Was he ever banished to the Mountain West?
I did not make this headline up
Was he ever banished to the Mountain West?
The problem is that Borges has said he wants to throw over the top to force the safeties out of the box. This is an issue for obvious reasons. The one concept(bubble screens) that would do the same thing( get safety's out of the box) and the one constraint Denard can execute is the same concept that Borges "won't talk about". I think he is incredibly intelligent, but he might be equally stubborn. Intelligence without flexibility is wasted.
Why is this seemingly so hard for him to try? He has shown that there is a ton of stuff that he isn't afraid to tinker with, it just doesn't seem to jibe.
to see me some bubble screen madness, from our team not the other team.
I agree with the stubbordness. He reminds me a lot of Rodriguez who never seemed to make adjustments or see the obvious answer. Really frustrating...
we beat Iowa, 3 years in a row are you kidding me? Before they could beat us. Why is it we can't beat the physical teams of the Big Ten. Did Rich Rod leave us that bad off? 4 in a row to Michigan State 8 in a row to Ohio State teams that we regularly beat we lose to. We better hope those recurits stick with us.
Post sober next time.
I didn't like the hire to begin with and I still don't like it now. Rarely has he shown great playcalling and he continuously uses the talent incorrectly. Denard has obviously be taught to pretty much never scramble, which is where he's the most dangerous for a defense. Borges, I'd assume, keeps calling plays where Denard ends up chucking the ball down the field, most of the time off his back foot (I don't know if these long balls are planned or not). Devin coming into the game ever four plays only ruins momenteum and Denard is not a threat downfield (when he's playing WR) because he's never caught the ball; it's always either a handoff or Devin rolls out and ends up running it after the pass isn't open.
It took him way to long to finally figure out that Denard isn't the only person who can run the ball. We haven't thrown a screen to Vincent Smith in awhile, which is almost certainly our best play. We haven't worked with Molk on waiting a second to see if anyone is over him and our offensive line seems to have regressed some (especially Omameh).
In the end, yeah we've scored points and gained yards but not like we should in my opinion. I'd rarely bring in Devin, throw short passes with lots of screens and let Denard scramble for the big run when in trouble. On the goal line today, we should have rolled Denard to the right and threw it to Koger on a delayed route. We could've also thrown a WR screen and let our receivers fight for the touchdown. Instead we throw over-the-shoulder fade passes and a slant where we KNOW Denard can't throw with coverage that close.
Denard has hardly ever ran on a pass play. Where are people getting this from? His unwillingness to take off and run has been maddening for the past two years. He's rarely done it. He most always either throws at his first option(even if triple covered), thrown a fade away if pressured, or stood back there for waaaaay too long. This was the problem last year, and it's more of the same this year.
... into this thread. It will reject it like poison.
We win this game if denard had basic qb awareness to pull up and run. Maddening. I really hope he is being told this. Otherwise it means his brain power is only slightly above that of Pryor.
We're a team that plays hard and with heart, but we have limits. We need better players. Borges will be a lot smarter looking at that point. Name me a division 1 program that we would like to be as good as, which offered Denard as a quarterback. Name me a legit consensus 4-star or higher recruit on our offense not named Gardner. Molk maybe? Lewan possibly?
The point is that the Big Ten is a tight fit. A game like today at Iowa is won or lost on having some horses to outtalent their good but not great talent. Having a receiver to make plays and passer who makes them pay when they generate no pass rush. Where are those players on Michigan? MIke Martin and Countess. Jake Ryan has promise. All defense
Today's bottom line: We needed to play good for 4 quarters to beat a team that has about the same overall talent as we have (maybe better. I'd rather have pretty much every player on Iowa's starting offense right now) and we didn't. I think we are kidding ourselves thinking that schemes and playcalling could have brought us a blowout today.
It was winnable if we played a good 4 quarters. I watch a lot of college football. You almost never see a team play 4 good quarters when they are playing against a team with equal talent. Especially on the road.
is overrated. Hemmingway is a very good D1 talent, and our other recievers, if used correctly (bubble screens, short passes), would be better. Smith is an excellent back to throw screens to, or short passes but Al doesn't like throwing short passes or bubble screens.
Star system is overrated. Mike Hart, 3 star. Kept 5 star Kevin Grady on the bench.
