Borges flexibility gets him less rope?
During the 2008 season, when things were horrible like WHOA on offense, some people asserted that Rodriguez should be running a Carr-style under-center set until he recruited the players he needed to run his Spread & Shred. This was shot down because, as it was put over and over, "He'd have no idea how to run it", and it would make it difficult to recruit for the offense he wanted, "We'll be running the offense you like... in two years." People accepted this and were unhappy whenever the O faltered, which was often, but accepted it as necessary to bring the team into the future. It's not really the offensive stumbles which got everyone upset anyway. It was the worsening defense and uncompetitive losses. When we won, it was good, but when we lost, we REALLY lost.
When Borges was hired, people had hope because he had run spread style offenses before. He might be able to make what he's got work better than Rodriguez did. And you know what, he is. Talent deficit or no, Borges isn't trying to make Stephen Threet run. But it doesn't always work. Sometimes, in spending a while trying to integrate what he wants to do, Borges gets away from doing what the offense is best at. People get upset. "Run out of the shotgun full time! More Zone Read! MOAR BUBBLE SCREENS!"
My question is, is it merely the fact that Borges has done these things before that's earned him less understanding for WHY he is not doing these things? Has his more varied experience shortened his rope? I think it has, and I don't think that's fair.
Borges has a plan for the Michigan offense. A place he wants to get it to. Just because he has experience with the Spread doesn't mean he should be expected to run it while Denard is here. It would make recruiting worse, and it would be unfair to the fans and the players when we suddenly had to go through an offensive transition in year three rather than year one. Give Borges the same rope as you gave Rodriguez on offense in the first couple of years. When he runs plays that don't really seem to fit the offense, don't say "Why not the other play?" Not the other play because that's not where he's taking Michigan, and it would hurt us later if he did.
He has an obligation to install the BEST package for him andthe players he will recruit right away, rather tahn preserve a momentary flash in the pan. At least our losses have been competetive.
November 10th, 2011 at 7:58 AM ^
Denard ran the ball more than last year, but it was with less effectiveness.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:55 AM ^
2010
OOC:
79/688 8.7YPC 6TD
B1G:
166/955 5.75YPC 8TD
2011
OOC:
71/552 7.8YPC 5TD
B1G:
76/328 4.3YPC 5TD
November 10th, 2011 at 10:40 AM ^
averaged more carries per game this year than last year with lesser YPC and does not have as many big runs as last year. Simply put, Denard wasn't near as dynamic of a runner he was last year and it's even worse with Borges calling for more intermediate/deep passes.
November 10th, 2011 at 10:47 AM ^
Completely agree. Just happened to have those stats handy and thought I'd chime in.
November 9th, 2011 at 11:32 PM ^
To be fair - Richrod had the option of convincing Mallet to stay at the program. Had he convinced him to stay - would he have run a pro-style offense with the same proficiency? I doubt it. So to say that RR didn't have talent is probably down to not bringing Mallet on board.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:35 AM ^
That is false, and I'm calling you out on it. Look at the OL in 2008--Mallet wouldn't have been able to walk after a few games behind that line. Or the receivers--all young or not that great to begin with. Minor and Brown were good backs when healthy, which was just about never. Any kind of offense would have been a failure with the 2008 personnel, no matter who was the QB.
November 10th, 2011 at 8:16 AM ^
You haven't read 3 and out.
November 9th, 2011 at 11:38 PM ^
We had one of the best offenses in the country last year. It was the defense that was a disaster.
November 10th, 2011 at 10:26 AM ^
GOOOD TEAMS IT LOST
DENARD WAS BAD AGAINST ALL GOOD TEAM. ILLINOIS NOT GOOD TEAM BUT BEAT PENN STATE, HAD SAME RECORD. CANT BE GOOD TEAM IF LOST TO MICHIGAN.
NOTRE DAME NOT GOOD TEAM, BUT SAME RECORD IOWA, BETTER RECORD PENN STATE. CANT BE GOOD TEAM IF LOST TO MICHIGAN.
DENARD FIGURED OUT.
