Do you really want Borges replaced?
The guy is not changing and does not want to hear about other ways of doing it. A combination for the worst type of employee or leader. We will be waiting for him to do well once every 8-9 years when every single variable matches up for him to be successful since he is unwilling to match the circumstance. The guy has got to go.
since he is unwilling to match the circumstance.
While I don't necessarily disagree, I doubt in 8-9 years we will have to worry about Borges adapting an offense to his personnel because, presumably, his desired personnel would be on campus by them.
Very good post. Borges has shown time and time again that despite giving it the ol' college try at times, when push comes to shove, he reverts back to what he knows. You can say this for every OC out there, but Al takes it maybe to a new degree. With our current personel, this has created very bad results on a number of occasions, but it's a problem that, recruiting and position coaching permitting, is temporary.
The counterpoint is GERG. He was talked/forced into a system he wasn't familiar with and it was even more of a disaster. You'd hope a guy like Al that claims to be a student of the game would understand other systems well enough to run them, but the truth of the matter is OCs at this level are as good as they are because they are very specialized in one particular system. There's simply no way to be as good at running multiple systems as dedicating all your time to knowing one inside and out.
That's not to say he's doing a good job even within his system of calling plays that counter defensive tendencies, but at the same time there's only so much you can ask of a coordinator to be someone he's not.
this is true, but him being the QB coach, and Devin not getting any better is more frustrating to me.. Especially after he trained all off season with that QB coach. Maybe devin just sucks, even though he was the top Dual threat QB in the nation out of hs..
I can't even imagine how many more points we would be averaging if we had an kind of a running game
We are also a couple plays away from being 3-3
Do you really think it doesn't matter how those games transpired, just that we won? You need to take your head out of the sand. One game like that would have been chalked up to a fluke, team wasn't focused, any number of things. But three games like that in 5 weeks (we had a bye in there too) suggests a trend and not the fluke we all hoped.
If you are too short sighted to see what barely winning games against teams like Akron, UCONN and losing to Penn state means than fine, that's o.k. But don't bash other people for being able to recognize when something is wrong and ponder how it could be fixed.
Their close games were not against Akron or a shit UConn...factor that in with the favt that neither of them lost a regular season game. Those guus appeared to imprpve. Borgess seems to have the troops regressing.
The same was said about UMass and Indiana in 2010. The issue isn't so much a win or a lose; obviously people are frustrating and voicing their concerns over a loss (but it goes to the point made in this week's obsession about the criticism feeling more justified since we lost rather than if we won). The concern is how our team matches up against seemingly inferior opponents (their cumulative ranking is 12-19) compared to the more talented teams awaiting us down the road. Road games at Michigan State and Iowa aren't going to be easier than Penn State. Ohio, NW, and Nebraska all have offenses that have exploited our defense in the past. The point is a we might have been able to squeak out wins against Akron and UConn but the quality of product, much like 2010, at 5-1 appears better than it is because of the weaker level of competition. You can fall back on your old adage of a win is a win, but everyone knows that isn't true when analyzed across the length of a season.
Re read my post. I'm using GERG as an example of what can happen if you force a guy out of the system he's familiar with. I'm saying for all the guys clamoring for us to run something different, you should be careful what you wish for. I'm am not saying Borges = GERG.
Be very careful, Creedence. You are citing facts and making a rational argument. It is a very dangerous time for you, young Jedi.
You seem to be implying that others criticizing his argument are not. However, the people disagreeing with him are making just as rational arguments and citing facts. Additionally, he is criticizing the Borges v. Gerg comparison but then makes a faulty comparison himself by comparing Michigan's offensive ranking after playing a cupcake schedule versus Gerg's defensive rankings after playing the full season. Although I do agree his level-headness is good, his argument and reasoning isn't more impressive than those disagreeing with him.
We are also one field goal and about one to two yards away from being 3-3. With UConn and Akron being two of the losses. Additionally, you are complaining about the Gerg comparison but you are equally wrong about equating our current offensive ranking to Gerg's end season ranking. Gerg's defensive rankings were based on playing the tougher parts of the schedule. We have yet to see the tougher parts of our schedule. Our offensive rank could resemble that after playing MSU, Ohio, NW, or Iowa. I think people are justified in being concerned (ignoring the fact that we are concerned about kids playing a college sport).
Fire Borges. Take Funk with him. Never been more positive about the need for a coaching change in my life. Been following UM 35 years. Hoke and Mattison? Stay. Borges and Funk? Go. At end of year after the upcoming losses to MSU NW and Ohio.
totally agree. I only refer to him as Mule after last Saturday.
After reading his reply to Heiko's question? Hell F'n yes.
Nobody expects him to throw the bubble 27 times a game. But apparently running into a stacked box 27 times is a better solution than Heiko's question.
His response to Heiko basically made it easy for me to side with the Fire Borges crew.
For him getting negative or no yards is better than picking up 4-6 easy yards.
I've said this before, but there are multiple reports that he has a sour personality and clashes with other staff members wherever he goes. That's the last thing we need.
If we pay a prospect OC like we pay Mattison, I think most of the dudes at the top powerhouses would jump instantly. But you listed four non-MANBALL teams, so fat chance getting them here.
If Paul Chryst weren't a head coach already, he'd be a decent option if we really want MANBALL.
Those are solid reports.
Anyone would be better than Borges. Give me NW's OC. Wisconsin's OC. Indiana's OC. Anyone.
"If we pay a prospect OC like we pay Mattison, I think most of the dudes at the top powerhouses would jump instantly."
We DO pay our CURRENT OC like we pay Mattison.
Mattison salary - $750,000
Borges salary - $660,000
Yes. He not only doesnt understand the problem he is dismissive and mocks the solutions. He have zero chance of sustained success as long as he's in control. His defense and arrogant press conference did me in completely.
The last time I felt this hopeless on one side of the ball was in the last days of Gerg. We are fucked no less this time.
Fire Borges now.
i've read a lot of your posts and agree with your general sentiment. i'm as frustrated with borges as most people. i have been since day 1 that he showed up. however, i don't think it's a good idea to fire borges now. who takes over? fred jackson? if hoke was an offensive guy, i could possibly see it, but he's not. that said, i hope borges is gone at season's end for reasons stated countless times on this thread and other threads.
Yeah, Lane Kiffen . . . I gues we know that "MichWOlve95" is Kiffen's mom or has a learning disability. Get serious, dude. Kiffen??
Despite the issues with play calling and having a few bad games, I still can't help but feel that a lot of this talk is extremely reactionary and as direct result of a heartbreaking 4OT loss that we let slip away.
Regardless, I'm uncomfortable firing our OC half way through a still perfectly salvageable season. If the offense doesn't improve and we continue to struggle, even with wins, we can think about firing Borges in the off-season.
He deserves to be on the hot seat, along with Funk, but firing them at this juncture is a mistake, and Hoke isn't going to do it, so it's a moot point.
But you should read the presser transcript. That's almost more concerning than anything he's done on the field.
I've seen the presser. It's actually one of the least concerning things ever, because coaches never say anything in pressers.
Borges always says nothing (same with pretty much all of our coaches) and his demeanor is "general disdain" even when things are going well, so why would you expect him to be anything but curt after a loss?
Most coaches don't become mocking and defensive and throw players under the bus ("execution"). Heiko got very direct, and Borges didn't even Fort Schembechler it. He could have said any number of nothings. Instead, he pretty much called Heiko an idiot.
Most coaches don't mock reporters? What planet are you living on?
Also, coaches talk about execution or lack thereof almost constantly, it doesn't necessarily mean they're throwing players under the bus.
Borges never answers Heiko's questions, and is always dismissive of him.
You guys are seriously becoming cable news "body language experts" on this shit, and are way over thinking it.
Does no one remeber how cantanerous and combative Lloyd was after a loss? No? Apparently not? OK.
But Al mocked the correct answer. Most times coaches mock reporters its when the reporter has asked a really stupid question or drawn an equally stupid conclusion. Heiko did neither. It's like Al kept saying "2 + 2 = 7" the entire game and Heiko said "have your considered 4 instead of 7" and Al laughs at him.
"4....is THAT your answer???????"
I mean seriously - is there ANYTHING he could do (or not do) that would make you feel differently about him? I was a staunch RR apologist so I know what it's like to be on the wrong side of history.
But there isn't one correct answer, and running the occasional bubble screen isn't going to fix anything. They should run more quick passes or screen passes, I agree, but they are not a panacea. I'm also not a football expert, nor do I have extensive knowledge of the players and their limitations. Maybe they've tried it in practice andd are terrible at executing it? Maybe Devin's throws have been consistently off or late, allowing defenders to get a jump on the play? I don't know. No one does except for the coaches and players.
It also doesn't solve the problem of us being totally incapable of running between the tackles. Maybe you pull one defender out of the box for a play or two, but this line hasn't been able to block consistently in almost any situation.
Also, Brian simply stating that a because a defender is playing 10 yards off means an automatic 5-10 yards on a bubble screen is just a fallacious statement. It's not a given regardless, but with the way Devin has thrown the ball it's most definitely not a given. That doesn't mean they shouldn't run it on occasion if the inside stuff isn't working, but who knows? Apparently some random guys on the board have all the answers and could step right in and solve all of our play calling issues.
The one thing that all of those horrible runs did do was open up the play action passing game, which I think has been coming along for us. That was the one silver lining ffrom that otherwise awfulness.
Why do you keep insisting I love Al Borges? Stop. It's embarrassing for you and not even remotely true.
Are you totally incapable of grasping nuance?
Do you not realize that there are massive chasms between "I FUCKING LOVE ME SOME BORGES, BEST COORDINATOR EVER! IS IT TOO LATE TO APOLOGIZE (FOR BORGES)?" and my stance, which I don't feel I need to repeat yet again specifically for you. If you can't grasp it by now, as well as that chasm, then I can't help you.
They aren't a risk if the CBs are ten yards off of the receivers. DG can hit an uncovered man, no question. Denard - whom I love - could do it, and he was far more limited as a passer than DG. Worst case scenario is an incompletion. A very likely scenario is that, say, Gallon gets four or five yards and maybe more.
You are right that using these routes wouldn't fix everything - not even close. However, spacing is important, and even manball-y teams like Alabama and Stanford stretch the field horizontally. There is no reason not to do it.
I feel like you think this PSU debacle is all people are referring to when they talk about getting rid of Al. You remember last year, when the same points were brought up after losses that we could have possibly eon? You remember when bubble screens were talked about last year as a solution to teams stacking the box? Guess what... it hasn't gotten better. I'm not quite sure why you think it will.
I wish they could bring back posbangs.
