Borges Gripes

Submitted by Ziff72 on

I'm relieved we won but this game just angered the hell out of me.   Bitching about the OC is so cliche, but these seem so obvious.   Can anyone disagree with the following?

 

1.  2 years ago Roundtree made a living off a play born off the sheer terror of our qb's legs.   MSU had all 11 guys in the screen on several occasions.   Why can't we try a play that had guys open for 15 yards?   One time just try it please.   I. Lewis was begging to get burned today.  They were swarming Denard.  I didn't see any reverses, or counter action to take advantage of that fact.  

2. We have a throwback screen that works like a charm.   We ran it today for an easy 20 yards.   Are we saying they never gave us a similar defensive look that we couldn't try it again?   When a play is that open you have to try it again or put a wrinkle or variation and burn their adjustment,  to never come back to it when we are struggling is mind boggling.  Same for the screen play that the MSU guy made a great play on.   We had 3 blockers and a ton of space run it again.

3.  Get Funchess involved.  WTF?  We have a weapon and we just let him waste away on the sidelines.  He's a match up problem.  Get him involved.   

4.  Maybe this is on Denard but we have to get a quick screen audible installed asap.  Did you see that play at midfiled when they blitzed 2 db's off the edge and we just ran right into it? Just toss it to the edge.  Indiana made MSU pay with bubble screens all half before they adjusted.  We couldn't explore that at all as they A gapped blitzed all game?

This gameplan was very infuriating.  

Denard/Borges Cuisine was like a rice cake with no water today.    Pretty bland and hard to swallow. 

 

stephenrjking

October 20th, 2012 at 11:24 PM ^

Pretty much can't argue with your points. But a lot of people are griping without accounting for MSU's defense, which has crushed everybody this year. Michigan could have had a better offensive product, but we'd still be looking at like 20 points.



Michigan's ZR plays seemed to get RPS'd a lot, and I'm interested to see the UFR on that. On replays of some of those big Fitz losses I wasn't seeing gaps that Denard could have pulled and run thru.



For Denard, intermediate passes that could have exposed MSU's overcommitment to the ZR were risky, and there was never a time where Michigan needed to be risky in this game.



Still, there are advantages available that Borges doesn't exploit, and that bothers me.

wolverine1987

October 21st, 2012 at 11:09 AM ^

that to my eyes, (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), I didn't notice one new offensive approach, any new tendencies, any new plays, or frankly, anything different at all from our usual game plan. You would think, after having seen MSU last year, knowing exactly what they would do on defense to bottle up Denard, and knowing that they would play the same approach this year, that Borges would have has an attack that was prepared for that on a RPS basis. But he didn't appear to do anything new or different at all.

jmblue

October 21st, 2012 at 12:42 PM ^

There were subtle changes yesterday.  Our snap count was more varied and if you noticed, they were not effective at jumping it this time.  We also used some different blocking schemes.         I do not believe we used as many 2-TE sets as previously, although I'm not positive.  We split Funchess out wide on a few plays, which we'd not done before (and which resulted in a key reception on our third scoring drive).  I had not seen us run the route that Gallon ran on the goal line to get wide open.  Fans want the gimmick plays in rivalry games, but it's the subtle stuff that really makes a difference.

 Aside from shoddy red zone execution, we were definitely more effective offensively yesterday than we were in the 2011 game.  We doubled our rush yardage output (from 82 to 163) and also increased our passing yardage (124 to 163) despite numerous execution problems (Gardner's dropped deep ball, Denard missing open Roundtree and Gallon in the end zone) that kept it down.  I thought it was a decent overall gameplan.  The one big criticism I had was that Toussaint did not get enough carries. 

UofM-StL

October 20th, 2012 at 11:24 PM ^

Copied from other thread:

This is getting ridiculous. Borges tries to throw and it's "OMG! Run the ball, that's the only way to win with Denard!" Then when he sticks to the bread and butter running game and a good defense shuts it down, it's "Where's the counter-punch, Borges?"

