Al Borges, Mike Martz, and Countable Hours
So naturally I thought about Mike Martz.
Martz was, of course, the evil genius behind the Greatest Show on Turf Rams teams. In its heyday it was as entertaining to watch as any football team I have ever seen.
What's the connection? Martz installed new plays every week. His playbook was huge, and for any given game there were hundreds of plays available in the gameplan. This led to some confusion, and the image of a frustrated Kurt Warner skulking to the sideline after an early timeout was such a signature of the Rams that Martz once ran a play where Warner stomped off as a fake, followed by a direct snap.
But the Rams succeeded by bludgeoning opponents with speed, downfield passing, Marshall Faulk, and variety. They key is that, as a professional team they had considerable time to study, install, and rep all those plays.
Al Borges is not stupid. He knows offense. There is simply no way that he is blind to the lack of constraints in the offense, or the problems of predictability.
I believe the problem is that he is, essentially, Martz-like at heart. I think Borges WANTS to have hundreds of plays, all of which attack the defense in different ways. I think, mentally, he has constraints in mind for those blitzers plaguing the inverted veer, and the bracket coverage of Gallon.
It makes sense. He's not unwilling to adjust or try new stuff. He is using the pistol, he is varying blocking schemes, he has turned Funchess into a weapon. In a vacuum, individual plays are designed well if they are executed properly.
But this is not a vacuum. In reality, he only gets 20 hours a week to install everything. His quarterback is in graduate school. He can't get everything in.
So stuff gets left out. Plays get fewer reps, and execution suffers. Blockers don't know who to block. Gardner can't make a quick read-throw because he's been learning a lot of plays but not executing those quick read-throws over and over in practice. And constraints and formations are left on the cutting room floor because there isn't time to prepare them.
It's a philosophy that runs a certain way, and can optimally run well... But the conditions are not optimal. This is college, and Al's philosophy is irreducibly complex.
Al Borges is not a fool. He understands football. But he cannot translate that understanding to the execution on the field.
November 12th, 2013 at 1:40 PM ^
November 12th, 2013 at 2:19 PM ^
That's how I read it.
November 12th, 2013 at 2:35 PM ^
November 12th, 2013 at 4:18 PM ^
I read that Borges is over qualified to be the OC at Michigan. He really has schemes that fit the NFL. I don't know why I didn't think of that.
Oh yeah.........now I know why
November 12th, 2013 at 6:38 PM ^
November 13th, 2013 at 1:34 AM ^
Right. The more likely scenario is that Borges is a complete moron who only got OC jobs because of turning tricks in the locker rooms and has fielded pretty good offenses because there was always a secret OC who actually runs things.
I'm not sure if the OP is completely right, but it certainly sounds plausible. Last season Brian talked a lot about the WRs making reads as well, and I wonder if Borges just doesn't know how to simplify his offense enough, coupled with terrible blocking that should be attributed more to Funk than Borges. People can't think beyond the possibilities that Borges is not a genius or a moron. I'd bet any experienced college OC could run enough complexity for an NFL offense.
November 13th, 2013 at 10:55 AM ^
Every offense in college football will utilize some WR reads to an extent, and it's so that the basic design of the play can work against a variaty of coverages. So you're always going to have some sort of "flatten your route against a single high coverage rather than running a corner route" in offenses at this level.
Now, the hot route read is not something every team has. Some teams will have the hot installed in the play call no matter what. Here's the issue though: if you want anything other than a short pass you are essentially taking out a blocker and a person for your route concept design. So, in some cases, you're wasting a player by always having that player run a hot. And with Michigan having a tough time blocking and the WR group being more experienced, it makes sense to have the WRs try to make those reads rather than waste a guy in a route (at least to some degree).
November 12th, 2013 at 7:15 PM ^
And you can also SEE it most every Saturday !
Go Blue!
November 12th, 2013 at 1:43 PM ^
Borgess knows more about offense than all the angry fans on this board combined, do people really think he doesn't know how to mix up play calls.
The execution is not there, that may be due to coaching ineffectiveness in some way, but it is not related to play calling mistakes.
November 12th, 2013 at 1:47 PM ^
So, repeatedly running a play that isn't working, over and over again, for loss after loss, that's not a play calling mistake? What would you call that then?
November 12th, 2013 at 1:52 PM ^
Some sort of performance art, maybe? Because it sure doesn't seem like good playcalling.
