ended up at Clemson and LSU before settling for a generic three-star from Georgia whom two of the three sites who split QB rankings declare a pocket passer. There was no one in the Midwest any power school pursued who even vaguely fits the definition of dual threat except maybe DeShone Kizer, a 6'5" guy with a 5-second 40 who seems to be listed as a dual threat largely because of his skin color. (See: Campbell, Jayru.)

Meanwhile, in 2015 there's a bounty of California pocket passers and 2016 features Messiah DeWeaver, who seems like he wants to go to Michigan and will be good enough to get his offer. It might be a while before we get any referendum on whether Michigan is going to completely deprioritize being able to run for seven yards an attempt in its QB recruiting.

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

Coach Brown: I've always been the kind of guy that thought a running quarterback is the only way to go. This even goes back to my early video game days of always finding the QB with the highest speed rating and going with him, even if a pocket-passer type was rated much higher overall. I know that example isn't close to what it shakes out to in real life, but my thought process in choosing a starter or a recruiting target would be similar.

IMG_5076
Ack too runny. [Upchurch]

A quarterback that can run adds a completely new dimension to the offense that defensive coordinators have to gameplan for. If you have a statue as a QB, that is a huge threat the defense no longer has to worry about. To me Denard was a little too much of a running quarterback, as we saw solid defenses weren't threatened by his passing ability and keyed entirely on his running attack. Devin SHOULD be much more balanced as far as arm strength and accuracy are concerned. Until recently I would've said his decision making too, but after last week that has become a question mark too.

College football offenses are definitely favoring that type of quarterback right now and a lot of the top 25 teams have what is considered a dual-threat guy at the helm or at least a guy with some mobility. Aaron Murray is an example of a pocket-passer type with good athleticism. He was originally recruited as a dual-threat type, even though now his offensive scheme doesn't really require him to be.

The QB position at Michigan looks like it should be in good shape with Shane and Wilton, but I definitely have always been in favor of a quarterback who can hurt the opposition with his feet. Michigan has always had a tough time defending those kinds of players so why not utilize that if you can?

Of course the ultimate bomb to this whole theory is, of course, Alabama. They do it the way Brady Hoke wants to do it. Studs on the o-line, bell cow running backs, NFL type receivers, and a smart, consistent QB. AJ McCarron doesn't get a lot of hype or throw out video game numbers like a Marcus Mariota, but he has multiple national titles and a clean jersey.

If the coaches at Michigan can do it this way with success anywhere near what Alabama has had, I'm all for it. Until then, I'll stick with my opinion that a QB needs to be able to scramble and pick up yards on the ground.

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

Seth: You know why Michigan didn't lose to Akron? Because when our quarterback had one of those passing off-days that quarterbacks have, and the line wasn't able to establish a running game because of all the things, once again Michigan turned to the bottomless well of Rodriguezian quarterback legs and…

click to bring up lightbox

…hey look we're winning again. How many times in the Hoke era has Michigan come in with a plan of THIS TIME WE'RE TOTALLY RUNNING POWER and then have to scrap that when the game is on the line? I'm asking your question, aren't I? I feel you; let me answer you.

I am of the opinion--like Coach Brown--that football is a game that was designed to be played by athletes, but the bigger your roster and more time you have for practice the more you can get out the specialists. Before Devin Gardner and Denard Robinson there were Rick Leach, Harry Newman, and Benny Friedman. Running QBs aren't a recent takeover; they're a return to normal.

The reason the NFL became a league of overpaid, over-tall white guys who sling it 40 times a game is the league bent every pass blocking rule and made it nearly illegal to lay your hands on the studmuffin, who is also the product's lead spokesman and the subject of 85% of easy-to-write stories the media will gleefully manufacture to avoid having to learn what an inverted veer is.

