http://www.mgoblue.com/allaccess/?media=422512 Here's Al Borges's awaited Tuesday press conference. Seemed to take more of the blame for the recent offensive struggles this week, than he ever as.
well that's just, like, your opinion, man
http://www.mgoblue.com/allaccess/?media=422512 Here's Al Borges's awaited Tuesday press conference. Seemed to take more of the blame for the recent offensive struggles this week, than he ever as.
At 8:20, "If I listened to everything a fan said, I'd slit my wrists." WTH?
WELL.....Have you READ the message boards around here lately?
new level of hate. Your mom would be proud.
That's funny, cause if I was the o-coordinator of this team, I'd slit my wrists.
Because his playcalling has made many of us want to slit our wrists.
We've gone from dead last to second to dead last in negative plays in ALL OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL.
How does that stat not say "relieved of duties" to EVERYone?
We get on GERG, and rightfully so...he was what, 113 out of 118? Something like that. It was bad whatever it was.
He wasn't doing the job, period, Borges is just as bad.
Wow, you made it so clear, and I never thought of this before, but Borges is the offensive analog to GERG.
Hah that's awesome. Al's a cool guy, regardless of his performance this year.
is "Al a cool guy"?
You are officially in full-on trolling contrarian mode now.
No kidding. In the thread (now removed) where the OP asked if people were renewing their season tickets he bitched because I answered no. Apparently because I had already stated that I wasnt in other threads I'm not allowed to respond in that thread.
Yes, well, you've mentioned it in nearly half of your posts the past several weeks.
I love how you trolled your own thread lol
I love how you created a thread after the Indiana game talking about how awesome the offense was lol
He looked like a broken man. I feel bad for him/
A broken man leading a broken offense. My concern is his confidence and psyche are as damaged and fragile as his QB's.
I'm definitely not reading /watching it now. Too much of damn bleeding heart.
He literally looked like he was told cancer he though was in remission, had just returned.
Honestly Wendy...This is a side to you I haven't seen before. I have to say I like it. Not in a creepy, you're one o f the only mgofemale bloggers kind of way. I just always thought of you as a pretty serious person but your sense of humour is more prevalent in your more recent contributions.
He is not broken, no matter how much you want to believe it. I saw a professional dealing with the day to day and long term problems of rebuilding a team in the midst of an echo chamber.
Despite the fact that he knows his credibility is under fire and that no matter what he says a vocal chunk of this "fan" base will rip his comments apart, he treats questions with respect and attempts to give honest answers. Amazingly he has managed to retain his sense of humor.
You'd be hard pressed to find a better example of a coach demonstrating grace under fire.
Like it or not, he just keeps doing his job.
Sigh... I'd rather he were a jerk or more stubborn so it would be easier to get rid of him :/
The guy makes 700k a year, he doesn't need your sympathy.
Oh Phil. The tears of the rich are just as salty as those of our less fortunate subalterns.
I had to look up what that word meant.
But I keep coming back for the jokes. There's almost always one good little stream like this in each thread...
[First line removed because I was being a hypocritical dick.]
Many of us (including me) would like a new offensive coordinator. That isn't a license to be a complete dick to a guy who's probably working his ass off and probably as upset and embarrassed about this as anyone. And no, the fact that he makes a lot of money doesn't excuse being a dick, either.
In my opinion, complaining about the offense is fine, calling for a firing is fine, expressing frustration about play-calling and talent development is fine, etc. A lot of the Borges stuff has crossed the line into really mean-spirited and personal. I get that it's the internet and places like this are a shit-show for humanity. Still, at the end of the day, Al Borges is probably a really good guy who is doing his best for Michigan and feeling really bad about what's happening. A little restraint from some people here might be nice.
I completely agree and my anger probably pushes me up to that borderline. I just want the guy gone and someone new to step in. That being said, my biggest fear is Hoke hires someone even worse.
are probably slim, statistically speaking. The next OC would have to TRY to have worse offensive stats than this team put up. With all do respect, of course.
It is likely that Hoke is directing much of what Borges does. Left on his own, Borges may have a different game plan.
If Hoke does replace Borges, then here's hoping he learned the same lesson RR appears to have learned at AZ . . . hire a good coordinator and then get the hell out of the way.
A head coach who doesn't wear a headset is directing much if what his OC does? I'm not sure about your detective skills there dog.
I think Hoke has given the MANBALL directive to Al. If you watch his offense at Auburn it looks different but at the same time it sputtered after 2 years.
no one really talks about that angle and it does make sense. Brady is the MANBALL guy while Coach Borgess was more the West Coast offense. It also explains why a guy with so much OC experience can be struggling so much with the offense. Stay tuned...
Ok, I've got to now agree. This is an interesting angle. Someone needs to ask Al about how much influence Hoke has on the schemes he runs.
I have to agree. I have been thinking this week that Borges is a lot like Millen. Is it really fair to hate the guy for not being good at his job? It isn't like he's trying to fail. It is his employer you should really direct your anger at.
I've read in awhile. Agreed.
Well said, turd.
That's been one of my main gripes. Some posters feel like they are suffering more than the players and coaches who are busting their hump everyday. These guys want to win more than any of us want them to win and put in the countless hours preparing for games, coaching, recruiting and so on. Be upset at the results but personal attacks are unnecessary.
I bust my hump every day doing something far less awesome than coaching football for far less money than 700K.
If all I managed was complete incompetence, I would be catching hell from several bosses and wondering what day I would be losing the insurance for my wife and baby boy.
Being nasty about the guy isn't called for, but I certainly ain't feeling bad about a bunch of internet posters calling him a stupid fat ass.
The start of this particular thread was a guy saying he wished Borges was a jerk so he would be easier to get rid of and a response that Borges doesn't need his sympathy. Add to that all the people saying he looks broken and what not.
He's a 58 year old man getting paid 700K to coach football who isn't actually a Michigan fan - at least beyond how big of fans any of us might be of our employers.
I think all this sympathy flowing his way is a projection from beat down Michigan fans rather than an accurate judgment of how badly he is hurt by a bunch of anonymous assholes on the internet.
If you read my post I said being upset at the results and his performance is fine but that the personal attacks are unnecessary and childish. You go on to reply to my post my calling him a "stupid fatass." For a blog that claims to be better than all others, posts like this are despicable. His health or physical appearance have nothing to do with his performance. Keep it critical professionally and not personally or just keep on looking like an ass.
Actually, I said I don't feel bad about people calling him a stupid fat ass. THat seems the most common insult.
You should though because its not right.
Not right? Are we talking about the accuracy of the assertion or are we talking about the fact that the assertion is being made? I'd say that one of those two is not right, yes.
Well said Brownbear. Also, when is up and downvoting going to return? I think this would lessen some of the vitriolic mob mentality.
I couldn't get past "well said, turd."
I'll be honest, my original post was just going to be that. Three powerful words.
