A Week In The Life of Al Borges (part 2) Comment Count

Heiko

[In part 1, Michigan offensive coordinator Al Borges describes a typical game week and talks about the process of game preparation. In part 2, Borges talks about game day, calling plays, the infamous Ohio State game, and bubble screens. There is no part 3. =( ]

Okay it’s game day. I’m guessing the first thing you do is meet with all the coaches.

“Yeah. What we do is we’ll -- we don’t actually meet. We’ve already got that pretty much out of our system, although I’ve been at places where we did. I’ve been at places where the head coach wanted to meet on game day and talk about everything. But we’ve already hashed all that out. There’s no reason to bother with that at that point.

“But you know, we get up and have a little walk-through usually down at the church -- by the church across the street from the Campus Inn.”

I think I’ve seen you guys.

“Yeah. We’ll have a little walk-through, which is great. It gets the guys thinking about football. We started doing that about the middle of our first year. And then there’s a pre-game [meeting], depending on when the game is.

“Something that’s worthy of mention is that we go through a call-sheet rehearsal with all the interns and everybody that puts that together. You have to understand that I’m a bit of a technological moron. I don’t do --

[Borges gestures to his computer]

“-- All this stuff. I’m too old. I’m not real computer savvy and all that. I mean I can open a computer and find stuff for the most part if you want anything … I let the GAs kind of do that. But what we do is we go through sometimes as many as two or three games with those guys, and one with the quarterbacks where we’ll put a game on, and I’ll call the game practicing off -- say we’re playing Notre Dame and Notre Dame played USC. I’ll put the USC game on, put my call sheet in front of me, and whatever SC did, if they gained three yards [to get to] a second and seven, I will practice the call in that area that I would call in that situation. And maybe Notre Dame played Purdue, SC, and whoever. With those three games I’ll go through a whole call sheet of three games just practicing calling the plays. And we’ll do that on Friday so that, just like the players, I’ve rehearsed what I’m going to call and what I’m going to do. That Friday the quarterbacks will come in and I’ll do it with the quarterbacks.”

So they know what you’re thinking.

“See, what you’re trying to do with a game plan is you’re trying to present as few surprises as possible to them. The more surprises you get, the more likely you’ll have an error.”

I see. So you do the walk-through, pre-game stuff, and you’re super prepared. A couple hours before the game, you make it down to the Stadium and go up to the box. Then what?

“I watch the band.”

Sorry?

“I watch the band!”

Oh okay …

“I’m done! There’s nothing else to do. There’s no build-up to a crescendo. I just watch the band. Put the call sheet in front of me. Get everything in order. Have a little note sheet. My intern up there, he will pass me errors as the game progresses -- Stephen Weins. He’ll write things down, and every series he’ll give them to me, and then I’ll get Devin or whoever the quarterback is on the phone and go over the errors so that everything’s being addressed as it’s screwed up.”

Ah. I’m kind of interested in how communication works between the box and the field.

“That’s it.”

You’re on the phone with --

“I’m on the phone with Steno (?), who sends the play and everybody can hear the play. The group guy can hear the play so he can send the correct personnel in the game. And we document as we go.”

So you send the call down to the field and the offense lines up. But then the defense comes out in their formation. What if they show you something you weren’t expecting?

“Well, you have built-in … Certain plays you run and you don’t really care. You run and you don’t worry about what the defense is doing because they can handle pretty much anything. Other plays are what we call ‘must-audible’ situations, where the play is not conducive to what you’re seeing and your likelihood for success is not good. So the quarterback should get you out of the play. And then we have what we call ‘advantage’ audibles where the defense maybe lined up giving you something you didn’t anticipate and the quarterback will get you into an advantage situation. And then you have ‘check’ plays where you’ll have two plays called in the huddle: one versus a certain look, another versus another look.