Not enough talent...? That's the excuse? Iowa has way less "4 stars" than us, so why did they beat us? And judging prospects just on the star system is stupid anyways. We have capable receivers, a decent offensive line, a good runningback and two talented quarterbacks. You don't need straight 5* prospects to beat Iowa. To use that excuse is hilarious and should never be brought up. Maybe you could have said 'the players dont fit the system' but talent level? That's just silly to say.
"we have capable receivers..." I'm not sure I agree with this at this point. Both Hemingway and Roundtree are not very good at creating seperation which makes the window Denard needs to throw into even tighter. Gallon seems to be the best at creating seperation but he's only 5'8" and not a burner.
I also do not see them being very good at finding zones and sitting down in them. None of the receivers have the speed to be a deep threat. All of their long passes have come on jump balls. (except for Hemingway's one long catch and run against Notre Dame).
I'm amazed how few times we have seen a wide receiver running wide open (even against poor defenses). I believe this is a combination of play calling, route design, wide receiver capability, and QB accuracy.
Roundtree should have had a touchdown today where he had beat his man on a post with no over the top support. Denard missed it by 3 yards. Last week Roundtree was behind his man by a couple yards and Denard threw it 3 yards short allowing Roundtree to be tackled instead of scoring. These two, the above mentioned catch and run by Hemingway, and Gallon's catch and run against ND at the end are the only examples I can think of off the top of my head all season. Not good.
that Iowa is equally talented. There is reason why Iowa lost to Minnesota and Iowa State. The fact of the matter is that Michigan is still on paper, more talented than many of the teams in the Big Ten, despite what happened the last three years.
And using recruiting stars to try and downplay what Borges has to work with this year is bailing him out,espcially when your facing an Iowa team with a team full of 2 and 3 star players. Does this team neccassarily have one or two great players? Not really, but what the offense does have is a lot of players who are solid to good players. Your acting like he is working with inferior talent compared to the majority of the teams in the country ,and that simply isn't the case. The issue comes down to how you use some of the guys, and the 70-80% i-formation power playcalls we saw today is an ineffective way to do that. It isn't in line with what we have seen most of the season where the spread concepts/Shotgun were prevelant and the i-formation power was used as a compliment. That has been the more effective way to approach things.
WTF. We returned basically everyone from one of the top five offenses in the country in 2010 and you're going to use lack of talent as an excuse for lack of production this year? Pull your head out of your ass.
give the man a fucking break. This is not an easy situation for him.
Specific to the game, I agree he went away from what was working in the first half, but when he tried to come out in the second half and run Toussaint, it didn't work. People want to think good play calling always results in 450 yards and 5 TDs, but how do you account for four dropped passes, multiple missed pass interference calls, and a QB who cannot hit an open WR deeper than 10-15 yards?
the ball deep? How about you use some easy throws such as as bubble screens to achieve the same effect (getting guys out of the box). Why Borges refuses to use the bubble screen is beyond me, considering it is used by almost every college team to some extent and it is used by some NFL teams as well.
You know what makes the situation easier, not making a team an i-formation power team for three quarters that is not euqip to do so. I am not going to give him a pass, when he tries to force the team into being something there not for the majority of the game, and as a result the offense only scores 16 points against an Iowa defense, which was in the bottom 3rd of the country in defense.
that think two bubble screens a game would fix all our problems are delusional.
do with a qb that can't hit downfield throws at the moment. A viable option instead to get guys out of the box is the bubble screen and is used by most teams for that purpose. It is a reasonable alternative instead of giving away a down.
The bubble screen thing is just part of the bigger picture though. The playcalling is this game was not even in line with what we had seen for most of year, from Borges. For whatever reason, Borges decided to go with 70-80% i-formation plays in this game, as opposed to still being in the Shotgun at least 50% of the time. Not just that, but he stuck with into the 4th quarter, when it wasn't producing points. Other than Purdue this team has not been effective from the i-formation. There is literally no reasonable explanation for trying to be a i-formation power team for three quarters in this game when it wasn't working, and when you have other formations in your playbook that have been more effective all year.
offensive success in the first half came from running Toussaint up the middle from under center. Sure we had success at the end of the game with a pure air attack, but is that really sustainable with a QB who throws an INT every 15 passes? Look everyone wants Borges to be Chip Kelly or RR, but he's not. People just refuse to acknowledge that it might be difficult for a coach to give up on everything he's done for 30 years. Your expectations are unreasonable.
it is unreasonable to think Borges would maintain the same ratio of Spread/Shotgun and prostyle as many other games this season? It is unreasonable to expect them to run a universal play in college football( the bubble screen) considering the experience Borges has? Other than the bubble screen, I am not even talking about adding anything new to the playbook, just doing more of what has worked this season. So please explain how it is unreasonable to expect them to run plays that are already in the playbook and that they have run this season?
