In Defense of Al Borges

Asking a coordinator to run a scheme that he has no experience in didn't work out so well on the defensive side of the ball under the last offensive-minded head coach, what makes you think it will work on the offensive side of the ball under the current defensive-minded head coach?

The problem is that Denard isn't very good at running the zone read.  He's better at running the inverted veer, but I don't think the inverted veer would have worked well against Alabama.

It's also important to remember that RRs offense was pretty ineffective against stouter Ds.  And by stouter I mean stouter than Indiana.

they were doomed, but Vincent Smith really?! Anyone else quit drinking beer and go to whiskey? Fuck me.

"I don't think no one is calling for his job."

So somebody IS calling for his job?

Are you an idiot? Did anyone force Hoke to bring Borges along with him when he came over from SDSU? Would Hoke have brought Borges with him if he didn't think Borges was up to the task?

And WTF did you do to screw up the formatting of this thread? I agree, stupid people are annoying. 

Might be because of Nebraska and Ohio last year, as well as his entire sophomore season. The kid had a bad game. I think Borges should have called more runs for him early. But either way I'm pretty confident Michigan's O will look significantly better the rest of this season. So there's no need to call for benching our senior, three year starter after one bad game with some questionable play calling against the best defense in the nation.

The offensive line did not give Denard "all night" to throw. He constantly had a 6'6" defender in his face, and he had to throw the ball high to avoid batdowns and interceptions. Add in the fact that receivers (Roundtree and Gardner) were either running sloppy routes or dropping the ball, and most of the blame can be taken AWAY from DRob.

As much as I know it will pain everyone, I can't want for Brian to UFR this game. If for no other reason than to prove that Denard wasn't the source of our poor passing game so much as the receivers. (The only exception was the SECOND  int, that was DRob's one really bad mistake of the night)

But I suppose the argument is we're not going to destroy our qb in the first game of the season when it's non conference ball and isn't crucial to the staff's stated goals. After hours of cooling off, I'm actually grateful for this. The only thing that would make me more depressed than possibly having Lewan, Countess injured is having denard injured too. Which, after that Cb hit, who knows.
It would be meaningless to lose by 10-20 with a couple Denard flashes than to lose by almost 30, which happened.
And I have no problem with Borges trying the game plan at the beginning. They scored 21 so quickly against us, it was hard to think. And without Fitz, and with the analysis of Bama's D being impenetrable up the middle, I have no problem with trying to air it out.
However, I saw little attempt for misdirection, which I think would've been crucial against Bama and I saw no attempt at hurry up which a front page analysis said would be crucial. In those and the multiple Smith squashings, I share the disheartening of all.

Roundtree doesn’t have the speed or the strength to get separation in tight coverage. He was successful two years ago because of of the position he played in RR’s system and the fact that we actually had a deep threat then (Stonem).

This.

Also, Denard is a great kid, a great athlete, and I definitely think he has a future in the NFL (at another position), but he doesn't seem to have the mental fortitude of a quarterback. He gets rattled easily, makes poor decisions, and doesn't play like he has nerves of steel. His attempt to tackle Dee Milliner by leading with his throwing shoulder doesn't inspire confidence. I think Borges keeps dialing up drop-back plays for him because he hits those throws in practice, but  can't duplicate them under the pressure of a collapsing pocket and a front seven that has no qualms about causing him bodily harm. 

Don't get me wrong; I think he's our best option at QB right now and he'll continue to put up big numbers against defenses that don't produce multiple first round draft picks. But there's a reason why no other big time program recruited him to lead their offense. 

I may not be remembering this right (beer and whiskey will do that), but I seem to recall an early pass play in the game where the Michigan receiver clearly had the defender beat. If Robinson connects on that, it's likely six points, or at least deep into Alabama territory. But the throw was off, the receiver had to twist backward, and the defender got a hand on it (or so it looked).

One play, I know, but it's indicative of a consistent problem of Robinson and it's a key problem because it makes defending him easier. I like Robinson and he does have great talent, but I don't have confidence right now that he is the QB to take Michigan to the next level. No one else on the team can step into his shoes, so he's the man for now.

Denard had a terrible start, didn't set his feet and missed open receivers early. But I disagree that there was "nowhere" for him to run. Borges committed to Rawls and Smith running and Denard passing - I think the game would've been closer if he let his best runner carry the ball a bit more than he did. I felt like Denard didn't run at all until things already got ugly.



Speaking of which - as frustrating as the offense was, their O line absolutely dominated us. We had no answer. While I'm confident that Borges and Denard will look much better in every other game we've got, I am not as confident in our front seven on D.