1145530
Speight comes with all you see here, including like five more blue-chip recruits. [Scout]

College football doesn't afford you the practice time to learn all of the routes and stems that Brady or Manning have mastered. For a time NCAA teams went a-slinging because the shotgun let you Ty Detmer people to death but you couldn't run from it. With the spread and zone read and pistol variation, and a QB with legs, now you can again, and that's why running QBs are again the dominant offensive tools in college football.

That said, everybody is after "athletic" QBs these days, and you can't have everything or coach everything. So Michigan is going to trade the thing that is at a premium value in order to max out on other things. With Morris and Speight they found guys who get the ball to large, talented receivers all over the field, AND who can act like a second recruiting coordinator, bringing in more than enough talent elsewhere in the lineup to offset their limitations.

So yeah, if you can reach into your back yard and find a Devin Gardner who can pass, run, lead a team and study like a champion every year GO GET THAT GUY, but honestly that guy doesn't come along all that often. The NFL still wants Ken dolls with SUPER THROWING ACTION arms, and somebody can make a killing providing them. Because that type of QB is by nature more erratic on a game-by-game basis, it's not the business I would have gone into, but it's a respectable niche that comes with other benefits. George Campbell!

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

tumblr_lx6idpc7uM1qm9rypo1_1280
Remember when people used to always be yelling "Put in Kapsner"? Also: if Michigan's cornering the market on Tom Bradys while getting the occasional Henson, I mean, how upset are we really?

BiSB: I think the 'mobile QB' debate sets up somewhat of a false dichotomy. The question isn't really "do you want a running quarterback or a passing quarterback?" so much as it is "what do you look for first?" This regime obviously looks to the throwy stuff first, and when in doubt the better passing quarterback will probably get the offer. And surely we have seen the last Denard-like creature in a winged helmet for the foreseeable future (/sigh), but it seems inconceivable that Borges doesn't appreciate the benefits of a guy who can pick 'em up and put 'em down. He is still using Devin's legs, just in more traditional ways.

Bottom line: you don't NEED a super-mobile QB to run a West Coast system. Steve Young did it, but so did Joe Montana. The thing that concerns me is that a mobile quarterback is a hell of a safety net. If Kovacs was Brian's binky these last few years, mine was QB Iso. I'm a believer in math, and I enjoy watching a running attack that starts with a +1 in the blocker-to-defender department when compared to a traditional running attack (whether through QB power or through optioning a defender into irrelevance). If they stop doing the easy stuff to generate mathematical advantages (plz keep running the veer, k thx), the onus will be on Borges to manufacture those advantages. That seems like a less secure bet.

On a related note, let's not confuse Shane Morris with Chad Henne. Morris wouldn't be confused with Vince Young, but it seems like he has enough mobility to at least SHOW defenses some of the same clubs that are in Devin's bag. Is one option keeper in every ten option gives enough to slow a defensive end down? I don't know, but it's worth a shot, even if Shane's keepers are worth 8 and not 40.

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

Ace: I'm not sure anyone on this blog is going to say that they'd rather go full-blown pocket statue instead of having a quarterback who can run—all things being equal, you'd have to be insane not to want the latter—and I think the coaches feel the same way, albeit not as strongly. Shane Morris may not be a Denard/DG-type; he still has the capability to escape the pocket and move the sticks with his legs. Wilton Speight is more statuesque; he was recruited because he can really throw the deep ball, and obviously Al Borges is pretty big on that. The ability to execute Borges's passing game is priority one; being able to move around may not be too far down the list, however.

861009
But no, seriously, we can trade this for running zone reads that aren't actually reads if you want. [247]

As Brian mentioned, the 2014 class is completely devoid of good dual-threat QBs with any interest in Michigan who are actually dual-threat QBs. We know the coaches are at least considering a dual-threat guy in the 2015 class, as Heiko noticed CA TX QB Sheriron Jones's name on a whiteboard in Al Borges's office; depending on which site you look at, another California QB under consideration, Kevin Dillman, is also considered More Than Just A Pocket Passer™. A couple other dual-threat prospects, Anthony Ratliff (from the same school as Channing Stribling) and Cinjun Erskine have interest as well. While the coaches may not have had any idea what to do with Denard Robinson, they seem comfortable recruiting a quarterback that can run as long as he can also execute in the passing game, and that's fine by me. We won't have another Denard at quarterback; we will have more polished passers, and some of them may be able to run, too.

