Borges Uses Bye Week to Evaluate Every Play Call From Road Games

Submitted by Michael Scarn on

Good article from Meinke about what Borges did with the bye week: looked for flaws in his gameplanning and playcalling.  I, like many on this blog, have been tough on him, so it's good to see him acknowledging problems and looking to address them.  My biggest beef has generally been his stuborness, so this is encouraging.  

 

"I took every single play we ran and evaluated it," Borges said.

Borges didn't reveal his findings, but did walk through his process.

He said there are three types of playcalls: No. 1 is a play that favors the offense, No. 2 is one that could go either way and No. 3 is one that favors the defense.

"As a playcaller, believe me, as hard as the fans are on me, I'm about eight times harder on myself," Borges said. "If it's even close, I'll call it a No. 3 play.

"We meet with the players, we'll go over even the plays I didn't call well. You got to understand in football, if you're honest with yourself and your honest with your team, the players don't just lose the game. Everybody loses the game -- or wins the game. So you got to show them, 'This is where I put you in a bad situation,' so they trust you, and (know you're not) blaming them for the mistakes."

http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2012/10/al_borges_combs_through_every.html

I assume this is all gleaned from his presser today, so I'm anxious to read that transcript.  

scottva1

October 2nd, 2012 at 2:44 PM ^

Maybe we ll see more of denard handing it off getting out of the pocket more. He can t see sometimes behind the lineman and he throws blind passes

DefenseWins

October 2nd, 2012 at 2:45 PM ^

Those quotes are encouraging. I've been in the "Gorgeous is stubborn" boat. It remains to be seen but I think he learned a great deal last year with Denard and that he can make the proper adjustments again during the remainder of the season. It's not about whose fault it is, it's about how to fix it. And that falls on both Borges and Denard.

EnoughAlready

October 2nd, 2012 at 5:26 PM ^

For all the people on here who insist that Borges is "stubborn" -- essentially because he won't call a game the way mgogeniuses think that he ought to -- I ask you: Shouldn't you be angry at Hoke?  My goodness!  Why would Hoke hire such a stubborn coordinator?  Everytime Denard has a bad game it's Borges' fault -- because he's so stubborn!  Why would Hoke hire such a person?   Or is Hoke so blind, or stubborn himself, that he can't see what people on this site see with such crystal clarity?

Free my people, Borges!!!

orobs

October 2nd, 2012 at 2:53 PM ^

I know I'm probably in the minority here, but I actually thought Borges called a pretty good game ( with one glaring exception being the timing of the halfback pass). I know we all love denard, but that is one game you really cannot place the faults on someone else.

Monocle Smile

October 2nd, 2012 at 2:56 PM ^

I'm hardest on Borges for being stubborn rather than particularly bad playcalling (outside of ludicrous shit like the halfback pass). As both Brian and BlueSeoul have pointed out, there are times when BUBBLE SCREEN WTF or even just throwing a zero-yard hitch will get a first down, but instead the play is just a typical power into the line for no yards.

The constant two-tight-end sets are starting to wear on me, too.

MGoBlue96

October 2nd, 2012 at 3:21 PM ^

ND was showing a 8-9 man box look most of the game, with soft coverage on the outside, and Al wasn't punishing them for it with short quick throws outside. It was very similar to what happened in the MSU game last year. Denard had the worst game of his career, no doubt, but Al didn't help him out by giving him easy throws when ND was basically conceding those with their defensive approach.

 

MGoBlue96

October 2nd, 2012 at 3:31 PM ^

what a defense is doing or what their gameplan is. ND was stacking the box and playing soft coverage  to protect their corners most of the game.  They were determined to stop the run and not give up passes deep, that leaves a counter that wasn't taken advantage often enough and they weren't forced to change their gameplan at any point.

MGoBlue96

October 2nd, 2012 at 3:46 PM ^

to make those decisions easier in that situation. Short quick reads make those decisions a little easier. Nothing is going change Denard's decision making or the inconsistency of it at this point, calling plays with simplier reads  is  the only way to mitigate this issue. Not that those are there every game, but ND's gamplan defensively definatly was giving you that.

Seattle Maize

October 2nd, 2012 at 3:20 PM ^

I don't think your in the minority (maybe just on this blog). I think Borges has not only called good games but has masterfully overseen a tough transition to a pro style offense while being hand cuffed by Denards shortcomings as a passer. (Not meant to be a shot at Denard)

MGoBlue96

October 2nd, 2012 at 3:26 PM ^

a prostyle offense, when the Shotgun is still used over 60% of the time. We are  all obviously aware of Denard's shortcomings as a passer by this point, but it is Al's job to maximize his strengths and try to mitigate those shortcomings as much as possible.  He can do better in this regard, and hopefully we see improvement in this area the rest of year, otherwise the goal of winning the Big Ten won't be reached.

cjpops

October 2nd, 2012 at 2:55 PM ^

Unless you spent the week learning how to "take what the defense gives you" I'm not interested.



