Good job with offensive play calling. Everyone gave maximum effort. Thank you, seniors.
LIST OF WWE PERSONNEL?!?
This will not end well.
This is, without any doubt, the douchiest response to a thread that has ever existed. So tired. Stop.
I HATE "this will not end well." Thank you very mucy.
He clearly had developed the kind of game plan we had hoped he would. Fantastic game. Brutal finish.
By fine game, you mean safe, predictable, and ineffectual, right?
Denard in the gun, guess what? We're running the ball!
That game was predictable? Damn, I thought I saw some new screens, a Statue of Liberty play, and Denard running from the I-formation (which he hasn't done before). I guess I was wrong.
Gardner missed a lot of wide open receivers and held onto the ball too long. That doesn't mean Borges called a bad game. We just don't have a lot of talent. That's not on him.
If there was one thing our offense was not, it was predictable.
Agreed. Only thing I would have liked to see is Denard throwing the ball. I used to love those sucker plays where Denard would get the snap in the shotgun and run up as if to run the zone and shoot a pass right past oncoming defenders to a usually wide open receiver....Alas, we could have won this one!
He threw it once. It was incomplete. Brian was correct.
Except every play with Denard at quarterback.
We simply don't have the talent to execute even the most simple of plays. However, any direct snap to Denard was very predictable and ended up with a minimal gain, at best. The play call on the second two point conversion was inexcusable in my opinion.
The worst of the worst play calling, was the last 2 point conversion, debate that one.
I've never seen a single football game where I agreed with every offensive play call....
I thought he called an amazing game, and I thought he introduced a lot of great new plays and I was so happy to see a coaching staff that was in it to win it, rather than just not lose. However, do you really agree with ever putting someone in at QB who can't throw the ball?
While I don't think Borges called a horrible game, his play calls with Denard at QB were predictable and running from under center lessons haven't been learned. Also I find it funny how we don't have the talent on offense now even though with a different offensive framework we were putting up great numbers. I'm sorry, but the "we don't have the talent" excuse is bullshit. We might be alright in the long run but Borges and Hoke have failed miserably this year in adjusting the offense to their talent and they did at times last year as well.
Compare Mississippi State to this game. And South Carolina is a lot better team.
So tell me Bando, with your vast knowledge of the Michigan offensive playbook and which plays the team practiced leading up to the bowl game, what would you have called differently?
A great way to win an argument is to ask questions no one can answer.
A great way to lose an argument is to offer vague criticisms without any specific evidence.
You're doing a top-notch job.
Still no plays? Not a one?
Lets start with the two point conversion. Does that work for you?
It's a start.
So what play would you have called in its place?
To start, I put Gardner back there and not telegraph we're running the football. Anyone who has watched Michigan since Denard got hurt knows what to defend against.
OK, so we know which QB you'd have in the game. Now, what play would you call?
What's your point?
You really haven't figured it out by now?
In almost every comment you make you're calling someone an idiot or an asshole. I think it's time for the ban hammer.
I get the sense that you watched this game with some preconceived ideas about Borges as a playcaller, looking for negatives. I don't think every playcall was great, but overall we scored 28 points against a team giving up 17.4 on the season, and we did that with Gardner at QB and Toussaint out of the game. And we could have scored more - Gardner was off on a lot of makeable passes. I think overall, Borges did a solid job and was done in by inconsistent execution and uncharacteristically bad defense.
I watched this game with preconceived notions of Borges as a play caller. After the painful debacle at Ohio, I was convinced we'd lose bc he'd run the same predictable Denard qb run/Devin qb pass packages. I was wrong. He called a phenomenal, extremely creative game, and I am really excited about the future. Disappointing to lose, but his play calling and the offensive play overall was enough to mitigate the loss. Borges has earned my two bit respect!
Wanted Denard to do something he's done once in three games. That was a great game and plan and it shouldn't be hard to see that.
Lets also address the fact that in two years, Borges never found a way to effectively use Denard and Gardner at the same time.
He did in this game.
He did? Pray tell.
Denard looked mighty good with Devin handing him the ball from the running back spot.
What do you want to see? Denard and Devin lined in a sort of split QB formation, throwing the ball back and forth to each other? How many times have you seen that sort of offense work? Because we tried it last year and it went quite horribly.
Denard had 107 yards on the day, rushing and recieving from Gardner, who himself passed for 214 and three TD's. I suppose you're not happy unless your QB and RB combine for a 300-200 day?
"I suppose you're not happy unless your QB and RB combine for a 300-200 day?"
I don't know a single Michigan fan, personally, that is 'happy' after the bowl game. But to address your comments, I'm always going to prefer that all players are used to their maximum potential. If you're happy with the offensive output, and feel that's their cap, I respect your opinion.
I think we've had better offensive numbers in the past and haven't been overwhelmed by our coaching staff in general this year.
I thought the team played extremely hard, and was proud of the players.
You know Gardner played receiver like half of the year, right?
LOL, "Borges apologists."
I'm no Borges apologist, nor do I think that 8-5 makes for a very satisfying season. But I also think that the offense outperformed expectations today, and Borges deserves a lot of credit for that. I don't know how you could watch today's game and not see a lot of productive creativity in what he drew up.
Seriously. We scored 28 points on one of the top defenses in the country, and were one bad throw away from winning. I hated the playcalling against OSU, but that was not the issue today. We had a good gameplan, we just didn't get quite enough execution to win. Hell, if our defense gets one sack on that last drive, we'd all be psyched because we'd have won.
I think it was fine in the sense that we didn't have a true TB yet still rushed for over 120 yards. Denard got more touches and the passing was better than against OSU only DG had some bad passes and made some bad decisions. It sucks that we lost but it was the deep middle coverage that cost us the game.
I was thinking of how that team would have fared with a true game breaking level tailback.
Denard that threw a 5 yard pass into the dirt today?? Can't imagine why we didn't run that play more often.
Actually, in the first half we had 21 rushing plays, and 23 passing. With the last two plays of the half being passing plays. Meaning we were at a 21-21 split. I woudn't say that would be predictable... I didn't break it down as to first-third down. but a total split at 50-50 is pretty darn impressive.
I have been as critical of Borges as anyone on this blog (maybe not outwardly because I try not to bag on our team too much) but I actually came away pretty impressed with the way the game was called. I thought he could have maybe got Denard in a little more and involved in a couple of more ways, but I really thought he did a fine job.
I am going to be honest here and likely feel the wrath of the board because of it. There was a part of me that prior to the game would have traded a loss in the outback bowl for Borges being let go so we could get a bright new offensive mind. I look back at that notion now and realise how stupid it is and can admit I made a mistake. We lost, but honestly, for the first time in a long time I felt like that loss could easily be placed at the feet of the defense, because our offense played pretty damn good.
Al, I know you don't read this blog but I apologize for my doubting you and admit many of my opinions of your abilities were proved wrong during this game. Please keep up the good work.
No, he didn't call a great game. In fact, he called a pretty mediocre one, which, combined with Gardner's horrible play and Mattison's overaggresiveness, cost Michigan the game.
no michigan lost because south carolina was the better team