Hire Borges. And then fire him again.
well that's just, like, your opinion, man
Hire Borges. And then fire him again.
...Borges is now officially a Michigan Man, so fits all pre-requisites to be hired.
Yeah, because everyone around here was furious when Nuss was hired.
...but the joke is a joke in itself. Just because Michigan has a tradition of hiring people with Michigan ties isn't a BAD thing.
Comments like this almost assume the Rich Rod did...someone FAR from the Michigan tradition worked out. It didn't.
So it doesn't matter if the hire is a Michigan man or not. Sometimes you go outside and get Rich Rod, other times you go outside and get Beilein.
Having Michigan ties is only going to get you so far. Would it help someone like Tyrone Wheatley become the next RB Coach at Michigan? Sure. But he could also become the next RB coach at Texas, ND or USC and no one would say he's unqualified.
Mike Hart is quickly earning a reputation for himself as well. And he actually may fit our needs better because we need a young coach like Manning on the offensive side of the ball.
Would I have hired Hart straight from the NFL with no coaching experience just cause he went to Michigan? Hell no. Unless it was as a GA.
People need to just give it a rest, our candidate pool is bigger than "Michigan Men" and has been for awhile now.
Would you not take Jim Harbaugh if Hoke was gone after this year just because he's a Michigan Man?
Again, not necessarily directed at this joke...but if it was sarcasm to join the legion of people who've overblown the "Michigan Man" thing just because the media makes a big deal out of it...then yes, it was directed at the joke along with everyone else in that boat of sarcasm.
Bo Schembechler. Or, to put it another way, Bo who?
I didn't say you can't go outside and get Bo...or Gruden...or anyone.
I said just because someone has ties to Michigan doesn't mean that person should be DISQUALIFIED.
"our candidate pool is bigger than "Michigan Men" and has been for awhile now."
I'm surprised to hear that after our last two searches.
Our PREVIOUS coach was RICH RODRIGUEZ...he had no ties to Michigan. That made no sense.
I'm referring to how surprisingly thin the interest in our HC job was during the last 2 searches. Guys like Schianno turned us down, as well as Michigan Men like Harbaugh. (We can both decide what we want to believe about Brandon's claims about who he contacted).
It was meant to add some mild levity to the board with no real hidden agenda.
However, your post got me thinking. Do you think Hoke would have gotten a shot at this job if he wasn't a Michigan Man?
I think Borges owes Michigan a refund.
Refund? I would imagine he is still getting paid for 2014 despite sitting at home as I don't recall his contract being up. Talk about insult to injury.
p.s. I thought this article was about the lack of Devin meeting Mike McCray and Nuss was kind enough to introduce them.
FTR, this is paraphrased from memory, since I'm on a mobile device.
It is rock-solid evidence both that Borges was a poor QB coach and that his philosophies hurt the OL. Now, I'll assume that the center still made "Mike" calls, so they were made, but that is extra stuff for the center (not a strength last year) and hurts DG since he's not on the same page.
And I strongly suspect his lack of knowledge of the linebackers activities contributed to some do his galling short-pass interceptions.
"Now I know where the pressure is coming from." Yeesh.
It makes you wonder what, exactly, film study under Borges's regime was like.
Ugh guys see here is a chicken wing and here is a arrrrrgggh DOUGH NUTS!!!!! These are crazy!
I feel so guilty for laughing at this.
Somewhere I picture him laughing a bit as well although I'm sure he knows the platter he was given is no longer there with Nuss.
Platter ?????!!!!!!! The dude was basically at an all you can eat buffet. He was even eating before Borges could even get up for his rounds.
Ugh guys see here is a chicken wing and here is a arrrrrgggh DOUGH NUTS!!!!! These are crazy!
Crazy my eye. Not a single sub in sight.
Nuss will make a big difference for Devin. I expect some nice growth this year from him. He is getting better coaching reps on footwork, timing, and reads. His practice habits will be stronger and he will get more reps from the rapid pace Nuss employs. The game day interaction between the two might be most important. Nuss will be in Devins ear helping his confidence and helping him adjust to what the D is doing. This is good.
Thank God for the Nuss. Borges should stay in a dimly lit back office somewhere drawing up plays and allow others like Nuss to coach up the team and call the plays. He even might make some cash selling his plays on eBay. Still waiting to see how much of the problems were due to Funk though.
That helps build cases but should never be in the courtroom.
I concede that Nuss is an upgrade over Borges, but calling him a poor QB coach based on a single off-handed remark by DG ignores his track record. Dude built offenses at UCLA and Auburn that put up 40 and 30 points a game, respectively, and turned Cade McNown and Jason Campbell into first round draft picks. It didn't work out for him at Michigan, but I don't think it's fair to call someone with his track record a bad coach. Ten years ago, I would have loved to have Borges instead of Terry Malone or Mike DeBord calling plays for Chad Henne.