THIS YEAR PROVE! STATS SAME AS GAME GOOD TEAMS LAST YEAR!
OFFENSE WOULD NOT BE GOOD!
SPREAD NO WORK IN BIG TEN! OR GOOD DEFENSE!
DENARD ONLY FIVE GAME MIRAGE!
BE HAPPY WITH IOWA LOSS!
November 9th, 2011 at 11:52 PM ^
Yes, the fact that Borges has ran the spread before (and effective). He very much has a shorter rope because the players are way more talented, have a better chance at winning with a spread O, and if he has ran it before successfully he should definitely have a shorter rope than RR. RR should have ran pro style but had a small room for excuse since he had zero experience in that type of offense,
November 10th, 2011 at 8:21 AM ^
I think the bigger reason, at least on this site, that Borges is getting less rope is that Borges proponents were successful in convincing everyone that Borgess was flexible and had run a spread. Neither of which were true. Borges is a west coast offense coach. Always has been, always will be. You can run that out of the shotgun, doesn't make it a spread offense. You can run a handful of read-options a game (see every NFL team with a "wildcat" package), doesn't make it a spread offense.
If we had accepted initially that Borges just wasn't going to be able to adjust, we would have at least been prepared for what was coming.
November 10th, 2011 at 8:39 AM ^
November 10th, 2011 at 9:14 AM ^
That's exactly the point! We don't have pro-style talent, yet we're trying to run that type of system. We have exceptional talent for a run-based spread, which doesn't use the same type of players that the NFL is looking for.
Talent isn't solely judged based on NFL potential. Hundreds of dominant college players that barely got a sniff in the NFL is proof of that. We have an explosive running QB threat. We have good receivers who excell at blocking down field. We have a talented O-line perfect for zone schemes. The talent is there, even if its not what the NFL (or Borges) wants.
November 10th, 2011 at 10:41 AM ^
The point is that we're not that far off last year's offense. We're struggling in the big ten. We had most of our points in our many losses when trailing significantly. We had Tate. Borges isn't doing a bad job. Let's let him improve an offense that was improving last year against big ten competition and still needs to improve more.
I just don't like the we were so good, or should be now, attitude and Borges screwed it up. We've had a good offense and we have a good offense now. We're going to have down games, especially in hostile environments, just like we did last year. Borges isn't the enemy.
[Edit: I'll grant you the point about spread players not necessarily being pro material; I agree. It's the Borges hate and his total responsibility for our failings that I disagree with. I do agree we need to run Denard more now, but we've all gotten greedy when a first year coach's 7-2 isn't good enough because we spy a perfect 9-0 around the bend.]
November 10th, 2011 at 10:29 AM ^
the spread; we could run it very well if Coach Borgess chose to, imo. I'm not saying we just be running spread 100% of the time, but it's what the offense does best, so why not highlight it?
November 10th, 2011 at 12:09 AM ^
You know what else helps recruiting? How about WINS? I think we expect that Borges should do whatever it takes to win with the talent that he has, just like we should have expected Rich Rod to do. I'm not sure that running Threet in the spread and losing to Toledo really helped a lot with recruiting.
November 10th, 2011 at 12:29 AM ^
I'm not sure that running Threet in the spread and losing to Toledo really helped a lot with recruiting.Passing with Threet in a pro-style apparently isn't significantly better, as demonstrated at ASU. Do you honestly think that we would get bowl-eligible in 2008 with THAT set of offensive personnel? Denard, Tate, Roh, Ryan, Toussaint, Lewan...the list of Rich Rod recruits goes on, and despite the attrition, there's a solid list of talented contributors.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:03 AM ^
All that I'm saying is that I think that a coach should do everything that they can to win every individual game with the current personnel that they have. It might not have been enough to get bowl eligible, but you have to play to win, all the time. That goes for Borges and it goes for Rodriguez.