Look, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. We cannot have an insane coach. He was terrible in his 4-1 call with denard 2 years ago against staee and he is still guilty of the same Huberus today. It is not his work ethic, it is the lack or adaptation and his pride that is why Borges should be fired.
Urgh. No it isn't. That's just a cute little saying, ffs, not the real definition of insanity. Furthermore, it seems pretty clear that of all Borges' faults, the inability to change what he's doing isn't one of them. He's revamped his entire offense like 3 times this season (and there's a reason coaches generally don't do that). Have you been paying attention, like, at all?
Yes, that definition was just something coined by Albert Einstein, so likely it is full of shit. And speaking of full of shit, if you think that Borges is nothing but the worst OC in FBS, well, fill in the rest.
It's commonly attributed to him, but that's not necessarily the truth. It's truthiness, though.
You're just moving the goalposts after being called out on your ignorance. And do you actually think that Einstein of all people had any authority in the definition of mental illnesses? Seriously how ignorant are you?
was of the 'last straw variety'; with high powered Indiana coming to town would you have attempted to continue running the stalled offense which lost the Penn State game, and nearly lost the Akron and UConn games the previous few weeks? The revamping you speak of was not innovation, it was desperation.
I don't think it's OK to publicly call for firing coaches, especially over and over and over again. It seems like it would be better for the program and perception of the fan base if some of these negative topics were discussed with family, friends, or addressed to the AD rather than on the blog(s), Twitter, etc.
Sadly, I'm actually used to reading the rude comments about Borges by now, but I still cringe when I read similar posts about Fred. He coached some of Michigan's greatest RBs, and deserves better than what has been said/written by a few fans. And people seem to think Fred will retire at the end of the season, so I'm really not sure why it's necessary to make negative comments about his coaching skills at this point.
Anyway, I, too, agree that some posts are downright mean-spirited when it comes to Borges. And I felt evil just reading the comments about Funk when his father died.
I agree that the bored has got a little crazy but these are crazy times... Crazy times indeed.
I do not agree that we as a fan base cannot discuss a coach being let go. Why should I ignore the obviously and pretend all is right with program and only talk about it behind closed doors? Just seems silly to me.
But I'm not suggesting that the fan base should ignore the obvious or pretend things are great, but the way some issues are discussed repeatedly is making the board/blog a bit hard to read. And I don't see how it's helping the program to continue to post all reckless about Michigan football. I just think there are more effective ways to influence change.
Brandon needs to earn his paycheck, too. Let him deal with the unsatisfied fans instead of the mods. I certainly don't need to read another comment bashing the coaches or about how medicore the football team has been for years. We all know that most fans feel the product on the field isn't up to standards, but now what? Start another "Fire Borges" thread? That seems pointless and silly to me.
Never worded better.
This board is full of a lot of great posters with avariety of opinions. Unfortunately, a vast majority are just plain mean and jerkish.
Granted, sometimes it feels like a vast majority are mean and jerky, but I really don't think that is the case.
We have got to get moderation back. The old neg bang moderation, not that +1 insightful /-1 trolling abberation too.
Once people feel like there are consequences for what they say, they modify how they say it.
I'm with turd.
Maybe you need to grap the paper and head for the bathroom ...
For me it's just hangover from the Lloyd Carr era. Toward the end he got so abrasive with the media when things were not going well and his attitude seemed to be: Screw you. You don't know what your talking about I'm running this program my way. I don't know how to embed:
with Al in this presser, you don't get that sense. And this made me feel for the guy a little bit.
He's very self-aware.
Hoke may seem just fine with everything, but Borges is not. He knows his offense has been historically bad and that won't fly around these parts.
Trouble is, I'm not sure he knows what to do about it. He keeps blaming it on inexperience and execution. That may be true, but it's his job to develop the players and come up with a game plan they can execute. In late November, nobody is a freshman any more.
His predictable yet simultaneously erratic play calling has not helped his players. They can never get in any kind of rhythm. Honest to God, I believe that if they could just string 2 or 3 good drives together, they would catch fire.
I have tried to make sure in my dissatisfaction with AB that I dodn't let things get personal. I don't know the guy so it isn't really fair to have any feelings toward of a personal nature. I just don't like him coaching my favorite team, it's as simple as that.
Actually (and I've said this many times) from reading the presser transcripts he seems like a pretty darn likeable guy. I have hoped throughout the season that he would turn things around and get things on the right track so we could have a coach and amusing as Al. Alas, that hasn't happened so I just want him replaced. Nothing personal against him and I don't wish him ill in any way. I just want someone more competent at their job. Hopefully he can find some success somewhere else.
I do think we need to change direction there, I only meant that I wish he were a worse person, that's all.
I love listening to him talk. Love him as a person. That doesn't really make it easier.
I hope he buckles and quits. He's average at the very best and way overcompensated.
He has failed at his job. I don't care if he's broken down looking, you don't do your job, you lose it.
He's repeatively failed, has continued to throw his players under the bus...get him out of here.
to see a man that knows he's done but he tried and cared. He just wasn't good enough. Trying isn't good enough in this business.
It's not good enough in most if not all business's. Successful businesses at least.
I feel a little bad for him. He's in a situation he doesn't know how to fix. I can relate to being just above average. I work hard, I can do well if given the right circumstances, but I also probably struggle if I don't have the tools I need at my disposal. I'm no genius, I'm not a creative master. I'll probably never create something that has never been done before. But, I can work persistantly at something when I have a clear goal and a clear plan. Unlike Borges however, I don't make $700,000 a year. With that salary comes an expectation of being much better than slightly above average. Our fans, the team, and his position require much more than slightly above average. His body of work is not deserving of his position or his salary.
Ah, he knows how to fix it, h is just too prideful to do what it takes.
but just won't "do what it takes?" It must be pretty obvious then, right? Please tell me, how do you fix it?
Why did hoke have to reshape the offense in the first place? When he got the job the defense was a tirefire and badly needed an overhaul, but the offense? he tried to stick with the spread because of Denard and actually IIRC he got more points than in 2010, why change something that has been improving the last 4 years? honestly in hindsight of course I feel that it was a bad desicion to turn 180 degrees from something that actually worked...
Because to run a spread offense makes your defense weak minded ninnies.
You coach what you know and compensate for what you don't. Now obviously it's not impossible as a coach to attack from a different style that you're normally not comfortable with or unfamiliar with, because it's been done. And of course it's easy to look back now and say "Well, our offense was much better when we ran spread, so we should have stuck with that the whole time." But it's not surprising that Hoke would try to steer the team towards his vision.
Look at the type of offense he ran there. Oh, and for a bonus, look at the defense he was running at SDSU.
"Because that's not what he knew"
Ummm... he's a DL coach who has shown he knows little to nothing about offense - spread OR Manball.
This is an ideological/dogmatic thing for Hoke, not a "what he knows" thing.
"Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty."
- Stephen Jay Gould
It's not that simple. First of all, it was a big part of why he was hired in the first place, and why RR never was accepted. There is a vocal faction in the fan base that never accepted the spread at Michigan. In other words, we hired Hoke because of the offensive philosophy he had, he didn't decide on an offense after the fact.