He knew perfectly well what Heiko was asking and deflected the question at Heiko's expense.
They've circled the wagons at Ft. Schembechler. The loss was implicitly the fault of Gardner, specific O-lineman and Gibbons - not the plays called. Expect more of the same for the remainder of the season.
So now I am torn - how do I support the team in the face of Borges' press responses? Do we boo (like we used to with Bo) when we constantly go up the middle on 1st and 2nd down?
It is going to be a long season ....
Maybe the reporter shouldn't be asking the OC why he doesn't run a specific play named "bubble screen", especially when he's already been given short answers about that in the past? Maybe there's a better way to word the question so that it doesn't come off so...combative.
EDIT: Not actually calling Heiko an ass, please don't read it as that. I think Heiko is one of teh few not afraid to ask more nuanced questions...but in this instance, I do think he could have worded his question better.
Heiko very easily could have just asked if there was something they could have done to keep the defense honest, rather than dropping his buzz words that he knows irritate Borges. It's right up there with Jim Rome intentionally calling Jim Everett, "Chris," just to piss him off.
Borges has done nothing but scoff at that question from Heiko, in good times and bad. So what makes anyone think he would give a legitimate response to it in the wake of a loss where numerous people (including Heiko's employer) are calling for his head?
One of the problems with asking nuanced question is that 99% of the time, coaches wont answer them.
They're not going discuss in depth football strategy, or the ins and outs of their play calling with a reporter, let alone some young kid who works for "one o' them thar blogs." Especially a blog that has constantly ragged on Borges and called for his head.
People getting angry about it need to just let it go. If Michigan had won 100-0 and Heiko asked the question about bubble screens he would have received the same scorn.
Wasn't it coach Gregg Popovich who once said in response to a sideline reporter asking a question about what they were going to do to fix something at half time, "You seriously think I'd tell you?"
i agree that people get too worked up over press conferences. personally, i couldn't care less about them. what i do care about is the performance on saturdays and efforts to improve. i will give some credit for the "tackle over". at least they tried something. but it takes a D coordinator about 5 minutes to counter that. so where is borges' counter? it is non-existent. football is like chess. the pieces can be moved in multiple directions if the coaches choose to do so to counter the opponent. unfortuneately, if appears that borges only knows how to play checkers; his pieces can only go in one direction. he refuses to take advantage of the world of options out there with the pieces that he has; despite the interior line deficiencies.
This is 100% correct. The thread should stop here.
did you watch the sparty and iowa games in year 1,how about the ohio game last year,not having devin ready to play against nebraska. BIG AL has cost us at least 5 games.
I don't think the OP was suggesting immediate firing; he specifically talks about salvaging the offense against MSU and OSU.
Anyways, I've been seeing you defend Borges a lot in other threads, and I'm curious what you've seen that inspires you. The offense is, at best, wildly inconsistent. Borges' offense seems all over the place, conceptually, and he seems to be extremely stubborn in the worst possible way. It's a total crapshoot, game to game, whether the offense will be functional or not. Add to that a seemingly total lack of player development (young or not, the O line should not be this bad, and Borges-as-QB-guru has yielded Denard's regression and whatever Gardner's season is shaping up to be).
I actually missed the PSU game (watching Comedy Bang Bang Live was definitely the right call, as it turns out), so I'm not reeling from some post PSU PTSD or anything. I just don't seem any kind of development, cohesion, or positive long term trajectory on the offensive side of the ball at all.
If you've been seeing me defend Borges then you've been seeing wrong.
If you've been seeing me say, ""Hey, the play calling has been bad at times and Al is definitely deserving of criticism, but maybe there are more issues here other than 'ZOMG AL SUCKS, FIRE HIM!' and maybe we can criticize Al without being complete dick bags?" that would be much closer to the truth, because it's what I've been repeating ad nauseam.
I guess "defending" is a relative term.
I just haven't seen anything from him over the past two and a half seasons to really warrant any kind of benefit of the doubt. He needs to go, along with Funk. The cycle of hiring coaches kind of dictates that he gets to ride out the season, but he needs to be fired as soon as that final whistle bowls.
I mean, almost every single post I've said the play calling has been bad or qustionable, and/or stated that he deserves criticism, but because I don't believe the dude should be fired immediately or that we should have his head on a pike, and because I don't blame him entirely for all of our shortcomings....that makes a "defender?"
With defenders like that you wouldn't need detractors.
As for the other stuff, he has called a few good games, and his work with Devin last year can't just be ignored. Also, the 11-2 season. He's had his moments for sure, but I think at the very least we can let the rest of this season play out before giving him an official up or down vote.
If Sparty can fix their absolute train wreck of an offense, then maybe there is some hope for us.
I actually meant that "defender as relative term" thing to mean that you just seemed like you were defending him because of the context, not that you actually were. Basically that I misremembered what you said because of where you said it (i.e., surrounded by much more intense criticism).
As for the idea that he's called good games here or there, part of my issue with the offense is how wildly erratic they are. The fact that they can play ND the way they did, then turn around and play Akron they way they did is not a good thing. It's not just his playcalling, but the way he structures the entire offense (i.e., he doesn't). It's the seemingly total lack of preparation. Players are asked to do such a random assortment of plays and aren't really coached up to execute any of them. Then the players get called out by the coaches because they aren't executing. At some point, it's simply a systemic issue of the coaches not teaching the players how to execute.
Calling a few good games does not negate the total lack of coaching going on on the offensive side of the ball. And I'm not sure how anyone can point to Gardner's play as an endorsement. He played his best ball after training for a season as a WR. An offseason with QB coaching from Borges and he's regressed severely.
Sparty's situation is actually one that frustrates me more. They've had a paper thin patch work OLine for a couple of seasons, and they got that figured out midway through last season. They were a wreck that figured out how to get stuff done. Borges is the opposite. Things looked pretty good at one point and are getting much, much worse over time.
I agree that the wildly erratic play on offense has been a problem, and needs to be fixed. I definitely put deal of that on the coaching staff.
I also happen to put a good deal of it on the fact that our last two quarterbacks have been wildly erratic. Offenses tend to go as their QBs do, and in our case that has seemed to be true even more so than typical.
Devin and Denard, for all of their faults, have basically been our entire offense the past few years. If they have a good game we win, if they have a bad game we lose.
You can certainly blame the coaching staff for failing over the course of 3 seasons to provide them with a competent running game to mitigate their bad games (save for a few short stretches the past 2 years).
It's also no secret that Denard and Devin are not the ideal QBs for our current coaching staff, and they've done a fairly decent job winning games regardless.
I think a case can be made that our offense improved over the course of each season, and hopefully that trend will continue this year. The problem is that improvement has yet to carry over in-between seasons, which is definitely a problem.
I'm not ready to call this season a wash. Even with the offense struggles they have continued to put enough points on the board, and I believe the defense is good enough to keep them in every game from here on out.
Agree about the season not being a wash, and I agree about the defense's role in that.
I'd just say two things: One, Borges deserves some of the blame for Gardner's erratic play, given that he has been his QB coach the past three seasons (or two and a half, considering his moonlighting at WR). Two, I don't think Gardner is a misfit for Borges' offense; just because he can run doesn't mean that he isn't also a tall, downfield passer with a strong arm.
I agree with GoBlueInNYC. How can people say that Gardner is not an ideal fit for Borges offense? He is tall (6'4ish), decent weight (210 lbs), has a great arm and throws a great deep ball. Does't that sound like a lot of the QB's we are recuriting now? The fact that he can run should just be an added bonus here.
And I really agree that Borges deserves a lot of the blame for Gardner's erratic play. You can't give a kid 3rd and 8 all the time because borges is too stuborn to think outside of the run your rb into the defensive line on every single first down and most 2nd downs. Borges is setting the kid up to fail.
Completely agree. Gardner has a pretty solid arm and has the ability to hit some tight windows.
I'd actually argue that without Gardners legs we would be 2-3 at best.
I meant 2-3 wins not record. Typing on the phone is tough.
where do you see Borges actually HELPING this team? Do you think our QB's have improved under his guidance? DO you believe that he UNDERSTANDS the strengths and WEAKNESSES of this team's offense?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND IF MICHIGAN MAKES A FIRST DOWN ON THAT LAST DRIVE, THEY WIN THE GAME .... WITHOUT A FG EVEN BEING ATTEMPTED.
Al called THREE STRAIGHT handoffs to Fitz ... when a FIRST DOWN WINS THE GAME. CASE CLOSED ... HE IS A PROVEN MORON AND IS A LIABILITY TO THE SUCCESS OF THIS TEAM.
A proven moron eh? You might want to take a step back and re-evaluate your perspective. The guy has reasons for everything he has done, and none of them are "moronic". I'll give you this. I think QB coach and OC may be too much for the man. I'd like to see them hire a QB coach/recruiter. If they have to get rid of a coach, Funk would be the leading candidate. Then Brady and Al could tag team the OL, Brady teaching technique and Al teaching assignment.
I also think we could benefit from a dedicated QB coach. The question is what coach do we cut/consolidate in order to get one.
poor yourself a scotch, or something ...
"his work with Devin last year can't just be ignored."
Devin Gardner - who largely played his best games coming right off being a receiver (not coached by Borges), and has gotten worse relatively consistently since then (being coached by Borges)?
I thought he was a bad hire. My opinion hasn't changed, obviously. How's that for extremely reactionary?
I would say, only if he's the real reason we are bashing guys into the stacked boxes play after play. It very well could be Hoke forcing him to do this. Unfortunately we don't know who is really making this (exceedingly stupid) call
Has Scott Loeffler's shine worn off? His name used to be thrown around a lot before he went to auburn.
is 5-1, I don't have any clue of the offensive output down there. He was walking on a tire fire down in Auburn wasn't he?
If he is in a Borges like role where he is developing qb's no one can dispute his ability to coach up the qb's and recruit them. . .
Virginia Tech is basically the Michigan State of the ACC, stifling defense and just enough offense to win games.
Borges down there. They ran manball and found out they couldn't now the are throwing it around and it seems to be clicking for vt
That's not the same as Borges - Borges would continue to manball it into a stacked box and ignore everything else.
No, Borges likes to throw more than run. What's he supposed to do when his qb throws the ball directly at defenders, though? When you have a lead, running 3 times into a attached box is better than any risk of a turnover.
When has Gardner done that in the last two games? You at least have to try to win games instead of giving them away - continutally running into the center of a stacked line is not the way to go, and it's not a problem that just surfaced this year.
