The Hot Seat
Hoke is not the one to take anything public regarding his concerns, and I thought Rich Rod's willingness to throw specific help at least near the bus if not completely under it was his worst quality and not the way to go about business. That being said, Borges has to be a concern at this point. His seat may not be hot yet, but it needs to be warm at a minimum. Regardless of who you have running your offense, and regardless of if he isn't your dream come true, your schemes at least need to make sense, to somebody, anybody. I have taken Brian's concerns with Borges a little sarcasticly to date, but I have to say I am concerned that portions of what I am seeing border on incompetence, and they are being accepted as the status quo.
I am not going to debate that Borges has impressed me from time to time with specific calls, but the number of times that his offensive philosophy against specific defenses has been outright baffling is too many to count on one hand now, and I think it is more than just a side note at this point. I understand that Denard going down was a blow, but backup quarterbacks can be remotely effective, and at least not outright humiliating as was the case last night. Bellomy was never rumored to be John Elway, but at the same time I don't think anybody took him for a fish out of water when he came in. True, our offensive line is not record breaking, but we are not converting defensive lineman for god's sake, this line is nobody's leftovers, they are a pretty solid group.
Hoke hired Borges in 08, and Borges' offenses at SDSU were solid enough, but I don't know if Hoke is married enough to Borges that he is in untouchable territory. Shane, along with the best offensive lineman class in the history of the world are certainly reason for optimism, but I have to say that Borges should be answering for something right now. I am not expecting the best show on turf here, I am just asking for a little rhyme and reason, and perhaps that there is a Plan B available in the case Denard cannot go. An injury to your starting quarterback is tough, but not tough enough to look like a fairly competitive high school team in the aftermath. I have been a Borges supporter, but last night was alarming even before Denard's injury.
Here's to hoping that this offense can get right before it ventures to Horseshoe, because the cat is out of the bag, this offense in ineffective right now, and I think it is acheiving beneath its personnel. Am I seeing this clearly, or is this misplaced? I would love to know.
October 28th, 2012 at 6:46 PM ^
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.
October 28th, 2012 at 8:22 PM ^
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.
October 28th, 2012 at 6:03 PM ^
October 28th, 2012 at 6:04 PM ^
October 28th, 2012 at 6:14 PM ^
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.
October 28th, 2012 at 6:21 PM ^
October 28th, 2012 at 6:06 PM ^
As tempting as it is to agree with the sentiments expressed here, not just in the wake of the Nebraska loss, but also given that we haven't scored a touchdown in three weeks, it's way too early to be serious about this 'hot seat' talk, but maybe not too early to open a dialouge about it.
Michigan has not been impressive this year, or (with a couple exceptions) last year, against good defenses. Offensive game plans against Bama and ND were questionable (but against Bama, nobody has looked good the last two years). And Bellomy looked like a deer in the headlights--when losing Denard to injury has been a consistent risk the last three years. Most daminginly: an offense led by Denard Robinson has looked boring and predictable this year.
But firing the offensive coordinator is not where Michigan wants to go as a program in the foreseeable future. This conclusion assumes we'll win a couple more, at least, this year, but it's the wrong message to send when the team has been winning. Apart from the agony of watching TD-free football, 5-3 is about where the schedule suggested we may be at this point in the year. And if Denard is healthy, we probably beat Nebraska like 18-17, on FGs, or something.
October 28th, 2012 at 11:28 PM ^
and no ones really done anything against the ND defense this year. I was figuring OU was going to win this game by a couple of TD's - experienced veteran QB, solid skill players, a coaching staff that had been together for a while. What happens - 13 pts total and only 6 through 4 quarters.
October 29th, 2012 at 1:51 AM ^
I have started, begrudgingly, to see parallels between ND 2012 and Michigan 1997/Ohio State 2002. I am not a fan of ND, but I am a fan of that style of play.