Let me preface this by saying while I like Nuss energy and think he is an upgrade due to ability to relate to player and enthusiasum alone I dont think all our ills were due to Borges on offense. I have not studied his UCLA years that close but at Auburn he was there 4 years - the first 2 were great, the last 2 were progressively bad. So "development" is an open question. It is like asking did Funk "develop" the 2011 line or was it mostly Carr and RR's coaches and Funk benefited? Same for Borges at Auburn. He inherited a helll of an offense. Now from memory he did develop Cade M at UCLA but Jason Campbell was already a senior QB. Now did he in 4-5 months "develop" Campbell? I am sure he had a hand in his development but it's a lot like Molk - was that a Funk thing or the previous regime? I believe Carnell Williams and Ronnie Brown were likewise seniors.
Again let's remember Borges was fired before the bowl game. His offense his last year was 101st in the nation. It seemed the longer Borges was at Auburn the worse things got - the same happened here. The stats from 2004 and 2005 were excellent. 2006 and 2007 got much much worse.
I don't have total offense in front of me but here is points scored per game - 2 great years early, and then a significant drop off:
Borges arrived at Auburn before the 2004 season and helped the Tigers to a 13-0 record. But the Tigers' offense was less effective in his last three years. Auburn heads to its bowl game against Clemson ranked 101st in the nation in total offense. The Tigers scored two or fewer touchdowns in six of their eight SEC games.
For Borges at UCLA:
1996: 30 ppg
1997: 39.75 ppg
1998: 39.6 ppg
1999: 20.9 ppg
2000: 29.4 ppg
Im assuming 1999 is around the time he started to coach kids he recruited. But yeah, huge drop off from 97-98, and even though it improved in 2000, its still just over 10 ppg less than what UCLA was getting just two years prior.
However his average stop per school is three years.
Excluding his first stop at Portland State (only mention D1)' he was at Boise State for two seasons, Oregon for one season, UCLA for five seasons, Cal for one season, Indiana for two seasons, Auburn for four seasons, and with Hoke for five seasons between SDSU and Michigan (ill mesh them together). That is seven stops between 1993-2013. He was fired from Michigan, fired from Auburn, left UCLA for a 50k raise at Cal only to be fired with the rest of that coaching staff after one season.
The guy simply doesnt stay put very long.
Yes, and this is much different than Nuss, who had OC stops in Fresno for 1 year, Washington 3 and Alabama 2?
Nuss hasnt been fired from anywhere as offensive coordinator unlike Borges. He has taken a more lucrative job everywhere he went. UW is a step up from Fresno, Bama is certainly a step up from UW, and UM is lateral but he got a generous pay raise.
Borges went from Boise to Oregon (upgrade) to UCLA (probably pay raise) to Cal (down grade, but bump in pay, however UCLA played pretty poorly his last two years there), to Indiana (downgrade) to Auburn (upgrade) to San Diego State (guess its a new slate since he was fired from Auburn) to Michigan (upgrade and ultimately fired).
And with UCLA to Cal, as I said, UCLA won ten games in his last two years total there. If UCLA wanted to keep him, they couldve easily matched what Cal offered. And then Cal fired him with the rest of the staff after one season.
I guess what I am saying is, yes, it is worst.
...and UM is lateral... nice subtle troll of Bama fans.
Are you saying it's not?
its a downgrade....
Bama is college football as of late playing in the premier conference in the country.
Michigan has been mediocre for awhile, still living off of our "tradition" have we even been the 4th best team in the big 10 the last decade?
I'm not a Bama fan ...
I don't see anyone lined up to hire him right now.
Yes because Nuss was leaving to upgrade positions and wasn't getting fired. There's a difference between climbing the leader with success and being a nomad.
I should have clarified, I was specifically speaking only to how long they have both been at each stop, not the perceived quality of their efforts. Short stops are common for co-ordinators, and they are not necessarily an indicator of anything.
But if I recall correctly, the issue was that Nuss wasn't being the puppet that Saban wanted him to be so it was more of a philosophical issue than anything relating to success
Sounds like Saban oversigned his offensive coordinators, but luckily Nussmeier developed an unexplained medical problem so Bama was able to release him from his scholarship, for the benefit of both parties.
At Auburn he inherited a mountain of NFL talent.
At UCLA, he was hired to be the OC after the OC was promoted to head coach, so its really hard to say how much he had to do with the offensive performance after he arrived.
Shut up. You're far too reasonable.
1sr round NFL talent, sometimes a coach really doesn't develop you that much, you're doing that off talent alone in college. You don't have to look off receivers in college to be successful to some degree.
Let's not forget the stable of running backs he had at Auburn....
The funny thing is we put up over 30 points per game last year. Unfortunately a lot of that was due to CMU and Indiana whose defenses were lacking. He wasn't consistent. If we can put up 27-30 points consistently this year then we could very well be in store for a good campaign.
is that the first round picks coached by Borges in college flamed out. QBs are given more leeway than any others position in football, but even 1st round QBs aren't given a ton of time to learn the ways of the NFL. Is there a connection between McNown and Campbell failing as 1st round picks and the lack of NFL level prep they did in college?
Imagine an NFL OC in a meeting room the first time McNown or Campbell couldn't quickly and comfortably identify an elementary component of a defense.