We need to face facts as a fan base. With Denard at the helm, this is a one dimensional offense. If we try to open up the passing game, we become extremely vulnerable to mistakes and negative plays. If we stick to the running game regardless of what the defense shows, we risk being shut down.

This was not a great game for this offense. There may be another game like this. But just because this offense puts up 45 on Illinois and Purdue, it does not mean that they should be doing it every game, and the only reason they wouldn't is coaching mistakes.

Enjoy the Denard offense for what it is. It may be the most exciting offense this school will ever see, but that does not mean it's the best.

To your specific concerns. Get Funchess involved? How 'bout trying to use his height in an endzode fade? Oh, maybe we did that but his ball skills are still too raw and Denard's touch is less than perfect. Funchess will be great someday, right now, he's good.

Unstoppable throwback screen? I counted at least 2 of them in this game, the second got blown up for no gain. Another screen got blown up for no gain as well.

blue_kate

October 20th, 2012 at 11:32 PM ^

Idk if you were in the live chat, but this basically encapsulates how frustrating that was for me. We are in an exceedingly unique situation with an exceedingly unique player. Borges is doing what he can do and Denard is doing what he can do. For now, I think we celebrate the odd-couple marriage that it is, and we love Denard for who and what he is, and we look forward to the future, and we celebrate the past and we love and revel in the present. It is what it is and it was what it was and all of that, ultimately, is golden and full of promise and happiness. Is it maddening at times? Yes. It is maddening in its brilliance the rest of the time? Obviously. Does any other team anywhere have this problem? No, and for that we're lucky. Go blue.

Seattle Maize

October 20th, 2012 at 11:35 PM ^

People on this blog need to Look at this offense objectively. We have a QB who, while an explosive runner, cannot read a defense and provide enough of a passing threat to back defenses off the LOS. Against any solid to good defense we will struggle to move the ball. Borges called a conservative game by necessity.

B1G_Fan

October 21st, 2012 at 5:30 AM ^

 The thing is A lot of other ofeenses have been effective by attacking the edge against MSU. When we did we where very succesful. Denard and Borges have to see that a passing game doesn't always have to be 20-30 yard passes. You had their entire defense in the box with the corners in man to man and only one WR screen ( for a huge gain).

  They need more designed runs for Touisant and not a bunch of read options. Throw the ball to Funches more and Gardner less and let the slot ninjas do what they do best. Denard is Denard tho. He will have atleast one just awesome pass a game , one absolutely terrible WTF are you thinking throw... maybe 3 and break 1-2 long runs ... maybe 3. He can't really handle pressure well and honestly hasn't improved much at all since his sophmore year.

 Denard would be most dangerous if he would tuck and run when nobody is open. Seriously 3 step drop , take your 2 reads and run if they aren't there. Swing passes  to the slot and throw 1-2 deep balls just to keep the defense honest. If the defense is all in the box and blitzing every down the short outside throw should be there all day.

 Borges has coached some good offenses Cade Mcnown qb'd UCLA team , the undefeated Auburn squad and even San Diego state but ultimately he was fired by those schools (cept San diego). He is a serviciable offensive coach but not a mad genius or anything. If he was He'ld be either A. still coaching at Auburn / UCLA or a head coach somewhere else.

GetSumBlue

October 20th, 2012 at 11:38 PM ^

I think you're exactly right in some regard and this has been overlooked. I fear if Borges had opened up the passing game more, you would have seen a few more interceptions. Those could have definitely lost the game.

It wasn't pretty, but then again, we didn't exactly execute in the red zone either. Gardner drops a pass on the 3 yard line, Gallon drop/Denard underthrow (I think Denard had no choice but to slip it in where he did). My point is, it could have/should have been 20-something points. I'm okay with that against a good D that was geeked to stop us.