"You know, you’ve got so many ways [to call] a play -- the game’s become very sophisticated that way where you can use a lot of on-the-line-of-scrimmage plays. We’re not a team that peeks to the sideline to get a lot of plays and stuff. The pro quarterback is programmed to do -- if he sees this, do that, and if he sees this, do that, and so on.”

How is Devin doing in that respect?

“Oh he’s good. Yeah. But he’s been in the system for a few years. Plus he played wide receiver, which didn’t hurt any. He’s seen it from both perspectives, which you don’t really have with most quarterbacks. They don’t really understand. So he does pretty good. The more the quarterback plays, the more he’s afforded the lattitude of changing the plays and doing whatever. The newer the quarterback, the less you get into a chess game on the line of scrimmage.”

Gotcha. I want to ask you about something you’ve said in the past, about how the success of your offense later in the game is often dependent on your success earlier in the game --

“Right -- turns."

What?

"Your issues with play-calling are what I call ‘turns.’ How many turns do you get? How many chances do you get? How many first downs do you get so that you can call more plays? And this is where you become a victim of execution to a degree.

“There’s a lot of criticism, I know, from the Ohio State game, which the plan was very similar [to the Iowa game] and there was a lot of the lauding or praises for the Iowa game. A lot of the [Ohio State] plan was in the Iowa game. There was a lot of the same stuff. There was a little more nuance that we actually ended up running in the bowl game -- I’m telling you something I haven’t told anyone before -- but the second half of the Ohio State game we didn’t get to a lot of those calls because we failed on third-down-and-short situations several times. We failed, we turned the ball over a couple times. A lot of those calls don’t get out of your mouth. You see what I mean?

“I told you guys this in the press conference, and I remember saying this: everybody’s going to complain about the play-calling and who’s touching the ball, you know? Getting carries? If you’re not getting first downs, you’re not getting calls out. You don’t get that turn. You lost that turn, because something went wrong and you didn’t move the chains. You turn the ball over. And now everybody’s going to think you screwed it up, which, at the end of the day, maybe you did. It’s not all the players; it’s the coaches, too, now. We don’t always make the perfect call. But the bottom line is at the end of the day, if you don’t get a lot of chances to call plays, you’ll always be short. You won’t rush the ball very well. Nobody will rush for 100 yards. You won’t have a receiver catching over 100 yards. Your quarterback won’t have good numbers. You have to keep the chains moving so the play-caller can get more calls off. You’re in a constant situation where you’re trying to set plays up, but if you don’t get to those plays, you never get to the counterpunch.”

I see. So for your offense to be successful, you need the opportunity to run plays so you can set up other plays.

“Mmhmm.”

There were plays that you ran in the bowl game that you didn’t run against Ohio State because you weren’t able to set them up?

“Exactly.”

What would happen if -- let’s say there’s a run play that has pass component as the counter punch. If the run wasn’t successful, could you still call the pass?

“Doesn’t work that way. Because you have to understand the residual effect of football plays. This is very difficult for fans to understand. And I’m not being condescending, because it would be for me if I were [a fan].

"People sometimes don’t understand the value of a failed play. Sometimes the defense overdefends a play and gives you another play by doing so. So you may run a run in there and it doesn’t gain anything, and obviously people say, ‘Quit running the ball up the middle!’ How many times do you hear that? ‘Don’t run the ball up the middle!’ Well sometimes running up the ball up the middle will afford you the opportunity to pull the ball out and throw the ball down the field, because people are so aggressive with playing that play up the middle. I call it the residual effect of football plays. What’s the leftover effect of what we just did?

"If both plays don’t work, then you probably have a problem. Either the plan wasn’t good or your execution’s off. There’s only two ways plays fail. The plan isn’t good or your execution is lousy. Overdefended, underexecuted. That’s why plays fail. But you have to understand that a play, just because it fails, doesn’t mean it’s a bad play. It may give you something down the line. For example, if you ran the ball into the line of scrimmage and gained a half a yard. But the play-action pass off that play gained 35 yards. What’s the average of the two plays?”