If Michigan isn't going back to the spread—news flash: they aren't—then I'm fine with this. With the talent being built on the offensive line and at the other skill positions, they don't need somebody is going to carry the offense in the air and on the ground. I'd prefer to see a guy with some mobility taking snaps, and for that to be utilized—as Bryan noted, MATH—but it'd be nice to see what a pinpoint passer can do once Michigan can actually execute POWER and boasts receivers who are Jeremy Gallon But Tall. If that pinpoint passer can run, great. If he can't, they'll have plenty of other weapons—including what should be a kickass defense, which counts as a weapon—to help them win games.

9180287-large
Honestly, this is the game you picked to highlight overvaluing of running QBs? Oh, low-variability offenses: YES.

Mathlete: For a program like Michigan, on its current recruiting trajectory, the question is how do you beat Ohio State and whoever you face in a major bowl game. It's not that there aren't going to be other quality programs, but on Michigan's best years, it's going to be defined by those couple of critical games against teams with elite talent each season. The sample size on mobile quarterbacks on elite teams is still fairly small, there does seem to be some evidence that the most potent offenses with mobile quarterbacks are fantastic about seizing any small advantage for a massive pile of points, but they get caught up against big physical teams.

The prime example is obviously Oregon and if you look at the teams that have tripped them up, you have LSU, Stanford, Ohio State and Auburn in recent years. It's always dangerous to draw big conclusion from such a limited sample, but there could be something to the idea that this style of offense struggles when facing the best defenses. One thing that seems like a trend is that the path to the national championship is great defense and a low variability offense. With that said, I agree with the idea that it's all about who is available. I think Denard and to a greater extent now Devin have shown them that the QB run can be a great security blanket for the staff. Given two guys to chose between now, I think the staff would go for the guys with running ability now, while they probably wouldn't have done that a couple years ago. But I don't see them ever going after any quarterbacks who they don't think can be elite passers first.

Comments

French West Indian

September 18th, 2013 at 11:42 AM ^

The thing that I've been wondering with the rise of the dual threat QBs is when will a team try using a backfield of of 2 or 3 of these guys with no traditional running back or quarterback?

If one dual threat in the backfield is so difficult for defenses then wouldn't have multiple dual threats be even more deadly?  As offenses grow more complex and athletes more sophisticated, this seems almost inevitable. 

Trebor

September 18th, 2013 at 12:05 PM ^

This has been used by Louisiana-Monroe on occasion this year. They have two QBs who, while not to the level of Denard or Devin, are respectable athletes like Morris who won't gash a defense but can churn out a few yards regularly. They even use one left-hander and one right-hander, and run zone-read concepts to get the appropriate-handed QB what is effectively a roll-out that options off a defender. Not sure how effective it is, and I don't think they use it too much, but it's certainly an interesting concept.

Hugh White

September 18th, 2013 at 12:19 PM ^

Sounds to me like you are describing Michigan's Mad Magicians.  Imagine if your QB, fullback, tailback, and slot could all be called upon to run, pitch, hand-off, receive or pass. Too much fun.

TwoFiveAD

September 18th, 2013 at 11:48 AM ^

How about a QB that doesn't turn the ball over 4 times a game?

Someone run the stats on how many TO's a "dual threat" qb has on average versus your standard pocket passer.  Put it in an Egraph. 

If Devin wasn't a turnover machine last Saturday, we wouldn't have needed his legs.

gwkrlghl

September 18th, 2013 at 12:06 PM ^

I think trying to corolate turnovers to dual-threat or statue is a fairly pointless endeavor. Devin didn't turn the ball over 4 times because he was a dual-threat, pretty much all four were just bad decision making. Denard did the same thing, not because they could run but because they just weren't/aren't making good choices.

