Borges Ball
"To a degree … we're blowing a lot of it up ..."
In today's DetNews, the new coaches discuss their vision for the offense:
http://detnews.com/article/20110204/SPORTS0201/102040373/U-M-coaches-on…
Reading between the lines (which I'd invite everyone to do), I think Vincent Smith may have a reason to be nervous:
"It's a different style of run game," Jackson said. "You have to have a back who can go down hill and do it successfully quite a bit. We have a couple guys built for this and a couple guys we'll have to wait and see."
Speaking as a fan of the spread 'n shred, I'm intrigued by what Borges and company might be able to do with the returning players. His remarks about Denard make sense to me. (Aside: I wish they'd go easy on the whole "toughness" / "physical" theme. I'm tired of it already. Do they think the O-line played soft last year? Does anyone else think that?)
February 4th, 2011 at 2:03 PM ^
spiel on the recruiting trail and with the team (as seen in Hoke's first public talk with them.) I don't think Hoke's staff are Madison street type coaches (though Funk is impressive IMO only perhaps.)
The toughness meme ties more into the drive blocking, team tackling changes that many in the old school Michigan family find comforting (as they also find spread and spur off putting.)
I don't see much in the way of sophistication wrt Hoke reaching out to the average fan. I don't think he has the bandwidth for that. Though I take your point that the average fan might appreciate it more. It does seem like billboard material in the making. Especially given how we were handled late in the B1G.
This guy is a football coach first and maybe last. It may be the quality that best suites him and brings him success. HS coaches seem to like it. Welcome back to the Fort (granted in a Facebook era.)
February 4th, 2011 at 12:01 PM ^
I think Vincent has more of a shot than people think, especially if he's 100% healed and has 100% confidence in his knee (I think it was an ACL/MCL tear, etc.). I mean there are 5'7 5'8 backs in the NFL, Vincent at 5'6, okay maybe 5'5, but at 180, is comprable considering his size in a college setting. I wouldn't write him off completely. The coaches want tougness? Don't forget when Vincent threw Mike Martin over his back in spring practice. Like others have said, he's an excellent blocker, doesn't miss assignments, and while small, does have good hands.
February 4th, 2011 at 12:24 PM ^
Vincent started because he doesn't fumble, is rarely out of position, rarely missed a blocking assignment, and runs north/south. He's a tough kid. I might add coming back from ACL to start is no small feat! Vincent will be fine.
February 4th, 2011 at 2:47 PM ^
Nothing against Vincent Smith, but when the running backs coach points out three guys (one a true freshman) who "fit the bill" of what Michigan wants to do offensively -- and they're not at all similar in style to Smith -- I find it somewhat unlikely that Smith will have a significant role in the running game, at least not once those guys are comfortable with the offense.
February 4th, 2011 at 12:08 PM ^
February 4th, 2011 at 1:24 PM ^
I don't mind the talk about toughness. It could almost act like a self-fulfilling prophecy....
February 4th, 2011 at 1:49 PM ^
Thank goodness we got rid of the inflexible coach who insisted on an immediate, radical transformation to his preferred scheme . . . .
February 4th, 2011 at 2:40 PM ^
Does anyone else feel more comfortable with the idea of Denard taking the snap out of the shotgun more often than from under center? I'm not sure how well that works with the offense Borges is planning on running, but I'd think Robinson's abilities would be better served from getting the better view of the play in front of him the shotgun would afford.
February 4th, 2011 at 3:43 PM ^
I was clinging to the hope that Borges would keep a lot of our previous offense. A lot of Denard's effectiveness came from the scheme, I believe.
What's done is done. I am hoping for great success, but I honestly think we would have had the number one offense in the nation next year. I now expect our offense to take a major step back. Just changing terminology will be difficult. When you add in that they are installing a completely new offense with different formations and everything else, I cannot imagine a scenario where we aren't disappointed with the 2011 offense after seeing the potential during 2010.
If our offense ends up in the top 25 I will be pleasantly surprised. I guess the only thing that really matters is wins and loses, but it was nice having an explosive offense and I was really looking forward to an upper class Denard in the previous system.
February 7th, 2011 at 3:13 PM ^
Do they think the O-line played soft last year? Does anyone else think that?)
I'll go there: we were soft. We absolutely sucked at sustaining blocks, which led to our crappy short-yardage performance.