November 10th, 2011 at 5:43 AM ^
"Do you honestly think that we would get bowl-eligible in 2008 with THAT set of offensive personnel?" - BlastBeat88
Maybe if they had bowls played sometime between Thanksgiving and about a week before Christmas. That 2008 team on offense might as well have tackled Threet or Sheridan themselves sometimes.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:26 AM ^
If the offense put up a remotely respectable performance against Iowa and MSU, this team would be 9-0. That isn't preserving a flash in the pan, it is preserving an undefeated season and a great shot at the Big Ten title game.
And it isn't about what offense Borges runs. Making Stephen Hopkins the feature back to the exclusion of everyone else against ND (only to see him moved to fullback a few weeks later) was a really bad decision in any offense. Giving Fitz just 2 carries against MSU was a really bad decision in any offense. Running any play from any formation that doesn't force the defense to honor Denard's legs is just dumb. Lining up in a spread formation without forcing the defense to defend the short flat with things like hitch routes and bubble screens makes your QB a sitting duck, even if he is made of dilithium, and forces him to make difficult downfield throws with limited blockers in protecting him.
If Borges were running "his" offense (or Coach Hoke's) and the guys were having trouble working the kinks out things would be a lot more understandable. As it stands, we're shuffling quarterbacks to run a gimmick set at least once per possession, ignoring the running backs one week then lining up in the I and trying to pound the ball a week later only to abandon that when the game starts to get out of hand. This offense doesn't have an identity because it really isn't an offense at this point, just a series of plays.
Do you really think Borges is taking us to a dual QB, jet-sweep centric offense, and that not practicing it in games right now would doom the program down the road? The fact is, Borges and Hoke can't seem to agree on what they want the offense to look like and they certainly don't seem to be able at this point to call plays to reflect their vision. They said they were looking for a back to carry the load. Then it took until week 6 to give Fitz more than 11 carries. They said they wanted to establish a power running game and then refused to give the running backs the ball against ND or MSU. They preach protecting the football and yet Denard has been forced to make difficult, risky throws all season and his interception rate has skyrocketed.
If we were doing what the coaches said they wanted to do and it wasn't working yet, then you might have a point. As it stands, the offensive coaching staff is the main culprit preventing this team from having the kind of (very special) season they are capable of. Hopefully that gets turned around over the next three weeks and they can finish strong after learning a few lessons and coming back to play at home.
November 10th, 2011 at 8:06 AM ^
Amen.
November 10th, 2011 at 8:18 AM ^
#OCCUPYBORGES
November 10th, 2011 at 6:38 AM ^
Borges has never done these things before. Look at each of his stops over the last 25 years. He has NEVER had a QB run the ball, period. That's why people were concerned with the hire in the first place.
November 10th, 2011 at 8:00 AM ^
for example, at Auburn, he had Kodi Burns who is a dual threat QB. He tried to turn him into a pocket passer and failed miserably. What happened with Kodi Burns? He moved to WR.
November 10th, 2011 at 7:50 AM ^
To me Denard just isnt passing as well as he is capable of either. He should have matured more as a passer by now. It seems like he has regressed if anyhting. I get it's a new system for him as well but many of these passes are just poor decisions and poor form.
November 10th, 2011 at 7:58 AM ^
November 10th, 2011 at 10:40 AM ^
Barely running Denard at all to "protect" him is just as bad as him being out for a couple series. Either way, we lose. Running him like mad at least lets us win when he avoids getting hurt.
And recall that against MSU, Denard missed the end of the game not because of a running play, but because he got nailed while sitting in the pocket. QB is a dangerous position, and the nastiest injuries usually come on sacks and late hits.
November 10th, 2011 at 12:00 PM ^
Robinson carried the ball 256 times last season. In 2011 he's carried the ball 147 times. (per Rivals) Is 147 times with three games left "barely"? Granted, he's well off his rushing yardage totals, and it seems to me that he's run less and less as the season has progressed.
Of course it's a dangerous position, and no matter how he might be injured it would be a huge blow to the team. From available evidence, it doesn't look like Gardner's ready to step in.