October 28th, 2012 at 6:13 PM ^
October 28th, 2012 at 6:16 PM ^
So please put me in the camp of 'Borges should definitely not be on the hot seat right now.' Here are the arguments for why Borges sucks, and my reasoning as to why this doesn't warrant a hot seat just yet:
-"He's not adapting to his personnel, and we're suffering as a result" - this one is silly. We're building a long-term program here, not something that should work best for just this year's personnel. Sometime hopefully soon, the personnel will match the plan, and the players will know the plays because that's what we will have been running all along. When the time comes, running the plays now and next year will have prepped the team for the ultimate game plan. The transition costs will be lower then and we'll all be happier as a result. The argument that 'oh but we crusaded against Rich Rod for not adapting to his personnel so we should go after Borges too' is stupid because those criticizing RRod then were wrong for the same reason 4 years ago. It doesn't make the argument correct today.
-"His QBs have regressed, and he is the QB coach, what does this mean for the future?" This is a legitimate concern but a data sample of 2/3 is to draw conclusions. Just as revelant are the jobs he's done with QBs at his other stops along his coaching career. I think the jury is out on this one and we should reserve judgment until he gets his prototypical QB under center. It may simply be the case that Denard can't handle the intricasies of the WCO, and maybe Bellomy is just a RS frosh who struggled on the road in a difficult night game environment (gasp!). If you think Borges should adapt and change the whole offense to fit these two guys, see my bullet point above.
-"His in game adjustments are lacking, and he doesn't scout what other defenses are going to do. He fails to put in adjustments for how guys attack us so we're in a constant schematic disadvantage." This one is harder to address but quite frankly, I find it somewhat laughable that we sit here, Brian included, going through Borges's plays and dissecting them one by one and thinking we could craft a better gameplan. I love picture pages and UFRs and all that but they are only helpful to a point. The fact is, we don't know when a play was blown up due to scheme or due to a blown assignment. Did the run blitz from the defense work or did Mealer bust a protection assignment? Did the route scheme in the passing play suck or did Gardner fail to sell the route when making his cuts? Without the all-11 film and multi year plus coaching experience, we may never know. Benefit of the doubt should generally go to a seasoned guy like Borges, all things being equal. He's forgotten more football than any of us likely will ever know. If you don't like the fact that he doesn't call enough bubble screens, tough shit.
You have to give guys a chance to succeed. I didn't like it when we ran Rich Rod out of town after 3 years and I don't think we should run Borges out after 2. At least give the guy a chance to put his players and his scheme into effect. Call me after 2014, if we're not getting it done then, I say can him. At least we can then credibly tell the next guy we will give him a fair opportunity to install his program.
October 28th, 2012 at 6:27 PM ^
Hoke and Hoke's staff have been a part of national champonships. Which is why we are on this blog and they aren't. If our overreaction and insanely obtuse commentary were the fabric from which our staff was cut - our team would suck - which it doesn't. It is rebuilding into a new system with a lot of young and inexperienced players.
October 28th, 2012 at 6:34 PM ^
Yeah the nice think about Hoke and Co. is from what I've seen, I'm fairly certain he ignores this sort of crap. He knows what he wants for this program, and the direction he's taking us. A few whiny fans aren't going to slow him down
October 28th, 2012 at 7:16 PM ^
"We're building a long-term program here, not something that should work best for just this year's personnel."
If that's the case, then let's all quit pretending that the team's goal this year is truly to win the Big 10 championship. The coaching staff preaches repeatedly about not looking beyond the next game, yet we are all talking about building for next year etc.
To think that we are going to win the Big 10 while not doing something that does work best with this year's personnel is ludicrous
October 29th, 2012 at 12:41 AM ^
Actually, we have a much larger sample size to look at. How did he do in years 2 - 4 at Auburn -- any QB progression? Two years at Indiana -- any QB progression? One year at Cal (canned before he should show any regression). Even in his second year in the Mountain West (where he landed after the SEC), his pro-caliber QB didn't muster a 58% completion rate. Yes, he has been in the football community a long time. But he has not been very successful, and his QBs and teams have not shown progression during his stints. Greg Robinson had two Super Bowls and a college national championship on his resume. Does that mean we could not criticize his defenses? I just don't see why people hope for something different from Borges when his history tells us he is not going to do well here long-term.
October 29th, 2012 at 1:46 AM ^
can you please provide the stats that show there was no progression with the QB's and teams. While you're doing that can you also provide how much turnover there was on the oline, wr's and position coaches during those years as well as any injuries that occurred during the year to the oline, wr's and QB that might have hampered the progression of the QB and the offenses.