MGoRyan

October 21st, 2012 at 12:13 AM ^

What risk?? Were we risking another punt?? a long arm punt would have done the same job.

The defense held, save two drives. I swear, I don't want to gripe, but I feel like most are taking the apologist approach. I feel like we ran a different version of the same play 30x with the same bad outcome. Please tell me if I'm wrong..

Sten Carlson

October 21st, 2012 at 12:54 AM ^

You're wrong Ryan.  Think back to every game that Michigan has lost with Denard as the starting QB.  What do they ALL have in common?  Turnovers.  Denard's major flaw is that he has been a virtual turnover machine, especially in big games.  If not for the pick 6 last season versus MSU, Denard might very well have brought the team back.  Even in wins like ND and VT last year, Denard nearly arm punted the game away.  Borges wasn't going to risk that this time around.  He wasn't going to come out and try to make Denard play like Tom Brady, and he wasn't going to abandon the run, he was going run the ball, and when he needed to throw, he would, but he wasn't going let the game hinge upon Denard's arm.

UofM-StL

October 20th, 2012 at 11:51 PM ^

They sold out on the run last year too. And Notre Dame sold out on the run earlier this season. Michigan stopped running in those games. Michigan lost, because the passing game is unreliable.

And then everyone ran back to this board and complaned about Michigan abandoning the run game.

Sten Carlson

October 20th, 2012 at 11:59 PM ^

Exactly. 

I really don't know what Michigan's fanbase expects.  The thing about great defenses is that they are good at making the opposition one-dimensional.  Borges tried to out-scheme Bama and ND by coming out passing.  How'd that go?

Michigan kept running, and Denard's long run and 3rd down reach were HUGE difference makers in this win.

MGoRyan

October 21st, 2012 at 12:23 AM ^

Pardon me, but with "the nation's most exciting player" I expect an offensive touchdown at home. Borges called a bad game. Good win, glad we did, but call a spade a spade. He's not infallible, and played it safe to a very poor effect. We'll move on tomorrow, but I rightfully expected more.

I love this blog, read everyday, but the apologists are insufferable. The point of this place is to number crunch and scrutinize, not circle jerk and watch puppets. If we can't intelligently do it here, where can we? It was a bad game in one phase and we need to fix that by next week.

M-Wolverine

October 21st, 2012 at 12:40 AM ^

You're some dude in a blog post that no one involved with the team cares about who can't be happy about anything. Your deep "numbers crunching" (I must have missed the analysis....) is no more or less effective than Muppets. But far more insufferable.

Sten Carlson

October 21st, 2012 at 12:41 AM ^

Expectations are your problem Ryan.  You know who are insufferable?  Those among our fanbase that INSIST upon complaining about everything that Borges does, no matter the opponent, and no matter the circumstance. 

Borges called a game that everyone in here had been screaming for since the Bama game -- he called a game that "played to Denard's strengths."  You're not righteous in your expectation for "more."  Michigan won a defensive battle against an arch rival, winning is the ONLY expectation that a fanbase is afforded, and Michigan won. 

As I said elsewhere, Sparty got very lucky -- they put in on the ground twice deep in their own zone, and got BOTH back.  Borges played field position, played to limit turnovers, and kept the ball in the hand of his play-maker as much as possible, waiting for one to break -- which it did.  Not sure why that is so objectionable. 

newtopos

October 21st, 2012 at 1:08 AM ^

For those on the board who simply will not entertain a criticism about Borges' playcalling, the WCO, etc. -- does his clock management really seem up to snuff?  How about our ability to get plays off in a rapid fashion when we need to (late in the game today, down two scores against ND)?  I'm watching Arizona put up 52 points on Washington (which held USC to 24 points last week) right now.  Even when we absolutely need to move quickly, we cannot (under Borges) move as quickly as AZ does as a matter of course.  (Feel free to add other modern offenses if the RR connection makes you see red.)  I understand Borges and Hoke want to be a ball control offense, etc., but when we need to move the ball quickly, what is the advantage of being unable to get plays in quickly?  And as an aside, doesn't the fact the Patriots are interested in what Oregon is doing (in terms of up-tempo, quick plays), and that Saban is complaining about it suggest that it might be a good idea to learn how to play quickly at times? 

