In Defense of Al Borges
[EDIT: Mods, can you fix the formatting of this thread?]
I have been one of Al Borges' biggest advocates on this board since Hoke hired him. This game has not shaken my faith in him. The reasons are best explained in a post from the MGoArchive that you would all do well to go back and re-read. Specifically:
Again, none of that is to say Borges can't succeed at Michigan ... but the current situation just isn't in his wheelhouse. Based on the last half of 2005 (when Cox, Irons, and the AU receivers were at the height of their powers) and what he's done at SDSU this season with the Lindley-Hillman-senior wideouts package, I'd say the prototypical Borges offense is one with an accurate (and not necessarily strong-armed) pocket passer, big NFL-type receivers on the outside to stretch the field, and a single stud running back as a home run threat out of the backfield. It seems like aside from Darryl Stonum, Michigan doesn't have any of those things.
What's ironic, says Alanis, is that Michigan used to have those things in bunches. Give Borges Henne, Hart, Long, and Manningham/Arrington, and you're going to have one of the best offenses in the country, hands-down. And maybe he can work some magic with Denard (or Gardner), and Hopkins, and Stonum/Miller/Jackson/whoever. But I can't shake the feeling that Borges is the right guy in the right place at the wrong time.
In other words, Borges was hired not for last season or this season, but for the long haul. This man turned Cade McNown and Jason Campbell into first round draft picks. Post-Borges, McNown is out selling insurance somewhere and Campbell is hanging on by a thread. And Borges is on the same page with Hoke, moreso than he was with Bob Toledo or Tommy Tuberville. Think about how chronically frustrated we were with Carr, Terry Malone, and Mike DeBord, and think about what Borges would have done with the weapons that Carr and Malone/DeBord had at their disposal. Now think about what Borges will do with Shane Morris and (fingers crossed) Laquon Treadwell.
Even given his limitations in dealing with our current personnel, he has performed admirably. Last year, we averaged more points per game than we did in 2010. He has done a much better job adapting his offense to our personnel than Rich Rod et al did in '08. As for the 'Bama game, yes, the repeated ineffective Vincent Smith runs were frustrating, but honestly, what was Borges supposed to do? Had Denard's passing been consistently effective at any point during the game? Would you rather Borges have Denard throw even more interceptions or worse, get himself killed by 'Bama's front seven? Facing a defense like that with our top running back suspended, Borges' options were severely limited. You can shake your fist at fate and fermented malts for taking one of our biggest offensive weapons out of Borges' toolbox.
So lay off the man. The players and staff will lick their wounds, learn from this loss, and move forward. Put the pitchforks away, everything will be just fine. These coordinators will get us to the promised land.
September 2nd, 2012 at 8:50 AM ^
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).
September 2nd, 2012 at 3:58 AM ^
Denards inability to connect on a meaningful pass, even the few times he rolled out, was what killed us early in the game. Play calling was actually great, alot of different reciever looks and handoffs, on alot of those incompletes the WR was WIDE open, denard just couldnt get it there right.
And about people complaining that they should have ran denard more.... on 96% of plays there was NOWHERE FOR HIM TO RUN!! the box and flats were full of bama players by design......
And one of thje ways for denard to be ran more and to have more running lanes open up is for him to make the bama defense respect his arm by actually completeing passes..... which he could not do.
September 2nd, 2012 at 4:25 AM ^
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.
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:44 AM ^
actually way way in on Borges, who has done nothing (at least yet) at Mich, but naysayer on Denard (though ya like him). "Nuff said. No coach or coordinator is worth his muster if he doesn't coach to his personnel. Yesterday was a repeat of MSU and VTU play-calling. It'll be a long season if that continues.
September 2nd, 2012 at 4:46 AM ^
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.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:23 AM ^
You saw it right! One play to sum it up perfectly was Devin on the right side of the field he had his DB beat by 2-3 steps but the ball was terribly under thorwn forcing Devin to stop and the DB got back in the play. The announcer where raving about the defense when honestly more often than not it was Michigan shooting themselves in the foot.
Alabamas Defense will get torched this year by a capable passing attack , possibly even a mediocre one.
September 2nd, 2012 at 2:01 PM ^
2-3 steps is 5 yards or more. He didn't have that much separation.
September 2nd, 2012 at 5:48 AM ^
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.
September 2nd, 2012 at 5:54 AM ^
Hell Yeah! Thank you Summoner10...Im glad someone watched the same game that I did. Borges gave Denard some excellent looks and there were WRs open early and Denard did not hit them... as far as running... there was no room for anyone to run! Smitty is tiny and not quick enough and Thomas Rawls...WTF??? He must have been injured because he had NO burst in his giddyup...