Plenty of DTQBs destroy people and don't turn it over too much. Without checking, I'm thinking of Mariotta, Manziel, Boyd, etc.

InterM

September 18th, 2013 at 3:36 PM ^

This is the guy (TwoFiveAD) that has told us repeatedly what a godawful QB Denard was, and how we should have turned things over to Devin (or Bellomy!) far earlier.  Now it seems that Devin's destined for the discard pile as well.  Any day now we'll find the perfect, mistake free college QB . . . .

chitownblue2

September 18th, 2013 at 12:19 PM ^

I think all schools would like a guy who is a great runner and a great passer, but there aren't many. Often, better runners sacrifice some throwing ability.

I think it's disingenuous to say Gardner "won Akron with his legs" when the only reason it was up for grabs was Devin Gardner's arm.

UMaD

September 18th, 2013 at 1:02 PM ^

There aren't many great runners OR great passers, and even fewer who are great runners AND great passers.  But there are a lot of people who are very good at both.  The game has changed from the ground up and High Schools are producing tons of dual threat guys.

Typically - you are getting "very good" not "great" players. So why limit yourself to hoping they can be great at one thing?

The biggest reason to go for a dual-threat QB is at least you have some certainty about the running being an asset.  The passing is much harder to forecast.  For every Henne/Brady, there will be 4 or 5 Kapsner/Richard types. 

The threat to run is too valueable to ignore.  The NFL is trending this way, and Hoke will hopefully respect that in the years to come.

bronxblue

September 18th, 2013 at 2:32 PM ^

I'd counter that fumbling a ball going in for a score and throwing two horrible pick-six's because you are running around trying to "make something happen" instead of taking the sack and punting/moving on to the next down also led to some issues.

There are so many factors that are different when you replace player X and with Y that to say that history plays out exactly the same is silly. It isn't photoshop; gameplans and players are going to adapt and evolve with differences.

Eye of the Tiger

September 18th, 2013 at 12:04 PM ^

A few of you commented in this direction, but it bears repeating that the coaching staff are not looking for passing-exclusive quarterbacks, but pass-first quarterbacks. That extremely broad category includes Steve Young and Donovan McNabb in their NFL incarnations, as well as Terrell Pryor, Johnny Manziel and possibly even (senior) Vince Young* as college QBs.

They are primarily looking for someone who can make reads and accurate throws, and has the arm strength for the deep ball. If he can run too, then that's great. It's an added bonus--and, from the past 2.18 seasons, something they are likely prepared to utilize.

What that means is, they almost certainly recruit Devin Gardner 2.0, Terrell Pryor 2.0 (minus the attitude) or even Braxton Miller 2.0 but probably pass on Denard Robinson 2.0. 

It also means they almost certainly recruit Tom Brady 2.0, Carson Palmer 2.0, A.J. McCarron 2.0, etc.

*Young passed for more than 3x the yardage he rushed for as a senior. 

El Jeffe

September 18th, 2013 at 12:11 PM ^

The prime example is obviously Oregon and if you look at the teams that have tripped them up, you have LSU, Stanford, Ohio State and Auburn in recent years. It's always dangerous to draw big conclusion from such a limited sample, but there could be something to the idea that this style of offense struggles when facing the best defenses.

Mathlete, I know you threw in the sample size caveat, but there's another issue--good defenses cause problems for all offenses, don't they? This is what drove me figuratively insane during the RR years--people kept saying "sure, the spread puts up a lot of points on crappy defenses but then it can't score against elite defenses."

BUT THAT'S WHY THEY'RE ELITE DEFENSES THEY'RE HARD TO SCORE AGAINST!!!!1!!1

Ahem. I'm not suggesting you made that argument, but I would like to see if you can dip into your bag of data and figure out whether, ceteris paribus, spread offenses do worse against elite defenses than non-spread offenses.