McNown turned out to be a party boy and a jackass with a noodle arm. It's probably to Borges' credit that he was looked at as a first-round pick, but I don't think he had the physical and mental tools to succeed in the NFL no matter who his college coach was.
Campbell, on the other hand, has gotten somewhat screwed with regard to his NFL situations. He started his career getting jerked around with Mark Brunell by the Dan Snyder Redskins, then despite performing decently for some bad teams was jettisoned to the Raiders for the last few seasons of Al Davis. Then he has been a backup for the pre-Trestman Bears and the Browns. I'm not saying that Campbell would have been an all-pro, but it's not surprising that he never had consistent success given his team situations.
His offense at UCLA was pretty good, although his biggest successes were during some down years for the Pac-10. But I can't give him too much credit for putting up 30 ppg at Auburn. 30 ppg is OK, but it isn't even that great for a power team, and he had two top-5 draft picks at RB, a first-round pick at QB, two offensive linemen who were future NFL Pro Bowlers, and two receivers who went on to lengthy NFL careers. With that kind of talent, anyone could have coached them to 30 ppg.
Kyle Kalis next year: "Before [new O Line coach] I never had to identify a Mike. Now I know where the pressure is coming from."
"Before [CLord] was here..."
My avatar > yours
Considering Devin started at Michigan under Rodriguez that would mean that two offensive coaching staffs failed him in this particular area of development. How likely is that?
It could be that DG was too young at the time (there was also Tate to work with), but it could also just be a philosophical issue. Remember, tempo spread offenses actually get audibles from the sidelines after they line up. So if there is an issue, the change is called in. Remember, we actually used to play fast enough to do that.
I'm 99% sure the QBs - no matter who it was - didn't have to worry about finding the Mike under RR, because RR and/or Magee would signal in an audible (or not) before every play.
I'd like to hear someone like Space Coyote chime in, but I just can't buy that it didn't matter in an RR offense. Sure, you can audible, but once the play starts you need to make reads, and RR's not doing that for him. However, perhaps there is something to being a freshman and 3rd-stringer, but if it was something taught, it seems he would have known about it.
EDIT: After scrolling down, looks like it was probably just called out by the line or RB.
I just had to listen to Mike Valenti on
Borges was too busy drawing up funky new formations, he did not have time to be bothered with the basics.....
What he's saying is he (Gardner) didn't call protections, the line did. It sounds bad, and probably is, but its not the same thing as Borges didn't understand football or didn't bother teaching Gardner anything. It's just a different approach to dividing up the responsibilities of the offense.
shouldn't the QB at least be able to identify the MIKE even if the line is handling their own calls? The statement "now I know where the pressure is coming from" is the bigger part to me - it means Borges didn't even teach him to make maybe the most fundamental read to know where the defense is attacking.. because the line was making it?
I think he's saying it wasnt his job to do it last year, as opposed to be didn't know how. Keep in mind the QB, even under Borges, has tons of things he's responsible for identifying (eg coverages) presnap. This would be one more thing on his plate, which becomes a lot especially considering his late we were routinely getting to the line.
what I'm questioning is the tail end of Devin's quote where it sounds like he didn't even know how to identify the MIKE almost. He directly said he now knows how to tell where the pressure is coming from; even if all the blockers know what is going on and the center calls MIKE out, wouldn't you want your quarterback to still be able to identify where the likely pressure is going to come from?
There was no need for the QB to identify the MIKE. All the players who were in pass pro we're communicating the MIKE amongst themselves. Only the people who are actually blocking a pass rush actually NEED to know where the MIKE is. While it's good for the QB to know where he is, it's not essential.
This can be advantageous to the QB, because he can spend his time looking into the Defensive Backfield and try to get the coverage or look at other keys that will allow him to audible into something else (not that DG was allowed to... I never understood that) or look out wide for edge blitzes and the like.
There are many other reasons for the QB not calling the MIKE out, but I can't name them all. But just because Borges didn't have DG do it, doesn't mean he didn't know what he was doing. Borges forgets more football in a day than most of us learn in a lifetime, us coaches included. You have to be a football savant to coordinate at the level he has, and he has been successful, although inconsistent, to boot.
beyond a stretch.
On both the social and purported football knowledge level.
It's my opinion that all OC's and DC's at the NFL and BCS level are football savants. You literally have to be in the 99.9th percentile in coaching to reach those heights.
Not a Borges supporter, just respect him as a high level coach who has had success. Don't forget he probably should have been at least sharing a national championship in the 2003-2004 season and has produced quite a few high draft picks and helped orchestrate M to a Sugar Bowl win. That deserves some admiration/respect, although he clearly has lost a step or two since then. I do feel he deserved to be canned, but he's a good coach.
He does have my respect.
A genius, however, he isn't. There are very few working at the college level. I could name one.
I think, honestly, I'm disputing your word choice rather than his overall skill relative to the coaching community.
No, I don't think coaches are dumb or anything stupid like that. In fact, like you, I'm impressed.
Oh and I agree with everything else you said. Apologies, I'm being a pedant.
from equating savant with genius. They are not synonyms.
awkward takes longer to write out. Socially awkward is probably also inaccurate, but it's also what I intended to mean originally.
