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 2:09 PM ^
They have a steady stream of ready OLs and RBs at this point...I'm not arguing that the spread is a panacea. Of course you can fail while using it, and of course you can succeed with a pro style offense. It just seems to me that you can succeed with less with the spread (or at least a spread run by Meyer or RR, so really I'm cheating here).
November 12th, 2013 at 2:32 PM ^
NOT THE 3-3-5 /said everyone on this board.
NOTE: VT runs the 3-3-5
I completely agree with you that any scheme when run perfectly can be successful. It is all about COACHING.
November 12th, 2013 at 9:35 PM ^
It's always about coaching. That is why RR was eventually replaced. Along with a host of other issues, he refused to adequately focus on the defense. What was the most telling to me was how a new coaching staff (Mattison) came in and immediately improved the defense with the same players. It got to the point that no one saw any light at the end of the tunnel under RR. Hoke runs the same risk with the offensive side of the ball. If this spills into next year, expect a lot more pressure and possibly change.
I feel more certain than ever that there will be no coaching changes coming within Hoke's staff!
November 12th, 2013 at 9:48 PM ^
But I do agree with you 100%. There is nothing that prevents the 3-3-5 from working in the B1G, just like there is nothing that prevents the spread from working in the B1G, etc. It's not scheme or style of play and that stuff, it's actually coaching (the transfer of knowledge to the players)
November 12th, 2013 at 2:09 PM ^
I think that's a false dichotomy. You don't have to be RR/Meyer to be simple. Many of the prolific spread passing teams, which is every bit as "pro-style" these days as the classic west coast offense, keep things simple. You hear about coaches that say they have a ridiculously small number of plays, they just run them out of different looks and personnel packages, with the plays set up so that the defense can't know what's coming at them before the snap.
I think the lesson is that you can't be insanely complicated on either side of the ball in college because you don't have the practice time to make it work. Starting over every week isn't possible. What you need is a simple system that you can add wrinkles to from week to week to keep defenses/offenses honest. Then you execute. You get to the NFL and you can't be so simple since the defenses have more time to prepare. But conversely, NFL offenses have more time to prepare a larger base offense and more wrinkles to keep the defenses off base.
November 12th, 2013 at 2:20 PM ^
November 12th, 2013 at 1:57 PM ^
Aside from the fact that neither is an underwear model (nor am I, for the record) I really had no inkling that Borges had the Weis issue until this post. If he does, it is a recipe for disaster for a team that is young or inexperienced at key positions (see Weis's third and fourth year).
November 12th, 2013 at 2:13 PM ^
One difference, and I'm 100% sure a staff of mostly pure college guys wouldn't make this mistake, Weis apparently disregarded player development during practice so his starters could get the required reps to execute his new weekly game plans. That's why his offense generally did ok to pretty well in his first two years when he was working with experienced and talented players. It's also why his offense cratered when he first started using guys not developed by the earlier regimes.
November 12th, 2013 at 3:46 PM ^
November 12th, 2013 at 5:12 PM ^
Not only should he not try and do it with an inexperienced group, Weis' ND tenure shows why you don't want to do it with an experienced group either. You can't do it and continue to prepare your program for future success.
November 12th, 2013 at 2:17 PM ^
November 12th, 2013 at 3:49 PM ^
November 12th, 2013 at 2:01 PM ^
coaches call plays that they are comfortable with their players trying to execute.
our players struggle at executing basic plays
why would more complex counters/reads/constraints be expected to work any better?
November 12th, 2013 at 2:02 PM ^
So what you're really trying to say is Al Borges is TOO smart for NCAA Football, but not smart enough to dumb his play book down enough for college level students....
November 12th, 2013 at 2:03 PM ^
I doubt this is a new thought; I can't read all the hundreds of comments on dozens of threads. But, this post reminds me of Charlie Weis and the "strategic advantage" that he thought ND would automatically enjoy the day he walked into the building. Weis, Borges and Martz are in their ways, Wonks. They have all kinds of ideas in their head but the sum of those ideas, despite what they might think, does not equal Advantage.
November 12th, 2013 at 2:07 PM ^
Nice write up Stephen!