Bill the Butcher

October 21st, 2012 at 9:00 AM ^

I agree that there really is no excuse for our poor clock management late in the game, but in this case there are a couple of caveats.  

First, it appeared as though  the team couldnt hear the calls denard was making and that slowed us down, I saw a play or two at the end where Gardner was trying to get the crowd to quiet down so that the offense could get the playcall and hear the count.  

Second, a RS Junior, Fitz, makes one of the most boneheaded plays ive seen by catching a ball behind the line of scrimmage going to his knees while in bounds.  There is absolutely ZERO upside to making that catch and someone who has been in the program for 4 years has to know be aware of that.  

Also it looked like we lost time when they went to review Denard's stretch for the first down and never added that time back on the clock, but I'm not sure about that one.  

Like I said, overall I've noticed a trend of questionable clock management late in games or at the end of a half, but in this particular game I think there were a few confounding variables that weren't necessarily the fault of the coaches or Denard.

stephenrjking

October 21st, 2012 at 12:28 AM ^

This game plan is a direct response to the MD game, where Borges designed and called numerous inventive pass plays of varying lengths, a large number of which were intercepted.



MGoRyan can was the ND replay for an example of the gameplan he would rather have seen.



If Michigan plays the way it did today against Notre Dame it's probably a win.

snarling wolverine

October 20th, 2012 at 11:54 PM ^

Denard had 96 yards on 20 carries and Toussaint had 52 yards on 10 carries.  If you're saying that our problem was that we needed to pass the ball more, I disagree.  The passing game was pretty iffy most of the game, but the run (aside from a couple of plays where MSU had an unblocked run blitz going) was mostly pretty good.   I think Fitz was underused, if anything.

 

CLord

October 21st, 2012 at 2:18 AM ^

Yes, really.  This is Michigan.  We expect better than to not score a touchdown against a chief rival over 8 quarters (ND/MSU), especially when led by a senior QB, and the last such game being at home.  Borges does deserve heat especially for his inability to adapt to Narduzzi's "Denard Rules" now two years straight.  Next year they won't apply since Denard will be gone.  Borges will probably be relieved come MSU game.

snarling wolverine

October 21st, 2012 at 2:41 AM ^

Is the expectation to rack up stats or to win?  I'll take the win.  Not that many teams do well against MSU's defense.  It's not like they suck against everyone else and play over their heads against us.  They were giving up 270 yards per game coming in.  We gained 326.

 

 

 

 

harmon40

October 21st, 2012 at 12:21 PM ^

I think Borges' game plan, given how the season has unfolded, was the right way to go.

Imagine you are Borges, game-planning for MSU:

1) You have accepted the reality of Denard's limitations and run 75% of the time over the last two games, which worked great against Purdue and Illinois.

2) Now you are game-planning for MSU.  Terrific defense, more than capable of pressuring Denard.  Against the best two defenses you have faced, Denard threw 6 picks, mainly b/c he makes bad decisions when pressured. 

3) You decide to limit Denard's throwing against MSU and run as much as possible.  You take a deep breath here; you know MSU will respond to a one-dimensional offense like this by loading the box.  They are very good at stopping the one thing you do well.

4) Your saving grace: MSU's offense is terrible, and Michigan's defense is very good. 

5) You, Mattison, and Hoke all decide together to keep the ball on the ground as much as possible.  Sure, it will be tough sledding.  But in a game where BOTH offenses are one-dimensional, and BOTH defenses are very good, I like my chances b/c I have the best playmaker on the field.  Let's play to his strengths and trust that we can make a few more plays than the other guys.