November 12th, 2013 at 1:55 PM ^
November 12th, 2013 at 2:02 PM ^
November 12th, 2013 at 2:09 PM ^
is the thought process of somebody who is not good at his job
November 12th, 2013 at 2:14 PM ^
Even assuming he ran one play too many times in one game (I.e. He maybe ran that same play a few times in a row, but how much does that vary from how often teams normally run the same plays)....
1. Maybe that is their best running play? Granted it doesn't work, but maybe it's the only one the players can even half-execute. Once agains, that is different coaching involved than play-calling.
2. Was the defense the same each time? Maybe the second time in a row for a play, the defense appeared set for it. The RPS metric is random for a reason. The other side can switch their defense as well.
3. Maybe Devin was supposed to check out of the call if he saw something? Once again, not on the play calling, more on the coaching up in practice and mental ability of Devin.
4. Maybe the play was supposed to be run slightly differently to account for how the defense stopped it, but bad blocking muddied that?
5. Maybe Borgess thought his guys recognized their mistake after the play died and thought they would know how to execute the second time?
6. Maybe they need to establish some run game in order for other plays to work later? Even if you can't run, you have to keep trying to some degree if your play book emphasizes play action?
I think it is dumb to just look at the result and conclude you know how much thought went into the play calling. Numerous teams run the same plays over and over again, with varied results. Al knows how to call a football game, but he does make some mistakes. Does he make as many mistakes as a mentally unstable Gardner or green OL? That seems ludicrous.
Criticize the preparedness of the players and the coaches role there if you want, but to critique the play calling, you need to know a lot more about the situation.
RR used to run the option with Threet and get beat up, but once Denard got in there the offense took off even though everyone knew what was coming. The same is true for how bad MSU's defense looked the first few years of Narduzzi. It turned around though. Heck, even MSU's offensive play calling was widely criticized until their OL was healthy, now everyone is fine.
It is so easy to say "that play didn't work, why did you run it,"" as opposed to knowing why it didn't work....
November 12th, 2013 at 7:31 PM ^
the word MAYBE was used in every bullet point of your argument ... maybe assumes variables that distort facts. Fact - PSU 27 for 27 Nebraska 22 for 29
He IS what the facts tell us. If any of us failed at our jobs at this level - we all be fired (unless we were in Congress - then we're just like everyone else .... hahaha).
Go Blue!
November 13th, 2013 at 1:38 AM ^
Yes, and if a large group of workers failed at a job, surely everyone should be fired instead of finding out whether certain employees are to blame or seeing if there's a problem with the task and resources given to the workers in the first place.
November 13th, 2013 at 9:31 AM ^
November 12th, 2013 at 2:22 PM ^
I agree, and I was furious with Borges' lame ass play called after the muffed punt versus Nebraska.
But, as Stephen aptly pointed out, there is only so much time they're allowed to coach the team. They run the plays in practice that they want to run, i.e., their base scheme, which include those running plays. How they execute them in practice is a mystery at this point, but I am going to assume that the plays that Borges calls in game are the plays that they execute the BEST in practice. Remember, everything in this offense builds off the ability to run the ball. Unfortunately, we cannot run it right now. So what then? I know, I know, short quick passes, well, that is not DG's expertise, and oh yeah, teams are jamming the WR's and blitzing up the middle on nearly every down. Now, I agree that sending Poor Damn Fitz slamming into a wall of defenders and blitzers SEEMS asinine. But, there is also a dogmatic element to it (which I've discussed at length) in which the coaches are saying, "Damit, this is our BASE SCHEME, if we don't continue to rep the base scheme until you guys learn to execute it properly, we're NEVER going to have base scheme." I think the coaches are thinking at SOME POINT the OL has to have an "ah ha" moment, and they'll start to get some push, and if they do, this offense is going to fly.
My take at least.
November 12th, 2013 at 2:30 PM ^
What are Michigan's base offensive plays? Borges calls offensive plays like he's playing Madden football.
November 12th, 2013 at 2:36 PM ^
That is completely false. It's quite obvious what Michigan wants to do, but it is equally as obvious that Borges is completely hamstrung by the fact that his OL can bascially execute NOTHING. So, if there is any truth to your statement, it is only because Borges is forced to basically "try anything" because his OL simply CANNOT BLOCK.
If you have a scheme that doesn't require blocking, either run or block, please let us all know what that scheme is.
November 12th, 2013 at 7:33 PM ^
I thought Michigan's goal was to win the B1G championship. Who cares how you win games? The goal is winning, right?
Go Blue!
November 12th, 2013 at 2:37 PM ^
I assume the power run game was among our base plays out of the I-formation.
Since we can't do that it looks like we are just running long routes (Madden style).