In reading Space Coyote's write up on the Nebraska game he made an observation that is similar to the one you're making: if Borges had a good OL to work with, this offense would be very difficult to stop. I know what guys are going to say, "well ANY OC can have a good offense with a good OL..." Sure, but I think Michigan's offense would be far more than "good" I think it would be elite in the nation. We've seen what Borges can do when he's getting some run blocking and pass protection -- Michigan has no problem moving the ball and scoring. Again, as SC pointed out, Michigan has now been exposed. The book on how to stop their offense is a best seller, and everyone we face, until the OL can stop them from getting home, is going to blitz like mad men. Again, I hear the peanut gallery swacking, "a GOOD OC would find a way..." I suppose that might be the case, (teaching issues aside) I am not sure there is ANY OC out there that is going to be able to run the ball, which is basically the key to almost all offensive production, with Michigan's OL.
Anyway, again, nice write up Stephen. Hope you're ready for an onslaught of snark, hate, and "fuck that, tired of the excuses..."
November 12th, 2013 at 3:37 PM ^
I am quite good, however, at reading comprehension and I will make an excuse for the snark you are warning the OP about. This post and you response sound a lot like you're making excuses for our OC.
I don't disagree that any OC in the country would have problems moving the ball with our oline in the state it's in. I do, however, think there are lots of OC's who could come in and fix (not completely, but start the process) the problems this line is having and get the ball moving on offence. This OC (and his position coach) have proven they can't do that.
There is no question whatsoever that this line is talented, the staff has just not developed that talent. This isn't the first time either, the oline has been regressing since they arrived. I am 100% confident that there are coaches out there that could make this unit serviceable at worst, and pretty damn good at best.
So again, I don't disagree that Part of AB's problems are his oline or that most coaches would have similar problems under the same circumstances. The problem I have is that all that still comes down to AB and his offensive staff and I don't believe many other coaches would have let things get this far off course without doing something to rectify the problem. That is what I find to be AB biggest failing and it's one that I believe should cost him (and most of his staff) their jobs.
November 12th, 2013 at 3:48 PM ^
I am not making excuses for Borges. I am simply asking, you and everyone that is criticizing him: what is this mythical "something" that rectifys the fundamental problem of an OL that cannot block?
November 12th, 2013 at 4:20 PM ^
November 12th, 2013 at 4:22 PM ^
I blame recruiting in 2010 and 2011, personally.
November 12th, 2013 at 6:45 PM ^
I don't believe there is an instant fix for this line's problems. Unfortunately, I have resigned myself to the idea that UM simply won't be good at football until 2015 or - possibly - 2016. The reason I am not overly optimistic about 2015 is because that will be Shane's first year starting, and I expect him to go through some struggles. Having said that, I'll be rooting to be wrong!
Nevertheless, the most puzzling thing to me is we are not talking about rocket-science blocking. The schemes being drawn and performed are not tertiary-level college football. Most if not all of these schemes were run by all our players at various high schools...and that's the part that really frustrates me!
Per Space Coyote and other posters far more educated than me, I fundamentally do not understand why relatively simple concepts cannot be learned. It's one thing to say "youth," which I could digest if there were a few missed assignments here and there and / or our younger guys were getting bullied around and out-physicaled. But, the reality is, they suck between the ears. And - to me - that 100% falls on the coaching: both Funk and Borges.
I do not expect young players to master the physical attributes of football over the season; however, I do expect young players to - at minimum - learn as they play! I expect them to be able to probably make the same mistake 10 times but correct it on the 11th. That's simply not happening with these guys, and - frankly - I feel really bad for them. They deserve a lot better.
November 12th, 2013 at 7:54 PM ^
November 12th, 2013 at 9:11 PM ^
In all honesty, is there any glimor of hope we can hang onto for next year? Do you see any silver lining to this team comprehending the offense by next year? Or, do you think many of this year's problems will be around for next year and beyond?
November 12th, 2013 at 9:18 PM ^
November 12th, 2013 at 9:41 PM ^
November 12th, 2013 at 6:09 PM ^
I agree that things are off course. As a point of fact I have laid the responsibility for the offense on Borges (my money quote was "numbers don't lie"). This post is not a defense of his job.
It is an attempt to understand what is really going on, rather than spouting vapid statements like "Borges is stupid" to make me feel better without understanding why things happen the way they are.
So when you argue that they haven't done something about it, I understand you're not just throwing out venom. But you're also not diagnosing the issue properly.