Bubble screen. Laser screen. Running Denard more. Whatever.



Be more flexible in your strategy. Emphasize the strengths of your CURRENT roster. Accept blame so you senior QB doesn't have to apologize at press conferences. Otherwise, I'm not interested.



"if we play to our capability" sounds like a cop out, "they didn't execute" excuse to me.

jg2112

October 2nd, 2012 at 3:27 PM ^

This is pretty funny. In one sentence you want Borges to "take what the defense gives you."

In the next sentence, you want "running Denard more."

You really think these two sentences make sense given the game plans of Alabama and Notre Dame, both of whom deployed spies on Denard or were quick enough to cover him, or played with 8-9 man fronts and dared Michigan to pass?

Yet again, I think the fanbase needs to be reminded Borges isn't playcalling against the Computer in NCAA 2013 - he's playcalling against Nick Saban, Kirby Smart, Bob Diaco, and on and on. You know, against people, with actual humans on defense who do in fact sometimes figure out your playcall, and sometimes magically make a good play no matter what you call (for those of you who played Tecmo Bowl back in the day, even you know that despite scoring 90 points and rushing for 500 with Bo Jackson, the computer figured out your plays on occasion).

MGoBlue96

October 2nd, 2012 at 3:41 PM ^

his quote the wrong way.  Pretty sure he meant that more as general statement, meaning to take what the defense is giving based on a game by game basis. I don't think he meant that all those things were there in the games they have played or that they would work every game .

jg2112

October 2nd, 2012 at 4:08 PM ^

The general consensus I see from this blog is that Denard didn't run enough against the big boys on the schedule thus far (Mgo isn't alone - Rothstein and many others have piped up on this point), and that bubble screens are wide open every game, on many plays.

As to the latter, well, I don't think the current structure for playcalling (i.e., little to no audibling) allows Michigan to opt into free bubble screen yardage. As to the former - that's worth arguing. But as to both points - the opposition has something to do with it.

mGrowOld

October 2nd, 2012 at 2:57 PM ^

Borges didn't reveal his findings, but did walk through his process.

Here's how I envision his "findings" went for the first 10 plays anyways..

Play #1 - Perfect

Play #2 - Also perfect

Play #3 - Almost as perfect as play #1 but really as perfect as play #2

Play #4 - Wow...did i nail that one

Play #5 - Genius thy name is Borges

Play #6 - Nailed it

Play #7 - Awesome,awesome, awesome

Play #8 - I'm still marvelling at my calling of that play

Play #9 - Just like play's number #1,2 & 3 only more perfect

Play #10 - Surprised this call isnt on ESPN someplace as evidence of schematic genius

mGrowOld

October 2nd, 2012 at 4:51 PM ^

Oh well.   Al doesnt really strike me as a "people person" if you know what I mean.

But rest assured if he DOES wander by I will probably say something like "awesome, awesome job Al" as I try and get another picture for our collection!

ross03

October 2nd, 2012 at 2:59 PM ^

I've got to believe the players love playing for Borges.  I think one of the things the best leaders do is acknowledge their own mistakes and try to improve them.  It's simply leadership by example.  It also shows them that he has enough confidence in his own ability that he can air his mistakes for them to see.  Leaders that act like they are infallible are a huge turn-off.  When Borges is able to do that it has to mean more to the players when he shows them their mistakes.

I think that's one area guys like Charlie Weis fail.  They are so strongly entrenched in their "superiority" (either out of arrogance or masking insecurities) that they can't admit mistakes or look internally at how they might improve.  This in-turn alienates players and you end up with talented players that don't truly give 100%

 

LSAClassOf2000

October 2nd, 2012 at 5:25 PM ^

"So you got to show them, 'This is where I put you in a bad situation,' so they trust you, and (know you're not) blaming them for the mistakes."

I agree with you, and above is the quote where he is essentially showing people  what good coordinators / supervisors / managers / etc... do, get the  group together,talk about where decisions made at the top went bad and have everyone there to talk about what can be done about them. It means a lot more when the communication is two-way in these situations, and I think part of the rapid improvements that occurred last year are due in part to the establishment of a culture  where coordinators are  approachable and accountable to the units and/or sides of the ball that they coach. If you have a suggestion for an improvement for a player, this sort of management style makes it much more meaningful when you suggest it and people are more apt to respond.

We do this sort of thing every week in so-called "huddles" where we tackle current issues in my group (the hundreds of other supervisors and managers in my company do this as well). It works wonders. 