Also, his other pick in that game wasn't directly at the defender, but he knew he was going to Gallon that entire play. He should have seen that defender breaking on Gallon before he makes that throw. PSU was working to take away Gardner's security blanket all day long and they got 2 picks out of it.
Maybe, the reason they haven't given Devin the authority to check into a bubble screen is because he can't read defenses well enough yet and they are afraid that he will check into it too often and then end up with a Pick 6.
I was listening to Drew Lane on the new 105.1 Detroit Sports station, and he had nothing but positive things to say about Loeffler. As a matter of fact, Lane spoke about how VaTech used to run the ball right up the gut on first down, just like we do. Loeffler seems to fixed that problem, and because of it, the offense and QB Logan Thomas are doing better.
Unfortunately, Drew might want to check out the stats to see how effective the VaTech offense is. In short: not very.
Va Tech is one of those schools where I tend to look at their offense differently. When your defense is generally that much better than everyone you play, I get being a little conservative. Also when your coach was Emperor Palpatine's mentor, you're going to have to deal with being stubborn.
That being said, Loeffler has ended up in some really bad spots for what seem to be his talents.
I just brought him up because he has the connections that Brady would seem to like, and there is at least the possibility that he is more innovative on offense, but not so old as to be supremely stubborn.
I would love Loeffler back at Michigan given his success molding talented quarterbacks into leaders. VT fans keep saying how much more confident Logan Thomas looks this year and how the passing game is smoother. Recievers are running sensible routes that open at different times. VT's running game is a work in progress but Loeffler is working with a limited O-line and very young runningbacks.
Logan Thomas looked pretty damn good two years ago, too. Last year he looked like crap most of the time. The primary difference between those two years? The graduation of most of the OLine (full of 5th year seniors who ended up being drafted). Logan Thomas didn't regress; his OLine did, and perhaps his receiver corp as well.
Auburn was a tire fire because it's Auburn. HC wanted to switch from spread style to pro style with the same personnel. It's essentially what RR did to 2 DC's that weren't familiar with running 3-3-5.
One was smart enough to move on. The other said, "I'll cash that check and let you touch the beaver"
Loeffler had a good run as OC/Qb coach at temple and has a proven track record as a Qb coach.
Scot Loeffler was one of the smartest guys in my Freshman English class.
Tom Dolan on the other hand...
“Offensively what we’re going to be is this: we’re going to be a pro-style attack that huddles and has the ability to no-huddle,” he said. “And I think that’s really important in college football and in pro football. The reason that we want to huddle is that we want to trade, shift and manipulate the defense and get our best players matched up against their worst players. And when you’re simply no-huddle, you can’t do that. You can’t create those matchups.”
sounds good to me. if he has success this year, i would gift wrap the OC job to him.
saying they have “specific skill sets and we’ll just utilize what they do well.”
something borges is too stubborn to do.
Good God, yes. I think it's quite clear that he's just not getting it done. I find it ludicrous that RR was criticized for an immediate shift to the spread and fired after three years but there's a sizable contingent still crying to let Borges "get his players" and suggesting we give him FIVE years? This offense is crap. Other teams get it done with young players. No more excuses. Accountability.
Didn't want him replaced, just wanted him to get his head out of his a** when it came to sticking with what clearly isn't working.
Though after reading this press conference, I'm might be changing my mind.
This is where i am. I generally like what I've read about borges as a person and it was my hope that he would be innovative and bring in novel concepts on how to use our somewhat misshapen team to exploit weakness in defense and allow our strengths to shine.
This past game crushed that image I had in my mind and now I'm just filled with sad. The press conference went as expected and was equally depressing, as it was just confirming that there were no revelations from that experience.
I wanted to see Borges get better and improve as a coach, but I'm not seeing that. if that's not going to happen, maybe there needs to be an alternate to improving...
I just want to see a well-executed hurryup with MANBALL sprinkled in when we catch them subbing wrong. I just want to see Devin make checks at the line and have enough time to do so. I just want to see the offense tailored to fit its personnel.
What confuses me is I was under the impression that was the direction we were headed. I could have sworn I was reading articles when he was hired where Hoke talked about wanting to run the 2-minute drill as their offense.
Devin has started what, 11 games? He was practicing as a WR last year and in his first year under RR the QB wasn't even allowed to make checks. The ability to read defenses and make checks at game speed comes from game experience with very few young genius quarterbacks. Borges isn't telling Devin not to make checks. Devin has just been a limp noodle mentally since the ND game.
He did it successfully at least 4 or 5 times in the OOC games, including one for a TD against ND. Like Brian and Ace mentioned in the podcast, I don't think Borges is holding that back,I just don't think they are getting to the line quickly enough for him to make a read.
who has already graduated. I am guessing he's intelligent and mature enough to recognize 9 in the box and call a check.
but maybe he sees the light and gets it fixed. C'MON AL,where you born yesterday or something???
I'm willing to live with him if in the offseason he goes on one of the vision quests that coaches sometimes go on in which they learn new things. If you look at what Coach Beilein did at WVU and compare it to what he does now, many things are similar, but he's changed too. That's no more and no less than what I want from Borges...That said, I'm not optimistic - for whatever reason. Does Stanford have an up-and-coming offensive coach Michigan could poach? Does Alabama? Does Georgia? I don't know.
I absolutely would not fire him during the season. Who would replace him?
EDIT: Just read his presser. Ugh.
He is coaching at Va Tech right now. He has the B1G and SE connections. I still live in my fantasy world in which he unplugged DeBord's headset and was calling all of the plays in the bowl win over Florida. So, in that fantasy world, he can do no wrong.
IMO that was the PERFECT Michigan offense.
I have said many times, "where the hell was that when we needed it against OSU and USC in 2006/7".
No offense to Loeffler, but Va. Tech isn't exactly lighting it up this year on offense (including a 3.3 YPC) and last year's Auburn offense was said to have tipped their hand quite often. Doesn't that seem like a risky hire?
Never wanted him and neither did any other team in the country.
Yes, he has to go. Beyond his playcalling, you have to worry that he may start affecting recruiting because top offensive recruits won't want to come play in this prehistoric offense.
Obviously this hasn't been a problem so far but at some point it may start having an effect. One thing I've noticed in reading what recruits say about Michigan is that all the defensive guys praise Mattison for his schemes, I just don't see that a whole lot with Al Borges.
He is known as a QB guru (he's coached two guys, Cade McNown and Jason Campbell who were first round picks), so I could see one solution being to move him to a QB coach type roll with no playcalling duties and hiring a new OC.
Beyond his playcalling, you have to worry that he may start affecting recruiting because top offensive recruits won't want to come play in this prehistoric offense
That is patently not true. Going back to Pro-style has been a huge boon for recruiting, and there have been numerous positive comments from recruits and commits about how excited they are that Michigan is going back to Pro-style. More over, it differentiates us from other programs so we're not competing for the same recruits as, say, Ohio. There's nothing wrong with scheme. It's play calling that's the problem, as far as Al is concerned. I still strongly believe the execution by the OL is what's killing our offense much more so than Al. Al needs to starting thinking hard about creating a cohesive set of plays that work off each other so that whatever the defense is doing, you have something that can take advantage of that. You can certainly do that in a pro-ball system without a lot of flash.
It isn't the play style that worries people about recruiting. It is Borges failing to put together an exicting offense based on that style that worries. Kids want to play in offenses that allow them to excel. That does not seem to be happening under Borges.
I shouldn't have said prehistoric offense, I should have said prehistoric playcalling. Obviously you can recruit talented players while running a pro-style offense but if Borges isn't going to get even a little creative with playcalling within his pro style system then I can see that hurting recruitng.
But at this point I don't care how he coaches the rest of the way anymore. He's called fantastic games in the past, with brilliant gameplans and playcalls that play off each other beautifully. He's also called absolute stinkers just as often.
At this point, I really believe that Borges comes up with a fresh gameplan every week and simply has no real idea of whether or not it will work until he puts it on the field. This wouldn't be too terrible if it weren't occurring in conjunction with his utter inability to admit when his gameplan is flawed and move on to something else.
I think this past game is the best possible example of this. He came in with a gameplan of how to get the power running game working. Having never really used this gameplan before, the only indication he had of whether or not it would be effective was his own intuition. After it became incredibly obvious to everyone involved that the gameplan was flawed and the power running game was dead in the water, Borges seems to say "Nah, I'm still pretty sure this is going to work."
As for replacements Cam Cameron was not surprisingly my first thought as well, but you're right he's probably not going anywhere. But honestly I don't really care that much who they look to put in there. Changing coordinators is a lot easier than changing head coaches, especially since Borges isn't really involved in recruiting. They just need to dump him and find a new guy to try out. Maybe an up-and-coming NFL position coach, maybe a lower-level college coordinator, really just someone else.
Borges is clearly not the answer at this point, so the longer we spend with him at the helm, the longer we have to wait until we find a guy that is. Maybe we have to run through a couple OCs before we get there, that's fine. As long as we are trying to get there, and not just settling for good enough.
Do nothing until the end of the season. Then make adjustments, quietly. No drama.
But you can forget about it. Hoke is not going to fire Borges, they are on the same page. Not entirely sure about Funk.
What's frustrating is that Borges knows how to call an effective offense and can do it when he wants to/is allowed to. We've seen it in the Outback bowl, 2011 OSU and Nebraska, even the first half of CMU this year.
But for some reason, he/Hoke decide that those spurts of effective offense are not "who we are", and the handcuffs come back on. Then we get 2011 Iowa, 2012 OSU, 2013 PSU.
The good news is that if history is a guide, we have one or two more games this season where the effective offense will be allowed out until the coaches feel too dirty to continue it.
Not sure Funk is even part of the problem. The fact that he cannot teach the 5 OLs how to block against 10 defenders would likely be a problem no OL coach could overcome. Our OL is numerically outmanned on almost every single "let's run it into the middle of the line and tell them we're doing it" play that Borges calls that it is impossible to fairly assess their skills and Funk's coaching ability. No matter how good the coach is, he can't teach five guys to block ten guys.
5 OL to block 10 defenders.... yes. That is what happened.
People are claiming Michigan ran into stacked boxes all day. Well an 8 man front is expected when you are in 22 personnel, it's standard for that. 7 for 21 or 12 personnel, 6 for 11 personnel. This is what Michigan saw most of the day.
Never at any one time was there a play that asked 5 OL to block 10 defenders. Never was there a call that only asked the 5 OL to block any more than 5 defenders.
I get the exaggeration to a point to make a point, such as "we are running into 8-9 man boxes". Alright, I can live with that even if it's a little misleading. I can live with a crazy exaggeration like "we're running into 20 men in the box" because that's obvious. But what you just said is in that gray area where it's just ridiculous, because it sounds like you're being serious and comes off as having no clue.