Second, a big part of the success in recruiting had to do with the fact that Michigan was going back to pro style. The RBs, the linemen, the QB all were interested because it fit their style and gave them a shot of making it to the pros. There are real and tangible benefits with running pro style, especially when it differentiates you from many of the teams you compete with in recruiting.
And really, there's really nothing wrong with one style or the other once you have the right people to run it. It just takes times to implement.
But as to your first point, I think Hoke's directive was "do whatever you want on offense but OH MY GOD TACKLE SOMEONE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS HOLY"
Michigan will get better recruits running prostyle. The prostyle I was hoping for though was the Cap One Bowl sort, not the let teams catch you from behind sort.
We ran a full-on passing spread in the Cap1 bowl.
than 10 points versus OSU. MSU also manhandled it as did PSU. People are forgetting just how lame that offense was against good teams when it mattered.
This isn't a defense of Borges at all, but a corrective on the myth of the "All Powerful" spread that seems to permeate this board.
IMO, than what we have right now. even against OSU we moved the ball better than we do now.even though we had 10 pts. Much better. Denard was a better QB then. We ran the ball better with less talent at RB. Turnovers killed many potential scoring drives. We moved the ball more consistently in 2008 with talent free QB's and a bad o-line than we have the last four games.
Yes, against the best teams we struggled to score--most teams do, especially when they have less talent than the team they are playing against, which we did in those days. Now we have comparable talent to the defenses we play, and are WORSE.
In 2011 we ran mostly the spread and put 40+ points on OSU... just saying.
With Al calling the plays. Seems like a lesson that offensive success isn't soley based on scheme or one coach alone, but on a great many factors that are all related.
He was just runnin' Rich Rod's offense!
we had an offensive pulse in 2011. If you need reminded ...go look at the stats. How many of those ytards came from improvisation ? .... probably about 50% of them. Denard covered up the incompetentcy of Borges as a play caller. But it is truly exposed now. There is ENOUGH data to prosecute Borges for the crime of ruining the 2013 season. His play calling has LOST 3 B1G games, and I don't think he's that far removed form the debacles of Akron and UConn.
He has failed, and unless removed, will be the ultimate cause for Hoke to lose his job as head coach. Sad ... but true.
Rodriguez was fired first. Gosh, Ohio State seems to be putting points on the board using a spread.
Instaince installation was a disaster. Much worse then this. Michigan is at least competitive now. They weren't in 2008.
If we had Gardner in 2008 they would have been 10-2. This team is wayyyyyyyyyy worse, and there is no excuse.
Which 2 plays lost Michigan 3 games?
I love how people need to put others into black and white categories. You either love Hoke or hate Rich Rod. Yes, it's just that simple...
You can say we were fortunate to beat Akron, UConn, and Northwestern and easily forget how unfortunate we were to lose to Penn State, Nebraska, and Iowa. Usually those things even out. Yes, we could easily be 4-7. We also could easily be a fraudulent 10-1. Eventually, you regress to the mean, and if you're an average team and you play an average schedule, you'll end up right around .500, which looks like will come close to happening. The fact that we're going to finish 7-6 or 8-5 means we either are a slightly above average team or our schedule is slightly below average. Judging by the lack of success by our non-conference opponents and the weakness of the B1G, I'd probably go with the latter.
Simply put, we're an average football team. It just feels like we're terrible because this is a place where we expect excellence.
We were unlucky vs Penn State... but against Nebraska and Iowa we had the ball and a last chance to score and didn't I wouldn't say unlucky at all, the offense laid an egg there.
Literally one play from a win. Nebraska had a 4th and 2....probably committed a false start and the D didn't step up to make that stop. With a stop M could practically take a knee and win.
I know the offense is to blame primarily for the losses, but lets not act like they're the only ones who failed with the game on the line. This team is young...young teams lose like that.
would you say that we've looked terrible for the majority of each of those games? i think that if we had an above average offensive coordinator then we probably could have won those games by 2 tds each. then if that was the case, would we be a fraudulent 10-1? no, we would just be 10-1. its not the fact that we were fortunate or unfortunate, or we could be 10-1 or 4-7, its that those game should not have been that close to begin with, regardless of if we ended up losing a close game or winning it. i don't think that it unrealistic to think this way
It happens pretty much every year. And over the course of time it pretty much all balances out. Not just for Michigan, not just in football, but in life. To a degree, luck is what you make of it, but it's also still pretty much luck in the end.
I was just mocking the fact that we were 2 plays from losing 3 more games. In retrospect I wish I wouldn't have provided that snark, as now I have another person following me around looking for things I've said so he can respond to get back at me for a snarky comment. Ill-advised on my part, especially because I agree completely with what you said.
There are many of us who supported the head coach but can clearly see incompetence on either the D staff or O staff and want that situation addressed. If the head guy can't see that, well "he gone".
Was my sarcasm based on someone saying "you either hate Rich Rod or love Hoke" false? Because, I dunno, I liked and supported Rich Rod and like and support Hoke. So I don't think my pointing out the absurdity of the comment that I responded to is false.
You said you either like hoke or RR. I, like many others, like both. But each has incompetent assistants. If hoke is too loyal to his assistants like RR, he will go down with the ship.
The number 1 problem with RR was keeping GERG once it was clear he was the problem. We will see if Hoke goes down the same path with Borges. If Hoke gets rid of him, I'll believe that Hoke could still be the right hire.
Just to clarify, I don't want Hoke gone and I won't bash Borges, although I do think he needs to go and I hope he can succeed elsewhere.
I'm not saying that firing RR was a bad idea, I just think that there was no need to fix something that wasn't broken, you want to be a little more physical? that's great but when you know that you won't have many offensive linemen in a couple of years, that the ones you have have been playing the spread, that you'll run out of tight ends by your second year and there is no fullback... oh and you don't have the perfect fit for an undercenter attack at QB ( I know Garder can do the job, but he's been forced to catch up with things on the fly) I don't really understand why he had to change the offensive identity of the team when they were playing ok, at least better than this... Not that they can run the exact same offense but there has to be some middle ground isn't it?
In large part due to the sabotage of a former butt hurt coach who actively encouraged players to transfer and hadn't recruit well for years. Add an intolerant fanbase who couldn't and wouldn't accept a non-"Michigan Man." Now a "Michigan Man" comes along and people are willing to offer up their first borns to protect him.
It wasn't the fans not accepting an outsider as it was the former players. This only sucks because you are outside of this group.