… 17.75?

“Would you take that?”

I’d take that.

“Not a man in the world wouldn’t. And that’s why you have to understand, that’s how it works sometimes. It costs something at times to get to that 35-yard gain.”

How does having a head coach like Brady Hoke who goes for fourth downs and hates settling for field goals change the way you call plays?

“You just have to be prepared for those situations, you know? When he says, ‘I’m going for it on fourth-and-one,’ just make sure you have a play ready. Sometimes he’ll ask, ‘How do you feel about it?’ and he’ll get on the headset.

“Now the one thing that people don’t understand -- they think that because he doesn’t wear a headset he’s not communicative. That’s insane. You have to be on my end of it. Any time something’s crucial, he does have a headset on and he is communicative. Two-minute drills, fourth-and-one. He makes sure that all that stuff’s in. I’ve never been up there not knowing what to do based on his decision right away.”

Do you like his aggressiveness?

“Oh yeah. Hell yes. Sends a great message to everybody. The offense, the defense, to the whole team. We’re not playing this thing to tie to game. We’re playing this thing to win the game, which means … sometimes Babe Ruth struck out, right? A lot. More than anybody I think, for a while. You’re going to swing and miss at times, but if you don’t swing hard, you ain’t gonna hit a home run. You have to go out there and you have to play.”

And it probably helps knowing that on third down, you have two chances to convert.

“Yeah, and he’ll keep you informed when he’s going to do that generally. He’ll say, ‘You have two to do that.’ Again, he does a great job of communicating. He’ll say, ‘Al, you have two plays to make this first down.’ Unless something blows up, he’ll stick to that. Like if you get sacked for a seven-yard loss, he’ll say, ‘All bets are off. We’re kicking a field goal now.’

“He’s awesome because coach Hoke never loses his composure. While other coaches are screaming in skulls or yelling at the officials or yelling at their own team or they’re doing whatever, he’s always composed. He’s doing whatever gives you a chance -- we’ve come back in a lot of games since I’ve been here. Several games we’ve been behind. And [the fact that we win] is generally the head coach. The head coach sends that message more than anybody. He doesn’t lose it, so nobody loses it.” 

What do you do at halftime?

“Just go down and look at what they’ve done defensively, you know? Take all the data that I’ve been given from in the box and from the guys downstairs and then put together a new script of plays. Maybe it’s not 15-17 plays. Maybe eight or nine plays. But put together a new script of plays that we think were overdefended or underdefended and start the second half and put some plays in that maybe we didn’t run in the first half, maybe we didn’t get a chance to call it.”

Okay. Time is almost up, so let’s talk some philosophy. What do you think is the most efficient way to move the ball?

“Oh. Through balance. It’s the ability to run and pass with balance. Because that’s what the defense doesn’t want to see. Most of the time, why we fail offensively is our inability to do one or the other. Run or a pass. When you’re the most effective in playcalling … I can go like this, Heiko.”

[Borges pulls out the Ohio State call sheet. Without looking, he points to a random play.]

“Read 64 --”

(I am not sure what this means.)

“-- And it works. You want to know why? Because we threw a pass out of read 64 and now they have to defend [the pass] and pray you [pass]. It doesn’t make any difference. When they’re forced to defend both dimensions, the safeties have to play softer, which allows you to run. You understand?”

Yup.

“If they’re playing too aggressively on the run, the outside becomes more vulnerable. It’s hard to defend everything unless you’re imposing.”

So you call the formation and the play, but the quarterback ultimately decides run or pass?

“Right, but not with every play. It just depends on the play. Certain times, yes, exactly. And the decision within the passing game, too. Once you’ve called a pass play, the decision-making’s huge. It’s not forcing the ball into coverage knowing that certain times they take certain throws away. And you have to have a contingency plan for every single play. I learned this from Bill Walsh. This is the first thing I learned in pass offense. When everything’s not perfect, what’s your contingency plan? Who’s the next guy? And then who’s the next guy after that? And then if nobody’s open, what’s the quarterback do? You have to have a plan after that that’s not helter-skelter. You can’t go out there willy-nilly and say ‘This didn’t work, let’s turn this into backyard football.’ There has to be structure within your improv.”