Lets see what happens after the MSU and OSU games. His position should be reevaluated after that. He should get the opportunity to fix the problem just like the MSU staff did. He had a great gameplan against Notre Dame and the offense looked like it was coming back around in the 2nd half of the UConn game and I think Hoke forced his hand on the power run game strategy.
Right now? Certainly not. End of season? Most likely not.
I don't think he's a great OC. I don't think Michigan is going to get a much better one though, honestly. I still think he's playing with a hand tied behind his back with the OL issues to a real extent. He gets at least one more year.
I've heard people say things like "Borges is calling run plays because the alternative is to risk Gardner INTs," "it's not Borges out there turning the ball over," and "there's only so much he can do with that OLine." But isn't he at least partially responsible for those problems?
I mean, Gardner's TO issues should fall on the QB coach and offensive play caller's shoulders (i.e., Borges and Borges). The OLine issues might be directly related to Funk, but the chain of responsibility to through Borges (I know Funk is A1 and Hoke is the HS, but this is a Borges-focused thread).
Blaming anything on Gardner's tendency to turn over the ball is BS. In the second half, Gardner was not turning the ball over. Hoke says only one 1st half INT was Gardner's fault and that the fumble on a blind side hit was not his fault (I did not see the first half), so the turnover machine argument does not wash. In the second half, Gardner looked great. After we went up 34-24, Borges stopped letting Gardner play effectively and reverted to the smash your head against the wall approach with predictable results. As someone pointed out, Funchess was not even targeted after the 13:09 mark of the fourth quarter after having rung up 2 TDs and 112 yards up to that point.
When we consistently run into 8, 9 or 10 defenders that we are trying to block with 5 or 6 guys, it is hard to assess Funk, who is not the person calling the plays that consistently ask the OL to do what no OL can do.
I'm confused, it seems like you're agreeing with me, but the tone seems to suggest you're trying to convince me of something.
Gardner's TO issues can also be attributed to somewhat to the ridiculous number of third and longs in which we find outselves thanks to Al's ridiuclous playcalling on first and second.
Number 1, we'd have to pay him an awful lot of money for him to leave the NFL for the same position in college.
Number 2, the guy is going to be a head caoch soon. Even if we somehow managed to snaggle him for a year, he would be gone very quickly. It's a wonder he didn't get a position last year.
A call for Borges to be fired is an assumption that he will continue to do the same things, not learn from his mistakes, and not implement the obvious counters and constraints that make any offense go. If he actually does get his head out of his ass on a permanent basis (he only seems to shove it up there a few times per season), then I'm fine with him staying. I still wonder about Funk though.
He hasn't learned from his mistakes for 2 1/2 seasons.
At least the end if the season. The line isn't his fault but i don't think he trusts devin to throw and he shouldn't he leads in int. I think he is handcuffed right now. I don't like the play calling like everyone but let's see the season play out before calling for someone's head.
Personally, I think he's a bad OC and I want him gone. I'm not sure it's best for the program at this point though. I brought this up yesterday in another thread, but there are some pretty serious consequences to coaching changes. Less so with coordinators than head coaches obviously, but there are always going to be costs in terms of recruiting and time to install new systems.
We're not going to be world beaters this year with or without him. Give him the rest of the year to see if he can get it. He's shown flashes in the past and with more dependable play from the OL, I think some of his shortcomings as a play caller will be mitigated. He'll probably cost us a game here and there going forward, but I'm not sure you can find an OC where that's not true from time to time. It's not like we'll ever be running spread under Hoke, RR isn't walking through that door guys. Whoever we get to replace Al will still be a manball guy, maybe a little more adept at using counters than he is, but if you think we will stop pounding it in I-formation, you're living a pipe dream.
is how Borges does not adapt his system to fit the players, but tries to fit the players to the system. That does not work in the college game. Maybe by 2015, we'll have everything in place for Al, but his unwillingness to change is inexcusable. Now, does that mean he should be fired? I'm not so sure. It's not a guarantee that adding a new play caller would fix the stubborness problem, it could throw everything into an even worse spiral and put us even further behind. I would say now, do not fire Borges, but maybe start with Funk? It's a stick situation b/c of odd layout of this team with youth and inexperience nearly everywhere on the Offensive side of the ball.
What the fuck? His adaptability is exactly what we were praising him for when Denard was here. You know, when he was running a system he had never used before because the personnel fit it better?
He was half-assed, begrudgingly, sort of running a system he had never run before. The amount of time we spent with Denard under center and dropping back to throw from the pocket was maddening from day one.
Go get Eric Kiesau. Maybe he's taken some cues from Sark about transitioning from huddle to no huddle while still running traditional offense.
Althought there are numerous threads which discuss this in a roundabout way, I shall leave this one here because it simply asks the question and in a relatively subdued manner. For reasons of space management on the board, it shall stand as the only such thread today, I think.
I guess a supplemental question to this would be challenging people to look at the issues three-dimensionally and ask this - is it fair to replace him at this juncture? If so, what are the metrics that you look at and what sorts of comparisons are you making? I would be curious to know the thought process of others.
As for myself, I will be honest and say that I do not have strong feelings one way or the other, but I believe it is fair to attempt to see if you have utilized existing personnel to their full potential. For a coordinator, I think that means trying to understand what the goals are and attempting to align the strategy accordingly. How's that for management speak? By that, of course, not just the Big Ten Championship, but Borges' goals specifically.
The problems are evident, but I believe there are simpler avenues that wholesale changes of coordinators that should perhaps be explored first - if for no other reason than the relatively continuity of the program as a whole. For example, if you hammer home mere execution of existing plays, see what improves. The more I think about, the more I tend to think that execution is part of what is preventing certain aspects of the playbook from being rolled out. That's a theory, of course, but I believe it is a potential element of the grand explanation, if you will. Furthermore, it's been discussed by a few people, but how about the notion of a QB coach to leave Borges free to further develop the offense as a whole? Maybe not likely, but something to consider perhaps. There is likely a lengthy list of things to look at, not all of them realistic, but then I stress that we aren't doing much more than speculating here.
Again, I don't have strong feelings about it. Like many here, I am definitely not entirely satisfied, but I wonder if there are simpler fixes that we're overlooking. Actually, we might never know as there is undoubtedly information to which we do not have access.
Michigan has punted the ball 22 times this year. That works out to about three and a half punts per game. Behind that offensive line, we should be discussing his raise. This blog is so removed from reality it's comical.
Al Borges is throwing those interceptions? Our offense has got a lot of problems, but OC ain't one. Please, show me the link that says three and a half punts/g is "average".
"I don't agree with you, so you're stupid". Yeah, well I'm rubber and you're glue pal.
His post is one of the brightest and most insightful in the whole thread. I know it doesn't fit the FIRE BORGES! hysteria that seems to be taking over the board, but it's certainly not a stupid post.
He is Gardners QB coach. And Gardner has not improved with reading coverages or footwork at all. Gardner has played 11 games as a starting QB and has shown no improvement and has regressed. Same goes for Denard.
Is Borges putting his players in a position to succeed? No.
Al Borges' playcalling is putting us in far too many third and long situations. He may not be throwing those picks, but he is certainly setting us up for them to be thrown.
If you're going to be a dumbass and ignore the 14 turnovers (not including turnovers on downs or the punt fiasco, I think) then at least have the grace not to also bitch at the rest of the blog for not sharing your dumbassery.
I don't imagine he is TELLING Devin to give the ball to the other team. There were some tipped balls in there, but a lot of those TO's were just...WTF Devin? Absent an offensive line that can run block(or really pass protect for that matter) I'm not really sure what you want the guy to do?
And he's had going on three years with Gardner.
Yes, the offense has weaknesses. It also has strengths. Some stuff has proven to work. Borges is choosing to hack away with the stuff that clearly doesn't.
Furthermore, this is a distraction from the fact that your argument about punting frequency was comically bad. It doesn't matter who caused the 14 turnovers; they still make your comment laughable.
Short passes? Screens (wait, we're not allowed to do those)? Calling plays that make it EASIER on Devin insetad of harder.
if, near the end of regulation or in OT, Gardner threw one of those slant route, sometimes-pick-six, INTs that we've seen in almost every game?
I was hoping for an answer. Yes, we stunk on the run and the play calling was terrible. But would you be less mad if threw a INT? Gardner is what, 3:2 TDs to INTs? He was due for an INT. I hated the playcalling, but it got us what was a makeable field goal for the win.
Yes, I would rather Gardner throw it - why? EVERYTHING WAS WIDE OPEN. If you're completely unwilling to throw the ball because you're afraid of turnovers, then why bother even having the guy at quaterback? We should just kneel on every down.
the QB that lions fans still long for. his best year he threw 26 TDs but threw 23 INTs (196:243 for his career). i'm guessing his coaches were still comfortable with him taking charge at the end of games.
Ummm...yep! I'd be pissed because - just like running it up the middle into a stacked box 27 times - we have seen that the slant-route play is not working! So, yeah, I'd be pissed.
But what's your point? Are you telling me that the only options for Borges are (1) run up the middle or (2) throw the slant route? Is that the vacuum we are playing in these days? Dear god, how about - dare I say - bubble sreens to some of our legitimate offensive threats: Gallon, Dileo, Norfleet, etc. Or, maybe to keep the defense honest, tell Funchess to go on a fly to the endzone! Take ONE shot in the endzone because - ya know - it's overtime, and we'd like to win (especially after the first OT when you had to know your kicker would be a bit rattled)!
Do your job and play to win the game!
"especially after the first OT when you had to know your kicker would be a bit rattled)!"
Gibbons has been a very reliable kicker in pressure situations (See: Virginia Tech and MSU games.) It's easy to say that in hindsight. Very few coaches would have played aggressively with an interception-prone quarterback and porous O-line and with a kicker who is a proven winner under similar high-pressure situations.
My point is to blow a 10 point lead and lose the game in OT is going to cause overreaction regardless of how it happens. Nothing wrong with being extremely disappointed with the playcalling, but to call for his job is wreckless. I'm in no way excusing running the same play over and over and over and over and over again. It was terrible. Continued playcalling will result in Borges losing his job. What I am saying is that I am confident that firing him now would be worse for the program long-term. Unless we have a sure-bet lined up who can mature the O-line overnight then, by all means let's get him in there, but I don't see anybody available that fits that description. We can evaluate Borges' ability to adapt with the rest of the season, and if he can't, we are in a better position to find a replacement. But, believe me, if I see another 27 for 27 performance by Toussaint on Saturday, maybe I'll change my tune. :)
Fair point. I agree that it is best to wait before firing Borges. I am not calling for his head right now; just calling for him to respond to the game as it goes on. Also - agree - it's one thing to say "fire him" and another to ask "who will fix it?" I do think some options may exist, although they will be out of the UM family tree.