But again, my point isn't whether Borges is screwing everything up, but the assumptions people make about how this season would have looked with RR still running his offense. Without evidence, i don't see how the argument can be made, especially if the argument assumes no adjustments by opposing defenses, injuries and/or pretending that the loss of last year's second QB has no effect.
November 10th, 2011 at 8:03 AM ^
I don't see what what we are to learn from comparing this offense to the 2008. If we just want to compare coaching effectiveness, why not compare to last year's team. For what it is worth, while our beloved Wolverines put up some pretty impressive statistics last year, our offense struggled against MSU (twice!) and OSU. While we put up some good numbers against Wisconsin, we did not get into offensive gear until after we were well behind. In short, we need to stop talking as if this was a dominant unit last year. They were good. Could Borges improve his play calling. Sure. Am I concerned that he still does not have a great vision for what he wants to achieve offensively? Yes. But I also think that if Denard hits one deep pass and doesn't fumble by literally putting the ball on the ground, we would all be feeling much better about this offense. I am looking forward to 8 plays of more than 20 yards against Illinois and using a blowout Saturday to springboard to a great finish to this season. Have faith. Go Blue!
November 10th, 2011 at 8:34 AM ^
I'm glad this is something new to talk about.
Other threads I'm going to start today.
1. Why does Debord keep running zone left with a fullback shuffle?
2. Why does RR hate defense?
3. Why does RR hate Michigan tradition and try to piss on it all the time?
4. Jim Tressel is a scumbag discuss.
NO OFFENSE WAS GOING TO WORK IN 2008!!!! ENOUGH
The only correct analogy was if Carr stepped down after 2006 and RR was hired and he had Henne, Hart, Manningham and Arrington and he tried to run Henne 10-15 times a game in the spread and we regressed from the 2006 offense.
I am 100% confident that if RR was hired in 07 we would have featured a shotgun that looked similar to the Cap 1 Bowl offense. We would have been in the spread and had zone reads installed but Henne would probably pull out and run it about 5 times a game to keep teams honest. We would have passed most of the time and the rest would have been Hart runs from the gun over Long or draws.
Then you could have judged if RR did the right thing or not depending on if the offense moved forward or sucked.
Comparing the 2008 offensive transition to 2011 transition is not worth talking about.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:47 AM ^
November 10th, 2011 at 11:09 AM ^
Compare the offensive talent we had in 2007 to the talent we have now....
November 10th, 2011 at 11:26 AM ^
that it would be wiser to compare coaching changes with two established offenses (2007 and 2011) rather than one that was returning one offensive starter and an established offense (2008 and 2011). Unfortuantely, it's a comparison we can't make because it didn't happen.
Although....
Given that Hart is no longer in the NFL and didn't really make an impact, Henne is probably done as a starter, Manningham is 3rd receiver in New York and Arrington barely plays in New Orleans, that leaves just Jake Long as a total NFL success...
So over time, who knows, maybe one could make the case that the 2011 offense was more talented than the 2007 offense.
November 10th, 2011 at 8:57 AM ^
November 10th, 2011 at 8:59 AM ^
"Our lack of a dominant back isn't his fault either. Some more play action calls would be really nice to keep defenses on their toes."
Until the non-Denard running game is consistent, play action won't be very effective.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:16 AM ^
November 10th, 2011 at 9:53 AM ^
That's the play he takes a step or two forward and then throws the ball. They're still running it. That play can't really be the only pass play in the playbook, though.
I can't remember a lot of "fake a pass then run" plays.
November 10th, 2011 at 10:03 AM ^
November 10th, 2011 at 10:27 AM ^
When people complain about a lack of bubble screens, they aren't just saying, "Gee, that is a neat play to run some times." It is a play that, in a spread formation with a great runner like Denard, opens up wide open opportunities like the QB OH NOES!!!. The reason that play worked so well last year, and the reason we haven't seen it be nearly as effective this year is because it is a triple option play and we're now running only two of the options. Last year safeties were being forced to crash down to stop Denard from running the ball AND to provide support on the perimeter if/when he threw a WR screen. That is what allowed the slot receiver to park himself all alone in the middle of the field and then stroll in for a TD. Without the threat of a bubble ever being run, the safeties hold their ground on the perimeter and you see Denard having to complete a quick slant to the inside receiver in traffic.
