Execution, Play Calling, and Coming Full-Circle with Borges and Co.

Submitted by Space Coyote on

In the past, I have been loudly outspoken that many of Borges's bad game plans (read: OSU) have been just as much or more because of poor execution, which has been contrary to the tidal force of this blog and most Michigan fans. I've prefaced this by saying that poor execution is just as much on the coaches as it is on the players, and that by saying "execution was the main problem", I wasn't claiming Borges's gets a free ride.

Well, this last Saturday I tweeted out something to the extent of "Borges's called a hell of a game," and I want to preface that with the fact that the players are just as responsible for that because of their execution as Borges's and the coaching staff are for calling the plays and preparing the team to execute.

The point is, neither is anything without the other. Borges apparently called a wonderful game, but if the players execute like they did against OSU, the play calling looks mediocre at best. Maybe this could go elsewhere in one of the many threads about this topic, but as a fairly outspoken member of the board, I wanted to let this come full circle. No game boils down to an OC called a bad game, and no game comes down to an OC called a great game. This is what happens when the two come together. This is the outcome when neither has to be perfect (because neither playcalling nor execution was perfect), but both were for the most part very good.

EDIT: Title change to not come off as flaming.

DonAZ

September 10th, 2013 at 5:07 PM ^

In summary, this is why there's so much emphasis on teamwork.

Football is a complex machine with a lot of moving parts.  They have to work in concert or the machine does not perform as well as it could.  Players and coaches are part of it.

While the spread is the offense du jour, running a spread certainly doesn't guarantee success.

Agree.  There are some who think the spread is, by itself, unstoppable.  That's simply not true.

To add to that, there are some who thought that Hoke's return to a "power" football scheme implied two tight ends in an I-formation, with off-tackle and three yards and a cloud of dust.  I think the ND game shows that "power" does not have to mean "1970's football."

wolverinebutt

September 10th, 2013 at 6:10 PM ^

I'm more concerned with playcalling this season than rehashing past seasons.  Big Al was on fire Saturday.  ND forced us to beat them with the pass and we did.  

Al switched up to DG running the ball instead of trying to force feed Fritz.

End around and double reserve early in the game to give them something new.  I hate double reverses, but I think it was a statement by Al. 

With so much ND blitzing I don't recall much in the way of draws or screens??? We used Devon's legs. 

       

2plankr

September 12th, 2013 at 2:02 AM ^

After a lifetime in coaching Borges didn't suddenly learn how to coach in the offseason or forget how to coach the week before osu. The most likely explanation for why it seems that way to casual fans is that there are other factors that casual fans don't understand

Cold War

October 15th, 2013 at 5:41 AM ^

Kick. The OP is correct here. You need Borges AND execution. Also a reminder we have been pretty high on Borges at times.