This is total revisionism. The #1 worry when Hoke got here was if he would run off Denard and half of the RR guys. When he didn't and won 11 games with those guys to boot, no one said a peep about how waiting to transition was a "bad idea." You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Oh, and this running into a 9 man box meme needs to die. We haven't done that with any consistency for going on 5 games. Have you not noticed the sharp uptick in sacks since it became readily apparent that we abandoned the run game? Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
You can't have your cake and eat it too
You can't have your cake and eat it too
You can't have your cake and eat it too
You can't have your cake and eat it too
You can't have your cake and eat it too
You can't have your cake and eat it too
You can't have your cake and eat it too
You can't have your cake and eat it too
You can't have your cake and eat it too
You can't have your cake and eat it too
You can't have your cake and eat it too
You can't have your cake and eat it too
How can you eat your cake if you don't have it? Isn't having the cake a prerequisite?
Cake was 11-2 and sugar bowl
that you can eat the cake, or have it, but you can't do both, because if you've eaten the cake it's gone (or rather, it's in your belly). So it might make more sense to say, "You can't have eaten your cake and have it." FWIW, that's also what the omniscient Wikipedia pronounces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can't_have_your_cake_and_eat_it
but if not, imagine the phrasing as "you can't keep your cake and eat it too"
It appear more like WE can't have our cake and eat it too.
Some other schools seem to manage it.
In the offense that Borges wanted to run, which was a pro-style base with some spread option and pistol option concepts mixed in to take advantage of some of the strengths of DG. DG has the arm strength to make all the throws, when he has time he has the mechanics to be accurate, and when he had time last year he showed some ability to make proper reads (and some progression should be expected). Other, mitigating factors, such as a poor OL, losing confidence, and becoming gun-shy, have lead to this talk of DG not being a fit for this offense.
Maybe the QB coach for our last 2 QBs has something to do with our QB performance.
Or it could be the things I stated much more so and he's actually improved in many ways technically. But that rehashed debate is so much fun that I'd hate to have that much fun again. Plus, I'm not sure I can take the fun of people refusing to see the other POV of what might be happening.
I can't even post on this site with people trying to debate this stuff. I defend Gardner and his ability to run either system, and get snark. I get snark everywhere I go on these boards, and it's just so much fun.
Your first sentence is what many of us I think would like to see. So you think hoke is over ruling borges like RR did with his D? If so then its on hoke and I have even more questions on his abilities.
Borges wanted to run an offense that had a pro-style base that mixed in spread concepts (like inverted veer and some zone read) along with some pistol offense to take advantage of DG's strengths. It didn't work. So they continued to simplify the offense to the point where it is today, which is extremely simplified.
Can I pick your brain? You are A B. Many feel that it wouldn't matter who calls the plays. Our interior line is young and is a failure so our O is doomed to fail. So if you are AB, wouldn't you spend time with funk coaching up these guys? Weakest link theory. Maybe he does. I just don't see a lot of improvement with these guys. And its frustrating. I just have my doubts thinking all these guys are uncoachable.
I freely admit that teaching football is the toughest of sports.
If I'm Borges:
The OL has it's own coach for a reason (they also have a GA for that matter), adding Borges to the mix at a position he is likely less qualified to teach wouldn't help the matter. So in practice, no, if I were him I wouldn't spend more time with the OL. I would focus on my position group because there isn't enough time or enough coaches or a good reason (too many cooks in the kitchen) for me to be with the .
Now out of practice, yes, I would be spending a lot of time with Funk going over what I would want done, what needs to be done, etc. to make sure we were on the same page and to try to figure out who is developing and how and at what, etc. Ultimately, I can decide if we switch line-ups to the best available or roll with what we have in hopes of continuity, but if we are going with best available, Funk is picking the 5 because he's the one that spends the most time with them and has the closest and most thorough knowledge of the situation.
It's a good idea ... but I don't know if it's that good.
Troll on "new" guy.
No, seriously. I've been reading this blog for a few years, and many of the contributions lately are making the threads almost unbearable. It's not that the opinions expressed are simply "wrong," which would be fine. Rather, they show a total lack of awareness of the history of some of the posters, a lack of awareness regarding the players and coaches, and a striking lack of self-awareness. It's come to the point that if certain posters appear frequently in a particular thread--one's that are simpy being overtly mean-spirited and toxic, and often doing so in a way that tries to accuse other very reasonable posters of being dishonest, snarky, or mere "apoligists"--I simply stop reading and leave the site. It's ridiculous that Space Coyote is being accused by others of trolling and picking fights when he adds more substantive content to the discussion than almost any other poster, and he does so in a civil manner. It's analogous to (but more unreasonable than) the flak that Magnus would take--which was more understandable, although to my mind completely undeserved. Maybe things seemed better before when comments were negged, collapsed, and grayed-out. Anyway, the fact that many in this thread have come to the conclusion that Al Borges might actually be trying really hard to win, even if his unit is almost unequivocally failing, is promising. Here's hoping a Michigan win on Saturday lessens these "Jacobean" antics--without erasing from memory the many shortcomings from the season.
That's just the MGoFaithful replicating their fearless leader. This has always be a very snarky blog. Lately, it's made it nearly impossible to "debate" with anyone when they think being snarky is a valid response.
I mean, I've been snarky too. But holy hell I never remember it being THIS awful.
Is my opinion as well.
Denard for that matter last year looked better against Bama got beat up and then started regressing to a jumpy squirrel too.
Al ain't the guy to get us back to QB U.
Far from it. If you've actually read my opinion I do place blame on him, it's just not mostly on the play calls, it's on game plans and his timing from when the stray and when to stay with them. I just actually believe that things are, you know, complex, like football tends to be. It's not all Borges, it's not black and white, there are a large amount of things that are going into this. So when I said above that DG was capable of being a QB in any system, and then listed other circumstances that have unfolded around him, to varying degrees those are very much contributing factors. If you watch football as much as you say you do then you'll have seen that in other QBs. It happened to Maxwell at MSU. It happened to Harrington for the Lions. It happens all over the place when you have a terrible OL.
DG played well against ND, but that was far from his best day mechanically. He almost always failed to transfer weight to his front foot when rushed. He slung the ball with pure arm strength numerous times, often with poor arm action. He consistently attempted to escape out the back and only out the back despite the pressure coming from the edges (because ND was more terrified he would break contain rather than taking advantage of the weak interior, something that teams later learned from MSU and then copied within the confines of their own scheme). So he played great despite poor mechanics, but starting from the 4th quarter of that game after his pick 6, he clearly lost confidence and needed to be built back up. He was built back up coming into the MSU game, where they proceeded to hit him a million times as Borges tried to take advatage of that defense the best way possible. But in the meantime, DG has improved his pocket mobility and he's improved his throwing mechanics. Is he a perfect QB? No, not even close, he has extreme flaws. But sometimes you can only change the mental aspect of a 21 year old so much as far as confidence and looking away from the pass rush. Borges is working within those limitations, and the limitation that QBs that come in raw to a college atmosphere tend to revert to raw mechanics when they lose confidence, not only in themselves but in their OL. Maybe Borges could do more, but complete sweeping those things under the rug does not make you more correct.