The issue isn't spread vs. pro, the issue is running any offense that doesn't take full advantage of the opportunities presented to it. I'd be totally fine with running Stanford's offense, so long as we allowed Denard a few more opportunities to run with the ball. I'd be fine with running RR's (or Oregon's, or Urbay Meyer's) offense. The problem is that we aren't running any offense. We flop back and forth between a watered down version of the spread, a heavy I form look that we refuse to pound the ball consistently with the running backs out of, and a gimmicky two QB formation.
That being said, there are still clearly opportunities to be had in the passing game that Denard (and Devin) are just missing right now. I think some of the problem is just learning this new passing game and that we'll see a big leap next year. The frustrating part is that this is when we had a really easy shot to make some noise in a weakened Big Ten with tons of returning talent (next year we lose some great linemen in Molk, Martin, and RVB while the schedule gets tougher). A just slightly smoother transition on offense (or a gameplan that just reflected what the coaches have said they want to do) could have us sitting undefeated right now.
November 10th, 2011 at 10:56 AM ^
Perfectly stated.
November 10th, 2011 at 10:58 AM ^
These are all really good points. But there are a number of schools that seem capable of running multiple types of offensive sets without a lot of difficulty. OSU w/ Pryor seemed to be able to move from I-Form to spread/read option with relative ease. LSU seems like they do a lot of the same things (although they accomplish that by rotating QBs, the rest of the team seems comfortable both ways). I'm not much of an Xs and Os guy. What do you think makes the difference there?
One of the things that seems like it is causing the regression for Denard (and this has been brought up on the blog a number of times, I think) is that the pass plays and route structures are more complex this year. It seemed like the RR passing game didn't have much to it, largely because it was needed mainly to keep people from loading the box against the run to maintain the numbers advantage for the zone read/QB run.
Denard looks tentative to me, like he's not sure what to do with the ball. My memory may be failing me here, but I felt like a lot of his picks last year were just bad throws, and this year they seem to be bad decisions.
November 10th, 2011 at 11:51 AM ^
Last year against MSU and Iowa Denard was a combined 30-47 on his completions or 63.8%.
This year, against the same two teams, he's 26-61 for 42.6%.
When you look at the picks he threw last year, at least the two in the end zone against MSU were good ideas, he just didn't make the throw. He had receivers with a step on their defenders, but threw behind them. His pick against Iowa was a bad decision, much like we've seen him toss this year: a throw seemingly to no one.
After watching the every snap videos for both games last year, Denard rarely threw the ball deep. This year, from memory anyway, it happened between 6-10 times in both games. So I dunno. The question would be: Is Borges doing enough to open up those short throws that enabled Denard to complete 63% of his throws against two good defenses or is Denard just going deep on his own and ignoring the simpler passes?
November 10th, 2011 at 1:14 PM ^
Denard (and the receivers) are being asked to do a lot more this year. The offenses are also very different and that was always going to cause some difficulties. I think we saw in the ND game (huge plays galore despite Denard playing poorly) and even against Iowa and MSU (missing Roundtree late, missing wide open Hopkins) that there are plays to be made in this offense that just aren't getting made and/or recognized in time (sort of reminds me of the early days with RR where you could see that if one thing had been executed better there were huge chunks of yardage available).
That sort of thing was always going to be the cost of the transition. What bothers me are the things that seem to be directly under Borges's (who I've been a huge advocate for ever since he got hired) control. He should know there are going to be glitches in the passing game and as such do things to make Denard's life easier (more handoffs, more short/quick passes, more "designed" scrambles, etc.). We seemed to see a little more of that against Iowa where Denard was regularly able to roll out of the pocket and hit Hemingway for a 7 yard gain (he dropped one and caught at least two that I remember). These seemed to then be followed up by bombs down the sideline to put the offense back off schedule. Or a quick move to WR for Denard.