The reason I ask about turnover and injuries is because if you look at completion % and QB rating, Chad Henne's best years were his freshman and junior years. Braylon Edwards was on the team in 2004 but not 2005. Also in 2005 Jake Long got hurt and missed most of the year. Then in 2007, both Henne and Hart battled injuries throughout most of the year.
October 28th, 2012 at 6:23 PM ^
October 28th, 2012 at 6:47 PM ^
Apples to oranges dude. First of all, there was a great deal of concern about the RS Fr. kid from ND at the beginning of the season. Remember, he got pulled against Michigan and Purdue because he was throwing INT's. Further, he's been starting, not coming off the bench. Bellomy, by contrast, has NEVER started a game, and was watching the senior QB move the offense well, then was suddenly thrust into the game, on a cold night, on the road, in a VERY difficult place to play.
October 28th, 2012 at 6:57 PM ^
October 28th, 2012 at 8:27 PM ^
October 28th, 2012 at 6:24 PM ^
Al Borges shouldn't be on any kind of "hot seat". Until Denard went out Borges was having probably his best game calling plays all season (so glad we finally threw in some play action off the inverted veer and it worked out nicely). If Denard doesn't go out, we win that game easily.
On the other hand, are there structural problems that make our offense easier to defend than it should be and explain the huge dips in production we've seen from guys like Denard, Roundtree, and even Fitz this year (he is running to the sideline on those veer handoffs and yet people complain he's not getting north/south enough)? Yes. We don't run quick routes/screens because apparently they reflect some latent desire to touch another man's naughty parts. We have prototypical zone blockers pulling (and totally telegraphing the mesh point) and trying to drive block on most running plays so that Kyle Kalis can practice doing it during the week. We (usually) don't run credible play action and have no counters to what appear to be our base plays, and as a result teams are able to cheat against them without fear/punishment. This all results in more, tougher, downfield throws and runs where we are trying to block more defenders with fewer blockers.
And whoever decided Russell Bellomy was a better option than Devin Gardner may be a complete lunatic.
Not sure any of this impacts whether Borges and his system are an effective answer long term, but a great opportunity has been missed when just a slightly better performance on offense could have resulted in a 20-1 record over the last two years.
October 28th, 2012 at 6:29 PM ^
October 28th, 2012 at 6:29 PM ^
There are no words to describe how big an eye roll this thread deserves.
October 28th, 2012 at 6:42 PM ^
October 28th, 2012 at 6:35 PM ^
1) This is not Borges' system, he really doesn't know how to run an offense with the players that we have, but he is doing it and not making excuses and/or complaining about it. I can respect it even though it's really ineffective.
2) Borges has been a journeyman coordinator for most of his career. I think you are seeing why. But that isn't something that we didn't know before. Deal with it.
October 28th, 2012 at 6:52 PM ^
October 28th, 2012 at 6:39 PM ^
October 28th, 2012 at 6:50 PM ^
October 28th, 2012 at 10:31 PM ^
October 28th, 2012 at 10:58 PM ^
October 28th, 2012 at 11:18 PM ^
October 28th, 2012 at 6:52 PM ^
October 28th, 2012 at 6:54 PM ^
October 28th, 2012 at 9:08 PM ^
I'm just really glad Hoke and Brandon don't listen in the slightest to you people.
October 28th, 2012 at 6:56 PM ^
He haven't done that in a long ass time. That buys him at least a couple seasons in my book. Nearly every fanbase in the history of ever has hated their OC. Even RR's offense getting blasted on this board when it put up a combined 24 points on OSU in three years. This isn't a criticism of RR, it's just to say that sometimes even good OC's don't always have good offenses and even good offenses don't always have good games. Everyone was nutting over Holgerson's offense at WVU and they just put up back to back 14 point performances-- they have scored exactly 7 more points than Michigan in the last two games, both of which were blowout losses. No OC is perfect, give the guy some time.
October 28th, 2012 at 6:59 PM ^
October 28th, 2012 at 11:33 PM ^
Actually I disagree. Carr's problem was he game planned like he had a stud defense. The problem was more often than not he didn't. He had a good defense but not dominate. 2006 was the exception and yes UM did dominant the Big Ten until OSU.
Hoke and Mattison look like they are going to be putting a dominant defense on the field year in and year out. That right there will be different than most of the later Carr years.