You may put DG in more 4 or 5 wide sets, but those sets require lots of hot reads. They become difficult to run when defenses do not respect getting beat over the top because they know their pressure can get home up the middle. It also becomes more difficult when your QB has trouble seeing underneath coverage as he focuses on the pass rush because his interior OL sucks. So you have WRs, like Funchess who just demonstrated during the Iowa game that they struggle at making those types of reads (probably because they are busy learning other things). And you advocate Norfleet in that position, a position he's played starting in fall camp, to be able to adequately pick up all the correct hot reads, when he's having trouble reading kick off coverage properly right now.
So yeah, that's fine, maybe those things would work. Maybe it would relieve some pressure, I'm not saying it wouldn't. But not realizing that there are actual, severe underlying issues with running an offense that this team hasn't been repping with young guys that are are trying to pick up the fundamentals against a defense that is in press coverage because they know protection can't hold up isn't necessarily the safer bet. Maybe it works better, or maybe it's actually worse. Maybe the guy that should know more about this than any of us, you know, knows more about this than any of us.
The fact that you are complaining about protection schemes that force a RB to pick up a DE or a LB makes me think that outside of running a RB in routes (that require players to make lots of hot reads), that you don't know how protection schemes work. Who else is the RB going to pick up in pass pro?
I've never said Borges is a sure bet. I've never said he's even a great OC. What I'd like to see is him have a chance to actually develop his system without severe limitations that are being presented to him. It's a very complex issue, as I've stated, and it isn't just an OC running his head into a wall.
And that's the thing, I'm not all knowing, I'm trying to provide a point of view that actually presents how complicated this situation is. It's not all Borges. In fact, it could go as far as being very little about Borges's ability to call plays.
I'm not going to try to lambast your knowledge of passing systems or say something along the lines of not knowing as much as I thought you did. I have no idea how much you know. But "unless Morris is Steve Young we won't win a MNC with this guy"... I wonder how Campbell feels about that. My personal belief is that he is not the main reason for the offensive issues, I stick by that. If he's gone I won't be grief-stricken, because I believe Hoke has a better view of the actual problems. If he's kept, I won't be grief-stricken because I believe there is evidence and other mitigating factors presented within this offense that haven't allowed Borges to do things he even normally would to mitigate weaknesses.
And it's funny, that after writing posts about how I come off knowing I'm right and anyone that disagrees is wrong, you write a post acting as if you know the solutions to the problems. I don't know the solutions to the problems, I only have a slight idea from the view point of games and the small amount of insider info I get from inside the practices that I'm lucky enough to be privy to, but my guess is the problems are much more complex than "Al Borges being so stupid even I can see things he can't", which is how you're coming off.
I'm done with this debate, I didn't want to get into this debate, but I appreciate having "another" guy following me around trying to call me out. I have a feeling we've been here before, but perhaps you were under a different name. And I'm sure I'll get lambasted for having a "100,000 word post" defending my view because I decided to actually defend my view with logic and thought rather than beating around the bush for 20 posts and never actually making a point, because that's a common complaint by your ilk (note: your ilk is not necessarily people that think Borges should be fired, no, I have much more respect for their POV; you're ilk is a subset of that group that pops up against the opposing view point whenever they get a chance to troll on).
"It also becomes more difficult when your QB has trouble seeing underneath coverage as he focuses on the pass rush because his interior OL sucks. So you have WRs, like Funchess who just demonstrated during the Iowa game that they struggle at making those types of reads (probably because they are busy learning other things). And you advocate Norfleet in that position, a position he's played starting in fall camp, to be able to adequately pick up all the correct hot reads, when he's having trouble reading kick off coverage properly right now."
Sounds like you're saying our offensive coaches can't do with highly ranked college players what high school coaches do with high school level players on a regular basis.
That is rather damning.
They aren't playing against high school players with high school coaches that have high school schemes run at high school speeds at a level of complexity that a high school team runs, etc, etc. If you're seriously trying to insinuate that this staff has produced a team that can't do what HS teams can do, I don't know where to go with this conversation. Against HS teams, this team could run the most complex scheme that Borges has ever even thought about throwing at them and they'd pull it off without a hitch. They would dominate complex pass pro and run blocking schemes, let alone their slide protections and simpler things.
So no, what I said isn't damning at all at that level, despite my feelings on some of the coaching that has taken place over the course of the year.
"They aren't playing against high school players with high school coaches that have high school schemes run at high school speeds at a level of complexity that a high school team runs"
No they're college players with college coaches that have college schemes run at college speeds at a level of complexity that a college team runs.
...but HS coaches all over seem to be able to install a high school level offense with high school level players... and our OC can't seem to install a college level offense with college level players.
But how many plays are we from 8-3, 9-2, or 10-1?
How many plays are we from dropping games to Akron and UConn? The "what if" game works both ways.
But how many plays are we away from having a few more wins?
(FYI, his response was to someone saying exactly what you just said, so he was responding to someone saying we could easily be 4-7)
Football is a game where just a few plays can mean the difference between a win and a loss. Last year, ND probably should have been a 9-3 or 10-2 team. But instead they were playing in the national title game. This Michigan team is extremely inconsistent, and we currently sit at 7-4. Sure there are two games we could have lost in Akron and UCONN, but all our losses (except MSU) could have gone differently as well.
That's not to say that there aren't problems with this team. But so much of the teeth gnashing is due to only having 7 wins. If we had 8 or 9 or 10, things would be a lot nicer around here.
NW wasn't an easy game to win either.... just throwing it out there, we were 1 FG away from beating PSU (3 times!) but also 3 plays away of losing vs Uconn, Akron and NW (actually 1 second away and lucky didn't get flagged)
With the practice limitations it's hard enough to install one scheme let alone two. We get it, you think Malzahn is the second coming. But it's not going to happen at Michigan. If Hoke gets let go they're going after a Harbaugh-like guy. Especially since the players and recruits have all been chosen for pro-style.
Don't know how this wound up here. It was a reply to "Coach" Parker.
My cake is not losing to shitty Nebraska and Iowa teams, can I have that?
That great spread offense of RR clearly wasn't where we wanted to stay. In 2010, we scored 34 first-half points in our 5 regular season losses before the opposing teams threw in the scrubs for "pity points". This year our team scored 40 first half points in our 4 losses. I'm not saying our offense is better, but the spread couldn't do shit against quality opponents.
teams. Most systems lose under than scenario. You might as well say "pro style can't do shit" against quality opponents.
This is the funny part. RR had primarily frosh and sophs in year 2&3. Yet they were productive. Compare the borges Os against RRs Os. It was RRs D that did him in. It will be hokes O that does him in if he doesn't make the necessary coaching changes.
Actually, only 33 points (one defensive td vs Iowa). They came on 3 TD drives, two of which were set up by turnovers on short fields and 4 FGs.
Over that span Michigan had 30 drives on offense. They accrued 434 yards of offense or roughly 14 yards per drive. They punted 16 times, committed 4 turnovers, 4 field goals and 3 touchdowns. The half ended mercifully three times. They averaged 1.1 points per possession against the #4, 13, 43 and 65th ranked scoring defenses.