Savant was a poor choice in wording on my part. Genius or very knowledgable would have been better.
Honestly, my bad.
"You literally have to be in the 99.9th percentile in coaching to reach those heights."
So NFL and BCS level refs, water boys, cheer leaders, grounds crew... are all savants as well?
" helped orchestrate M to a Sugar Bowl win."
Are you referring to all 184 total yards?
Look at the season as a whole: took a team of players he didn't recruit, an offense he doesn't really know and put up a great offensive season. Hate him all you want, but the dude has sparks of genius.
Are you serious? This has been discussed ad nauseam on this Board and even Borges' most ardent defenders wouldn't suggest anything like that.
those were the remnants of the Rich Rod era. And if anyone was a savant i.e., socially awkward genius, it was Rich Rod and his "you lift me up" finale.
Just because someone makes it to an OC or DC position at a BCS school doesn't mean they are some sort of genius. Yeah, there are a FEW geniuses out there. But a lot of guys are just coaches who come up through the ranks and eventually are given the opportunity. Some deserve it, some don't. Some run with it, some don't. Assuming every OC or DC at the BCS level (or even the NFL) is amazing is ridiuculous Some of them are actually flat out terrible and probably never deserved the opportunity in the first place.
This isn't any different than any other job. You probably have 15-20% of the people that excel, 15-20% that are awful, and then the other 60-70% that are somewhere in the middle.
That would be the case if every football coach was at a BCS and NFL level. They aren't. Your analogy is likely correct for all football coaches at all levels combined. But these are the ones that rose to the top already, because they proved they were inthe top 15-20% (I'd argue much higher than that).
While you can argue he isn't in the top 15-20% at the BCS level (an argument that would have merit), if he was in the 15-20% of people that were terrible at there job, people that were dependent on keeping their job based on his performance wouldn't keep hiring him. As much as you want to believe that seven different head coaches were willing to give over the keys to their offense with their job on the line to a guy that was incompetent, I think it's reasonable to say that isn't the case.
You literally have to be in the 99.9th percentile in coaching to reach those heights.
Literally? Hopw many total football coaches do you think there are in the USA?
...not enough to make your statement literally true.
Thanks, sounds viable. I just shorted my favorite pitchfork stock in the after hours session. It had momentarily spiked 42%.
To take some responsibility off the QB and allow him to look at other things (this is a give and take, there are benefits to the QB calling out the MIKE), Borges had calling out the MIKE delegated.
So alas, all I'll have to add is: if you rewatch the games you'll see the OC point to the MIKE. You'll also note that, because of some of the pass pro schemes they ran, that someone else also tended to call out the MIKE. And the example is an MGoBlog favorite:
Damn I love that gif.
If this is a matter of the QB calling out the Mike, its a non-issue. But if it is about him not identifying one, even to himself, then this is a travesty against the sport.
Lets say you've got an ISO check with me. How does the QB make that decision? Just run to either the 3 or 1 every time? The QB has to know how the line is going to block it, but he wouldn't be able to know without identifying the Mike.
It's weird, because one scenario is no biggie and the other is quite a biggie.
I think it's the former, not the latter. Devin did in fact check runs pretty regularly and successfully based on defensive alignment. It was one of the few things Borges seemed comfortable with him doing (a pretty necessary task really). It's hard to believe that Borges would have him do that without very clear coaching on how and when to make the adjustments, including ID'ing the MIKE among I'm sure many other things.
I agree on all counts. I was just putting a big if out there.
And this is why no one should ever give a substantive answer to the media.
I'm am going from the OP and he did say what he posted may not be exactly the qoute, but if it's close I think your reading comprehension needs work. What he said was (in the OP) He was never taught how to IDENTIFY the MIKE. He didn't say he never had to call out the MIKE. He also followed that up with "Now he knows where the pressure is coming from" which makes it implicit that he didn't know that previously. For those reasons I think you and the other post justifying this statement are offbase considerably.
You were a Borges supporter before and you're sticking up for him now. I understand some people just don't like to trash other people and that's a good trait to have, I'm not belittling you for it. It doesn't make you a bad person, however, to admit someone just wasn't good at their job. You can put the torch down now (the one you're carrying for Borges, not the one for burning down the place if our o-line is still terrible this year), he's gone.
Because he's now being relied upon to make protection reads and calls. His responsibility within that offense was to make other reads pre-snap, mostly coverage reads, but he also made run checks based on numbers (speed option was a run check based on numbers, numbers outside the EMOL and numbers from "zero" to the playside).
But he did identify MIKE in coverage, he knew which keys he was supposed to read on given plays.
Now, calling out protections and identifying MIKE has its benefits, one of the biggest is having a better understanding of where pressure is most likely to come from. With Nuss implementing many hot routes into his offense, it is important that he understands where pressure can't be picked up. But go read Borges's book on QB play, and it talks about doing the same exact thing. He didn't put it on DG last year because he didn't want to lump more on his plate, and he was also simplifying the blocking schemes for the OL.