Borges like to run and gain a few yards at a time trying to suck in the safeties then go for the knock out over the top. Since we can't do the basic small runs all he has is the long bombs and DG has no time for the routes to develop. Why we have no slants, outs, come-backs, etc. in our play book is anyones guess. I have yet to see one slant or out pattern this year.
How to beat the blitz: short passes, HB screens.
What we have done: hksfgykcgerbvw7tb7otbdcx ozewqyc tyefqw gqreg erqferycv erbhq
November 12th, 2013 at 2:51 PM ^
"Why we have no slants, outs, come-backs, etc. in our play book is anyones guess. I have yet to see one slant or out pattern this year."
I agree, and the only conclusion that I can come to is that DG isn't good at these throws. Add to that the fact that now it seems that defenses have taken the MSU playbook with the jam and blitz. Hard to throw a slant, especially with a QB whose confidence is shaken, with a jamming DB on you, no?
November 12th, 2013 at 3:07 PM ^
DG is terrible at those throws. We all love Devin, but at this point in his career he has shown little to no aptitude when it comes to reading defenses, as evidenced by a number of truly atrocious interceptions. Also if you go back and look, I think most of DG's interceptions have come on shorter routes.
Giving a guy who has problems reading defenses, and whose accuracy and timing on his throws have been sporadic at best, a bunch of plays to execute that demand he be adept in all of those areas is a recipe for disaster.
November 12th, 2013 at 5:03 PM ^
November 12th, 2013 at 5:06 PM ^
You still haven't answered me. Who were you before you were banned?
November 12th, 2013 at 5:18 PM ^
November 12th, 2013 at 5:30 PM ^
16 some odd turnovers have a way of doing that.
November 12th, 2013 at 9:19 PM ^
Michigan was more dangerous when Gardiner was able to free flow more. He started to try managing games and reduced his turnovers and now the offense looks stagnant. The reality is that love him or hate him, Gardiner is most effective when he just plays. He is probably the most explosive player on the team. This is similar to trying to make Robinson strictly a drop back passer. It is not who he is.
November 12th, 2013 at 9:53 PM ^
November 12th, 2013 at 5:06 PM ^
Last year folks were explaining that Michigan's offensive woes were all due to Denard's limitations (and, of course, an OL that couldn't block). The more things change . . . .
November 12th, 2013 at 5:18 PM ^
Amazing, those pesky facts.
I mean, isn't it just ripe how one year you have a quarterback who can't throw the ball at all and so people blame the offensive woes on that fact? Then a totally different season you have an offensive line who can't block and people pin the offensive woes on that fact?
LOL
November 12th, 2013 at 3:30 PM ^
"But, there is also a dogmatic element to it (which I've discussed at length) in which the coaches are saying, "Damit, this is our BASE SCHEME, if we don't continue to rep the base scheme until you guys learn to execute it properly, we're NEVER going to have base scheme."
"Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty."
- Stephen Jay Gould
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/stephenjay141262.html#pmtw0v0sO5qfcqDk.99
November 12th, 2013 at 2:52 PM ^
My guess is nearly every OC in Division 1 football knows more about offense than all the angry fans on this board combined. So what?
A material chunk of the those OCs will be out of a job this offseason because they either: (1) Cannot effectively translate that knowledge to their players; (2) Cannot successfully manage their support staff (Running Back Coach, O-Line Coach, etc.) to ensure the gestalt of the offense functions correctly; and, (3) Cannot execute in game and make appropriate adjustments on the fly.
An OC does more than simply call plays!!!
November 12th, 2013 at 3:01 PM ^
I am making an important distinction between play-calling and the other parts of coaching.
IMO - The play calling is not really the issue. Thejury is still out on the day-to-day coaching and development part though. It may be bad or good and they need a little more time to determine that (in light of the youth and the QB recruited by a different system). And, Devin even looked good even before the OL mix-up the last few weeks.
November 12th, 2013 at 1:48 PM ^
So he is a complex NFL-minded coach who has never coached in the NFL?
He has coached college age players his entire professional career and hasn't ever figured out that he can't cram all of his awesome plays into the time alloted for coaching college kids?
I agree he is an idiot. There is a definite chance this could all be true.
November 12th, 2013 at 2:11 PM ^
However, I think it is rather possible that he cannot balance his concepts with the limitations of his players. I think he's a theoretical coach, that thinks in ideals rather than in "what are my players actually capable of?" Thus, when execution fails, he thinks it is a player error.