Speaking of Bill Walsh, what’s the endpoint in the evolution of the Michigan offense?

“What do you mean?”

Well, you and Brady have talked about changing the look of the offense for the last three years. Obviously you’re not there yet, but is there an endpoint to the evolution, and what does that offense look like?

“Oh, it won’t stop evolving. We can’t stop evolving. If you look at the way college football changes over the years -- I mean, what it looks like now doesn’t look the like it did in 1986. Players are getting faster and stronger … What defenses are doing with their coverages and zone blitzing is a lot more sophisticated. If you look at what Michigan was doing back in 1940 with [Tom] Harmon carrying the ball, even the uniforms weren’t the same. You can’t stop evolving. That’s why we do so much time studying what other people are doing. Now, we may not use all of it, but we have to keep up.”

Do you see Michigan as having a niche in college football as far as offense goes?

“Hmm. I don’t know about that … What I can tell you is that we are always going to be balanced. We are going to run and pass with balance, and we’re going to do it in a way that helps our defense, even if that’s not the direction a lot of teams are going.”

What do you mean exactly?

“Well, I’m not going to get into that discussion too much, but so many guys want to run 80 plays a game these days and then they wonder, ‘Gee, why isn’t the defense playing well?’ If I thought we would be more successful going 100 miles an hour all the time, I’d do it.”

Could you do it if you wanted to?

“Oh definitely. We have what we call Nascar, and we could run it all day if I thought it would give us the best chance of winning. But it doesn’t. Over the last three years I’ve done a lot of research, and it shows that you play better as a team when you play to all three phases of the game. Offense, defense, and special teams. It’s a team sport. I’d be more than happy if the offense doesn’t put up a ton of points as long as at the end of the day, we win, because I hate -- I HATE being in that meeting room after a loss. It’s the worst feeling.”

All right. Well thanks so much for your time. Do you mind if I take a photo of you?

“No, go right ahead.”

How about next to your white board. Okay, act like I just asked you about bubble screens.

“Heh. You had to turn this into a [farfergnugen] circus, didn’t you.”

Sorry ... What is your deal with bubble screens anyway?

“I don’t have a problem with them! I just don’t like calling them as much as -- what most people don’t understand is that the bubble screen is an [alternative] to a run play. Here, let me show you.”

[Borges begins scribbling madly on his white board. He has the offense in I-formation and the defense with the defensive back over the slot rolled up in the box as a run defender.]

“The bubble screen is a play designed to take advantage of the fact that this guy --”

[Borges points to the defensive back.]

“Has moved up and inside to defend the run. When you see this, most guys want to throw a weak-[butt] bubble screen and run around it. I would rather --”

[Borges draws an emphatic arrow from the running back to the defensive back.]

“Run right into it and knock the [poop] out of this guy.”

I see.

“So it’s not that I’m against calling a bubble screen. I just wouldn’t want to do it and sacrifice five running plays a game. Once or twice? maybe.”

For the record, I don’t actually count the number of bubble screens you call.

“You can do whatever the [heck] you want.”

Comments

FreddieMercuryHayes

May 22nd, 2013 at 6:27 PM ^

I believe I can infer your intent was to try and belittle me for, one, my use of the colloquial phrasing 'dunno', and second, for my belief that the bubble screen is a more effective play than an RB trucking a DN when said DB is sneaking inside instead of covering the slot receiver. Since you use Bama and their lack of bubble screens as an example, that tells me you didn't actually read my post considering I specifically stated I do not believe we can compare ourselves to Bama considering the talent differential. All while with dripping sarcasm and no substance which serves no purpose other than the type of self gratification a 5th grader gets for making fun if someone's shoes. If you are that concerned with the use of 'dunno' there are ways to do that without acting like a douchebag. If you really think the bubble screen is not worth sacrificing a run play, there are ways to do that as well. So, again, thank you for contributing nothing to this discussion.

