Wasnt throwing air mail and one hoppers last night. That was Bellomy.
fair point that
Wasnt throwing air mail and one hoppers last night. That was Bellomy.
Are you going to now tell me he coaches the qb's to throw the ball not at the receivers?
tell you that your eyes are correct, not your heart. OK, Bellomy and Borges are the plan next year. Are you comfortable? Did last night set your mind at ease? OK, I have touched a nerve, but because I am right, not because my take is that riducolous. I repeat, ND, MSU, UN, , 27 points total. Senior QB. You good with that?
Ah, yes. The "everyone hates my post because I'm so right" explanation.
Borges has been here two years. In Year 1, we won a BCS game with an offense that, over the course of the season, outperformed all reasonable expectations. In Year 2, the offense has played poorly against three spectacular defenses (Bama, ND, MSU) and after Denard got hurt when the RS freshman Bellomy got his first real playing time - at night - in Lincoln, Nebraska. Yet we're still nicely positioned for a Rose Bowl run, all while in our supposed rebuilding period.
Firing people the second that things don't go well is not a recipe for stable, long-term success.
If you think we were going hang 30+ on them then you've got some issues. And how much of that
How much of that Neb game did our senior qb play?
The one thing that does frustrate me is if Bellomy is really that bad, why did they stop giving Gardner reps at QB? Hopefully Bellomy's awful game yesterday doesn't represent how good he actually is because if he realy is that innacurate then they should have kept Gardner as a backup QB as well as a WR- especially since they know Denard is so prone to injury. A 5 year old kid literally would have had a better game than Bellomy if he had taken a knee every single play. It was emberassing
If there is any new criticism (if anything the playcalling was better since we ran play-action off the inverted veer stuff we actually run for the first time), this is it. Not sure who all made that call but it seems pretty mind boggling that they were so high on Bellomy, especially after all the 2 QB carousel stuff that went on last year just to give Gardner more opportunities in the passing game. And to then not give Gardner a chance with the game on the line after Bellomy had produced one yard of offense in six possessions was just a gut punch.
did they stop giving Gardner reps at QB when he hurt his shoulder against ND? Up to that point we were hearing that he was getting full reps; I haven't heard a word about that since.
Maybe he isn't available to play QB because he can't throw, at all.
Is Devin Gardner still taking reps at quarterback?
“Yep, he is on a daily basis.”
Thanks, I missed that.
It still leaves the possibility open that the shoulder isn't healthy enough to actually QB ("reps" might involve taking snaps with limited or no throwing, or his throwing might be extremely ineffective). This staff is pretty tight with injury information; that his throwing arm was in a sling a few weeks ago might not be unrelated to what (didn't) happen last night.
You said that his offensive philosophy against specific defenses has been outright baffling is too many to count on one hand, but didn't give one specific play or philosophy to prove your point. Is that too much to ask?
should probably be allowed a chance to coach a starting QB he recruited before he gets run out of town.
I am sorry, but this post is fucking moronic! The loss last night had absolutely nothing to do with Borges. The people on this board who have perpetuated this nonsensical idea are insane. We were first and ten inside the fifteen when Denard got injured. I have no reason to believe that we were not going to score a touchdown had he been in the game to finish that drive. Nebraska then turned the ball over in their own zone with about a minute left before halftime. Again, had Denard been healthy, I am quite confident we would have been able to put some more points on the board in that situation. Thus, with a healthy Denard, we go into the half up 13-7.
We were moving the ball pretty consistently in the first half. If anything, we were controlling time of possession and were in a possition to steadily wear down their defense in the second half. Outside of one possession, our defensive was playing extremely well and, with Denard in the game, we were winning the battle up front on both sides of the ball. Also, contrary to popular opinion on this board, our gameplan was NOT hyper-conservative in the first half; I thought we were doing a pretty good job mixing things up. It is not Borges' fault that our receivers dropped 500 passes in this game! That first bomb to Roundtree should have been caught, and the second bomb to Roundtree should have been caught as well.
If Denard did not get hurt, I honestly believe that this would have been a 10-17 point victory for us. We would have worn down their defense and our defense would have stayed fresh. We also would not have had the turnovers in the second half. WE DID NOT LOSE THIS GAME BECAUSE OF BORGES, WE LOST IT BECAUSE DENARD GOT INJURED AND OUR RECEIVERS DON'T HAVE HANDS.
You can bitch all you want about Hoke and Borges not playing Gardner instead of Bellomy in the second half. Fine. But when was the last time you attended practice? For all we know, Bellomy might be the better quarterback right now. Bellomy might be throwing the ball really well in practice. Also, maybe our receivers really suck, and we need all the help that we can get at that position. Even though Gardner isn't very good at receiver, maybe the coaches felt that it would be too detrimental to the receiving core to move Gardner to quarterback.