I asked you yesterday if you would be showing your work. Apparently, coming back with a number of punts above the NCAA average and claiming it is evidence of Al being awesome is the kind of quality work we can expect from you. It's already been pointed out that we have more punts than the NCAA average. You seem to believe that Al deserves a raise for this.. Okay, so take away the turnovers. Now how many more punts do we have and how much more money should we throw at Al, then?
Just pulling out a simplistic argument like the number of times we have punted this season rather than actually arguing the merits of Al's playcalling only goes to show that you probably aren't capable of reasonable defending Al's playcalling on it's own merit.
That's pretty good but we have played CMU, Akron, UConn, and PSU. You should be demolishing those teams especially since we do have a pretty solid D. If we play like we did against PSU against MSU and run into the teeth of their defense we will be punting a lot more than that average. Put the ball into you playmakers' (Gardner, Funchess, and Dileo) hands and make the defense stop something else besides the under center tailback run.
So few punts is only because they turn the ball over more than any other team in the country.
I just think Borges is a bad OC. Time to hire a new OC and a real QB coach. The fact they don't have a specific QB coach makes me mad.
And which position coach would you sacrifice for that? If they could just hire an extra coach to do the job I'm sure they would have.
Not mid-season, not after being a makeable field goal kick away from being 6-0. We're not winless Purdue. The offense put up 27 points in regulation. I didn't like what he said in the presser either, and the playcallng was horrendous during the PSU game, but I'll judge him solely on what plays he calls in the remaining games. What's said in pressers is next to useless. If we don't see changes in the calls, I think I'd be more open to, if not completely for, a change in OC being made after the OSU game.
I'd settle for hiring a damn QB coach.
I hear Lane Kiffin is looking for work.
It's been a hugely frustrating first half, but as in 2011, things can get better from here. I think if we finish the season with 9+ wins he's safe for another year. But if we get <8 and it's clear that the problems are on offense, we might want to consider other options. Here are a few I'd like to consider, in that case:
1. Scott Loeffler (assistant coach, VaTech)
Obvious Michigan connections, highly regarded, great QB tutor, etc. And since he's not actually the OC at VaTech, this would be a promotion.
2. Noel Mazzone (OC, UCLA)
Look how quickly UCLA has improved, how good their running game is and how they play hybrid spread/manball.
3. Mike Bloomgren (OC, Stanford)
Great o-line coach, does what Hoke wants us to do, but might be hard to pry from Stanford.
Bloomgreen doesn't call plays.
It might be easier for Michigan to pry him from Stanford....
Loefflor does actually call the plays there and is the offensive coordinator. He'd come if offered I think because of the Michigan ties. I'm not sure he's a clear upgrade over Borges though given his time at Auburn last year (where admittedly he wasn't given much to work with). And he hasn't been horrible at VA Tech but he hasn't lit it up either. He needs more seasoning. Maybe in the future but he's not ready to be our offensive coordinator.
RB Coach for the Bengals. Michigan should go after him
I know this was discussed in another thread but how much of this is Hoke insisting on manball much like RR insiting on a 3-3-5?
Did you watch football during the RR years??? Hoke's results on offense are not even remotely worse than RR's on defense. We're winning games and actually scoring, whether it's pretty or not. I get that your problems with Hoke are fresher but come on. This board has lost its head.
The same people who wanted to know what was wrong with Tiger pitcher Justin Verlander "he'll never be the same guy, it's over for him". The same people who call for goalie changes with the Red Wings. The quarterback for the Lions, and on and on and on. I don't pay any attention to them at all. How many coaches for the Lions needed to be replaced? It's just endless and what really confuses them is rarely they are right but in most cases NOT.
Outside of the Lions coaches, all those named have demonstrated superstar ability...and those that haven't were deserving of the criticism.
Al Borges, at his best, has demonstrated at Michigan to be slightly above mediocre.
He's not involved with recruiting so there will be no broken hearts with recruits. Waiting until the end of the season is probably best, but sometimes a mid season whacking can provide a fresh spark.
Depends.....Part of me thinks Borges is handcuffed a little bit by the head coach but I don't know if that is true or I'm speculating. Last week was brutal, but I love what we did against Notre Dame and South Carolina in the bowl game. It is hard to reconcile those offenses with what we got on Saturday with Penn State. I'm starting to think the staff has lost a little faith in Gardner to not make mistakes and that is why we have tightened up. It reminds me of Denard after the Notre Dame game last season when we came out throwing it around. It seems like we tightened up after that performance. I really wish we would spread it out, take our chances and I could live with the result. 30 carries for 28 yards is mind boggling. My health and well being can't take any more of that.
Yes. With extreme prejudice.
I would like to see Borges give it a shot when we have a line that can even remotely block. That would sure be cool. OC isn't gonna really matter until we hit that point. People here straight up lost their damn minds about the coaches because of one game where we lost to a two point underdog on the road.
Right, and I said we lost to a two point underdog.
Yes. We will never be where we want to be with Al Borges as OC. His time has passed. I also don't get this idea that there's nobody else out there. Every year an elite program snipes an up and comer because it can pay more. Why can't we do that? Why does it have to be someone with Michigan ties?
He is arrogant, but which major coordinator isn't (some obviously hide this trait better than others). He's a smart football guy and has been successful in the past.
However, his results have been sub-par especially this year. Something needs to change. The ideal scenario is for Borges to adopt and use man ball a lot less this season. I just don't know that we have the time to do this.
The real problem with firing Borges is that next year (and moreso for the year after that), we will be far more capable of playing manball.
Seen this comment a few times. What is it exactly that makes him seem arrogant to you? The fact that you disagree with his playcalling? He seems like an extremely humble and generally nice guy to me.
Have you read the presser?
All I want is for the offense to use all of the information available to select the best play to succeed against a given defense. Huddling leaves them no opportunity to do this because they have five seconds once they see the defensive formation. The decision to huddle doesn't absolve the playcalling because the OC can still see the defensive personnel on the field. For the play on the front page, Al should have seen that there were four defensive tackles in the game and done anything else.
I'm dreading to see the offensive RPS number from the UFR. Coaching against Borges would be like playing rock paper scissors against someone who throws on "3" and lets you throw on "shoot."
Honest question: Has Al Borges ever heard of game theory?
Borges is terrible, no way around it, fire him.
I had stuck up for him prior to this game, but cannot do that anymore. I would not be sad to see him leave....
If we lose to MSU and OSU and theoffense is uncreative and/or ineffective, it is time to part ways with the man.
If we win both - stay the course and let the O-Line get older.
I don't like him, but wait until we have all 12 games under our belt and re-post.
I live in Alabama, and was talking with a few Auburn fans recently and surprisingly they all had high praise for Borges. They considered it a big mistake for Auburn to fire Borges a few years ago.
I believe he deserves a little grace for the youth on the O-line. The staff has recruited some exceptional talent at QB, TE, RB, Oline and most recently WR. Understandably, WR were shy on coming during the Denard years. We need to chill while the Oline talent gets coached up. He certainly deserves a little credit for the running game they put together at Auburn with the "3 headed monster."
Borges was the victim of poor recruiting by Tubberville at Auburn.
And right now he is working with a highly inexperienced OL, which has rattled the confidence of our QB. I know he went full insanity definition in OT, but the offense still score like 30 or more points in regulation.
Only coach I would reslly put on notice is Funk. And again, he has 2 RS Sophomores and a RS Freshman as his interior line. They normally shouldn't be playing til they're RS Juniors.
MSU was a tire fire at the beginning of the season and the offense is hitting stride at the right time...they sucked, adapted, changed, whatever and the offense is putting up yards and points....I don't ever see Crazy Al doing this nor do I see Hoke forcing him to do this...I hate to say it but each week gets worse and it reminds me of the RR downward sprial of death...If the team is not progressing, something has to change..cough cough..coaches.
IN DEFENSE OF BORGES
copied my post from presser thread
one, this may have been the most anticipated weekly presser in mgoblog history. two, I'm struggling to concile the freewheeling, agressive Borges from UTL II (pretty much flawless gameplan) with Saturday night's fuckery.
I might be the only Borges defender left on this site at this point and even my will is waning.
I keep saying, Borges is aggressively old-school. He wants the RB to crack 1K yards and 2 different WRs to hit that mark as well; look at Ryan Lindley, Ronnie Hillman & co from San Diego State. That offense checked pretty much every box except for a high TD/ INT ratio. So what's the difference between him and "Communist Football" pro style DeBord? There are a few.
I like that Borges spends his offseasons going over NFL tape instead of talking to college coaches. The guy obviously isn't interested in the latest innovations; but the most effective ones (that actually make it to the league).
We aren't ready for manball yet. What you're seeing is the journey, the transition and we're getting nearer. Overhauling Michigan for power football was literally the biggest goal Hoke could have set for himself when he came here. RR just did not leave enough beef.
but homie comes off / across as a dinosaur here. Our OL can't block, Devin Gardner has regressed into Terrelle Pryor circa 2009, and we're stuck wit Tresselball for another year.
They need to spend the rest of the season chewing up so much damn clock that they near choke on it. I'll patiently wait for 2 performances: MSU and OSU. Aside from that....Capital One bowl. 2014 is the year, man. No more excuses.
And yall can relax; we aren't losing 8 times to Ohio State in a decade again. Seriously. Mattison and Hoke are building the spread antidote defense. Just wait.
On the Eagles which is ironically is more of a spread offense?
It is THE spread offense. The coach is Chip Kelly, and he hasn't compromised much to conventional wisdom. And it has worked magnificently, not just for McCoy. The passing attack has been much better too, as Desean Jackson has morphed from a one-trick pony deep threat to a guy making plays all over the field (34 receptions through 6 games).
However, even if Hoke doesn't like the spread, there are so many more innovative minds than Al Borges running manball (Stanford, 49ers, etc.)
I pulled back from calling it an outright spread right now since Vick's injured. What I wish is that Michigan would just do the passing spread of the '08 Captial One Bowl.
This is a spread offense. The Eagles ran the zone read (Foles had a 4-yard touchdown) and their entire running game was Chip Kelly's patented spread-out zone attack. In the words of Brady Hoke, it's "basketball on grass."
And yes, you're right. The offense in the Capital One Bowl was the best I've seen Michigan look in recent memory.