Here are a few of the adjustments made by the coaches to address offensive issues since the start of the season:
-Moving Taylor Lewan around (tackle over)
-Moving Funchess to receiver
-Moving Glasgow to center
-Open competition for the interior line, including burned redshirts
-Pistol pop passes
Etc
They've made a lot of adjustments. They're not just crossing their fingers and hoping. But the changes haven't fixed the offense.
More to say, but no time.
November 12th, 2013 at 8:58 PM ^
It is an attempt to understand what is really going on, rather than spouting vapid statements like "Borges is stupid" to make me feel better without understanding why things happen the way they are.That's why your threads are enjoyable. Kudos to you. Hate what's going on, but try to understand it. Not to defend it, just to have that knowledge. We're all going to watch the games; why don't we want to learn about what we spend all of this time on?
November 14th, 2013 at 12:25 PM ^
That I don't know enough about football theory to diagnose the problem. See, I can admit when I am out of my depth with certain topics, but it seems lots of others can't.
The problem with what is going on here is it doesn't matter what they try, because at the end of the day it isn't going to work because they haven't developed the talent they have. The problem is coaching, So moving one guy around who hasn't been coached properly to chaning him for another guy who hasn't been developed or coached properly, isn't going to fix anything.
By the same token, Al Borges could be the most masterful playcaller in all the universe (which I absolutely do NOT believe), but when he and his staff fail so miserably at player development it won't lead to movnig the ball.
I've said this before but when you have one or two people who fail a class you can ofrten blame the student, but when you have an entire class fail then that's an issue with the teacher. This entire offence has failed to develop even a little bit in the three years that AB has been the OC. Every single position group is regressing under his wachful eye.
Now you can jump on the coaches bandwagon and buy into all the "it's an execution problem" and try to look oh so deep into what the underlying problem is, but you're wasting your time because it's been staring you in the face since our 11-2 season ended. This offensive staff has no idea how to develop talent, plain and simple. It doesn't matter who calls what plays these guys will continue to regress until the coaching on offense changes.
This problem isn't the players. If they had guys who could actually coach and develop kids this offensecould be as deadly as we all thought it could be at the start of the year. The problem is the coaches.
November 12th, 2013 at 2:10 PM ^
In essence, I agree with the OP. But I'm going to add another angle.
Borges knows football theory. He's had amazing success calling plays at the FBS level--success few coaches have had. Not surprisingly, his success STRONGLY correlates with the quality of his O-Lines.
He's also had some major failures as an OC. He is not a guy that is going to scrap his scheme to paper over the deficiencies of his blockers. Obvious is obvious.
But this season he's been trying lots of different ways to find plays that will work for this team, despite their poor O-line. It is quite natural for a coach to vary his plays when his base plays aren't working.
We started the season running the zone stretch--it quickly became apparent that play was a liability. We've used, power, iso, inside zone, inverted veer, shotgun, pistol...we've tried just about everything, and none of it has worked.
Perhaps AB's failing is that he wouldn't stick with the bad plays longer, so that we could get better at them. I don't know. But he has tried lots of different ways to move the ball, and none of them are working (unless INDIANA).
The volume/variety of plays, IMO, is reflective of our inability to execute what we hoped would be our base plays.
November 12th, 2013 at 2:12 PM ^
November 12th, 2013 at 2:55 PM ^
They are cheating.
Or they are over signing.
No wait. Magic. Definately magic.
November 12th, 2013 at 4:48 PM ^
November 12th, 2013 at 9:52 PM ^
November 12th, 2013 at 2:13 PM ^
Nice try to get a discussion going. Not sure it is gonig to end well for you.
One other difference - Devin is a first year starter who isn't good at reading defenses, much less the quick reads that Martz-like offense would demand. In fact, you can see that his reads have been cut down to 1/2 of the field on a lot of plays.
I do think you have a valid point about how hard it is to make big changes in college once you get into the season. There are only so many hours. (Michigan is probably more sensative to that than other places.)
November 12th, 2013 at 2:25 PM ^
This is the most plausible explanation for what we have been seeing. To say this is not to defend Borges as an OC, but rather only his raw intelligence.
If I were Borges, I'd have had DG primarily practicing about a dozen plays featuring short, quick passes during the two weeks leading up the the MSU game so those 12 plays would be second nature. Hell, didn't Brian (or was it EDSBS) once show how Mike Leach was winning big at Texas Tech with a small number of passing plays?