*sorry for typos and misspellings . I don't have spell-check.*
I think the OP puts more than just last night's offensive performance at issue. Six quarters of football, with Denard, and no TDs to show for it. Not saying I agree with the OP's conclusions, but that's where the OP is coming from.
Fucking moronic or just regular moronic?
"You have no reason to believe that we weren't going to score a touchdown.........", did u see the MSU game? - (moron)
"You are quite confident we were going to put some more points on the board......", did u see the MSU game? (moron)
"We were winning the battle up front on both sides of the ball.....", teams know when to blitz, they know when to create a shallow circle and contain the run and are willing to let us try to beat them with the deep ball because we've also ruined Roundtree and Gardner can't reach above his head. (moron).
"WE DID NOT LOSE THIS GAME BECAUSE OF BORGESS.......", so, when Denard goes out, who's job is it to prepare everyone else????(M=moron).
BTW - you're really relying on spell check?
full well this is a square peg round hole thing and will be willing to give Borges the benefit of the doubt.
Its obvious to me DR's injury has been an issue all year and that can explain a lot of he conservative play calling.
Conservative play calling isn't the issue. Turning your back to the defense and throwing a tunnel screen out of the I formation is way more dangerous than quickly getting the ball out to a receiver from the gun. All the deep downfield passes Denard has attempted the last two years aren't conservative. Making those throws more difficult by not forcing linebackers and safeties to defend the perimeter consistently or running credible play action isn't safer or more conservative. No one is upset that we run it more than we throw it. That is just good business. The problem is that the structure of the offense makes everything more difficult, except in theory maybe some downfield throws that a quarterback like Denard isn't going to make as consistently as one of Archie Manning's kids.
The problem is we could be doing things way more conservatively and having more success.
If as Hoke always emphasizes, the primary goal is the Big 10 championship, my fundamental beef with Borges is that his goal seems to be installing the offense of the future with a group of personnel that can't operate it. In order to win the Big 10, Borges needs to be running an offense that makes the best use of the personnel that he has. Square peg round hole redux I know, but Borges actions simply don't seem to support the stated goals of the head coach.
Either Hoke needs to revise his goal to "win the Big 10 some year down the road when our system is in place with players we have recruited" or Borges needs to get on board with Hoke and play the cards he has been dealt.
Not sure if you are asking (1) should he be on the hotseat or (2) will he be on the hotseat. The easier question to ask is #2 which is definitely "no". Hoke is not throwing him under any bus anytime soon.
As for should he be, I think it is also pretty clear that the answer is no.
First, look at the 2 games you are talking about with no touchdowns. Ths MSU game, Borges admitted he chose to call a conservative game. His philosophy was that against that defense and with your strength on defense, you call a conservative game, avoid turnovers, and you win a low scoring game. And in the end, that philosophy worked. It was close, and it was not pretty, but it worked. You do not fire a coordinator for that.
The Nebraska game was all about losing Denard. Hardly Borges' fault. You want to criticize him for not having the backup QB ready? For not recruiting a backup QB? Eh, I can't argue with those critiques, but again, I hardly think those are firable offenses. To say that the offense with Denard was going to do nothing against Nebraska-- that is an unsupportable statement. I could just as easily say that we were going to light them up for 40 points in the second half.
Coordinators are fired for refusing to adapt, refusing to learn, refusing to change when things do not work. If Borges has shown anything, it is that he is willing to learn from the past. He has been criticized for throwing too many deep balls, and now for not throwing enough deep balls. As long as I continue to see him adapting the offense, I for one am more than happy to have him here at Michigan. You clearly feel otherwise though.
Now I don't have to type what you said in a much less coherent way.
I don't think Borges should be on the hot seat either, BUT:
Through 25 minutes, every other team Nebraska has played this season had at least 7 points, excluding Arkansas State and Idaho State. We had 3 points.
Now, we were driving, so maybe we get that touchdown, but all the same, its dismal to think that Southern Mississippi was tied with those guys 14-14 at the same point in the game.
When you add that fact onto the Notre Dame and MSU games, it becomes concerning.
I also agree that losing Denard was obviously the reason we lost last night. The big question going forward will be: Why did Bellomy, in a close game that we were clearly in till late in the 4th quarter, play to the finish when it was clear after 4-5 drives he wasn't up to it? Why wasn't Devin Gardner at least given a shot to bring the team back?
I would think that that is Hoke's final call, but between the two of them, how Bellomy did not come out of the game is baffling.
Oh, without a doubt there are issues with the offense which need to be addressed. Still, we were driving, and I am not sure that "most points through 25 minutes" is a useful offensive metric (though I understand why you are picking that).