Borges is not DeBord. Borges would put it up 40x a game if he had to. He never met a 30 yard downfield strike he didn't like. All I'm saying is that when the OL starts clicking, he'll look like a smarter OC.
The guy is stubborn in his players; he wants them to execute. "Iso, pick up 3 yards. Do it. Now." He isn't going to tiptoe around it. Obviously that probably isn't the best approach at this point.
I think he can top out at a B+ OC.
Why exactly aren't we going to lose 8 times to OSU again? I realize we are recruiting at a high level, but OSU is out-recruiting our success! Moreover, whether you like him or not, Urban Meyer is fundamentally a helluva coach and knows how to win. He is not building a team to win B1G Championships; he's building a team to compete with the SEC.
Aside from G-Mat, I don't think our coaches can compete with Urban.
1) The talent gap was wider during the decade of losses we took. Michigan's teams always had some kind of different flaw exposed against OSU year to year. No running game. No defensive backs. Freshman QB. The competitive culture coming to Michigan, with talent stocked across the board, is going to minimize that.
2) Urban Meyer's teams invariably struggle against other teams physical on both lines.
3) This isn't the RR era. If OSU is going to be favored in a game, the gap will be narrow.
4) Rivalry is cyclical.
5) What exactly has OSU shown, in close fights against Wisconsin and Northwestern, to make you believe they're a superpower already?
6) I'm putting house money on Urban Meyer QBs being beat up in the last game of the year, on average, over the next decade. Big 10 is a physical league and he wants all his QBs running for 1000 yards a season. Look at Braxton, he's a shell of himself now. Right now Kenny guiton is around to save their asses, but that won't be the case always.
To your points:
(1) Have you seen the talent OSU is bringing in? It's ridiculous. And - while UM is also bringing in great players, OSU is going to remain incrementally more talented. Thus, the same relative flaws will remain year-after-year
(2) Not sure how you arrived at this conclusion. He went 22-2 at Utah and 65-15 at Florida. He went 36-12 in the SEC, which - let's be honest - is the most physical conference in the country. In 6 years, he won his division of the SEC 3 times, was a 2-time National Champ, and won 3 BCS games (all while playing physical teams)
(3) Not sure why this is relevant
(4) OK...see point #3...Although, our current cycle has been going on for a while!
(5) OSU has shown they know how to win (and not just against some of the worst football teams in the country)! OSU has shown that they will adjust to what other teams give them and will go for the juggular. Moreover, OSU wins when they are supposed to! They rise up to the challenge and get it done.
(6) With all due respect, what makes the B1G physical? This isn't the 70s / 80s / 90s anymore. When I look at most B1G teams, I think they are relatively soft. Save a handful of teams' defenses, from top-to-bottom the B1G is one of the softest conferences in the country. Also, Braxton Miller is a shell of himself?! Jeebus...if a QB rating of ~150 is a shell of himself, I'd hate to see what he's like fully healthy!
I could go on, but I think your arguments re: OSU are wishful thinking. Moreover, at the end of the day, I just fundamentally think the coaching staff at OSU is superior to UM's (save G-Matt). For all of his off-the-field crap, Meyer is one of the best in-game coaches in the country. Hell, just watch the second half of last year's game for Exhibit A.
The previous comment was that the gap would narrow. Actually it has already narrowed quite considerably. We don't need better talent to beat Ohio, merely competative talent. We are well on our way to having equivilent talent. At that point both teams will have different advantages and disadvantages. Once it gets close it comse down to coaching. I'll take that.
Maybe I don't understand the point. Except for the RR years, OSU has gone on this tear because of better coaching, not talent. If you look at the UM squads during many of the Carr seasons, they were loaded with incredible talent that - unfortunately - were poorly developed or coached. If there was a talent gap, I'm not sure it was all that sizeable.
Now, there was a HUGE talent gap during the RR years, which I wholly concede. But - hell - OSU was defeating us annually before RR took over the healm.
Yes, Hoke and Co. are doing a good job of mending the talent gap that Lloyd's later years and RR helped create. However, they are still behind OSU. That's just reality.
And - if it comes down to coaching - that's where I see the biggest deficit. I hate having to say this, but Urban Meyer is a top-3 coach in college football. The guy is simply incredible and is one of the best in-game coaches around. When OSU got him, they effectively locked up the B1G for the next several years and may be the only program in the country that will be able to compete with the SEC (aside from Oregon).
"The previous comment was that the gap would narrow. Actually it has already narrowed quite considerably."
There really wasn't much of a gap.
Average Recruiting Class Ranking (Rivals) in the 5 years prior to each coach taking over:
Ohio State (2007-2011): 11.6
Michigan (2006-2010): 12.6
For me, ask again at the end of the season. And anyone who thinks any of these coaches are actually going to say anything useful or relevant in these press conferences is an idiot.
I do want Al to adapt. Realize that your offense has to fit your personell and that he has to make some concessions and perhaps do some things he doesn't want to do. Or, replace Gardner and start grooming Morris now. I don't think Gardner ever makes the transition to West Coast QB and will always tend to be turnover prone.
I would also really really like to see them get better at the 2 minute offense.
I'm not sure "Fire Al" is warranted yet.
I think Hoke should soak in Al's full 2013 season body of work and decide at year's end.
With that said, Al Borges damn well get his creative juices flowing from his golden years at Portland St./Boise St./Auburn, otherwise Michigan is going to get outscored by Indiana on Saturday.
I do think that Michigan is kicking serious ass in recruiting now. It took Harbaugh 4 years to get Stanford manballin' at 12-1. I think in 1 more year Michigan football should be pretty badass.
Brady Hoke: 24-8
Lloyd Carr: 122-40
Yeah, who needs sample sizes?
Also, that isn't Al Borges's record; it is Brady Hoke's. Al Borges, for all the talk about his offensive innovation, fielded pretty good offenses with oodles of talent. Congrats - you've been successful with a pretty nice stack of chips. Mike DeBord, for all the complaints, had some pretty good offenses as well. And those Auburn years need to be broken down between Cadillac Williams/Ronnie Brown/Jason Campbell vs. not, because with the latter those offenses were not nearly as terrifying.
Harbaugh has shown he is a great coach who isn't afraid to shake things up when needed; Hoke needs to show the same resolve or else he won't be around long enough to get a comparable sample size as Carr.
Michigan's schedule gets really difficult from here on out. I don't think Hoke can continue to surf upon his 1997 championship ring and "This is Michigan!" into perpetuity without pulling some rabbits out of his ass over the next 6 games, starting with Indiana this Saturday.
Once again the next opponent, Indiana, happens to be a very bad football team. They have played very well against teams their equal or better (Navy, Missouri, Penn State). This fact just makes things all the more terrifying.
I'm predicting a worrisome shootout in the BigHouse, requiring Michigan to come back and win with huge pass plays (Gardner, Gallon, Funchess, etc.). in the final minutes.
The point was to get away from Carr.
Michigan has historically won .735 of its games. Which as we all know is the highest of all time. I wouldn't complain about anyone winning 75% of their games...they're raising our average.
I am going to be a dissenter to the popular view and say that we should keep Borges, at least for another season.
My reasoning: It is impossible to evaluate the effectiveness of an offense, and thereby the offensive coordinator, when the offensive line is in complete shambles. We are now at a point where it is being acknowledged by even the coaches that the OL is playing like shit. Hence the change during the bye week, and hence Borges alluding to possible additional changes this week. A casual football fan can just watch defendard in the backfield in almost every play and see that the OL ineffectiveness is destroying our offense. The players currently on the line, other than the tackles, are just not getting it done. Whether that is due to bad coaching (Funk), or simply a function of the entire middle of the line being both young and inexperienced, is an unknown, but there is no denying that the OL has been horrendous.
The impact of the horrendous OL is that we can't run for shit this year. So what are the solutions?
One option is to become a primarily pass offense. That is a bad idea, as Devin has shown a propensity to be a Denard-level pick machine. Is that all on Devin? Likely not, as much of this can be attributable to the terrible OL play (see Eli Manning 2007 through 2012 vs. Eli Manning 2013). Whatever the reason, with terrible OL and blocking TE play, the air raid is probably not a great option, and could result in disaster all too often.
Another option is to run Devin 25 times per game. We tried that with Denard and we all saw the impact that it had. Denard, a tough SOB, either missed or came out many games, most notable the entire second half of his senior year. I know that some people on this board believe that we should "leave it all on the field" and just give runnning Devin a go, but I don't think that this is advisable. Also, our "run Denard every play" offense under RR and even under Hoke / Borges wasn't all that effective against better teams, so why do we think that it would be any better with Devin?
Sure, Borges should be making certain adjustments, such as the occasional bubble screen, but his options are largely limited by the OL that he is working with. We knew coming into this year that the OL would be a problem, but I don't think that many people predicted how much of an impact the OL would have on our entire offense.
Borges is the OC by definition he is in charge of the offense and it's up to him to adjust as necessary. What we've seen from him this year is the same ol' crap. If your OL is playing like shit then you need to adjust your play calling to suit what you can and cannot do.
I'm way to lazy to chart this but I would be interested to see where DG's picks have come from (short/intermediate/long routes) as I believe the majority of DG's picks have come from arm punts 20-30 yards downfield. He has the accuracy and strength needed to make short throws and if you have to just roll the pocket out which gives him the added option of taking off if needed and takes some of the stress of the O-Line.
I agree that the offensive line struggles are intertwinned with the greater offensive inefficiencies, but this also feels like a bit of an excuse. Al Borges has shown nothing in the past two years that would make me believe he can compensate or adapt to changes in talent or an opponent's compensation. Sure, give him great talent and he'll do well, but that's not a "skill" beyond not being an idiot. But this team can't be totally reliant on out-talenting the opposition, and as we've seen with Mattison an ability to adapt will cover up those holes. Borges keeps plugging away with his playbook without ever really altering the approach, and that's why this team continues to struggle. Sure, throwing the ball a bunch or running Devin a good deal isn't optimal, but that 3rd quarter happened because Devin was allowed to play like, well, Denard, and Borges failing to recognize that drives me crazy.
- install something this week for the rest of this year, where Devin can read defenses and make changes at the line when the box is stacked.
- change and continues to run the ball 80% of the time on first down, from under center, into stacked boxes
- include more "spread" formations to get Norfleet into the game more and also run from this formation more cuz we are not Manbalz yet this year.
- call more reverses, jet sweeps, flee-flickers, screens and quick passes to WR when they are 1x1 with a CB 12 yards off the LOS, all to keep defenses honest.
- actually run something close to a "West Coast Offense" that he is supposed to be such an expert on.
-include the "pass" option on all of Devin read/option plays. That will reduce the amount of times he needs to carry the ball....