It's really not an apologist thing. It's just how he ran his offense at this stage at Michigan. Nussmeier believes in handling it another way. That has it's benefits. The biggest benefit is, if DG improves this season and the OL keeps him upright and he gets a shot in the NFL as a QB, he now has the knowledge base of two different systems that tasked him with different things for him to fall back on.
Sorry, had to downvote you for that comment alone. If he had simplified the blocking schemes, we never would have seen the tackle over nonsense from last year.
Were used to simplify the blocking schemes. He didn't simplify the running schemes much (he actually did a little over the course of the season, probably too late at that point), no, but he greatly simplified the pass protection blocking schemes.
From the press conference after the Northwestern game:
We ran 42 different formations that game. Little variations with offset backs and such. We still have that variation, but we reined our schemes in, particualry in the run game. And in pass protection, too, for that matter. We had to at this point, with the young inside players and such. We had to."
They simplified schemes for Northwestern, the 10th game of the season. So he had to sit through the Penn State 27 for 27 performance and the negative rushing yards against MSU and Nebraska before he "reined our schemes in." But he still ran 42 different formations! How is that simplifying the scheme? The scheme might be the same, but you are starting from a different point and so something is subtly different that you have to account for, that you don't have time to rep in practice. Hey, I get it, I defended Borges for a long time too, but let's not twist facts to suit our narratives.
I said he started simplifying his run blocking schemes throughout the season (albeit, probably too late) and simplied his pass protections much earlier. Which he did. Watch the tape. All those slide protections against MSU. That was because he was resorting to those calls to simplify things. I'm not twisting any facts. Borges was nominally a 6-man protection guy, most of the time with hots coming from his TEs. Last year, Michigan was almost all 7-man protections because it's a simpler scheme. I'm not twisting anything. That's what it was. This isn't a defense of Borges, this is just explaining what he did.
People go crazy over the 42 formations thing because they think they are 42 completely different formations. But if he ran Pro-I, but offset his FB strong, weak, and no offset, that's three different formations. Solo, and pistol solo are different formations. Shotgun with the RB strong and weak are different formations. TE on the LOS, TE off the LOS are different formations. WR split outside the numbers, on the hash, and squeezed, are different formations. For a game in which Michigan probably ran 80+ offensive plays, 42 isn't really that crazy for a college team, in fact, I bet we run about the same number of different formations this year.
[First 20 plays of the Fall Scrimmage on the youtube video in my link, Nussmeier ran at least 16 different formations; I won't chart them all, but that gives you an idea of how many formations are often thrown out there]
and Borges is unemployed now, so someone agrees with me...
You're disagreeing with facts. You're disagreeing with what he said. He said "I simplified the pass protections and some of the run schemes." You said he didn't and that it came straight from the horse's mouth. How does that work?
He did simplify the scheme. He said in a press conference that he simplied the blocking schemes, which is what I said. Evidence shows that he simplified the blocking scheme, particularly the pass protections schemes, as early as MSU, if not earlier (that's when I, and many others first noticed Fitz getting matched up with DEs because of slide protections).
He got fired because the offense failed, but if you asked Hoke, or Brandon, or people that watched the game knowing what they were looking at, they'd see that he simplified the blocking schemes, particularly in pass pro, which is what we are talking about. You can make an argument he did it too late. You can make an argument he started with too many. You can make an argument he didn't do it enough. But it's absolutely a fact that he did simplify his pass protection schemes (and it is my opinion, based on knowing what I know, that he started from a fairly limited pass pro scheme amount), and throughout the season he eventually simplified the run blocking schemes.
I'm saying he didn't do that until game 10, well after it had been established that there was a problem with the offensive line. At that point, was he really simplifying things or was he further tinkering? I haven't coached football, but I have coached three other sports. If I change the formation, I have to explain the change to my players and make sure they understand how their responsibilities have changed with the new look. Granted, the concept is the same, but now they have to get from point C to point B instead of point A. It's something that needs to be repped. The incredible amount of mistakes made by that offensive line last year suggests that they weren't getting enough reps with whatever scheme was being used that particular week.
Regarding the MSU game, if he simplified the scheme for State, maybe he shouldn't have. For me, the proof is in the pudding, and MSU anhilated whatever scheme that was that Borges tried.
Trimming Run Game
He didn't run counter trey after ND
Didn't run Down G after the Non-Conf
Reimplemented Tackle Over (run during Bowl Game vs South Carolina) utilizing base blocking schemes (IZ, OZ, Power)
Mostly scrapped OZ after Nebraska.
For Northwestern on, it was pretty much IZ, Power O, and Draw, without any Tackle Over.
Borges Nominally likes 6-man schemes with a HOT
After ND he similified some of the combo zone/man schemes, reduced 6 man schemes
After non-conf he was almost all 7-man schemes, with 6 man schemes being slide protections
And that's where he left it. There are about 20+ kinds of pass pro schemes. Borges was down to single digits, including screen schemes. He did simplifiy his blocking schemes early, and kept simplifying throughout the season. You can argue he should have immediately trimmed to where they ended up. You can argue he should have started where he ended up (which isn't his nominal offense, but young OL and all, you can make the argument). But he did, in fact, simplify throughout the season,
"Before Nuss I never had to identify a Mike"
If he means he's not calling out the Mike, no biggie. Anyone can do that.