Developing the game plan isn't merely about Borges' playcalling, but also must take into account how we expect our defense to do against their offense.  Our defense did come through, and our offense did make enough plays to pull it out. 

I love this defense!  So nice that the offense doesn't have the pressure of thinking they have to score on every drive.  Against a tough opponent, we can make a strategic decision to play the field position battle and feel very confident that it will work out for us in the end.  Against lower-tier opponents, forget about it - they can't score on us and can't stop us.

RakeFight

October 20th, 2012 at 11:29 PM ^

It was particularly hard to watch them come out in the second half and continue to try to run it up the middle on a defense that has not allowed us to run up the middle for years.  I about threw my beer through the TV in the 3rd quarter hoping it would hit Borgess.

On the other hand... that may be preferable to Denard punt passes in a tight game like that... so maybe Borgess is brilliant.

MGoRyan

October 20th, 2012 at 11:34 PM ^

I normally hate posts like this, but the OP is spot on. Simply awful play calling. Tight end play could have been the saving grace, especially the Fun. The forced run and QB read was nauseating.

CLord

October 21st, 2012 at 2:26 AM ^

Agree.  To me this was the most important win of the year, by far.  Not only to end streaks, and preserve BIG championship aspirations, but simply to shore up our backyard.  5 years in a row and you start running into 15-16 year old recruits who've only known MSU's dominance about as long as these kids have been sentient.  This win was huge for recruiting.

And yet, as thrilling as it was to win, I have zero interest in watching the game again on my DVR.  Our offense was just that frustrating.

Next week vs Nebraska should be interesting.  Given that Nebraska doesn't spend 365 days a year keying in on our schemes the way MSU does, I'm hopeful for a comfortable win even though the game will be away.

Go Blue.

bluewings

October 20th, 2012 at 11:38 PM ^

Im happy we won.  What a relief.  To add to your post, I'll say I was disappointed with the 1st and goal on the 6 and backing up just to get a field goal.

Bill the Butcher

October 21st, 2012 at 9:10 AM ^

If you are talking about the first scoring drive, that can be attributed to the bad read Denard made to give the ball to Fitz instead of pull and Fitz lost about 10 yards.  If you look at the first play, Denard is very indecisive on the read/give and rides the mesh point for a long time trying to make a decision, and then makes the wrong one.  

Then Denard and Roundtree had a miscommunication on third down when Roy was wide open in the End zone. 

If you are referring to the second time we were at about the 5 yard line, that drive was undone by two marginally thrown balls by Denard.  He was about 2 yards behind gallon and 2 yards short to Funchess.

I don't think you can really blame those on Borges, there may be some gripes to be had with Al's gameplan, but I'm not sure this was one of them.  

Tater

October 20th, 2012 at 11:42 PM ^

Sorry, but I try not to bitch about the coaching staff until they have had five years.  I also try not to bitch about the coaching staff after a win.  

This may come as a shock, but the other coach is getting paid a million dollars or more, too.  Sometimes, opposing coaches try things that work really well against Michigan; that's just the way it goes.  

It might appear that Michigan "struggled" or should have won by more, but there is another way to look at it.  

My take: STAEE got every lucky break in the book, committed tons of personal fouls that were never called, and were the beneficiaries of numerous questionable calls in the second half, and they still lost to Michigan.  

If I bitch about anybody, it's going to be the refs.  Since MIchigan won, I won't bother.  For those who want to whine about the coaching staff, please remember the bright side: Sparty doesn't get to brag for at least a year, and maybe a lot longer.

BeantownWolverine

October 20th, 2012 at 11:42 PM ^

 

I don't have issues with his play calling. But I have to ask Borges about our red zone efficiency. Crossing out the FG's, we really suck in this category against decent D. We seemed to move the ball all right up until the red zone and then we literally suck. NO TD's against ND & MSU. WTF?