Now to correct this fallacy that the spread was worse versus tough opponents in 2010 than our historically bad 2013 offense:
Over those five 2010 losses Michigan only had 28 offensive first half possessions. They scored 4 touchdowns (all of which were drives of 60+ yards) and kicked two field goals. They also missed 3 field goals, turned the ball over 7 times, punted 10 times and ran out the half twice.
Over those 28 drives they gained 994 yards of offense or roughly 35.5 yards per drive. They scored 1.2 points per possession although if they had had a competant place kicker like Brendan Gibbons back then (/sarcasm) it would have been 1.5 ppp. This was against the #5, 7, 25, 39, and 49th ranked scoring defenses.
TLDR Stat Conclusion:
In the first half of its losses the 2010 offense played against slightly better defenses but moved the ball more than twice as effectively and scored more total points despite having 18% fewer possessions.
Thanks for taking the time, I feel the same way, we were inept to punch the ball in and didn't take care of the ball too well, but that offense moved the chains, we have a better kicker now ( actually the same but you know what I mean) and take more care of the ball, although I do wonder if having Gardner so worried about losing the ball has taken away his ability to create more, at the start of the season he threw more interceptions but he also scored more points....
Down by 4 with two min to go. Which O do you want? 2010 or 2013? I don't think the answer is close.
2010, but its close. It depends on other factors, like timeouts.
If you have 3 timeouts, 2010. With no timeouts, I take this offense. Our 2010 offense wasn't a strong passing team, and without the play action (2:00 drill), I don't know how often they could push the ball down the field. Three timeouts lets you try a few Denard runs.
And if we're down by 3, I'll take this team. We can kick. And we can run a hell of a hurry field goal.
That said, I would love to choose door #3.
Because of the dilusional thought that 'this is Michigan' and the way coach Bo did it is the 'right' way to bring us back to the glory days. That's why D.B. brought Coach Hoke in here, to take us back to what worked in the past. It's irony on some level that our biggest rival employs the spread.
Yeah, they were quick to dump Woody-ball in the river. Could it be that they are actually more evolved that us?
...yes. As for other things...well, it's a pretty short, undistinguished list, consisting mainly of bodily excretions and all-meat + alcohol diets.
I always wondered why he told his Oline to get pushed four yards back into the pocket on pass plays.Dumb.
People don't give Al Borges enough credit.
Yeah, we know his play calling is pathetic. But there's more. Al Borges is destroying the mental toughness and competitive spirit of these young football players. Al has no swagger; they have no swagger. Al is conflicted about his strategy; they get confused. Al lacks confidence; they hesitate. Al is not a tough man; they lose toughness.
Watching the MGOBLUE clips, you sense these kids bring a good attitude. You want to see them do well. They deserve a coach who gives them the opportunity to enjoy this once in a lifetime opportunity and do the best they are able. Al is not living up to his responsibility.
We hear about how players must compete to be on the field. While this football fiasco is a downer for alumni and football fans, it's worse for these kids who work so hard, risk injury and play their hearts out. Al Borges is not doing his job at a competitive level. There is no reason for him to be anywhere near that field of honor.
In fact, he is doing a rather poor job. But your potshots at the man are out of bounds.
This offense is the worst in Michigan history. Worse than 2008 as they have a QB this year and still are terrible. So, basically, there is no hyperbole at this time, sorry,
Statistically, the Tiger's offensive ranks declined each year under Borges and currently ranks 101st in the nation in total offense leading into the bowl game with Clemson. After talking with head coach Tommy Tuberville, the two agreed that Borges' resignation was the best course of action for a floundering Auburn offense.
"After speaking with coach Tuberville for the better part of 20 minutes, it became increasingly clear that Auburn needed a new offensive coordinator," Borges said in a statement Tuesday.
See the same downward pattern going on here. Hopefully Hoke and Al have a similar talk after this weekend....
You gathered all of that from watching MGOBLUE Clips, did ya?
Do you you know some players or at least someone who does? If so, and this is what you have been told by them, then go ahead and say so. If not, then this is just somethng you pulled out of the air.
There is just no way that we, as fans, can ever know if Borges is "destroying the mental toughness and competitive spirit of these young football players" from watching games and reading a press transcript. Nor can we conclude that they would execute better if Al had more swagger. (To that point, please see any team coached by Lane Kiffin for an example of a guy who has tons of swagger but is not a good coach.)
More than that, based on what I have seem on the field, those kids are playing hard.
Al called a good game. OL blocked well. We had over 200 yrd of rushing. The offense looked good. What gives? Has Al forgotten how to game plan? Have other coaches figured out his schemes? Is it the personnel? OSU's defense was not great that year, but far far better than Iowa, NW, Akron, Uconn, etc. What happened?
Denard can save shit play calling. He was a complete diversion for Fitz, who can't run as a feature back
that first year, why fix what isn't broke. Also, they didn't want to alienate the fan base. It was the second year they decided to do that and it was galling; the ND game where Denard threw 5 interceptions in a row downfield, the coaching staff knowing that wasn't the type of quarterback he was, the Nebraska game where in hindsight it was OBVIOUS the QB who would have gave us a better chance at winning that game did not play, instead going with the guy who had a better grasp of the MANBALL system, and of course the OSU game where this conversion to MANBALL cost us the game, in my opinion. It was that game which really got the doubt rolling against Coach Borgess; instead of playing to win the greatest rivalry game in all of sport, he played to win using 'MANBALL' technique and it was nigh unforgivable.
David Molk and Mark Huyge graduated?
and lets not forget van Bergen, Martin and Kovacs ....
I've played for good coaches and bad coaches. Do you have any idea how important a coach's influence is on a young person? Brady Hoke said he's not concerned about fans, but the kids who play football. Trusting that he means what he says, he will see the players are given a better opportunity to achieve their best.
There's no requirement to be soft spoken when you speak up for other people.
Al came off as a human here, with emotions and all. He looked resigned to being a lame duck. Presented as a somewhat more sympathetic figure than previously. And yet there still isn't real accountability. Most of his comments were about lack of execution, not enough on his role in it. No mention of calling plays that maximize expectation of failure given the performance and execution problems. He seems like a good and decent guy, but still doesn't seem to have any answers. He solution was simply "we just have to get back at it and try harder." Sorry, he's making too much money to not have better adjustments than that. I wish him well, sincerely, but he should not be at Michigan next year. Let him have a quiet, low key exit and a future somewhere else.
This is a good post to say this.
First off, I am all for getting rid of Borges at the end of the season the sooner the better. In fact the group I went with to Iowa found me quite amusing for my rants against "execution" and "the man in the press box."
All that said I do think all the coaches including Al Borges are good, decent human beings and don't need to be subjected to kindergarten "lol fatties ha ha derp" statements. This is probably because I can stand to lose a few (ok a lot) pounds myself. Now, that said just think personal attacks on anybody are uncalled for. Performance sure. Attacking character not so much. I definitely understand the frustration through as I am equally if not more so frustrated.
personal attacks are not worthy, especially for a higher level blog like this. Performance is more than enough.