If it means he didn't know how to identify one, then any notion that the QB had any run check options is is bunk. And that is bad for an offense.
I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head. And one reason he probably didnt' have any run check options is because with us getting set at the LOS with under 5 seconds on the play clock in most cases he wouldnt have TIME to check out of the play even if he recognized in advance it was doomed.
By the same token, I am 99% sure I saw some run checks, and even some damn good ones. This quote just made me doubt that for a second.
I think the most likely scenario is this is a misquote, or I'm reading it wrong, or Devin just slipped with his usage. But I like to play Devil's Advocate.
How can anyone call protections if you get to the line with a few seconds left on the play clock?
The protection is built into the play call in almost all instances. The only thing left to do at the line is identify the Mike, thereby letting the line know its responsibility, the RB his, and the QB his. It only takes 1-2 seconds. They aren't drawing stuff up out there on the fly.
I'd like to see us up there earlier, but in regards to your question, there's no real reason to.
has started trying to make the "hear the lamentation of their women" quote a reality in practice.
"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."
My name is Mike. True story.
Anyways, cumong staff(s).
All the real mikes pleaee stand up
Testing. Testing. . . . Is this "mike" on?
When watching the NFL, it seems like elite QBs like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning call out who the Mike is, or where the pressure might come from at the line of scrimmage.
If this is a problem that Gardner wasn't doing this, doesn't it ultimately reflect on Hoke for not forcing Borges to change it?
No, because Hoke delegates responsibility. He's a defensive coach.
Also, are you saying because elite NFL QB's do it, Gardner should too? Or was that just an unrelated comment?
before we all start chiming in with the "F Borgess" stuff, lets get a real football mind to enlighten us on what this might have meant. For all we know, Magnus or someone will come in and say "It's not that unusual in some schemes for a QB to not ID the MIKE when making his pre-snap reads and instead key on the Defensive End and the safety... blah blah blah"; or *sigh* it could of course be a sign of incompetence by the departed OC.
Either way, I'd like some knowledge dropped on me from a "Smart Football" type before I knee jerk a "hur BORGESS SUX" response.
think that's all this means.
I did not like Borges as an OC, but the man knew his xs and os. Possibly too well.
See correct answer somewhere below.
Is that you Al?
LOL. Well, count me in the category of people who think this is not that big of a deal. First of all, Al Borges has been around a long time. If he's not requiring his QB to identify the MIKE, then that's one reason I don't think it's necessary for success. I have my issues with Borges, but he runs a complicated offensive scheme; now it seems that some are complaining that he didn't heap more on Gardner's shoulders.
Additionally, there are a large number of college quarterbacks who do not have to identify the MIKE on every play. I think it's more commonplace in the NFL. But generally, the center is responsible for calling out protections and blocking schemes. This is why you often see centers come out from the huddle, scan the defense before gripping the ball, squatting down to scope out the defense, pointing at defenders, etc. Those centers are identifying the MIKE linebacker, calling out combination blocks, pointing out potential blitzers, etc.
I also think that Michigan's running backs were responsible for identifying their own blocking responsibilities. That might be why the whole Vincent Smith "finger gun" thing became such a big deal. He appeared to be identifying the MIKE linebacker and/or potential blitzers.
I have talked to college coaches who have said that the one thing they really want their QB to figure out pre-snap is whether there's one high safety, two high safeties, or zero safeties. Obviously, they have to get everyone lined up properly, check out certain alignments, etc., but there's no point in doing any of that if the QB hasn't identified the deep safety(ies).
That's easy. Last year it was coming from everywhere. Duh.
Bottom line: Gardner says Nussmeier has done a lot to help him "protect myself," lots of talk about run checks, LOS stuff.
— Nick Baumgardner (@nickbaumgardner) August 20, 2014
We all know that didn't exist under Borges last season. Michigan routinely got to the line with about 5 seconds to snap the thing.
— Nick Baumgardner (@nickbaumgardner) August 20, 2014
...is the damning one. I don't think RR's QBs or Meyer's QBs make their own audibles. But I can't think of any reason not to give someone on your side time to audible.
I was about to post the exact same thing. I guess it goes both ways (defense doesn't know our formation either) but I think it would suit an offense more to have time to audible.
And that makes me feel more comfortable. I look forward to the offense having a chance to stop whatever defense is coming.
When that quote about not having to identify a MIKE emerged, I spent a little time on Twitter talking about that with people. It seems that there was never any time to make what might have been vital formation reads last year, nor was there a lot of time for anyone to really get set on a few occasions. It's encouraging to hear that there is stress being put on reading the defense and adjusting to it, something I know we hoped was going to be part of this change.
Devin and the offense were getting set with time running down on the play clock under Al. Defenses did not even have to disguise what they were doing. Nuss gets them up quick and it gives them time to read and audible. This will be a big benefit to the line play and allow DG to get settled.
I was impressed with McCarron's growth while at Alabama. How much that was McCarron and how much it was Nuss remains to be seen.