TwoFiveAD

May 22nd, 2013 at 7:09 PM ^

I read your post.  It was very painful due to those grammar issues but I read your post.

The sole reason I brought up Bama is because they do not run bubble screens and they are the most successful program since Joe Kane and the ESU Timberwolves. 

5th grade translation - you are overvaluing the bubble screen. 

go16blue

May 22nd, 2013 at 7:37 PM ^

Oregon's offense has been the most successful offense in the past decade by a mile. They run practically no inside runs from the I-formation. Therefore, by your logic, we should cut that out too. 

 

There are merits to all kinds of offensive systems and plays, and a sample size of 1 is not large enough to make any sort of conclusion regarding which is better. Please don't be an ass about arguing with someone else, especially when you have a shit argument.

WolvinLA2

May 22nd, 2013 at 8:19 PM ^

To be honest, they're both shit arguments.  

The bubble screen works for some teams.  Other good offenses don't use it at all.  But just because one play can be effective doesn't mean that our coaches can't feel our talent can be better utilized running other stuff.  

Not every play is the best play for every team.  

DonAZ

May 22nd, 2013 at 5:45 PM ^

Does he really think that the defense can't be good if the offense plays up tempo?

I read that as meaning not so much it can't be ... but rather it tends not to be.

My sense is he doesn't think up-tempo is inherently bad ... just not something he feels the offense should be built upon exclusively.  Alabama, Stanford, to a degree Florida and even Ohio State has shown that a managed-tempo offense can be really powerful.

I also wonder how much was dictated by the talent he had on hand these last two years.  As Pete99 mentions, RR's up-tempo was built on finely-honed execution.  Up-tempo without good execution is a mess.

 

colin

May 22nd, 2013 at 6:59 PM ^

I would really bet that if Borges did an evaluation of up-tempo teams that there were two things wrong with it.  First, I bet he neglected to make his results tempo free.  Without that, of course you're going to find that increasing tempo leads to the other team scoring more points.

Perhaps more interestingly and maybe less likely: I bet there are selection effects.  Teams that choose uptempo are likely not doing it because they were front runners in the first place.  Those teams tend to be slow to change because their incentives are to stay relatively still. As you can see from Borges, it's relatively easy to let other teams pay the price of experimentation to see what works and what doesn't provided your team is the one with the talent advantage.  Being new or different is most likely to be a direction taken by a new coach and/or an old coach in a poor situation.

 

CdubGoBlue

May 22nd, 2013 at 4:43 PM ^

These are amazing Heiko.  Well freaking done.  Obviously upset about the 2nd half of the OSU game last year, but this really opened my eyes to Borges' side of things.

CooperLily21

May 22nd, 2013 at 4:45 PM ^

Aside from being an amazing two-part article with some truly original information, I fear that the last exchange will be our last collective discussion of the bubble screen . . . RIP old friend.

Moleskyn

May 22nd, 2013 at 4:47 PM ^

Fabulous, loved both the interviews. Two questions:

- Did he pull his arms up into his shirt when you took the picture? If not, he has huge moobs.

- Any chance you'll be able to continue this series with other coaches? You've set a precedent now, and we won't be content with just generic press conference transcripts.

M-Wolverine

May 22nd, 2013 at 4:55 PM ^

On Ohio State, OR bubble screens. (And explain the picture all in one).

It all tied into Seth's work on Bill Walsh football very nicely too.   And I liked the insight into Coach Hoke.