Then yes, he is an idiot and deserves to get fired at the end of this year.
Who is more likely to be pushing a power running game: Michigan Man Hoke or West Coast Borges?
It seems as though when we need to score (i.e., we are behind), we score, and we score quickly. It's only when there's no sense of urgency that we seem to go into a shell. Seems like a high-level game strategy.
I'd like to evaluate how many of those 24 runs were designed and how many were pass play scrambles.
Most (all) losses of the Hoke era were a direct result of Borges having his head planted firmly up his ass.
If the offense performs well in big games, then keep him around for a year. If he calls stinker games (last week, last year OSU, etc) and we lose to MSU, NW, Nebraska, and OSU because of his calls, then send him packing.
If we are to hire a new OC, I would prefer one without Michigan ties. Somebody like Gene Chizik could be very interesting
You think the offense came up big against MSU anrd OSU last year?
I said, explicitly, that last week's game and last year's game against Ohio State were stinker games. Also, add MSU into the mix as a bad game. Not sure what you were reading..
I read your comment that the offense comes up big in big games. Well, no it doesn't. Once against OSU (a game where the defense allowed a, then, 6-5 OSU to have one of their best games of the season), and twice against Notre Dame (precedant shows that beating Notre Dame isn't job saving worthy at this point). Oh, and once against Nebraska. Neither game against MSU did it come up big. So four times in three years. There have been far more piss-poor showings against teams with anything resembling a pulse than stellar ones. And I see no indication to believe that'll be changing anytime soon.
In short; Yes
Your just mad from Saturday
No, I'm not. He refuses to adapt to personnel and/or make in game changes and we've seen this behavior for the past 3 seasons. There is something to be said about sticking to your game plan/staying true to who you are, but flat out refusing to change a gollram' thing about it is asine.
Even if he pulls a win out against OSU I still say he should be gone. When us simpletons can call the play before the snap then I can only imagine what types of things actual Coaches pick up on.
There is no reason him and DG should not be 100% on the same page since he is his position coach. I can chalk up some of DG's problems to his lack of game experience at QB but seriously the regression of DG and Denard has been amazing.
Yes I want titles and our offense couldn't beat a high school team right now.
If not, then abso-fuckin-lutely I do.
Fire him. Everything else is just delaying the inevitable. He certainly doesn't do anything innovative, he doesn't adapt, and he's already cost us 3-5 games with his inane play calling. This can't happen soon enough as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, not just based of off Saturday night either. Wasn't thrilled about the hire in the first place. Michigan needs someone who is creative and can adjust to a defense, not some stubborn uncle fester who doesn't admit to scripting plays and won't go away from the late 90s west coast best coast offense that clearly is not working.
I'd fire him because he remains unable to adapt to the changes in college football. I'm happy he looks at the NFL for inspiration, but the differences in the game between those two entities is significant, and trying to shoehorn one's ethos into another seems foolish. He's had three years to not screw it up, and so far he's not shown me anything to suggest he's better than an average OC. There are many of those around, and honestly quite a few who are better. I'm fine if Hoke wants to be loyal, but I don't owe Borges anything and, based on his playcalling the past couple of years, I don't foresee that goodwill forming anytime soon.
Yes I do
If we do replace Borges, the replacement will likely be a positional coach from the NFL. The best college coordinators are on mid-major/lower division teams running the spread (Brady will not want this), and it would be tough to get a lot of the bigger names to make lateral moves. A guy with NFL experience running a pro-style, manball offense is probably what Brady wants. However, there are some innovative guys that fit the bill.
Hue Jackson- Currently the RB coach for the Bengals. The only offensive coach in recent history to have success with the Oakland Raiders. He turned around a dormant attack in Oakland, unleashing Darren McFadden and turning them into an elite rushing attack. In his only season as head coach, Oakland went 8-8, missing the playoffs by a hair (doing that in Oakland is like winning the Super Bowl anywhere else).
Jackson runs a sophisticated version of a manball attack mixing zone and gap concept. Traps, counters, power...the dude is a good manball offensive coordinator. Prior to coaching the Raiders, Jackson was qb coach for the Ravens (tutoring Joe Flacco in his first two seasons in the NFL), WR coach for the Cincinnati Bengals from 2004-2006 (it was under his tutelage that a couple of guys named Chad Johnson and TJ Houshmandzadeh became household names), and offensive coordinator and running backs coach for the Redskins (Stephen Davis rushed for over 1400 yards in his running attack). Jackson also has college experience, as he was OC at USC for four years (recruited and developed Carson Palmer), and offensive coordinator at Cal in 1996 (during which they rode an explosive offense to the Aloha Bowl). Since Jackson is not currently an OC, this would be a promotion for him. Negatives: He hasn't always been described kindly by colleagues; despite being lauded as a very good coach, he has rubbed people the wrong way, coming off as a "me" coach rather than a "players" coach and stepping on other people's toes to get ahead. How much of that is overblown is a mystery, but the dude knows how to coach and would fit in with Hoke.
John McNulty- Currently QB coach for the Tampa Bay Buccanneers. His results with Josh Freeman have not been great, but McNulty is on short lists as one of the best young minds in the NFL. He was QB coach and OC for Schiano at Rutgers, and also coached receivers in the NFL for Jacksonville and Dallas. There is a Michigan connection here, as he began his coaching career under Gary Moeller from 1991-1994.
He could be looking for a job soon, too.
Borges at this stage, for most of the reasons already put on the thread by other posters. It seems like the arrogance in the presser is what really put many over the edge as far as the OC goes. I was also put-off by that, and Borges seemed very defensive and he was inappropriately arrogant. However, I also recall Borges being quite humble, soft spoken, and kind, with no flashes of arrogance. He is under tremendous pressure to perform, without having all of his tools fully developed. I too am frustrated with some playcalling in some games, and the rushing performance, or lack thereof, is particularly troubling. However, I do not believe that firing him now is the answer; I am willing to forgive his recent arrogance (which is even easier to do considering the flaming by certain posters) with hope that it is an anomaly (I believe it is); and I would continue to point out that we are a hair away from undefeated. However, with the meat of the schedule coming, I also demand that Borges boil these criticisms down to their meaning, respectfully consider them, and reconstruct his approach to game calling, as well as to plan to behave better in the next presser when he's fielding blunt questions. He does have a sense of humor, but I'm guessing he was overly defensive because he knows he called a crappy game. The posters who pointed out other such games are right, but so are the ones who recognize his good game plans and creative in other games. I knew the OL would be weak, but not this weak. I knew Gardner might struggle, but it is the coaches' responsibility to correct his thinking, and if he doesn't, to insert the next one on the depth chart.
He is great, but our O line is inexperienced and Devin turns the ball over.
Translation: Borges is great IF he has supreme athletes and juniors/seniors at every position.
Hell, I would be a kick ass OC if I had supreme talent and upper classmen to work with.
I miss being able to run the football. Stretch plays with 8 men in the box for -3 yards is sickening. Even more sickening is trying to run that play over and over again thinking somehow it has to work this time.
I generally don't think firing coaching staff mid season is a good thing to do unless there are some extraordinary circumstances. So no I don't want to see him go midseason. However yes he should be fired at the end of the season. Every year that he has been here he has had horrible game plans for 2 or 3 games each year typically causing us to lose the game (2011, Iowa, 2011 Mich St, 2012 ND, 2012 OSU, 2013 Akron, 2013 PSU etc). Now I know that you can't have perfect games every game, but the offensive coordinator can't be causing you to lose a few games a year just on his stupid play calling/game plan. My biggest problem with him is that Borges has not shown me that he can't adapt. In all the games I listed above the opposing team had our game plan locked up, yet Borges just kept going back to the well time after time. He has his offense that worked 10 years ago for a couple years and won't change from it.
Yes. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt after a couple badly called games in the last two years (Iowa 2011, Notre Dame 2012, OSU 2012) but it's pretty obvious he's gonna have a huge roll in causing us to lose games we shouldn't and I don't see that changing.
Stan Parrish as a possible candidate for OC? He's at Eastern now and has worked at Michigan before, and I'm pretty sure there will be a staff shakeup in Ypsi again. Only question is if he will want to remain un-retired. He un-retired to take the Eastern position.
Also, Stan Parrish was Brady Hoke's OC at Ball State.
No to Stan Parrish. He retired for a reason, not that good.
The better gist of the post was the second half of your post...if he's fired who would you realistically want to get the job? Saying "anyone would be better" is just stupid (that got us GERG, remember?) and things like "Hire Chip Kelly to run the offense...he'll quit the Eagles to become the OC here" and the like isn't very realistic. Who should be a target that might come because it's not a step down or parallel positon? There are a couple of decent suggestions in here, but there might be a lot more if the thread wasn't primarily "yes I want to fire Borges." Fine, and duh. Who do you want to get to replace him? Any time you fire someone you better have someone in mind that you can actually get. Because it CAN get worse.
Even if you're not convinced Borges should go, I think you'd want an answer from those who want him gone to "for who?" Otherwise it's just venting. Coming up with ideas for a replacement if it happens is a worthwhile topic of discussion.
This question is WAY premature. however ugly the games may have been, if I'm willing to fire someone based on the first 6 games of this season where they are 5-1, no matter how the rest of the season turns out, I'm going to have a hell of a time convincing a competent replacement to work for me.
Talk to me at the end of the 2014 season.
I am not defending any of the current results, I am not apologizing for current results. I simply believe that the coaching staff deserves another year to fix things.
Six games is not a large enough sample size with which to judge. How about 32 games? Is 38 enough? What about 39? Should we give him a full 51 games? The offense is regressing at an alarming rate, and it's quite noticable.
Give me coaches willing to adapt, from season to season based on the realities of the talent they have, and on game days based on the opportunities of the day.
If they beat MSU and Ohio I'll retire from complaining on mgblog and smile until next August. If they get embarrassed again and can't score in trash tornado stadium and then lose at home to Ohio it's a whole different story.
I have no problem with the "plays" Borges calls. My biggest problem with him is the formations in which he calls them from and the down and distance at which he calls them. Michigan's offense has turned into under center = RB run, pistol = zone read and shotgun = pass. It has also turned into 1st down = run from under center, 2nd down = run from under center, 3rd down = pass from the shotgun. Besides the obvious take what the defense is giving you quick throws I wish we would change up the timing and formations of our plays. 1st down doesn't have to equal run, shotgun doesn't have to equal pass. For one series I would love to see Michigan just run its offense out of one formation and mix it up with run/pass. Make the defense pay by guessing wrong instead of consistently guessing right. It's like Borges/Hoke aren't aware of the fact you can pass from under center and run the RB from the gun. That, I think is their biggest problem.