That running up the middle success from the first half wasn't exactly lighting up the scoreboard. Even without out the int and missed extra point that is still only 10 or 14 points in the first half. Besides I am talking about what has been more effective for the majority of the season. Michigan has been more effective from the Shotgun than from the i-formation trying to run power this season, that is something that is indisputable.
And why do you think you have to go to an air attack, if your using more Shotgun. That makes no sense at all. You can still get the ball to Touissant and Robinson to run it from the Shotgun, as well.
Basically with the exception of the bubble screen (which is a fairly simple play to implement) your argument boils down to that it is somehow unreasonable to expect Borges to keep a balance between the old stuff and the new stuff, which he has been doing almost the entire year, rather than going 70-80% new, with an emphasis on the i-formation like he did for most of this game.
...run a no-huddle spread offense.
So Al fucked up again. Let's be honest did anyone honestly think before the season started that we would all be bitching because we potentially lost a shot at going to Indy??? Don't get me wrong I'm pissed but let's not forget that "in theory" we shouldn't even be here yet! Hopefully Al gets the play calling together because this shit won't fly when TSIO comes to town and at this point all I care about is winning our last game! Fuck the rest
For all this talk, be it negative or whatever, about Borges not calling the correct plays, the bottom line is the players still have to execute. I love Denard Robinson but why doesn't try to bounce it to the outside more often with all that speed. Last week vs Purdue that's all Fitz did was bounce it to the outside for huge gains. He's not faster than Denard, is he? Nope. Denard just needs to take over the game. Period.
it was extremely successful last week and averaged 9.3 ypp on the four plays it was used in the MSU game. Iowa had an answer for it today, which is why Borges stopped running it in the second half. But you have to at least try things out to see what's working.
I'm not saying here that Borges called a perfect game, but placing all the blame on him is a little harsh. We had drops all over the place that could have kept drives alive. Also had a drop in the endzone. If Denard could hit a wide open Roundtree we probably aren't having this discussion. A couple of missed PI's (one for an INT) don't help the situation.
Not to mention the botched extra point that is hard to put directly on the coaches, unless you say they didn't give it enough reps or pay attention to details, which is a reasonably legit complaint I guess.
My point is, there is plenty of blame to go around for the loss today. Borges wasn't good, but making him the scapegoat is a little harsh. Especially considering its year 1 of a transition.
Al, but his play calling was terrible again. He has this incredible ability to ruin momentum, and it is just so frustrating. Sure the drops, lack of scrambling, D. Morgan playing the wrong gaps, and Touissant getting hurt (as well as the home field advantage officials) were also a big part of us losing, but to me Al was the biggest disappointment.
I agree about the Devin insertion, but that's the offense and they are assets that the team needs to take advantage of. Like Volk pointed out, it's a team with limitations and mismatched parts, and I'm not sure what they can really do beyond keep recruiting. I do think that Borges calls plays that would work, but execution at times is lacking and leads to the "bombs away" approach we see from both QBs. The running games needs to be more of a focus, but with Denard you don't want to make him a simple handoff machine because he is better than that.
I'm not sure what is going to happen with this offense, but Borges is no Martz. Martz didn't recognize the limitations of the offense, and still tried to run the same basic packages he did with Warner and co. He is an innovator but one who needs a specific cast of characters. Borges has shown an ability to meld his offense with the players available, but they need to meet him halfway. Along the way, both sides will struggle at times, and we are seeing it today. But this was a winnable game despite bad offense, and that gives me hope.
Wish I had written that.
really, really bothered me. A guy who's been doing his job for as long as he has should not be as hard-headed about a play that so many teams (including past Michigan) run successfully.
I thought they actually tried a bubble screen today, but it got knocked down by a lineman. It was early and I might not be remembering that right.
I think that was a modified tunnel, which Borges is obsessed with. I think it blows unless the O-line coming out get miracle blocks a la Northwestern.
it wasn't bubble screen. It was the same screen they have been running occasionally in other games, it is more a middle screen.
Rodriguez's offense is based on forcing the defense to try to tackle guys in space, which he says is the hardest thing to do in football. Borges just doesn't share that philosophy. His formations seem more clogged (e.g., lots of two TE's). He doesn't emphasize spreading the field horizontally; he wants to go vertical more.
