Does our offense get any benefit from the experience of our defensive coaching staff?

Obviously not.

And I'm not being  smart ass either, it obviously doesn't help when your OC is atrocious and your HC is too stubborn to change anything about it.

I dunno....if Mattison in practice lines up 9 in the box and Al runs directly into it. I guess that is something.

as our offense continues to sputter...

I think as a practical matter, once you enter the season, defensive and offensive staffs aren't actively looking to help each other out.  They're too concerned with preparing their own side of the ball to solve the other side's problems.  You may have coaches bouncing questions off each other.  Along the lines of: "hey, OPPONENT runs a blitz scheme similar to yours, what's your greatest fear when you run the blitz against this particular formation."  But in terms of actually causing each other to be innovative, I don't see much correlation.  Your OC and DC aren't preparing to go against each other, so their respective schemes really don't matter too much to each other.  

Al Borges could walk into a wall 35 times and then go over to the podium for his presser and say that execution is the reason he couldnt get to his cupcake. It will have nothing to do with the fact you cant walk through a wall.

so to answer your question, no, having a good defense isnt helping us, because what is happening is Al Borges.

So who can M get if Borges is fired? I don't know many offensive coordinators that are up and coming and willing to leave their current job for M.

It probably gets Touissant used to getting beat to hell 3 yards behind the LOS, so I guess that helps. Practice like you play!

the coach is the one doing the firing, right? So, if Borges is running what Hoke wants, how do you fire him? I mean if the head coach insists on power as the primary run game, and your OC accommodates your desire for that, and it doesn't work, and the reason it doesn't work is because your Oline can't block it well enough, who's fault is it, really? 

Michigan fans are pissed about Saturday's game not because the kids didn't play better, but because they weren't trusted enough to execute plays that would have assured victory. 

Brian's anger is obviously fueled by a certain offensive scheme bias, but the reality of scheme being pushed over the benefit of opportunity, means you can't claim opportunities were missed when you failed to take advantage of  the offensive opportunites to beat the defensive scheme your presnap alignment telegraphed. 

The players don't have perspective on this, they only do what they're asked on each call or change at the LOS. They may screw up and the play goes nowhere, but Michigan had time and opportunity to win that game, and it didn't because the coaches copped out on the kids. 

One thing I would guess on the scenario is that if it did happen, Mattison would not give crazy alignments with obvious weaknesses, unless they're some sort of defensive bait and switch... maybe that explains things!

It would be nice if Greg would throw 9 in the box from time to time to drive home the point of "Knock off the mamby pamby bullshit, Al".

I've wondered this as well, but I recall a press briefing from last year that in response to a question indicated that there was no strategy input from the DC to OC or vice versa.  I think it would be a good idea, though, because it should provide some insight if Borges were to ask Mattison, for example, with our offense and personnel, what plays would you be most leery about trying to defend.

Having a strong defense to go up against does not mean the offense would get better, the offense could be failing in practice and not know why- it may even condition the offense to expect a certain lack of success. Ideally, the two units would be teaching each other their tricks- but this may not be happening in practice. They could be just routinely drilling with little innovation. The most successful coaches seem to be able to transform the teams they take over in about two years max. This transformation is so quick that it obviously points to the importance of coaching over recruiting as the main reason for success. Thus, the most interesting thing to look at IS practice. This is why your question is actually a very good one. Something is failing in the teaching phase at UM football.

An obvious solution is for Gardner to go to the line having called two plays that go out of the same formation, one a run and the other a pass.  If there are 8 or more in the box, he stays with (or checks to) the pass and if there are 7 or fewer he goes with the run.  No OL is going to do very well when it is 8 defenders on 5 or 6 blockers, and that is what Borges calls with mind-numbing persistence.  In fact, it is not even fair to judge this line, as he puts them in one impossible situation after another.

I think this has been borne out in our past four ball games.

This might seem like total nonsense given this age of football and how offenses have evolved, logically it would seem as a result of sharp OCs. However, thinking back to last year's second half vs. OSU it just stood out that he had a plan that had Devin throwing on first down every series, which he did and it usually resulted in a gain of 7-8 yards(no data to back that up), then try and pound out the remaining two or three with the next two calls.

It became inconceivable to me watching the efficiency on first down and the continued ineffectiveness of preconceived and unchangeable calls on all plays following that he would not continue to use Devin's ability to pick up these huge chunks of yardage through the air. If we had scored one td in that second half the game would have been ours'. We held OSU to six points, yet our 1 point half time lead of 21 points never changed. It became blatantly clear what was working and what was not and no matter what you are doing, be it raking a lawn, painting a house, repairing a car, when you find the quickest most effective way to get the job done, you smile and continue to do so unless another obstacle presents itself, then you think your way through that. But you never, ever change what's working. That is perhaps one of the oldest adages, along with "low man wins," attributed to the game of football. Make a team stop your success. By what law of sanity does a football coach change what is working and continue with what is not? Trick question. There is no rational answer.

Brady, when speaking of Al says things like, "He watches more film than I do," as if that makes him a great OC. In one game in particular this year, I remember us coming out and throwing the ball, using motion and a jet sweep to Norfleet with a basketball touch pass that set up a reverse using the same alignment and touch pass quickly followed by the same touch pass from Norfleet to the reverse man. We were actually demonstrating a minute amount of imagination and we never found ourselves in a situation demanding continued pounding of the rock into a well built wall. Along with Funchess, we also used Gallon remarkably well. What this demonstrated to me is we are not forced, through youth or lack of personnel to continuously use probably a numbered play such as 44 smash, but what I now refer to as the hand off and pray play. We are very capable of moving the ball against future NFLers with personnel on hand as long as they are used in a manner that the defense is not certain what is coming, and even more importantly is not certain the play is not etched in granite no matter how they align themselves. In any battle, dating back to the Bay of Salamis and the stunning deeat of the Spanish Armada, deception, along with acknowledging and taking advantage of the opponent's weaknesses will neutralize any advantage they might have. This, in fact, has been demonstrated by our opponents since game 2, all weaker than us as to personnel, but all knowing full well our weaknesses and our tendency to not stray from them. If I were setting at a bar with Al instead of in front of my computer, I might be tempted to merely say to him, "Good God Man, give our men a chance." One can reasonably ascertain that the 40 we scored against them should have been done in the first half instead of 60 minutes and four overtimes. These are not acceptable results for UM football led by the same men for three years.

I had a similar but opposite thought.  The lack of offense and the terrible O-Line might explain why our D-Line isn't getting as much done as expected.  The D-Line is going up against a complete mess of an O-Line and it looks like our D-Line is tearing it up in practices.  But in all actuality, our D-Line is getting nothing accomplished other than a false sense of confidence.

Something has to change on the Offensive side of the ball (O-line + playcalling) and some things need to start progressing on the D-Line or we are in a world of hurt in November.   

Our offense has been the least bit innovative, so I guess the answer is no.