McCarron (wrongfully) went from being nicknamed McHandoff to a legit threat.
Personally, I thought Nuss brought a lot to the vertical passing game.
Edit: after research, if Devin gets the Nuss bump he'd be sitting at close to 40 tds on the year (unrealistic, and I wasn't being serious but check out how Nuss has affected a qb's td total).
I really don't like linking to espn and I'm sure this has been posted, dissected and regurgitated but: see link that jumps to the top apparently.
Edit2: after writing and rewriting that post I have no idea who it was aimed at but it wasn't Space Coyote.
So take that, whoever.
I remember a post or two about QB development in year two under Al Borges's tutelage as well before the 2012 season. There was quite a significant leap in production for QBs in their second year.
All we can do is wait and see.
is the Line made all the calls under Borges.
Watch this. Embed to help me with this.
Now... given that, what would explain why Borgess would not have had DG making that read/call himself? Was there something he did from a philosophy stand point or scheme stand point that would have had him telling our QB to key in on other things, or, as has been suggested, leave that strictly as a line call? Seems like a a tough read for a bent over center to make; peeking to see if that safety is creeping down...
"Hi Mike. I'm Devin. And we're okay with each other, right?"
"...as long as you don't make me run around in spiral circles until I chuck a duck up into random space."
I don't know about you guys, but Devin is the one person on this roster that actually says things that Coach Hoke probably doesn't want him saying in public. Everyone else seems to have the coachspeak and Fort thing down to a science; Devin, that guy, says how he really feels and what's really going on. As a fan, he's my type of guy. We appreciate you, Devin....remember that even when you get in trouble for sharing, lol.
What? You referring to the pointing out the Mike?
Yes, he basically through Borges under the bus. Hoke has a tendency not to point the figure or blame people. Whether on purpose or not, DG just did that.
BUT thanks to Borges Devin now understands the back to back reverse philosophy. You tell me which is more important
Surely you can't be serious
Thank you for getting it!
But then again, they way plays were run, it was pretty clear they were to line up and run the play Al had called. With little if any time to change the play call at the line, just let the line make their calls and go. Nuss doesn't want to run a play that will most likely fail, so he's giving Devin direction in how to identify pressure and adjust if necessary. Nuss played QB during his days, Al didn't. I always wondered how well he could teach the position given his lack of direct knowledge. As we found out, not very well.
Was Borges doing with this kid?
Possibly, simplifying his role. Gardner had limited experience last year. It is entirely possible that even Borges would have added identifying the Mike to Gardner's responsibilities this year. Just a guess, though.
But why did Borges choose to simplify Gardner's role and give more responsibility to an o-line whose center entering week 5 had zero experience as a starting center? Gardner was a 4th year junior last year, who played QB in high school. Glasgow did not have the same experience as Gardner, and that's why I think things actually got worse when Glasgow replaced Jack Miller at center. Yes, Miller was getting beat more often than Glasgow, so on an individual basis, Glasgow performed better, but how many of the blown assignments where Kalis et al were getting beat was due to poor line calls from the center?
I just re watched last year's MSU game and can confirm that DG did not identify the Mike before the plays.
I don't know if it's a huge deal. Would it have helped against State? I think the timing is probably more important, not having time to identify defenses and call audibles
Al Borges was old school, very old!
...for an offense to identify the MIKE to be able to know when and where pressure from and have hot reads built into the route tree.
And appreciate that we have Nuss. I can't imagine how depressing it would be having to face another season with Borges. If Nuss just has DG throw a quick pass to a cushioned receiver at the line for a free 5 yards it will be an improvement. Take the freebies.
That's what I am more hopeful about. Borges seemed too stubborn and tied to his preset game plan. An OC needs to take what is given sometimes.
Yeah, but I'm sure some player at Alabama is probably saying "We never did XYZ under Nuss".
You can always make any coach look bad with selective player quotes after that coach leaves.
Alabama did not put up negative rushing yards against one of the worst run defenses in the country.
Borges did more to make himself look bad than any fans ever did, he was a good coordinator a decade ago, he hasn't been for years.
No bubble screens allowed. Borges said so.
Borges had to go, not necessarily sure Funk wasn't more the issue. All that being said there is so much, " In Nuss we trust" before we've seen the product. The simple fact is the Defense didn't carry it's weight last year in the slightest.
I'm confident this year is going to be a success. I believe a shitstorm of factors came together last year that can't possibly align again, but let's stop anointing people as the second coming when we haven't seen a thing yet...let's leave that stuff for ND.
I think the expectations for Nuss are out of control. I certainly think he will be an upgrade over Borgess, but Nuss is not miracle worker.
If true how in the hell does Hoke not step in at some point and address that? That's what I don't understand.
Hoke is untouchable for some reason. Plus, I'm not sure if he could identify the Mike either, so I doubt he would be much help. Plus, he just claps his hands and watches the offense without knowing the play calls anyway.
Hoke was a linebacker.