JeepinBen

October 2nd, 2012 at 3:06 PM ^

He meets with the players and discusses the plays that didn't go well, from his side as well as theirs. I think this is huge. For Borges, a guy who has been coaching football longer than the players have been alive to ask for (and presumably use) their input is a welcome difference from the perceived egos of many football coaches. Attitudes like that build a better culture and can lead to more improvement as opposed to "coaches coach, players play, so do what I tell you" coaching.

MGoBlue96

October 2nd, 2012 at 3:10 PM ^

some actual changes made. To be fair Al has called some good games here, but as others have said stubborness has seemed to get the better of him at times. They need to take what they are given by the defense. If a team comes out playing soft coverage, with 9+ guys near the box, that means taking the short quick throws to the outside whether that be bubble screens or another short pattern.

State Street

October 2nd, 2012 at 3:12 PM ^

As much as Borges' halfback pass call was ridiculous, our road woes can pretty much be chalked up to lack of execution.  The most glaring issue is Denard is so easily rattled on the road.  MSU, Iowa, Bama, and now ND - Denard was just not playing within himself.

Someone get that man some Beta Blockers.

MGoBlue96

October 2nd, 2012 at 3:37 PM ^

the only patterns that can be run are intermediate to long throws? All of those interceptions were on intermediate and long throws. The bottom line to me is if you have a QB that is struggling, and a defense showing soft coverage, your best option at that point is to take what the defense is giving you to give your QB some easier throws.

joeyb

October 2nd, 2012 at 3:24 PM ^

He said there are three types of playcalls: No. 1 is a play that favors the offense, No. 2 is one that could go either way and No. 3 is one that favors the defense.

So, RPS? I'd love to see what the final RPS number is compared to Brian's.

Blue boy johnson

October 2nd, 2012 at 3:37 PM ^

Denard was 5 for 5 in the 2nd half against ND (by my count). The first half was a calamity the second half, not so much.

Michigan had only 3 drives in the 2nd half, the first, Denard fumbled as M was driving in, the 2nd and 3rd drives, M drove the field and made field goals.

Borges game plan, especially after half time was solid, how can anyone dispute this.  I'm quite sure if Borges had mixed in some bubble screens in the second half, Denard would have completed 10 passes in 5 attempts for an astounding 200% completion rate.

Sten Carlson

October 2nd, 2012 at 4:40 PM ^

The first half was fine.  In fact, the first half very well could have been Denard's "coming out party" as a pocket passer.  If you look back, there were 2 passes in which he had pressure in his face, and made a poor decision.  Of the other two INT's, one was a meaningless end-of-the half hail mary type, and the other was a very well thrown ball but a poor slant route by Gardner.  If those are incompletions, or if he evaded the blitzes and ran -- even for little to no gains -- I think Denard would have been praised and having developed to the "next level" as a passer.  Obviously, that didn't happen, but it was only two ill-advised throws -- let's not act like it was worse than it was.  I realize it the negative overshadows the positive, but I think it was clear that Borges had the right plan in place, it just fell short.

One can say all they want that it wasn't Denard's strength, and that Borges set him up to fail.  But I think that, again, is looking at the results with the benefit of hindsight.  It was close to working, but for a few mistakes.  It just so happened that those mistakes were very costly.  But, that doesn't mean that it wasn't close. 

As such, I think Borges should be praised for the 1st half plan, not criticized.

cbuswolverine

October 2nd, 2012 at 5:41 PM ^

You think it's hindsight?  You believe that those two picks are the tipping point that turned people against the idea that Denard has made it to the "next level" as a pocket passer?  You don't believe the dozens of ridiculously bad decisions throwing downfield since 2010 might have had people there already before the ND game?  Really?

Sten Carlson

October 2nd, 2012 at 10:04 PM ^

I am speaking about 2012, not 2010, nor 2011.  We knew that once an WCO OC took over Michigan's offense, that he was going to try to develop Denard into a passer as best he could, and that Denard was going to work to become that kind of passer.  The hindsight of which I was speaking was in saying that Borges called a bad game, and that Borges wasn't putting Denard in the best position to succeed.  The problem with this contention is that aside from those couple of decisions, Denard was looking like he'd taken that "next step."  People that want to criticize Borges will be quick to point these poor decisions out, and will overlook the other very successful plays that Denard executed from the pocket.  The plays weren't bad, their was either a successful disguising of the blitz, and/or a missed blitz pick up.  Couple that with a very poor decision to not evade, and throw the ball anyway, and you have what we say in the ND game.  As I have said repeatedly, it is an near certainty that Borges is, and has been, coaching Denard NOT to make that bad decision.  Aside from those two decisions, Denard played a very good game.