November 12th, 2013 at 2:30 PM ^
The new plays every week thing has more to do with the coaches going into this season with a plan and being forced to abandon it after UConn. I don't think it's Borge's philosophy to put that much on the young players week in and week out, at least I hope not. I don't really know enough to say for sure, but I think given an offseason and spring and fall camps to implement and teach it, nothing we've tried is necessarily too complex. It just can't happen in a week's worth of practice in season.
As with everything, there's various levels of understanding. First level is memorization of a rote procedure (i.e. block guy lined up over you). Second level is understanding one or more contingencies (i.e. chip guy on your left if no one is over you and move to MLBs). Beyond that comes comprehension of why you do things a certain way and finally mastery where you know something inside and out enough to address any situation that might arise.
With a week to learn, we're probably only doing level 1 and 2. If the defenses do something other than what they expect or maybe the most likely alternative, the guys know what to do and are fine. But throw in anything unexpected and it all falls apart. There simply isn't enough time to teach the nuances enough where everyone can adjust and still be on the same page. That's a big part of why you see 5 guys doing something right and 1 guy screwing something up on so many plays, IMO.
November 12th, 2013 at 2:31 PM ^
increased complexity leads to increased opportunity for failure
November 12th, 2013 at 2:35 PM ^
But this take makes things WORSE for Borges, not better.
If it was just that Borges was a stupid fuck, the explanation would be simple and we'd leave it at that. No further discussion would be warranted and the solution would be fairly easy.
But Borges is evidently NOT a stupid fuck, so clearly the problems aren't simple. However, this is perhaps even more damning because he should know how to solve these problems...or at least mitigate them. Instead, we have a persistent tire fire.
I'm an aerospace engineer. Sometimes I fail HARD when I try to reload a stapler. If I were a toddler, it would be cute. Instead, it's supremely embarrassing and I should feel bad.
November 12th, 2013 at 2:46 PM ^
Since you're an aerospace engineer, let's use an aerospace type analogy.
Let's say you'vr designing an airplane, and when you go to test it, you're not getting the lift you hoped/expected to get out of your wings. It flies, but not very well, and has a tendency to just fall out of the sky. You try a few other configurations, but the results are the same -- very little lift. This is a fundamental flaw that CANNOT be overcome. The problem is, you MUST go out every Saturday, and try to make the thing fly, and you cannot mask it by simply adding more speed. But, you don't get to go out to a field by your house and try it, you have to do it on national TV, in front of millions of people. But, there is no "engineering around" the fact that your wings aren't getting lift.
Similarly, the OL cannot block. They cannot run block, nor can they pass block. But every Saturday, Borges has to go out and try to find a way to generate blocking from a unit that just isn't getting it done. I am sure, as an aerospace engineer, there are little tricks you might have that could help, and similarly there are some that Borges knows. But, at the end of the day, without lift/blocking EVERY plane/offense is doomed to crash and burn.
November 12th, 2013 at 2:51 PM ^
So Borges is exonerated from line development. Let's not blame the OC for the production of the line. It's not his fault the line has gotten worse as the year has gone on. He's just playing the cards he's dealt...... Oh yeah, the coaches are responsible for developing and recruiting. If you really think Borges has adjusted or has gotten more creative in spite of the line play, then, like, that's your opinion man. I think his play calling is contributing to the problem, not fixing it. I'm sure that one of the worst stretches of running the ball in Michigan history has nothing to do with coaches, though.
November 12th, 2013 at 3:00 PM ^
Trust me, there is NO absolution coming from me concerning the OL. But, in all fairness, Michigan has an OL coach. If, Michigan were like Stanford, and its OC was also the OL coach, I would be given Borges more flack for the OL's ineptitude.
I just wonder what kind of "adjustments and creativity" an OC can employ with a line that cannot block nor pass block. I am not being snarky, I am being serious. Because I am at a loss as to what kind of adjustments he could make that would be effective.