Gracias.

CompleteLunacy

September 18th, 2013 at 1:05 PM ^

I think the overall argument is that there's no such thing as a "schematic advantage" of spread vs. pro-style, just style prefences Because no matter what, once you go up against the best defenses, you're going to have trouble scoring. So it comes down to talent + execution. I don't care whether Michigan runs a Denard offense or a Navarre offense...I just want them to win, damnit.

I would be interested in that analysis, though.

El Jeffe

September 18th, 2013 at 1:21 PM ^

I think you and I agree--I was reacting to the Mathlete's comment (my emphasis) that

there could be something to the idea that this style of offense struggles when facing the best defenses

I guess I interpreted that to mean "this style of offense more than another style," which may not have been his intent.

And then I was noting that during the RR tenure many posters dismissed the spread on the grounds that it didn't score a bajillion points against really good defenses, which always made me want to cry for the future of our country and logic.

Ron Utah

September 18th, 2013 at 12:17 PM ^

I think it's pretty clear that Borges is looking for a passer who can move.  None of the guys he's recruited are statues (not even Speight) but Al's focus seems to be more on "the third play" and the ability of the QB to extend and make plays when the blocking breaks down or the coverage is just too good to throw the ball.

Morris and Speight--and even Bellomy--can move.  Morris is probably the most athletic, but yeah, these guys are all more athletic than the dudes Michigan was rolling out prior to Denard.  Don't forget--Brian Griese won a National Championship.

While Devin's legs clearly give us an extra option offensively, just look at what Rees and Pohl were able to do to us with their arms.  A pocket passer that can pick apart a defense, use play action, and be athletic enough to get out of trouble every now and then is more than enough to win.  In fact, lots of spread attacks around college football these days use QBs who rarely run.

All that said, it's an undeniable truth that a QB that can make big plays with his legs is both exciting to watch and a challenge to defend.  We won't have that post-DG for the foreseeable future, but if our O-line can play up to their potential, it won't matter.

Eye of the Tiger

September 18th, 2013 at 12:30 PM ^

Okay, let me start off by saying that I don't have any basis for thinking dual-threat QBs throw more interceptions than pocket passers. But I do have a basis for saying that, since 2009, our quarterbacks have collectively thrown a lot of interceptions. Some numbers:

2009: 15 [10 Forcier; 4 Robinson, 1 Sheridan]

2010: 15 [11 Robinson; 4 Forcier]

2011: 16 [15 Robinson; 1 Gardner]

2012: 18 [9 Robinson; 5 Gardner; 4 Bellomy]

Those 2012 numbers are a bit of an abberation, with the Bellomy performance against Nebraska driving them up. Normalize that and, essentially, our offenses have produced about 15-16 interceptions per year since we started using quarterbacks who have the legs to improvise rather than take a sack or throw the ball away. 

To compare, in his 3 years as starter, Navarre threw 7-12 INTs [2/3 years 10+]. In his 4 years as starter, Henne threw 7-12 INTs [1/3 years 10+].

I'm NOT bringing this up to make a specious argument about pocket passers vs. dual-threat QBs, but rather to point out that there's now a 3-starter trend of our QBs turning the ball over a lot. And as we all know, each of these quarterbacks--Forcier, Robinson and Gardner--have a penchant for making extremely ill-advised throws while improvising.

My question is, to what degree is this an "instinct thing" you can figure out on the recruiting trail, and to what degree is it a matter of coaching? How much can the coaching staff see "interception-prone-ness" as something to look out for when evaluating talent, or conversely, what can they do to "coach it out" of recruits? How does the risk of this stack up to the benefit of being able to improvise? What would we need to do to produce an effective but less risky version of QB improvisation?

UMaD

September 18th, 2013 at 12:46 PM ^

2014 will be his last season at Michigan because the offense is going to be terrrrrible next season. 