So, when's the Mattison interview?

jsquigg

May 22nd, 2013 at 4:58 PM ^

Great piece, Heiko.  Sadly this interview only frustrates me.  Borges isn't off the hook if he believes hurry up offenses hurt the defense and that running the ball up the gut is somehow key to other plays working.  Teams didn't have to over defend the run up the middle so they should have been in better position to guard play fakes.  I also think losing "turns" is mostly on the coach calling the failed plays.  Execution does come into play, but there is no way anyone can convince me Borges called plays that gave the offense the best chance at success in the second half.  No, I'm still not over it.

WolvinLA2

May 22nd, 2013 at 6:02 PM ^

But I think you're wrong here.  Teams had to keep defending the run up the middle because we kept doing it.  A defense doesn't think "we just stopped them on a run up the middle, so lets start defending it less."  because they know we'll keep doing it.  You do certain things at the risk of it not working to keep the defense honest.  And sometimes bad plays work in certain situations because it's not what the defense was expecting.  

In Denard's career, how many times did we see him throw it deep, knowing it probably wasn't going to be a good throw?  Kind of a lot, but because it sometimes worked, and the defensive coaches knew we'd try it a few times, they couldn't suck their safeties up too much.  If we would have said "Denard doesn't throw an accurate deep ball, so since it's unlikely to work, let's never do it" then the defense would have had a much easier time defending Denard on runs.  

I'm not saying everything in that half was great, and obviously it didn't work, but it's not as simple as you make it out to be.  

colin

May 22nd, 2013 at 7:02 PM ^

I think this is right. And it's verifiable. All you have to do is check and see how many guys were in the box.  IIRC, usually teams were committing enough to make a proper run fit. I.e. they weren't playing a man down in the box because they figured that would be enough.

DonAZ

May 22nd, 2013 at 7:54 PM ^

... they weren't playing a man down in the box because they figured that would be enough.

Emphasis mine.

That's the key ... sad fact is our running game was not that good last year.  For whatever reason it just was not a credible threat with the exception of Robinson when he was healthy.

In the interview Borges kept emphasizing balance.  Last year his offense didn't have as much of it as it did in 2011 or, we hope, 2013.

WolvinLA2

May 22nd, 2013 at 8:11 PM ^

I don't see what the key is that you're referring to.  Colin said that they were not doing that, meaning we were keeping them honest, and that's the point.  

Balance isn't so much about yardage as it is about play calling.  There is almost always one that you'll do better than the other.  The goal is, if you're a good passing team, to keep running the ball so that the defense doesn't always look for the pass, and vice versa.  Even if those running plays are less successful than the passing plays, they're important to run.  

DonAZ

May 22nd, 2013 at 10:41 PM ^

My reading of it was this -- they didn't bring an 8th guy into the box because they didn't have to.

In short -- OSU didn't feel much threatened by our run game.  So we kept running it for no gain against a normal 7 man front.  With the 8th guy back our passing game was stymied as well.

Balance is not merely the play calling but also the credible threat of the called plays being successful.

WolvinLA2

May 23rd, 2013 at 12:22 AM ^

But that's not what the poster you replied to was saying - read it again.  He's saying it's not like they took a man out of the box because they were doing well enough, they kept him there because they wanted to keep doing well enough.  Which is how you keep them honest.  

colin

May 23rd, 2013 at 1:39 AM ^

Yeah sorry I don't think I was as clear as I would like. But WLA2 interpreted me correctly.  Hopefully this clarifies:

It's not a simple matter of there being 8 in the box or whatever.  When the offense lines up and it's not an obvious passing down, the defense will set up with some number of run-first defenders to account for the run. In order to get a good run fit, you need one run-first defender for every blocker and every possible ball carrier. If Devin is in, we likely would not count him as a possible ball carrier based on what we've seen from Borges' playcalling with him at the helm.

If Denard is in, he's of course included. So if M lines up 3 WR 1 TE 1RB, that's 2 ballcarriers and 7 blockers.  You need 9 in your run fit in this case. If MSU were lining up against us, you'd get the front 4, the 2 middle LBS, the LB lining up over the slot and the 2 safeties.