BRING IN LANE KIFFIN AS THE OC!!
Can we trade Borges to Arizona for Calvin MacGee(sp)?
There is a stark difference in how this board has reacted to Mattison's successes and failures vs. Borges' success and failures. Mattison's successes are praised (2011 defensive turnaround), but his failures are ignored (final ND score in UTL 2011, Ohio's offensive explosion in The Game 2011). Borges' successes are ignored (UTL 2013, 4th quarter of UTL 2011, calling a near-perfect game against Ohio in 2011), but we're constantly reminded of his failures. Why is that?
I think for a couple of reasons.
First the defense under RR was a complete tire fire, and the perception is that Mattison came in and turned the defense around 180 degrees in a single season. That buys Mattison a lot of cred.
Second there are many proponents of the spread here. RR was perceived as producting a monster offense using a poltically popular system. Borges is perceived as switching to a politically less popular system which is less effective.
Note: I've presented this as perception because I do not want to ignite another round of statistical comparisons about the exact make up of the 2011 defense or the performance of the 2011 offense.
None of this contingent was tied to any particular style of defense although the bend don't break defense does generate a fair number of grips.
Hoke is still quite popular, so holding him responsible for the offense (plus the fact that he delegates game calling to Borges) would result in a great deal more back pressure. So a lot of folks hold Borges responsible for taking away their favorite toy, and providing a distasteful replacement.
Mattison's success was huge with relatively minor failures (and he does try to adjust) with a noticable lack of talent. I can't remember the details of UTL 1, but for Ohio in 2011 I can't really blame him since Ohio ran a completely different offense for the entire season, and when it mattered we got the stops needed.
As for Borges - he's had mostly failures with relatively minor successes. This is his third season here, under him the offense has regressed each year and we've managed to see him call the same ineffective plays over and over again. He's had a couple great games which is to his credit, but he's lost us far more.
In 2011, the offense averaged more points and fewer turnovers than it did in 2010. That's not regression. In 2012, it's more accurate to say that Fitz regressed, and the loss of Hemingway limited the passing game as well.
Borges has been working under suboptimal conditions since he got here. The marriage between Borges and Denard was always an awkward one. He appeared to have found his ideal QB in Devin, but Devin has become a turnover machine. Piss poor offensive line play has further limited Borges' options. I'm as frustrated with our offense and our performance in the PSU game as anyone, but I just don't see what we would have him do in light of the obstacles he's facing.
I am frustrated by the lack of success on offense, especially after torching ND. I would be frustrated but less so if we were throwing incompletes or three yard outs on third and five, becuase that seems more fixable and jibes with my preferred style.
That all said, the play calling is less of an issue to me than the ineffective offensive line, and I haven't seen anything to convince me Funk isn't doing a decent job with scraps (exhibit A being Glasgow). Borges has tried to adapt to crappy blocking but we can't seem to block even simple plays, which leaves this:
Gordon: Oh, by the way, for what it's worth, I'm right with you on this Rostenkowski thing.
Casey: Thank you.
Gordon: It was a terrible call.
Casey: Lost the game.
Gordon: I don't know how he made that call. Any idiot knows you hand it to Jermaine, you send him up the middle.
Casey: Yeah -- well, you're not gonna go up the middle against an 8-man front, but still...
Gordon: Oh, still, maybe you run a play-action fake, you toss it off to the tight end out in the flat.
Casey: The problem with that is that without establishing a running game first, no one's gonna bite down on the play fake.
Gordon: Oh, but still.
Gordon: A post pattern, a slant...
Casey: He'd be going against a defensive back who was second-team All-American as a true freshman.
Gordon: What would you have called?
Casey: The thing is, I haven't watched film all week. I haven't seen scouting reports. I don't have an offensive coordinator talking in my ear. I don't have 80,000 fans screaming in my face. So it's easy for me -- I don't have 10 million people watching at home on TV, including a pack of rabid alumni. I've had three days to think about it. He had seven seconds. So it's a lot easier for me to make that decision than it was for him. But since you asked me what play I would have called, I'll tell you. Now that I think about it, I have no idea.
- Sports Night, "The Head Coach, Dinner and the Morning Mail" Season One Episode Six
I think that anyone you hire now will train wreck our season, and end up making us worse next year, because we still won't block anyone and have to learn a new scheme. If it wouldn't totally torpedo our shared program, I would love to see the Borges bashers get what they want just for the schadenfreude ...
I think Borges is on a short leash. If we get through Nov. with 2 losses or less he will be fine. We lose more than 2, while looking like crap on O, he'll be gone.
"Bet let's say the remaining games are more Akron/UConn/PSU than ND, and everyone's calling for his head at the end of the season. Would there be any viable replacement? "
If we're willing to continue to shell out $700K for an OC - absolutely.
A surprising number of folks are willing to change jobs for 2x the salary.
Really, a QB coach who only coaches the QB might be the answer. I am not sure having Al do this and coordinate the offense is the right thing to do. Can Loeffler still be effective as a QB coach?
Did you lose your spelling/grammar skills when you lost all of your points?
Get rid of Borges and look to Stanford's coordinators. If Shaw leaves for the NFL as many predict, he's got some staff that might be looking for a new home. Wouldn't mind looking to more pass-happy spread offenses like Oklahoma State or Texas Tech for coordinators either. Key is the new OC has to be aggressive and adaptive, two traits I don't really see in Borges.
Yes, I REALLY want Borges gone. Going after Cam Cameron is the best option in my opinion. I think as a second option I'd go after Scot Loeffler with all of his Michigan ties, and he'd be the best pure QB coach, and Borges is really lacking as a QB coach, where he's supposed to be some sort of God. So many other options that'd be better than Borges; Tom Herman, Rhett Lashlee, Chad Morris etc. As I've said before, I'd even take half of the Big Ten's offensive coordinators over Borges. He's just not a good offensive coordinator, besides his success at Boise State and Auburn, he's been near awful at everywhere he's gone (except SDSU, but they're in the MWC so it's a moot point.)
Al needs to replaced let him go, I agree bring Cam in for sure. Funk needs to go to.
Get out of the Michigan mode. I want to see this team win more than anyone and I don't think Borges is the guy to do it but because we love UM, don't be blind to see other coaches could be out there to run this O. Just because there are UM ties doesn't mean they have to be hired. Look at Borges, no ties to UM.
i'm not so sure about him. i remember him at indiana. he had randle el who was their entire offense at QB. i believe he almost single handedly beat UM his junior year...with his legs. very questionable passer though. sound familiar? then, his senior year, he switched randle el to WR and put in the pro-style QB. well, after some epic failure, randle el regained the QB job. if i was given the choice now, i would take loeffler over cameron, because i think a younger guy like him is more likely to try new things and not be set in his ways.
that said, there could be numerous other viable candidates out there, but how can we know. i don't know what coaching circles hoke has been involved in. givin his recruiting record, i would like to think he could "recruit" a much better OC.
Yes, fire him after the season is over. This gives him the opportunity to right the ship and it gives us time to find a suitable replacement.
I find it rather amusing how many people are so certain that Borges sucks! and if there were just a different OC things would be peachy. Maybe that's the case, but I certainly think there are people who know a lot more about football than most of the posters here, and also know a lot more about what is going on with the Michigan offense. Hoke is not going to fire Borges midseason. Why? Because A) Hoke also recognizes the problems with the OLine and guess what, there is no magical offensive scheme that works well with an Oline struggling to both pass and run block effectively, B) I'm pretty sure Hoke wanted to bleed the clock at the end of the game and force Penn State into a long field with very little time.
Gardner is very elusive, more passing play calls would definitely work. Even when he has three guys after him he almost always seems to either get a pass off, or get out of traffic and A) Pass or B) scramble. Borges's play calls make no sense and are predictable to everyone.
No. Do not fire Borges. He and Funk are easy scapegoats, but this team has issues all over the field, both on offense and defense. Both Akron and Penn State were able to march down the field with very little time left on the clock. Fire Mattison!
I know you were joking, but Mattison is yet to have a BAD game. Akron and Penn State marched down the field because of big plays at the end, that could be given up by any team when doing man coverage. Borges constantly has bad games, and it seems each year has more and more bad games, that shouldn't happen to someone who was praised as being one of the best offensive coordinators in the nation at one point. Borges just simply is not a good coordinator, he inherited a better team offensively than Mattison did defensively, and Mattison has the defense working just fine, Borges is yet to have a sucessful season as an offensive coordinator at Michgian.
Flinging poo? Awesome.
Yes, there are better more open minded options out there. Not a stubborn man that won't utilize the talent that he has.
The snowflake threads were posted before the game was over! That is why Michigan lost.
I think that Hoke has to much loyalty/trust in Borges to replace him, after this year anyway. Hoke doesn't keep open communication with Borges via headset unless it's maybe a big 4th down call or hurry up @ end of the half. That bothers mean to no end, he basically lets Borges call poopie offensive games for us without even chiming in that certain plays seem to be ineffective. Head Coach should be all over his chunky butt to get it together. That said, Hoke wants Borges-Morris-Green-Harris-Harris-Campbell-Funchess-sweetassolinerecruits-fusion cuisine. That is all.
Since Borges has been at Michigan, the only game I was truly impressed with him was 2012 vs. Iowa. Pretty much every other game, win or lose, I've been dumbfounded by his playcalling. If players were failing to execute, then that's one thing. Borges hasn't shown the ability to adapt in games. He seems very stubborn.
2012 Iowa actually upset me. I loved the play calling but didn't understand why he didn't save some of that stuff for Ohio. Michigan could have beat Iowa last year with a very simple game plan.
give him a little more credit. 2011 Neb and OSU; 2012 S.Car; 2013 ND. that said, he has twice as many games than that where he has crapped the bed. and that is unacceptable.
If Hoke wants him as the OC, then hopefully Borges and Hoke will improve the team through 2015. But after the 2015 season we are still having problems with the offense and we keep loosing 5 to 4 games per season, then it may be time to show Hoke the door. I'm sure Greg will get fed up with not winning and will retire after 2015.
When Hoke was in the MAC there were some powerful offenses, like record settings offenses. Central Michigan, Bowling Green, Toledo, Miami, etc. CMU set all kinds of records in the LeFevour days. Bowling Green was top 5 in offense in 03 and 04. Toledo had some receivers and a QB drafted and some success in the NFL. Miami had some QB who was pretty good. I bet he remembers some great OCs from those days, some of which have gone on to success elsewhere. If he wanted to make a switch, wouldn't surprise me if he goes that route.