We're tryin' real hard, Ringo.
Tell the board to be cool, and that it's gonna be ok...
Cordone off his parking space.
Take his name off the door.
Have an Aloha Al party!
Squint real hard and tell him, "Get out of town while the gittin's good.:
Put a horse's head in his bed (A stuffed animal, of course.)
Bring in Donal Trump to say: "You're fired."
On second thought, don't bring in Donald Trump.
Don't say anything. Hire a different offensive coordinator and just, like, avoid Al completely.
Run him out of town on a rail, whatever that means.
Blast Metallica into his office, like they did to Noriega, until he runs away screaming.
Ask him in a nice way: "Oh pretty please with sugar on it Al, get the heck out of here."
Send him a singing telegram, that just goes, "Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye."
Have a pretty French girl tell him, "Au Revoir Monsieur Borges."
Have a pissed off Japanese girl tell him, "Sayonaro Al."
Have Dave Brandon tell him, "You're screwing up my plans to be governor, knucklehead."
Most brutal of all, lock him out of the cafeteria.
You see, no problem.
That was hilarious. Tears.
The offense has progressivly gotten worse as the season went on. Oh my, what is this weekend going to bring?
He does seem to know something we don't. Dead man walking.
I don't think so. I don't think Brady Hoke would tell him he is a dead man walking before the biggest game of the year. Or before any game at all. We need good Al Borges, and its hard to get that from a lame duck.
He might be gone, and he might have intuited this, bit I don't think he "knows" anything.
For taking more blame than ever, I heard alot about "individual breakdowns". In fact, in the first answer he used the phrase at least three times.
And of course this was referenced before, but at the end he says: "We play poorly at times, I'm the first one to tell you that. But when this team wants to show up and go, I think we can play with anybody."
It seems pretty obvious to me that he lays the blame for this teams performance on the players, and if I were to guess, he would probably consider the necessary changes going into the bowl and next season amounts to "finding better players".
to be the truth after a careful watching of the last game. If he's to be relentlessly criticized then let it be for his inability to infuse experience into a woefully inexperienced unit. Play calling is the least of their most recent problems.
Borges is saying that his offense can play with anyone, that they are capable of being great. You look at it as throwing players under the bus...I guarantee you Borges meant it as an offer of hope that his guys are more than capable of getting the job done.
I guess you can read it that way, but intent is important here. And I very highly doubt Borges is trying to put down his guys.
"...becuase anybody can win this game. That's been proven, and we're not a bad team. We have played poorly at times, but I'm the first one to tell you that. But when this team wants to show up and go, I think we can play with anybody. But...and...we're playing at home in front of our crowd, our kids are fired up to play this game, and um...we do what we're capable of doing, we can win this game. And um...and I don't think we have to talk ourselves into it. I don't think we need any of that, we just need to go do what we're capable of doing."
Now, while I disagree with him making these statements to the press, I don't disagree with him, and I feel bad for the guy. The fact of the matter is, there's a boat load of MAs, and even if they're young players, this shouldn't be happening to the extent that it is this far into the season. When players are missing this many assignments, and the scheme has been simplified for them over and over, they're doing it b/c:
Whichever it is, someone better (in the words of Bo), "coach attitude every day of the week with every player he's got." Changing a guy's attitude is something that takes time, or may never happen. Certainly, it usually happens in the offseason, not during. To me, this is encouraging, because it's Hoke's greatest strength.
#4 - bad coaching.
What simplification there has been has been completely undermined by several coaching moves:
1) Constant shuffling of personnel
2) Shuffling and introduction of new formations
3) The nature of the offense seems to have caused the simplification to cause formation to be huge tip offs for the defense.
#3 is more speculation, but the first two are spot on. He goes in the press conference complaining about the guys not playing "in-sync". Well, coach, you've had three LG, two centers, and three RGs. You have bounced around the star and leader of your OLine to TE and H-Back. Wonder why the kids aren't playing in-sync, even this late in the season.
It is of note that the defense can't just seem to let things be either, so it goes above the offensive coordinator. Hoke may be a bit panicky at this point.
Looks like it was taken down...
Not to be that guy who refuses to take a side (the Swiss of MGoBlog if you will), but I find myself in the middle of the great Brian vs Space Coyote or the Anti vs Pro Borges groups. Is the offensive line a tire fire of missed blocks, lack of experience, lack of basic comprehension of high school blocking schemes? Yes, yes it is. Is our QB's confidence to the point where I'm seriously concerned he may begin to bawl uncontrollably after his 7th INT against OSU? Yes. Did we continue running the same damn plays over and over even though it was proven we couldn't run those plays? Yes. Are we seemingly incapable of adapting to a new wrinkle thrown at us by a defense? Yes.
In summation, we have a beaten-down QB, an inexperienced and untalented offensive line with an offensive coordinator who was unable to adjust to overcome those problems and now appears to be throwing whatever he can at the wall and hoping it sticks.
These guys have been to enough rodeos to know this is the end of the line. Saturday will be their last game as Michigan's official coaching staff. They'll be allowed to coach the bowl game as lame ducks.
It's in their faces.
You can look into Al's face and tell the future! Can you tell me if the dog I had as a kid is in heaven? I really miss him.
What's with the haircut? It looks like he shaved the sides of his head where the earmuffs go, but nowhere else. Not poking fun, just never noticed this before.
and put Nair on his headset
They always make you shave there before you're taken to the chair.
Borges was the OC of a team that had a QB throw for over 3,500 yds, a RB who had 1,500 yds and not one but two WR's who had 1,000 yds receiving. These were guys recruited by Chuck Long, except for the RB, who was a redshirt freshman.
That's why I just don't get it, that QB, Ryan Lindell, was able to read defenses well, maybe that is one of the huge problems. In 1998, Borges was the OC at UCLA and helped improve Cade Mcnown into being an awesome QB that year and he sucked in the NFL with NFL coaching.
In 2004 at Auburn, Borges was the OC for a team that went undefeated, had a quality QB who has done pretty decent in the NFl and not one, but two RB's who had 1,000+ yds rushing and both were 1st rd. picks.
The reason I mention these things that many people on here are already aware of, is he showed he was able to coach talented guys and coached them well, why are we not succeeding now with him? This is a mystifying question for me, is it the players? The QB? What?
Because he needs ready-made players. Not works in progress.
I think there is a lot of truth to this.
Borges is an intellectual coach with complex schemes and play designs. He likes to mix in lots of different looks.
I think his stuff overwhelms young inexperienced players, especially when they make up most of an entire unit. He'd actually be a better NFL OC than a CFB OC in my opinion.
The offense he ran at SDSU looked nothing like what is being run at Michigan. Every game I watched of SDSU it looked more like a passing spread than anything resembling a pro style offense.
At Auburn he ran a pro style offense and had one good year with two NFL running back, then eventually was run out of town.
