Football Display Case
good luck gents
You may be getting ahead of yourself, MLive dude. Drake Harris had 8 catches for 243 yards against Watts-Jackson's OLSM last fall.
i find this extremely interesting
i may have altered the title
i thought this was america
like I said on twitter: that was almost as intense as Iowa NIT games
...talks about how UConn hasn't been in contact and how they're out. (HT: UMHoops)
Jalen, Burke, and Simmons.
Mike Hart the heavy favorite in the trolling competition
just what the Pistons need: a third string center. Joe Dumars was replaced by a mean ol' alien a few years back you guys.
this would be a close approximation of hypothetical graduation speech
no you guys they're just super pumped about COLLLLLLLLLLLLEGE
not a surprise
Good job with offensive play calling. Everyone gave maximum effort. Thank you, seniors.
HOKEAMANIA RUNNIN' WILD
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.
"It does not matter how many times you get knocked down, but how many times you get up." Vince Lombardi
He clearly had developed the kind of game plan we had hoped he would. Fantastic game. Brutal finish.
O-H-I-O: Because the "YMCA" wasn't gay enough.
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.
Twitter - Recruiting Update: June 17
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.
Yep, that's Simba made out of a pineapple.
The worst of the worst play calling, was the last 2 point conversion, debate that one.
cheat, cheat, and cheat some more, and when you get caught, do the right thing, lie!
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?
Jake Ryan will be All B1G this year.
I do it for my love of the Streets
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.
Hail to the Victors!
Compare Mississippi State to this game. And South Carolina is a lot better team.
"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk
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?
Our team lost, Bando is pissed. Leave it alone, as you know nothing about football.
In almost every comment you make you're calling someone an idiot or an asshole. I think it's time for the ban hammer.
And you have a lovely day ma'am.
Is calling me a woman supposed to be an insult? I like women. They're pretty great.
and the insults. No need for that.
"We bring you to Michigan to take care of Michigan; your job is to protect that block M."
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!
A Journey of Father and Son
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.
One man...Goodbye....Hello Heisman
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.
"Do not disturb my circles."
You know Gardner played receiver like half of the year, right?
Strive to win. If you lose....win.
Just give up, these Borgess apologists will never learn. They're happy with 8-5 and that's the final word. Hoke's undoing will be Borgess, unless he cuts him loose.
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.
If the haters don't hate you then you're doing something wrong. - David Cone
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.