In Hokes post scrimmage interview he was asked what he thought about some
Of the receivers performances. His response was that he didn't know, he was busy watching the middle of the OL to see how the DL was doing. I thought that was a terrible response . It's becoming obvious he can't handle the whole team as head coach and maybe he should focus on DL and recruiting .
The only thing made obvious from that quote is that one's eyes aren't capable of seeing every position on the field. And perhaps that one's brain is incapable of processing all of that even if the eyes could.
He is going to watch film.
If the receivers were the worst part of our team, his eyes would probably go there. But, perhaps coincidentally, the interior of the line is where our biggest weakness was last season. And it also allows him to watch the two youngest players in the defensive front.
Keep trying. You'll come up with something to support your belief eventually.
He only has two eyes, and unless he's really drunk they both point in the same direction. In addition to head coach, he's also a position coach for... drum roll ..... the DL. It's his job during practices and scrimmages to work with the DL and give them feedback after every rep, the same as it is for every position coach, the same as it is for every head coach in the country that also has a position coach responsibility (most of them).
That's what film is for, that's what his assistants and WR coach is for. To be able to see what all 22 guys are doing simultaneously from field level is just impossible, and to make judgements on his coaching chops based on it is assinine.
Its very difficult to watch an interaction between two-four players and also watch the ball. That's why I like the spring/fall scrimmages, I don't feel guilty of cheating myself out of the action watching something that may have zero to do with the end result of a play. I zoned in on Peppers, Ryan to name a couple, to see what they do start to finish on several plays, ignoring the ball.
During the season I do this a lot less because where the ball is going seems to be higher priority. DVR would be a supreme modern tool for being able to do both, alas its not in my toolbox at present.
the Hoke haters are gonna hate. He obviously can't do anything right!
part of the team, exactly where would you want him looking?
shuuut uuuupppp! root for another team then!
he fired him
trampling all over themselves to get to Borges from my house in Florida. Suddenly a couple of sane people posted stern qualifiers and I heard them all licking themselves like cats do when they're caught being stupid.
I seem to remember reading somewhere Young's senior year he had to look to the sidelines for a signal to tell him if the defense was in man or zone
Probably true, but that's how it is for many teams. The issue is that the team needs to get to the line in time to then look at the coaches and make an adjustment
Calling out the MIKE is not a big deal as long as somebody (RB,C,QB) does it. The real problem was our dinosaur pace that got us lined up so late DG could only read/react to the defense post-snap. Having time pre-snap to figure things out will help immensely.
I prefer my QB's to identify the hot routes, mismatches, & ways that the defense is at a disadvantage. Identify the MIKE is a bit overrated
Good luck throwing hot when you don't know which defender to throw hot off of.
jesus hockey sticks
The problem with the Borges offense was the fact that we were one of the slowest teams in the country. Even if the QBs knew what every single player on the defense was doing, it wouldnt have mattered. When you line up with 5 seconds left there isnt a whole lot of time to do anything.
I read this quote the other day and thought of Nuss vs Borges coaching styles.
"I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times" -Bruce Lee-
Nuss will not over complicate this young line and make sure they are good at a few things unlike Borges who had many over complicated plays/ blocking schemes.
I was a Borges supporter.
If this is true, though, mea culpa. I can't even imagine what the QB meetings would be like. There might be a reason for the lack of calls, but I just can't imagine what that reason would be.
and there are still guys supporting Borges here and calling people out for disliking him.
As opposed to the people who can't stop beating the dead horse even after he's gone? I didn't post the thread, I'd be very happy never talking about the dude ever again, but when people take things so completely out of context and intepret it completely wrong, I guess I feel compelled to give my two cents to try and set the record straight.
Feel free to answer People Who Know More Football Than Me
There's some good discussion among the coaching types here.
Basically, when the offense ID's the "MIKE" it isn't necessarily the same position for the defense (i.e. Jake Ryan). The offense is trying to determine the alignment of the defense and determine it's blocking assignments off of it, the "MIKE" is a common reference point in the center of the formation.
When you spend an entire year as a backup qb watching film and taking snaps in practice instead of being the teams 3rd or 4th best wide receiver. You might also have some value when the first string qb gets hurt in Nebraska.
One bit. Of course he knew the Mike...he was the guy offering him a hand up after just crushing him -10 yards for a sack. Now, after those beat downs could he REMEMBER the Mike's name???? Heck, no.
turn into a meme thread.
There's some debate back and forth on these comments about who is supposed to identify the Mike, and what DG's comment means. But regardless of the specifics, I think this is emblematic of one of Borges' biggest failures, which we can probably agree on: he didn't give his offenses a chance to react pre-snap to the defense's alignment. The offense almost never got to the line with more than 10 seconds left on the play clock, and our formation would often give away what we were trying to do (Ace slot formation? Tunnel screen to the outside guy. Tackle over? Power run to strong side. Ace pistol? Speed option. Etc. etc.). I virtually never saw Devin audible at the line, with the exception of that speed option TD versus ND.
This is how we end up running into stacked boxes all day against PSU, or how we end up taking 7-step drops facing blitz looks vs. MSU. It's also probably why we had such success versus Ohio: they amost always used vanilla looks, so there wasn't much that we needed to react to.