October 28th, 2012 at 7:19 PM ^
For general consumption in this thread, the drop in production statistically has not been enough to raise alarms overall, if that's what the OP is getting at.
In 2011, we averaged 182.3 yards passing per game for the season. This year, it has fallen to all of 171.5 yards. We averages 206.6 yards rushing per game last year, and to date this year, despite what your eyes might see, that's actually up to 221.9 yards per game on average.
We averaged 404.7 yards of total offense per game last year, and although this is down to 378.1 yards per game this year, I don't think it is fair exactly to say that Borges is on the hot seat for what amounts to 26.3 yards per game less on average this year.
We graduated Molk, Huyge, Koger and Hemingway and took, overall, only a 6.5% hit in production, which really is not bad and certainly not enough to be an indictment on the offensive coordinator from that standpoint.
We're talking about an offense that is still in the midst of a transition, and as we were made aware in the beginning, the coordinator hires and subsequent recruiting patterns were a long-term solution, not an immediate fix. Questioning the playcalling is one thing as we all have different assessments of what we believe the personnel could realistically do, but "hot seat" talk after less than two seasons and what is not a huge drop in production, with the recruiting for Borges' WCO now in full swing, is simply not fair in my mind.
I guess I don't understand what the relevant metrics are for the OP.
October 28th, 2012 at 7:29 PM ^
It's pretty obvious that the team has flipped talent wise. The defense finally has play markers, though not enough to make us elite. Having said that, in my humble opinion, the offense is suffering from the transition the worst right now, because they don't have enough playmakers and/or talent plus depth to make us even productive. It sucks, but hopefully they will get it solved via recruiting and keep coaching them up.
There isn't a free agent system. It takes years to fix the problems we have. Deal peeps!
Offensively, all we need to do I point to SDSU/Ryan Lindey, the multiplicity Borges used there, and seriously rewatch that ND game. There is some real genius in the route patterns he used, problem is that if people will just admit it to themselves that Denard isn't capable of passing effectively on a consistent basis to use those schemes, you could handle this situation better.
And wholly shit, the coaches are probably kicking themselves for going after a top flight QB recruit last year. That could be troublesome next two years.
You are searching for a snowflake in the Sahara. Good luck!!
October 28th, 2012 at 7:36 PM ^
BORGES
But it's so simple. All I have to
do is divine from what I know of
you. Are you the sort of defensive coordinator who
would sell out to stop the base play or are
sort of defensive coordinator who is moar concerned
about a constraint play busting big?
He studies the defense now.
BORGES
Now, a clever man would focus on
using Denard to run the ball,
because he would know that only a
great fool would not use his best
weapon. He would also know that I know that
the defense would be stacked to prevent
Denard from running so I can clearly not
run Denard. Only a great fool would run
Denard into the teeth of a defense designed
to stop him. The defensive coordinator must
have known I was not a great fool; he would
have counted on it and planned on me calling
a play action pass out of the same formation,
so I can clearly not choose to call that.
OPPOSING DEFENSIVE COORDINATOR
You've made your decision then7
BORGES
What's that over there?
PLAY BEGINS
He called a formation that Michigan has
not run out of all year. Denard playactions
to Toussaint fooling no one resulting in two
defenders in his face as he sets to throw an
interception off his back foot.
---DRIVE ENDS ONLY TO BE REPEATED ON THE NEXT POSSESSION
October 28th, 2012 at 7:45 PM ^
Comparing series where we had Denard (this includes the one where he was injured), we had the ball 19:54, for 39 plays with 185 yards. They had the ball for 9:15 with 24 plays and 133 yards. In my opinion, we were on our way.
October 28th, 2012 at 7:48 PM ^
Dont like his play callin at all. On the MSU 3 yard line ... we throw 2 or 3 times & flop.? Why dont we ever roll Denard out with the option to run or pass in that situation? Seems Denard would score almost every time in that situation
D's stack the box non stop & we run into it.
Denard runnin up the middle over & over & getting hammered. Only was a matter of time b4 he got injured. Why dont we run the speed option ever at least?
No screen passes over the top of a blitzing d ever to Fitz?