Think I'm being pessimistic? I am, but that's doesn't mean I'm wrong. I've been panicing about the '13 OL for two years and they turned out to be just as terrible as I thought.  (Not true exactly; Lewan's unexpected return averted disaster, but the interior is as problematic as expected.)

But Derrick Green has 5 stars!  He is not elusive and therefore needs an OL who can block for him.

But Kyle Kalis-Bosch-Kugler!  Look up the success rate of 4-star OL recruits at Michigan.  What percent were quality starters in their 1st/2nd year? A: Not most.  Look at Kalis - a 5-star - struggling in his first action.  Experience counts.  This OL could be good in 2015 and great in 2016, but that's going to be too late for Borges.

But Chesson-Darboh!  You mean the guys that didn't immediately shove a walk-on and Jeremy Jackson to the bench?  Good luck with that, especially with a noob QB.

Devin Gardner's interceptions mean he'll return!  B.J. Daniels got drafted after throwing 39 interceptions in college.  The NFL drafts on potential and Gardner has plenty. The difference in money between being a late 1st rounder and a mid-round pick  isn't significant enough to offset an extra year of free agency (i.e., not playing for free in college). 

Gardner is gone and Speight isn't Henne and Morris isn't...whoever the last good 2nd year QB starter we had.  Not without a good run-game.  Borges is going to be an excuse-machine next year.  With OSU doing what they're doing, there is going to be too much pressure (after 4 inconsistent years) for Borges to stick around.  Funk will be gone too.

The whole dual-threat conversation...could look very different with a new OC & Staff.  But given Hoke will still be here - probably not.  Still, for those that value the dual-threat, there is some hope that Hoke takes the program-manager approach and finds an impressive candidate who isn't married to the "pro-style".

Borges does not deserve to be fired, but if the run-game continues it's decline since 2010, he'll be asked to go.

CompleteLunacy

September 18th, 2013 at 1:28 PM ^

Right, because the RBs under RR were so much more dominant. 

Michigan hasn't had a very good RB-running attack for years, not since honestly Minor RAGE. Even then, Minor was injured most of the time. So Mike Hart was really the last very good running attack Michigan had from the RB spot. It's pretty amusing you think that Borges is ruining the run game, especially considering he's only now getting his offens implemented, combined with the general inexperience on the OL interior....not to mention he is running the QB. Those aren't free yards. Borges still has to coach the QB runs, you know.

It's akin to saying that through 3 games, our points scored have trended down steadily, therefor Michigan is screwed. 59 -> 41 -> 28. Egads! That means Michigan is only going to score 15 points or less against UCONN!!!! We are so screwed, you guyzzz!!!

UMaD

September 18th, 2013 at 1:39 PM ^

Minor and Brown averaged over 5 ypc.  Smith (clearly NOT a good runner), Shaw, and Hopkins all averaged over 4 ypc.  Add a healthy Toussaint and the '11 rush numbers would probably have been very very good.  Also - you know Toussaint is an RR player right?

Toussaint by year;

2010: 10.9 ypc (tiny sample size)

2011: 5.6 ypc

2012: 4.0 ypc

2013: 3.6 ypc (against mostly very easy competition)

It's not about 3 games, it's about 4 years.  Team YPC has gone down each year (or will, once we get past the non-conference in 2013.)  This despite a veteran OL, senior QBs, etc.

I'm not necessarily saying Borges has done a terrible job.  He was tasked with a tough thing in running an O he hadn't before.  I'm saying that frustration is likely to boil over next year (if I'm right about Devin going pro).  Once all the RR people are gone, and the offense still looks like it has training wheels headed into a 5th year...it's not going to be pretty.

Hannibal.

September 18th, 2013 at 1:10 PM ^

Are you saying that there is actually a plan to bring back that awful shitty system? 