All of which may be fine, but the players we have were recruited and taught to run the spread. It shouldn't be a surprise that they're not doing well at Borges-ball against better than mediocre opposition. I suppose it will work out eventually, but eventually could be three years away. Meanwhile one of the great talents in Michigan history is getting squandered.
My hat's off to Denard, Molk, Patrick O, Roundtree, Vincent and other spread shredder type players. They're doing their damnedest in a tough situation. I will always remember them as one of my favorite groups to come through Michigan in my time (early 70s to now). They deserve better, but of course life has nothing to do with what you deserve.
"Rodriguez's offense is based on forcing the defense to try to tackle guys in space, which he says is the hardest thing to do in football. "
He must be basing that theory off of his defense's performance.
And drum rims, not rim rims.
to all the players for making the best of a difficult situation, but clearly evil Borges is doing his best to make it miserable for them. I'm sure he loves losing.
Thats the best comment i have read all night. One of the first things this coaching staff said was, "they didnt look at last yrs tape". Offensively thats a huge mistake, so he might want to be in his man cave this week looking at old tape. Maybe then he'll see Denard cant throw in the red zone.
The bread and butter. TB ISO plays (with a FB). Curl routes by the WR and TEs. Is something wrong with Denard? He looks slower and less explosive this year. What is Borges doing? Call plays that Gardner can complete. On the last drive, move the pocket and give Drob an option.
that Borges has come up with two horrific game plans in our last two road games.
Dude. If you couldn't see that not changing up the snap count was an issue against Sparty, then I don't know what to tell you. Go watch Molk's response at the press conference after the MSU game. I don't see what that has to do with this game, though.
The bubble screen issue. I am a proponent of giving Denard throws he can make. I wish he could throw the long ball more accurately, but he hasn't done it with any consistency. So, why not TRY a different way to stretch the defense? Why not go back to the QB oh noes? Why not try something that we know Denard can do to make the defense pay instead of basically conceding a down? Can you offer up anything that would justify your dissatisfaction with the talk of "snap counts and bubble screens"?
I'm not blaming the game on Borgess at all, I actually like his concepts. I just think he should bend a little on his choice of constraints.
even though i get some negative feedback from it...one of the biggest things a football team needs is CONTINUITY...and we just dont have it.
We went from Lloydball to RR to Borges in a very short period of time. The scheme keeps changing and the players dont quite match up with what the coaches want to do.
This team was built to run the offense RR installed and would have been in year 4 had we kept him and i have little doubt it would be a much smoother running offense. Would that have been enough? Hell i dont know....get off me...
Borges and Hoke seem lost and searching for an identity. I was not a fan of RR when he was hired...but i learned to like him and his scheme.
I was even less of a fan of the Hoke hire as i think his record proves he is a very average, so-so coach when its all said and done. No matter how much he points or says "manball" he is still a mediocre coach at best. The play calling and substitutions (Gardner) are some of the worst i have seen in 45+ years of watching Michigan football. As much as i love Denard...this offense has proven he is not an elite or even better than average QB in this league. He IS an elite ATHLETE...but he too is totally lost in this offense.
I said last week there is a very real chance we lose our last 4 games. I really thought the Iowa game was the most winnable of the last 4.
Yeah, we lose a game we should win. So everbody is an idiot and/or otherwise incompetent. Let's all go kill ourselves.
except one lil difference. name me one play maker on that 08 offence.
I am not going to start calling for the head of a first-year OC who has contributed to a 7-2 record (last time I mention that tonight, I promise) despite trying to shift our offensive philosophy utilizing players he did not know previously and who were recruited by a guy with a vastly different take on offense (trying to be polite there). Once you see players who were, if you will, born and bred in his system and we're still flubbing it inexplicably once in a while via poor execution, then we can revisit this topic. Deal?
I understand the "has contributed to a 7-2 record" thought, I really do. I don't dislike Al, I just think he is not calling a good game right now. The coaches talk about "execution" a lot, when it comes to bad calls. I am sure the "execution" was off, on our failed goal line attempt. The 4th down play against MSU was "execution" as well, so our coaches have told us. The problem I have is Denard is the most mobile QB in the history of the game (arguably), so lets make him a pocket passer and just go "bombs away". It just doesn't make sense, and it is very frustrating. Al was calling good playsearly in the year and getting lucky with his "bombs away" aproach, but it hasn't worked since the ND game (with a couple of minor exceptions).