If you are making this kind of transition, it also makes zero sense to me to spend so much time practicing a gimmicky, trick-play offense (I'm guessing they practice it as much as they use it in games, which is quite a bit). I can't help but think that if Denard had a few more reps with his receivers and a few less where he's running a fly-sweep that things might be clicking a little better in the passing game. Not to mention what this does to the rhythm of the offense and the speed at which you can get plays in.
He's also said (as has Hoke) that they want to be a powerful, run first team. Yet against ND we rarely if ever handed the ball off (and when we did Stephen Hopkins was getting the ball for some reason). Against MSU Fitz got 2 carries. Michael Shaw has disappeared from the offense despite being nothing but effective this year and last year when healthy. My hope was we'd see a more conventional offense this year with Fitz/Shaw splitting a ton of carries, Denard using his legs from time to time for big plays, and a short passing game to keep the defense off balance (with the occasional shot downfield). Instead we've seen erratic use of the running backs, a goofy two QB formation, and a passing game that seems to force Denard to make every other throw 15-20+ yards downfield (usually from a formation that gives him limited blockers in front of him).
November 10th, 2011 at 9:26 AM ^
Want to buy some land in Florida I have? It is primo.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:22 AM ^
I'm glad you wrote this Blaze, a topic worthy of critical thinking, instead of that muck we've had to process from Penn State. I'm going to stretch my brain responding to you.
I agree with your thoughts about the early Rodriguez years and how he said he would balance the offense yet mostly remained true to his own philosophy, and how this compares to Borgess and his situation.
Right off the bat, I would like to state Coach Borgess is the offensive coordinator not so he can put in his packages, but to provide the team with the best chance for success. Coach Borgess isn't here to convert the offense into something that makes him a success that translates into team success, but to have team success that would translate in him being a successful coordinator. Whether it be now or in the off season next year or the next, he can/could gradually install components of what he wants to run in the future and eventually make the turnover without sacrificing the present.
In his defense the success against Purdue might have convinced him the team had turned the corner, perhaps that's why we stuck to the initial game plan for so long, but now what is he going to do? Clearly there are some things that need to be ironed out.
In closing, I completely disagree about him having an obligation to himself and recruits that aren't even on the team yet; this is what you wrote essentially, isn't it? He is the OC for the present and if he's running the offense for the benefits of recruits of future classes, he may not have a future here. As coach Rod could attest to.
Ah, that felt good, thanks for working my brain!
November 10th, 2011 at 9:24 AM ^
Comparing Borges to RR or even Carr is useless in trying to determine how to go forward. Carr's teams sucked when you look at his record against ND, OSU and the bowls. Hoke preaches accountability so he and Borges should be held accountable for the wins and loses. Regardless of the quality of talent available, they are accountable for getting as much as possible out of that talent. This year they have not. The two loses could have been wins. We have four games to go, including the bowl game. They need to get on the same page and devise a plan to win those four games - with the current roster and without regard to future recruiting, or any other excuse. Hoke and Borges: be Michigan men and implement something that will work for your current players.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:33 AM ^
He had his troubles on the west coast, but don't forget that LC owned the SEC. The one loss being to UT when they should have been playing for the title instead of in Orlando.
November 10th, 2011 at 11:56 AM ^
in bowls?
November 10th, 2011 at 9:25 AM ^
You guys are weak, and he will bring down Hoke. Gerg took out Rich Rod, and we all forget so easily. He did the "right" thing by sticking with Gerg. Wait it cost him his job. Borges didn't run Denard at first and goal on the the one single #ucking time! Wake up! Remember play calls at Spartan Stadium? This has zero impact on recruiting and winning does. F!
November 10th, 2011 at 9:25 AM ^
You guys are weak, and he will bring down Hoke. Gerg took out Rich Rod, and we all forget so easily. He did the "right" thing by sticking with Gerg. Wait it cost him his job. Borges didn't run Denard at first and goal on the the one single #ucking time! Wake up! Remember play calls at Spartan Stadium? This has zero impact on recruiting and winning does. F!