As for not putting Devin Gardner in, I really think it is because he had not been practicing at QB. We can all talk about how he has played QB in the past and theoretically he should know some of the playbook, but I just think there is no way that any coach would put in a player that had not been getting the reps and gameplanning for the current game.
But according to Hoke he has been getting reps.
And, if we're trying to win the Big Ten, I just don't see how you don't at least try him. Doesn't make sense.
If he is getting reps, then it makes me wonder what he looks like in practice. As you say, we are trying to win the B1G championship- it is all that Hoke talks about, so there has to be some reason that he was not put in. The only things I can think of is that he looked awful in practice, or this shoulder injury is keeping him from being effective (or both).
But even then: Could he have possibly looked worse than Bellomy did during his first 5 drives last night?
Unless someone comes out and says Gardner simply can't throw right now, that was a woeful error by the staff.
Actually, I was watching the post-game presser. It looked like Hoke said Gardner was not practicing at QB over the last week at least.
of mine, how bad did it need to get before a change was made? If that is what Bellomy iw, he cannot possible play again, at least not right now and not until he makes some serious progress in about every facet of his play. He is not a viable option at quarterback right now. I don't think Michigan can win with him at quarterback, like at all, like not against Minnesota this weekend. If Denard cannot go this weekend or for any substantial period this season, Gardner has to play. Not to play him is to forfeit. That is what Saturday was. Essentially a forfeit.
The most unemployed offensive coordinators reading this blog!
All of us had at least as much OC work during 2008 as Al Borges (after his run at Auburn).
And plenty of posters have lasted here on this blog longer than Al has lasted at any job in the past two decades.
But this truly has become like Hollywood. It doesn't matter if you've directed 10 crappy movies; if you once made one that did fairly well, and other people have hired you, then you must not be that bad. Can I get a Greg Robinson amen?
I'd say warm is about as high as I would go with the Borges concerns. I mean seriously, is he getting enough out of our seriously underperforming RB, who can't run north/south for some reason? Or the O-line in general, which has seldom made real running lanes? Or how about the WR corps that is so mediocre our number 2 QB immediatley became our most athletic receiver? Yet still isn't that good at all?
Could you lay this all on Borges? Sure, but then you need to include the position coaches here too don't you? But let's get real, outside of Denard we don't have a lot of talent. The prediction before this season started was 7-5. In consideration of the pieces we lost and what we still have, that seemed a wise guess then and it seems a wise guess now.
Yes, position coaches should be evaluated and rewarded if they are good, and let go if they are not. This seemed like a fairly constant theme during the RR years. I don't seem why all of the assistants we brought over from San Diego State and/or Ball State should get a lifetime pass. We can see what good coaching has done with a ragtag group on defense -- the discipline, coordination, sound fundamentals, employed in a scheme that provides them a good opportunity for success. Not sure what positives we are seeing from the coaches on the other side of the ball.
One of the biggest bitches people had with RR was he didn't adapt to the personnel he had. Well Borges shouldn't be let off the hook either. His play calling the last 2 years has been less then spectacular. I also don't think Hoke should be immune either. ADAPT was the word used a lot. I'm not getting into a RR didn't do that, didnt get this. I'm just stating the facts. Its amazing the difference between the reaction from the two coaching staffs from the fans. There wasn't a good enough reason not to put Gardner at QB. I don't care if he hasn't practiced at QB or not. He's the closest thing to Denard. There was a big difference in NEB play calling on D when Drob went out and with Gardner I think they woulda had to respects Devins running ability more. Whats the worst thing that coulda happend. He throws a pick? Oh wait, that happend. Hoke and Co. need to ADAPT to they're personnel. Bellomy was awful and we are in the middle of a Big Ten championship run. Do whatever it takes to win. Isn't the reason Drob was on KO returns.
The reaction shouldn't be oh we are overreacting. This is a legitimate point. How are peolpe not concerned with Borges. Honestly I look at the games we have played and he lost us Iowa, almost lost us Virginia Tech, and almost lost us MSU. How many games can you look back at and say that Mattison lost us the game, or it didn't make sense what we were doing. Bama just out physicaled us, Air Force is impossible to prepare for in a week, and for Ohio State we loaded up in the box bc they did nothing all year. How many times can you say, oh I get what Borges is doing there.
It just seems to take longer for him to make adjustments. Nebraska is a bad defense, we should have a decent to good offense and should have scored last night. There are no excuses.
We stuggle with the O-line, we struggle at RB, we struggle at WR. Basically we have a sick running QB who isn't effective when there's no room to run. But, from what I'm seeing I'm much more concerned with our personnel than I am the playcalling with no real anwsers at these positions for next year either. O-line and QB have been addressed but will take time to develop. WR and RB are still a problem going forward.