Keep in mind that in most places he has had offenses capable of executing many of his plays, since they were between-tackles run plays that MOST college teams can execute. So he would call plays that were executed, but be mystified that others were not.
November 12th, 2013 at 2:29 PM ^
My theory:
He came in wanting to be bigger and badder than the other team so much so that he could tell them what play he was going to run and still be able to gain yards from it.
He found out that we aren't bigger nor badder.
He still does the same damn thing because he doesn't have any other options. He scoffed at the success of the "spread" be it run or pass forms and dismissed it as a fad instead of borrowing from it and adding it to his own bag of tricks.
He has shown himself to be both lazy and complacent and should be fired.
November 12th, 2013 at 3:54 PM ^
November 12th, 2013 at 4:02 PM ^
What would it take for you to criticize the play calling. If you can see what Borges is doing, more power to you. They run power from tight formations into a stacked box. They throw the ball against two high from predictable formations. Speaking of predictable, they seem to run the veer from the same formation with nothing to keep the defense honest, like a screen or PA. There running game stinks but they run PA from under center on long downs and have Gardner turn his back on the line of scrimmage, which often results in an unblocked defender in his face before he can even make a read. They try to throw down the field against the blitz most of the time. I'm sure I'm just missing the point.
November 12th, 2013 at 4:59 PM ^
November 12th, 2013 at 4:10 PM ^
I agree about the lazy, stupid, and complacent comments. I don't think he's any of those things. Maybe stubborn, but – then again – so is my wife. So it’s hard for me to be too critical of him about that.
One question: How much of the O-Line is on Borges? And - how much of it is on Funk?
The reason I ask is because a lot of people want to fire Funk because the O-Line is terrible. However, what responsibility does Borges have to the O-Line, as well? As an OC, my assumption is the Borges's job description requires him to manage the micro-units within the offense, and - ultimately - be the meso-man responsible for those units (Hoke is the macro).
I think a lot of people focus heavily on Borges's play calling. Some of it makes sense; some it is a major head scratcher that makes Lloyd ball desirable. Nevertheless, I think an OC has much larger responsibilities than just play calling. And – Borges doesn’t seem to be excelling in those areas either: QB development, overall offensive-player development, position-coach management, etc. In those areas, it seems hard to be a Borges’s apologist.
November 12th, 2013 at 4:27 PM ^
November 12th, 2013 at 4:44 PM ^
I think people focus on it b/c it's the one thing we can see for ourselves in real time. This isn't to say that play calling is the biggest problem, but it happens right in front of us, so it's much easier to focus on...Maybe you realize that and I didn't answer your question.
November 12th, 2013 at 5:30 PM ^
November 13th, 2013 at 3:46 AM ^
Then Hoke should go as well. If he keeps an OC who allows all these deficiencies to continue under his management, Hoke is ultimately responsible for the failures. It would be easy enough for him to say (privately, because we can't call him out publicly, can we?), "Al, this isn't working. We've got to do something differently. Let's try to figure this out or get some help." But I don't see that happening.
November 12th, 2013 at 4:16 PM ^
"He found out that we aren't bigger nor badder."
I think Hoke KNEW unequivocally that Michigan wasn't bigger and badder when he got here. But, he has set about bringing in the beef to make Michigan bigger and badder. He didn't do the "same thing," he adjusted to Denard's presence. Now, however, Denard is gone, he's recruited a lot of young "bigger and badder" studs, and it's time to set about installing the Michigan scheme of the future.
The fact that you think he's lazy and complacent is pathetic, IMO.
November 12th, 2013 at 2:01 PM ^
I like RR's offense or Urban Meyer's better than a pro-style offense. I understand that a pro-style offense can work just as well in theory (see Bama and Stanford), but it seems to me you need more to make it work - a highly ranked or at least well-seasoned OL and a QB who is good at reading defenses in the passing game. The RR/Meyer way of doing things, if you will, seems more fool-proof. Your QB has to learn the read option (which I admittedly think is harder than people realize) and ideally comes off of progressions in the passing game, but otherwise he's just doing what he's told, which is all comparatively simple. I fear that with Borges we've got a guy who's offense works just fine in theory but who will all too often - but certainly not always - have trouble making it work in practice.
November 12th, 2013 at 2:03 PM ^
You don't need more to make it work. You need better.
Wisconsin is not a recruiting powerhouse like 'Bama or Stanford, but they are getting it done.
And if the spread is a sovereign panacea, why are some of the worst offenses in college football running the spread?
Almost any scheme can work if it's executed properly. It's up to the coaches to build a scheme their players can execute.