I have actually been kind of enjoying lately the fact that you can express an opinion contrary to the forum's conventional wisdom and not have it negbanged into oblvion by a few butthurt douchebags who got their feelings hurt.  Or people who define trolling as "expressing an opinion that I don't agree with".

markusr2007

September 18th, 2013 at 1:06 PM ^

What matters is not rushing yards, but wins.

A close 2nd to Northwestern right now, I think Michigan is probably the most frightening team to play in the conference - mainly because you just don't know which team is going to show up on Saturday.  The bad kharma Akon game Michigan or the Notre Dame game version?

I foresee Michigan being an unpredictable schizoid team this year - probably struggling in games they shouldn't like at PSU, Minny and Indiana, while inexplicably blowing out Nebraska, throttling MSU and maybe beating a heavily favorite Ohio State team or something.

WTF knows?

It's going to be a wild ride, I'm afraid, so everybody should unpack their defibrulators.

I think Borges was always a step behind what Denard Robinson was doing or could do. He seems a little more aligned with Gardner's abilities, except for the OMFG turnovers.

If Michigan sheds the dumb penalties and turnovers after 3 games in, then it should be a conference title contender (albeit in a depressingly weak B10).

I think we knew the interior OL might suck this year, and it turns out we weren't wrong.  But Ohio State's OL sucked last year and they won all 13 games, so go figure.

UMaD

September 18th, 2013 at 1:18 PM ^

This is exactly right, IMO.  That is both a credit to Borges' creativity and a reason why he might get fired - lack of identity and consistency. 

Some weeks Borges looks like an idiot and others a genius - I don't think it's just player execution or the quality of the opponent.

Wolverine 73

September 18th, 2013 at 1:32 PM ^

You know, I don't think that will be the case.  I think Akron will turn out to have been a wake-up call and make the team more focused.  We may lose a game we shouldn't lose, but I do not expect the wild swings we saw in the last two weeks.  Put yourself in the position of the players--that game is the sort of thing that would really focus your mind.

Hannibal.

September 18th, 2013 at 1:18 PM ^

1.  I don't see Hoke firing a major assistant.  Ever.  He seems like a "loyalty" guy, for better or for worse.

2.  I think that you are likely to see the heat get turned up on Darrell Funk before Borges.  But that's just my take on it. 

3.  Borges, if you ask me, has actually done a pretty god job this year of manufacturing points in games where the offensive line has been getting owned.  I have absolutely no in-game X's and O's complaints this year.  Last year, yes.  This year, no.  Borges has done more with shitty line play this year than Stan Parrish, Fred Jackson, or Mike Debord did when their lines were playing shitty.  He deserves credit for at least gameplanning around the fact that the line can't block, where as Carr's offensive coordinators had to always learn the hard way for three quarters before figuring it out.  Maybe he can be faulted for not having a rock solid offensive philosophy that allows the players to learn a bread-and-butter and do it really well.  Maybe.

 

UMaD

September 18th, 2013 at 1:21 PM ^

But at some point, every coach has to fire people. Funk is Borges' guy. Funk might be the first to go, but if the next guy comes in and it's the same struggles...

The question is WHY is the OL play so shitty?  And does Borges deserve blame?  I think when you have a guy like Lewan and a very veteran line last year that had done well in the past - it's reasonable to expect more.

Wolverine 73

September 18th, 2013 at 1:37 PM ^

Last year, we did not have a "very veteran line" that had "done well in the past."  We had two really good tackles, same as this year, and we had three guys in their last year of eligibility, two of whom had barely played before then, and the third of whom had a career that tracked Obi Ezeh's in that he seemed to get worse the last couple of years (in fairness, perhaps because he was not suited to what the team was doing).  It had not played together and had not "done well" before.  And it was "veteran" only in that the guys were old, not that they had played a lot of football.

UMaD

September 18th, 2013 at 1:42 PM ^

seems to be a hobby around here.  That same OL, minus Molk, ran very very well in '10 and '11.

I think it's justifiable to blame the scheme change stuff for their struggles,  but who is to blame for that scheme change?  Who is in charge of making it go well?