No chance he's even close to a hot seat. We don't even have his ideal personnel to run his ideal offense yet. Should he adapt to Denard better? Sure. But if and when Shane is good to go, and we still have an anemic offense, than let's revisit this topic.
I didn't really know who Borges was before he came to Michigan and I didn't pay attention enough to UCLA, Cal, Indiana, or Auburn to evaluate him at those places. Looking back he was effective at UCLA & Auburn were he spent the majority of his time. I guess I agree with what some others are saying that at times I think he's right on and at times I see things to question.
I don't have a problem with the relatively conservative play calling in the MSU game based on our previous propensity to give up sacks, big losses, and turnovers the last time we played them. I do think we should have opened it up a little earlier last night especially in first and second down since we couldn't run the ball anyway and it would seem we'd have better chances trying to throw in early downs than on thrid and long. But, ultimately I'm not ready to judge him for another couple of years. I think every coach deserves a 3-5 year window within reason to get and develop the type of players that fit their scheme. Lets see what he does with Morris and the incoming and freshman O-line prospects.
When Denard got injured Michigan was inside the 10 down 4. I think Borges was doing ok up to that point, but my frustration is that he doesn't seem to have different packages/formations to play to Bellomy's strengths or at least to mask his weaknesses. As Brian has said, the effectiveness of up tempo spread teams is that they are able to use the little time they have to perfect simpler offenses. Backups get more reps and they are more prepared. My biggest disappointment with the offense when Bellomy was in is that it is clear he is not getting enough reps, and while the coaches keep insisting he can move, I would rather not see Bellomy running veer option plays or any plays where he is a run option. I cringe when I see Denard under center, but that is probably where Bellomy is best suited.
If you like the Lloyd Carr years, we're back to that.
I don't know, the National Championship wasn't so bad.
I'm not qualified to say whether Borges should stay or go, and I can tell you, I would hate it if outsiders who didn't know much about my industry made judgements on whether I should stay or go, but shouldn't we be concerned about our one-dimensional offense? Shouldn't we be concerned that the exit of Molk has made this big a difference? Shouldn't we be concerned that we have a bunch of running backs yet we never see them? I've read a couple of posts that said Bellomy doesn't have a "Big Ten Arm." Why did we recruit all these people who aren't quite good enough to play? Maybe I shouldn't compare Borges to Mattison, but didn't both really start in the same situation, with some players who didn't fit the scheme, were too small, not athletic enough, etc, etc. Mattison has pulled things together nicely. Why hasn't Borges been successful at creating a real Plan B, knowing that Denard is great, but sometimes he''s not?
I must have waded through 300 posts today before I got to one where someone made this honest admission. And it has me thinking: maybe everyone needs to have the experience, once in their life, of having their life's work analyzed on the internet by a blog full of people who aren't familiar with the industry and know nothing whatsoever about the position itself but are happy to criticize the work in terms that are laughably nonsensical to anyone actually familiar with it.
Maybe some lights would come on. But probably not.
I think he does deserve to fork over some answers as to why we seemingly have about 5 plays and about strategy. The bottom line is he gets paid well for his job, so naturally the scrutiny comes with it. You don't pay someone a lot of money and then expect them not to be accountable. College football is a big money business now and results are expected, plain and simple.
This thread is the epitome of over reaction. We're 16-5 since hoke and company arrived. Talking about anyone from that staff being on the hot seat or warm seat is ludicrous considering the players they're playing were recruited for a different system. Remember the last time that change happened.? 3-9, 5-7.
wow, people on this board jump the gun so much when things don't go their way. borges is working with a qb he didn't recruit, with a skill set he doesn't normally work with. lets revisit this if need be in 2-3 years when shane is under center. borges is essentially running the spread right now, which is not what he was brought here to do. he's catering to the strengths of his current players.
wow, people on this board jump the gun so much when things don't go their way.
Ya think? It's pathetic really, IMO. Everything is the fault of someone other than, you know, they guys that were ACTUALLY called upon to execute the play. I am not saying that there aren't times when a coordinator makes a bad call, but I don't think that is the case here. I think it's the fact that Michigan's offense lost many of it's key elements/leaders, and that makes for a severely limited offensive performance.
I think the expectations of the fanbase are ludicrously out of whack, and none more so than people in here that assume that Borges is incompetent because a RS Freshman QB couldn't win the game in a night game in Lincoln.
Get real people, Michigan is rebuilding, and last year was a minor miracle.
I have been saying this for weeks. He hasn't been able to run his offense yet. Russ or Shane will be better in his offense. He doesn't have the practice time to put in his offensive plays yet. He is still trying to run a hybrid style offense for Denard. Russ comes in to run Denard's and the defense can focus on the passing game and stop the running backs. We need to relax and move on to Minnesota.