So yes, it's hindsight that is making people say, "see, Borges is calling bad plays..." simple because of the result.  But, when the result is cause by a player doing something that he is specifically told NOT to do, how do you put that on the coach?

Denard has one issue to overcome, and I'll be willing to be it will be after this bye week.  He's got to learn to dump the ball off, evade and run, or just eat the sack when caught off guard by a blitz.  If he does that, his "issues" will be solved.  Will he, I dunno. 

cbuswolverine

October 3rd, 2012 at 7:56 AM ^

You know what "the bye week will fix it" sounds like at this point?  It sounds like wishful thinking from somebody who's been in an abusive relationship since 2010.

"But, when the result is cause by a player doing something that he is specifically told NOT to do, how do you put that on the coach?"

When you continue to see it over and over and over.  The fact that you coached a player NOT to do something doesn't you get you off the hook as a coach when that something continues to happen over and over.  At some point a coach needs to come to the realization that his QB has limits, and this is one of them.  If we had another QB of similar caliber right now, Borges would be faulted for not pulling Denard, correct?  Well, that's not an option.  So what option does Borges have?  He can quit putting him in the position to make the horrible plays that he is obviously going to continue to make even if you ask him not to until you're blue in the face.

Sten Carlson

October 3rd, 2012 at 11:47 AM ^

So what option does Borges have? He can quit putting him in the position to make the horrible plays that he is obviously going to continue to make even if you ask him not to until you're blue in the face.

I don't think you understand how the game of football work from a schematic standpoint. The OC calls a play that he thinks is going to work, and the DC calls a play that he thinks is going to stop, or at least contain, what he think the OC on the other team is going to call. If the DC calls a blitz, and the QB makes a terrible decision to throw the ball off his back foot into a crowd of waiting defenders, that doesn't mean that OC is "putting [Denard] in the position to make the horrible plays." Is Borges supposed to go "max-protect" every time he calls a pass play?

What scheme can be implemented that will a) keep the opposition from blitzing; and, b) keep the QB from making bad decisions in the face of that blitz? I hear what everyone like you is screaming, "stop putting Denard in the pocket and expecting him to be Tom Brady!" But, what about all the OTHER passes on which Denard made good throws? As Borges said, you didn't have to look very hard to find "good plays" from the offense versus ND. However, there were just a few that were bad, unfortunately. If Denard did well on some, and not on others, how can you claim that Borges was putting him in position to make horrible plays?

I understand that you're frustrated by the INT's, believe me, I am too, and we know Borges is as well -- probably more than any of us. But, simply saying, "don't put him in that position..." isn't a productive suggestion. The only solution is to keep on coaching him to do the right thing in those instances where he's been making his mistakes. Otherwise, it's basically going to be "Denard left, Denard right, Denard center" as that is the only way you can totally keep Denard away from a potential bad passing decision. But, remember, that ALSO negates the good throws that he's made. So pick your poison.

cbuswolverine

October 3rd, 2012 at 1:26 PM ^

I believe you mean, "The OC calls a play where a QB with a history of being horrible at throwing the ball downfield is asked to throw the ball downfield."  That's "how football works from a schematic standpoint," apparently.

I mean, come on.  Clearly we have more options offensively than A)  throw the ball downfield or B)  Denard left, Denard right, Denard center.  It's not just "all passing is bad."  It's the throws he is being asked to make. 

colin

October 2nd, 2012 at 6:09 PM ^

The problem I think most of his interceptions reveal is a decision that gets made prior to the snap of the football.  He does not seem to read the play as it's happening very well, which I think can be explained: he was a triple option QB in HS (and probably didn't get great coaching) and then was asked to make very simple reads by RR subsequently.  Much of that stuff, I think, was pre-snap stuff.  I think he's actually pretty solid in that regard, as long as the defense isn't shifting a ton.

Which of course ND was.

It may be that he doesn't have great instincts relative to most, but I'm not sure we can really tell given what we might guess a guy with his footspeed playing QB would have been asked to do.  I don't think it's out of bounds to say that Borges isn't adapting enough to his strengths,

Interesting (to me anyway) sidenote: watching Braxton Miller this past weekend, I noticed BM has a much better feel for moving his feet in and escaping the pocket.  But he really doesn't posses DR's feel for getting upfield on called runs and setting up his blocks.  They were schooled differently and hence possess different skills.  

johnvand

October 2nd, 2012 at 3:48 PM ^

Dear Al,

All I ask is that Denard is taught to check down to a quick pass when there are 8 in the box and the CBs are a country mile off the line of scrimage.

Give me that one thing, and everything will come up Milhouse.

Hugs and Kisses,

Me.