November 12th, 2013 at 3:14 PM ^
To me the fact that Michigan has more talent than several schools that are doing much more with less is an indictment on the staff as a whole, specifically Borges and Funk. Other coaches would be getting improvement and production from this line. You wonder what could be called? How about not running into a stacked box. How about developing a short passing game or a screen game to combat the blitz. Why not give your QB as many tools as you can at the line of scrimmage. If there isn't enough time for the team to practice the vast supply of offensive knowledge in Borges genius brain, then maybe it's time to simplify. The bottom line is that this staff has failed in its development of the line and the QB and the RBs. This staff has failed in offensive scheme and play calling. And on top of that, after consistently falling below expectations in most big games, especially on the road, this staff backs up what they are doing, not just in press conferences but more importantly on the field. If Hoke backed up his offensive coaches and then they corrected the mistakes or made big changes, most fans wouldn't care. But the truth is that the staff's actions back up their words to the press, and that's a shame, because these players are being blamed not only by their coaches who harp on execution, but by the fans who give a pass to the staff for (fill in with whatever excuse).
November 12th, 2013 at 10:29 PM ^
November 12th, 2013 at 3:40 PM ^
"I just wonder what kind of "adjustments and creativity" an OC can employ with a line that cannot block nor pass block."
Tempo, tempo, tempo.
4-5 wides.
0/1 & 3 step drops.
Lots of bunch formations against press.
Screens, screens, screens, quick outs, screeens, swing passes.
November 12th, 2013 at 3:53 PM ^
Read what Space Coyote wrote up, he explains it very well.
I agree with you that those things ARE adjustments, but they still need blocking. As we saw, they did work against Nebraska on the TD scoring drive, but remember that play calling isn't done in hidesight, nor in isolation. Opposing DC's adjust too, and Nebraska did, then Borges went back to what he was doing before. Maybe not the best idea since it wasn't working well, but maybe that is all the playbook this team can deal with right now. I don't know.
Blocking is essential to any scheme. Tempo, # of WR's, drops, etc. are meaningless without BLOCKING.
November 12th, 2013 at 4:06 PM ^
And on top of not developing the blockers Borges continually puts the offense in bad situations with his play calling. Except because I don't have the football terminology or the space coyote wisdom to explain why this should work even though it never has I can't criticize the genius of Borges who is obviously at the mercy of the severe lack of talent he had no hand in recruiting or teaching.
November 12th, 2013 at 7:45 PM ^
Also note - I never want Gardner under center.
We can block 0-3 step drops in shotgun.
November 12th, 2013 at 3:04 PM ^
So here's my response:
If the lift is seriously bad due to a fundamental flaw and I haven't realized this or bothered to get a second opinion or double-check everything before test day, then I am BAD AT MY JOB and should be fired.
If it's a problem with the manufacturing of the wings (and the manufacturing is done in-house), then I should have either A) seen this coming a goddamn mile away and put plans in motion to mitigate damage or B) done everything in my power to make sure it got fixed immediately or the person responsible got fired and replaced with someone who could make the proper wings.
November 12th, 2013 at 3:25 PM ^
Fine, all that makes sense. But, in sticking with the analogy, you're out there on "game day" and you have to try to win the game/get the plane to fly. You saw it coming, but for the pursposes of the analogy, you cannot call of the test, you cannot go "back to the drawing board" you have to "dance with the girl you brought." What does one do, at the moment of truth, to "mitgage" the damage of a fundamental flaw like that? Firing you or whomever did a poor job manufacturing the wing isn't going to do a damn thing to make the plane fly NOW. Further, when you say you'd do "everything in your power to make sure it got fixed" what if Borges IS doing everything in his power to get things fixed? Whatsmore, what things do you think he can do to get things fix. Just as you know more than almost all of us about aerodynamics, so too Borges knows more than us about football. Football players aren't manufactured items. They're people obviously, and young people at that. Their skills and deficiencies are unknown until they're put into the crucible of a live game. To me, it's obvious that Borges HAS tried to mitigate with the slides and such. They STILL don't work. What then?
November 12th, 2013 at 3:55 PM ^
you're trying to say this goes beyond Borges. I agree. The fact that everyone on staff still has a job and might STILL have those same jobs next season is reprehensible. And when I say "do everything in your power," I mean get in the incompetent wing manufacturer's face and scream at him every damn day until progress is made.
My advice still stands...don't get yourself into that poor of a situation. If you manage to get THAT unlucky, then you kick in the door of whomever PUT you in that situation and say "It's him/them or me."
You're right, firing me and/or the wing manufacturer might not solve the problem immediately. But it WOULD be a good start and an acknowledgement that problems are happening. Right now, it looks like the staff is pretending the fucked-up wings just need to be sanded down on one side.