So WTF is Borges supposed to do with those RBs? Run Denard every time??? He got killed most times he ran the ball...
no, you get the passes going to loosed up the D in situations like that...before you have any chance of running the ball vs. a team like Bama. The guys were open but Denard couldnt get the ball there.
Like I said, I love the kids attitude and running ability...but IMO the team would be better off with Bellomy at QB and Devin and Denard at WRs along with Roundtree and Fitz when he comes back.... and if Bellomy couldnt cut it, then put Devin in there...someone has to be TALL enough to see over the line and hit accurate passes, not moon balls. That is not on Borges...! Everyone is afraid to bench Denard but guess what?? it is what may be best for the team!
September 2nd, 2012 at 7:53 AM ^
It's Denard's running ability that gets those receivers open in the first place. That's the trade-off with Denard. His running ability opens passing lanes that sometimes he can't take advantage of. Which is exactly what happened last night.
Denard had a bad game against one of the best defenses in the country. He won't be the first or the last. Heck, it'll be interesting to see how many teams score two touchdowns against Alabama's defense this year.
But after the last two years, and OSU last year, people are seriously calling for the backup? Holy hell.
September 2nd, 2012 at 8:22 AM ^
to know that every DC out there is planning how they take away the run and make him pass.
It looked to me like he correted the throwing off his back foot problem, and he still sent most of the passes high and uncatchable.
We'll see, maybe it was just a fluke, but I am guessing this will happen again against better defenses.
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:04 AM ^
How is this different than what every DC has ever wanted to do against Denard? You act like Saban oppened everyone's eyes, which is ridiculous.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:29 AM ^
Denard is by far our best option at QB. We saw what happens when you put in Devin at QB with little threat to run , they blitz him and he runs backwards and sideways for 10 minutes like a high school QB. Russel Bellamy might be an option if he wasn't a red shirt freshman.
The thing thats frustrating about Denards passing is he has the ability to be a good passer. That throw to Gallon to Gallon was awesome but, unfortunately he only threw 2 good passes all night. I was hoping he would be more consistant this year.
September 2nd, 2012 at 6:08 AM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 7:29 AM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:03 AM ^
Excellent post. Michigan had one legitimate offensive playmaker coming into the game and Alabama defended accordingly.
September 2nd, 2012 at 4:56 AM ^
Brian tells me what to think of this (no offense Brian). I can't get over all the Vincent Smith tonight. It pretty much reaffirms what I thought of Borges last year.
September 2nd, 2012 at 6:09 AM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 7:26 AM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 8:31 AM ^
But the spread can work against a defense like Alabama's. Cam Newton and Auburn proved that in the Iron Bowl a few years ago.
September 2nd, 2012 at 7:27 AM ^
Denard is a bad passer (surprise!). Remember last year when he completed 55% of his passes and threw 15 picks? Borges called plays that were there. Players have to make the plays. Toussaint screwed over his teammates by getting suspended, and Thomas Rawls/Vincent Smith aren't on Toussaint's level, obviously. This game was all on Denard's shoulders, and it just didn't work out.
September 2nd, 2012 at 7:49 AM ^
Well maybe the offense was on Denard's shoulders, but unless he was going to play defense too I don't think the result would have been any different. Alabama ran all over Michigan's D.
September 2nd, 2012 at 8:09 AM ^
Yeah, just the offense, obviously. The defense needed to play the game of their lives, because even if Denard played very well, the offense wasn't going to score 35+ points.
September 2nd, 2012 at 12:43 PM ^
There were open receivers and Robinson missed them. I think Borges may have over-estimated Denard's improvement over the offseason.
September 2nd, 2012 at 8:02 AM ^
We do not have the playmakers to compete yet.
September 2nd, 2012 at 8:30 AM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:03 AM ^
You know, this is an element of last night I've been thinking about more and more.
What if what we saw last night was not so much bad Michigan, but the first game of Alabama's march to another NC? What if Alabama is simply the best team in the land?
I'm very serious ... what weaknesses were evident in Alabama? I don't see any weaknesses. In fact, given McCarren's maturation, this year's Alabama might be better overall than last year's.
Two weeks from now ... Alabama goes to Arkansas. If Alabama dominates them like they dominated us ... then what we witnessed last night might well simply be the opening salvo of another 12-0 run by Alabama.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:32 AM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 12:23 PM ^
Yeah. A really good QB and recievers who hold on to the ball will put up at least 28 pts on Alabama. If that's enough to win against the Alabama D is another question.
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:05 AM ^
Exactly. Most of those early throws were pretty close, but into really tight windows.