October 28th, 2012 at 7:54 PM ^
If these two monster O-Line classs we are getting are squandered and Morris fails to develop, then I'm fine with putting Borges on the hotseat. However no coaches go on the hotseat this year or next year.
For everyone bitching about the offense getting shut down, lets review a little shall we?
Illinois 38, Michigan 13
Ohio State 21, Michigan 10
Ohio State 37, Michigan 7
Mississippi State 52, Michigan 14
Those are some various scores compiled by an offensive staff designed to utilize spread QBs to their fullest potential and running the scheme with Tate and/or Denard. Yet somehow we only managed to find 13 points against Ron Zook one year, let alone Tressel and some middle of the pack SEC team shutting our ass down cold.
At the end of the day the spread has a component that requires the defense to make some mistakes that you then exploit with your speed. Which of course is why most people think it won't work in the NFL (the defenses don't make mistakes and can match the offense in terms of speed). Denard has show he can't be a pocket passer and defenses are making fewer mistakes against them as they get the benefit of experience in playing him (plus more film for the coaches). So when we play well coached defenses that don't make many mistakes we have problems with the spread flavors of our offense.
This offense was not some scoring machine that Borges fucked up. It always has been a somewhat unreliable machine that had hiccups and shit the bed on occasion. Borges is trying nurse the machine across the finish line, while also recruiting what we hope is RoboHenne 2.0 and some big outside WRs as opposed to relying on the Gallon/Dileo cloaking devices being functional. We have a working defense, the recruits that in theory allow us to install the system Borges wants. If he fucks that install job up, then yes he's on the hot seat. So long as he recruits well and the install job looks on progress, don't fuck up program stability just because an offense centered around a running QB, a style of offense we have no intention of maintaining is having hiccups.
October 28th, 2012 at 8:48 PM ^
You are comparing two games with a true freshman Tate Forcier at QB and two with Denard as a true sophomore without a guy like Fitz standing next to him and a freshman left tackle to what should be expected of the same group of players with two more years of development.
And it looks like in all of those games the team managed to score at least one touchdown.
Stanford is 5-2, their coach says they have the best defense in the entire history of the school, and they haven't given up more than 17 points to anyone in regulation. Except when they played an Arizona team that went 4-8 last year, had to replace an NFL QB, their leading rusher, and their top three receivers, all while dealing with multiple injuries along the offensive line. Then they gave up 48. No team has scored more points against 5-2 USC either. Or 5-2 Oklahoma State (59). Or 6-1 Oregon State (35, next closest is 24 from BYU but in that game the Beavs D added a score of their own). Or Washington (52, just like Oregon, but the Wildcats won by a larger margin).
All the talk about transitions and fits is just talk. Acting like the spread offense is some crazy shit that doesn't work against everybody when you have a little bit of talent/experience is just lunacy.
You're certainly right that Al Borges shouldn't be on the hot seat, but to act like he hasn't underperformed or that no one could do better with this current squad is just silly.
October 28th, 2012 at 8:56 PM ^
October 28th, 2012 at 9:10 PM ^
Clearly not winning the national championship this season would mean that Oregon is fucking up by playing in an offensive system that has allowed them to go 41-6 the last 3.5 years and win their conferece three years in a row.
Remind me how many national titles we've won in the last 60+ years and what happened the last time we played the Ducks.
October 28th, 2012 at 9:09 PM ^
Here, we'll be busy analyzing the 49 points Arizona will have put up on New Mexico in the Gildan Bowl.
October 28th, 2012 at 9:48 PM ^
Its kind of crazy that your hatred of the spread has mutated to the point you would rather see Nick Saban win another NC than witness its ultimate success.
October 29th, 2012 at 8:29 AM ^
You mean the way MANBALL crazies ignore Florida 2006 & 2008, Texas 2005, and Auburn 2010?
Obvious obvious is obvious.
October 29th, 2012 at 12:44 AM ^
a big zero on Oregon. Even good offenses, spread or otherwise, shit the bed sometimes.
There is a difference between underperforming and claiming that someone could do better. Only a fool would claim that no one could do better with the offense. But only a fool would think that a West Coast guy was going to be able to best maximize the talents of a spread roster. Borges has performed about in line with my expectations. The offense has had 4 bad games. Three were against top 10 defenses, two of those on the road, and one was with the superstar QB hurt. People need to calm the fuck down.