That's pretty oversimplified, actually, but the point is you can usually discern what teams are trying to take away from you and what they'll give up.  From what I've seen, teams generally don't like to switch up their run fits a whole lot. They'll just bring in blitz packages and formations like Mattison does if they don't think you can run enough to be worth worrying about given the down and distance. So if teams are staying in base when you're in base, you can usually be sure normal run fits are in place and that they're playing you more or less straight up.

Tangent: basically, college defenses are very modular. You see this with, for instance, what they're doing with Dymonte Thomas or how they in general give defensive backs a chance at corner first. Safety requires somewhat less athleticism, but a lot more know how.  With Thomas, they figure if they can teach him to play flat/seam pass defense and blitz, he can at least be a weapon on 3rd down. If they can add playing force defender to that, then he can probably play all three downs. From there it's just a matter of what formations they're seeing and what he shows he can do.  If it turns out he can also play over the top of the #2 receiver and MOF safety, then he'll be a full fledged starter who can be slotted in wherever you might want to play a guy of his talents.  I think this is basically what they were hoping they could get from M-Rob or Furman, but it turned out not so much the case.

But, if, for instance, if Thomas never added anything beyond the flat/seam and blitzing, then him being in the game on 1st down would tell the offense a lot about the defense thinks of its ability/willingness/need to run. In the OSU case, I don't think they got out of base or were dialing up exotic blitzes or anything else that might betray an obvious lack of committment to stopping the run. My recollection aside, defenses will tell you what they think of your ability to run or pass. They will try not to, but they pretty much have to.

DonAZ

May 23rd, 2013 at 9:23 AM ^

Very nice explanation ... thank you! 

It makes me realize there's a lot more about football I need to learn.  But that's why I love this site ... because of articles like Heiko's and explanations like yours.

If I go back to my original (incorrect) interpretation ... assume OSU (or any team) felt no threat from the offense's run game.  They believed their front seven could handle whatever small threat their was.  Now assume the QB was a decent passer with good mobility (Gardner).

What would the defense then (generally) do with the safety? 

colin

May 23rd, 2013 at 1:57 PM ^

Scrambling gets dealt with a couple ways. For one, you'll see that DEs don't get upfield much and look to knock down passes. The idea is to contain the passer and make him actually throw the ball. Teams did this a ton against Denard, for obvious reasons.



Another option you'll see  is a spy. So maybe they rush 3 rather than 4 and have a James Ross type waiting to track down the QB leaking out or the dump off. I think this is the worst option. It never seems to work that well.

There's also the zone blitz, which I like as a complement to the first option.  You get 5 rushing instead of 4 so you cover more gaps in the OL. Usually scramblers aren't great passers, so you're not giving up much to get more pass rush.

And the one thing you always hear announcers talk about is playing zone pass coverages rather than man coverages. That's oversimplified for the audience a bit. Zone is so ubiquitous that the distinction is pattern reading vs. spot dropping. Here's a solid rundown from a blog I like:



http://runcodhit.blogspot.com/2010/03/pattern-reading-vs-spot-dropping.html

vbnautilus

May 22nd, 2013 at 6:10 PM ^

I don't know if I agree with you about the other points, but I do think there is something circular about Borges's "losing turns" discussion.  

It seems as if he is saying the gameplan doesn't get a chance to work when there are not a sufficient number of turns.  But isn't the gameplan at least partially responsible for the resultant number of turns?  Am I misunderstanding him? 

WolvinLA2

May 22nd, 2013 at 6:57 PM ^

Yes, the gameplan is partially responsible for that, and I don't think he is disputing that.  He's not using the turns theory as an excuse.  The question he was responding to was about how the offense doing well early affects what it can do later in the game, and his response is "because of turns."  

I think his point is that regardless of whose fault it is, how many turns they lose (or don't lose) early on has an impact on how the game is called moving forward.  That said, when there are more missed assigments or turnovers than usual, that can certainly put you in a bigger hole.  