I have no idea about UCLA.
At those stops:
1) That 2010 SDSU team had 6 future NFL guys that I can think of starting on offense. In the MVC.
2) That Auburn team was Borges' first year there and had overwhelming talent. The offense declined sharply afterwards, ultimately resulting in Borges getting resigned.
3) That UCLA team put up great offensive numbers in Borges first few years, that Borges couldn't replicate in 99 and 00 with Cory Paus at QB. One big consideration here is that UCLAs head coach, Bob Toledo, was promoted from offensive coordinator in 1997, and had been a OC for a decade prior. How much of 97-98's success was orchestrated by Toledo and how much was orchestrated by Borges is an open question.
I think you answered your own question: he needs an NFL caliber QB to run his offense. I like Gardner but he isn't there (yet?).
We all need to remember that even though Gardner is a true senior, he has only played QB for like 15 games. He was a turnover machine his first 10 games and has since corrected that issue (in part), but now the problem is very poor / tentative decision making. Clearly the game hasn't slows down for him yet. I am hopeful he will show great progress soon.
"he needs an NFL caliber QB to run his offense."
I don't understand this logic. The two quarterbacks who were studs under him both failed miserably in the NFL. McNown was terrible, and so far Ryan Lindley has thrown 0 touchdowns and 7 interceptions in his short career. Meanwhile, Jason Campbell has been a journeyman who hasn't done much of anything. If they're so supremely talented, then why hasn't one of them turned into a decent NFL starter?
I get it - the offense is bad, we're losing games, blah blah blah. But we can find positives and negatives about any coach. Nick Saban hasn't produced a good NFL quarterback. Does that mean he and his offensive coordinators over the years have been bad? Or since a few of them have become crappy backups, does that mean Saban has only had success because of his NFL-caliber quarterbacks?
There are way too many illogical conclusions being tossed around here. I guess this is what people do. They get angry and just lash out at anything that isn't perfect, regardless of whether their actual criticism makes sense or not. Borges has his flaws, sure. But let's not pretend that the overwhelming physical gifts of Cade McNown were the only impetus for UCLA's offensive success.
You could even say the fact that he put those guys in the NFL was because he actually coached them up to their maximum ability and that the fact that they made the NFL then hardly progressed is in fact a positive of his QB coaching abilities.
I agree with your conclusion. There are things to be upset as Borges about. There is plenty to be upset with as far as this offense. But the people jumping to illogical conclusions has gotten to the point where it was just a few, to it becoming the majority, and often times based on things like a sentence said in a presser. It makes no sense.
Agree to the extent the competence doesn't necessarily just lie with the QB in order to run Al's system. But how can you deny that when a coach draws to the NFL for his schemes as Al does, he might be prone to projecting the competence required to effectively operate complex NFL schemes, in light of the disparity between all-world NFL athletes who have been coached for years, vs freshman/sophomore middling college kids.
No matter what anyone says about Al's schemes, given the flexibility he showed his first two years to leverage Denard, this year will go down as the year Al Borges made the colossal mistake of thinking he had the parts at QB, RB and O line, TE to finally begin UM's transition to a pro-style, "you know what we're going to do so we'll do it anways because we're manball" scheme, and will have cost him his job.
With Devin's legs, Trouissant's poor blocking but excellent shiftiness in space, and a young interior O line, he should have stuck with spread schemes that put his QBs and RBs in space, and alleviated the need for all 11 players to execute in order to get positive yards.
We didn't have the parts to run what he wanted, but he ignored or didnt' realize that, and along with poor RPS play calling, and poor coaching, this all will cost him his job.
compare SDSU and playing in the B1G? That's rediculous. Focus on the present not the past ... Borges is outmatched playing "big boy" football.
That makes sense. So what's your excuse for his success at Auburn?
...even a blind squirrel finds a nut on occassion.
...and was he really "successful" at Auburn? In my mind one good year doesn't equal success.
...but there's no excuse for not being able to spell ridiculous.
At which point, the spelling is understandable, but you've have to be about 3-4 years past when that saying has come and gone.
The part where the game has passed Al by.
The game hasn't passed Al by. It's football. It's the same damn game it always has been. There's a football, you have 11 guys, and you have to move the ball down the field. Teams successfully run all kinds of systems (passing spreads, running spreads, I-formations, triple options, etc.). Just because he's not having success this year doesn't mean "The game passed him by."
If you're in the party that thinks UCLA and Auburn had success despite him, then how do you explain the fact that he was at UCLA 15 years ago? Had the game also passed him by back then? Or are you just talking out of your hindquarters?
I have been his most ardent defender around here, and the more research I have done into his prior stops, the less convinced I am becoming of my own opinion. I think that he is poor at teaching fundamentals. So, when he takes over a squad with already coached up talent, his x and o proficiency allows him to have a great offense. When that talent leaves and he hS to coach up new talent, he declines sharply. Given where our program currently is - all youth In need of development - I really don't think that he is the guy. That said, I still think that the decision as to whether to replace him is not an easy one, as any change at the coordinator spot will bring with t numerous risks, a new transition as the new oc integrates with the players and coaches and a risk of losing recruits. So, if you can get the OC that is kicking ass in the manball mode at Stanford, I could see doing it. If you ate taking a flyer on making a change for the sake of making a change, perhaps roll with Borges for another year and hope that consistency, experience and age alone lead to some improvement.
the grass isn't always greener ...
Somebody has to take the fall for the offense this year. That's just the way the world works these days. It's not going to be Hoke. It might be Borges. It might be Funk. It might be Jackson. It might be some combination of the three.
But I'm pretty confident in saying that the offensive coaching staff will not be the same in 2014.
Does Borgess teach the fundamentals or is that the job of the position coach?
(This is an honest to God question because I have no clue and it seems relevant to your point.)
that is worried about his job. He recognizes a familiar pattern. He knows someone will take the fall and he did take the rap at times during the press conference. It would also appear that he doesn't know exactly what to fix or change. Lots of squirrely body language when talking about what's required to fix the offense. I wonder if he will fall on the sword to save his friend Brady's job.
It's time to clean house and find a coach with a winning record much like Jim Tresell. In my opinion winning in the past is a indicator of future success.
Welcome to the board! I, for one, have long been waiting for a poster to come along with such brilliant insight and who adds so much to the discussion. Party on Wayne!
This is the best Borges presser yet. Fascinating as a human interest piece.
The comments fellate, though.
I just don't even know anymore. I usually subscribe to the theory that making a change just to make a change is a bad idea. Things can ALWAYS be worse. But holy pants things have been bad. 5 years ago Gus Malzhan was a high school football coach. I would love for Michigan to find a great young OC instead of always being stuck in the past.
How is Michigan being "stuck in the past?" Because they've chosen not to run a spread offense?
Personally, I think all teams going forward are going to be multiple teams with both MANBALL and spread elements. But, IMO, you build a scheme from the MANBALL side first, then introduce spread elements, not the other way around.