September 2nd, 2012 at 8:41 AM ^
how we crushed Rich Rod for not being ble to adapt to the personal he had, but for AL it is okay. His play calling has been subject in all of the LAST THREE LOSSES. go look at the tapes.
September 2nd, 2012 at 8:51 AM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 8:53 AM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 8:49 AM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:00 AM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:14 AM ^
And you are nuts if you don't see how Alabama's defense, filled with talent, was lining up. Do you really think Saban didn't know, until proven otherwise, that Denard's legs were Michigan's only offensive threat?
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:45 AM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 8:55 AM ^
I guess my problem with the playcalling tonight wasn't the lack of Denard runs. Really, my issue was with all of the "denard-bombs" or attempted passes >20 yards. We all know Denard is inaccurate, but Borges kept looking for the big-play. More often than not this did not connect. My feeling is that Borges did NOT believe we could sustain long drives against Bama and was looking for quick strikes. I found this to be the most disappointing; it usually ended with our D having to come back into the game early.
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:18 AM ^
Meh, I still like Borges. Maybe he just brainfarted most of the night in playcalling but I stil see us having a 9 win season, which would be very respectable given the difficulty of our schedule
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:36 AM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:44 AM ^
You mean he didn't game plan to run our most valuable player into the strength of Alabama's gamelan? Nail him to the wall! In all seriousness, Borges probably planned to throw a lot because of what Denard looked like in practice. The short screens were pretty effective and the long ones ended up, well pretty much like they always do. But it was 21-0 midway through the first quarter with Denard dinged up, so it's not like he had much of a chance to adjust.
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:49 AM ^
Borges has to install his own offense, but he is doing it with spread personnel. I would like to see a hybrid, but it makes no sense for Borges to stray too far from what he is going to be doing. He has to install his offense anyway, so it might as well be now.
When you change systems and coaching staffs, shit happens. That's football. You can't fully judge Hoke or Borges until they have their first class of their own seniors.
I still think exactly what I thought earlier this week: Michigan loses to Alabama, loses one conference game, and finishes 12-2 when they win the Rose Bowl. I will continue to think that way until it becomes mathematically impossible.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:04 AM ^
This is the way I take Al's play calling.
He has things he wants to do (basically, run a passing spread).
He has things he knows worked well last year (run Denard from shotgun).
Given any amount of time off, he reverts to the former, as it is his nature. Perhaps the long off-season, plus a bunch of practices, lets him convince himself "hey, Denard can do this!".
But then Alabama happens.
Denard will be back to running more in the coming weeks, because Al is not stupid, and frankly all future QBs won't be Denard. So not too much to worry about methinks...
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:06 AM ^
I'm not sure why anyone needs to defend Borges. Michigan didn't lose because they had a poor offensive gameplan. Michigan lost because Alabama was better at every single position on the field. I don't think that's really even that debatable. Why that is the case may be up for some debate: Hoke not having his guys in place, Borges not being able to run his system, poor RR recruiting, poor Carr recruiting, Saban death star fully in place and operational, Bama oversigning, etc. All those variables contributed to a mismatch on paper and on the field. There is no shame in losing to that team. They are damn good and Michigan is still emerging from the darkest time in its football existence. We take our lumps and move on as a fanbase. The team takes its lumps and learns from them.
September 2nd, 2012 at 12:27 PM ^
Our punter and KO specialist were better. By far.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:13 AM ^
someone tell me why the fuk we kep going after the best CB Dee millner
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:19 AM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:20 AM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:38 AM ^
I tend to agree with the OP - thinking about this in time and space, it may be a couple years before we can really fully evaluate Al Borges fully utilizing his system here at Michigan. Some of the pieces are here, more are coming. What Borges has been able to do to date, however, has been pretty good overall and speaks positively about his abilities.
He's already shown himself to be a solid, creative OC by adapting personnel suited for a totally different offenseto his own as well as adapting his own thinking to suit certain personnel. Having said that, if the limitation of all this - combined with the lack of your best RB for that game - still manage what would statistically be an average performance against Alabama's run defense and a better than average peformance against their pass defense (comparing to 2011 opponents), then I won't worry about this too much in the grand scheme.
If the Alabama game was a benchmark for the offense, then in some important regards, we have reason to believe we'll be just fine from here onwards. They'll learn a lot from this game and make adjustments, but there's no reason to change any of the predictions for this team yet.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:42 AM ^
You have one of the best offensive weapons in the country, but instead of playing to his strengths you run him out there seemingly only to prove that he can make NFL throws now? I think Borges is a really smart guy but he seems very stubborn. I'm excited for the future but there is no point in even starting Denard at QB if your intent is to utilize him like that (note that this does NOT equate to me saying Denard should be benched, which he absolutely should not be)