DonAZ

May 22nd, 2013 at 8:01 PM ^

I like to ponder what one game stat tells the story best when it comes to a loss.

Turnovers are an obvious one.  Third down conversion is another.  1st down production is a yet another.

All are related to the concept of "turns."

I'm okay with the concept as told by Borges.  Like you, I don't think he's imputing any magic to the number of turns ... just that in general when an offense gets the opportunity to snap the ball in a game there's a better chance of making yards and points.  No team ever won a football game by going 3-and-out on a consistent basis.

(Hell, that's what we do to other teams ... and it's a glorious thing to watch the Michigan defense just stymie opponents on 1st down, and lay those bone-crushing 3rd-and-short stops on 'em.)

SC Wolverine

May 22nd, 2013 at 11:25 PM ^

I wonder if we should just say that Borges didn't do his best that day and move on.  I am also still frustrated by it, and it doesn't help me for Borges to basically describe the second half of Ohio State as one failed constraint play after another that never got to bear fruit.  But surely the interview reveals him as an intelligent, thoughtful, and diligent strategist.  I am hopeful that second half may just be the low point of his tenure here and that we will end up being glad to accept it as a small part of an ultimately successful regime.

OmarDontScare

May 22nd, 2013 at 11:44 PM ^

Agree with you for the most part but I still can't get past the fact that he consistently lined up a player at QB who physically could not throw a football.

Telegraphing a run the moment Denard came in the game without Devin. Iowa gameplan had them in the backfield together while they weren't at all vs OSU. HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?

FormerlyBigBlue71

May 22nd, 2013 at 5:10 PM ^

I agree with Borges about setting the table.  The issue that I still have is that he seemed to play right into Ohio States hands in the most critical third down sitiuations in that game.  That is not a time to call a play based on what was previously set up(I'm assuming Borges called Vincent Smith up the middle because we had previously been running play action out of that formation all day) this is the time to call your best stuff period.

S4H

May 22nd, 2013 at 5:11 PM ^

Heiko,

Were you tempted to ask follow up questions when Borges mentioned the second half calls in the Ohio game? It seems you chose not to pry more.

TWSWBC

May 22nd, 2013 at 5:12 PM ^

I think you were afforded the opportunity to get this candid interview with Al because you don't ask stupid questions during press conferences. I think he secretly likes you because you actually talk about plays and formations. Well done

Bodogblog

May 22nd, 2013 at 5:12 PM ^

Am I the only one who read the italicized preview, saw bubble screens, and immediately hit "Find" on 'bubble'?  Ends up being a pretty simple explanation. 

Love the work Heiko, thank you. 

eth2

May 22nd, 2013 at 5:27 PM ^

Heiko does it again. Bravo! 

Really enjoyed the articles. Says a lot about the Blog and Heiko to get this truly unique interview.

oldcityblue

May 22nd, 2013 at 5:28 PM ^

Wow.

That was like watching Heiko become a formal member of the circle of trust.

It was really cool to hear how he approaches the game; the adjustments he is allowing the QB to make, his appreciation for the aggressiveness of Hoke and even his preference to running right at the DB vs the bubble screen. Not sure how I feel about the explanation of the OSU 2nd half, but regarless my respect for him just went up a notch.

Very good stuff, Heiko.

S4H

May 22nd, 2013 at 5:36 PM ^

I think it was Brian after the Ohio game who pointed out that Meyer made their offense line up quickly to: 1) keep us from substituting defensive players, 2) inspect our defensive alignment, and 3) to audible if necessary. Although Ohio ran a "hurry up", they didn't hike the ball until the play clock was down to single digits. I would be curious to hear what Borges thinks about that strategy. 

JimBobTressel

May 22nd, 2013 at 5:36 PM ^

Still mad that we were racing up and down the Horseshoe in the first half but couldn't cross midfield in the second.