How much control does Hoke exert over play style and playcalling?
After reading countless opinions from different sources, it seems to me that the central issue with this offense this season is that the coaching staff attempted to run a style of offense that the team was not very well suited to execute (particularly the line, but also notably Gardner, Funchess, Toussaint). The line couldn't generate much of a push and was abysmal at maintaining their assignments, Devin was typically late in his reads and misread defenses leading to a lot of early interceptions, and the other skill position players that were in tight couldn't handle their blocking assignments to say the least.
Once it became completely clear that they weren't be able to run the offense as they had originally intended, they in essense doubled down on the playstyle in what seemed to be an increasingly panicky personnel and scheme changes. Instead of adapting to the personnel, the staff:
- Swapped out the at-least-reliable-snapping Jack Miller, for Glasgow. Glasgow is admittedly a better and more powerful blocker, but he has killed several drives with bad snaps, and moving him only added to the problems at -
- Guard, where they had a revolving door that continued all through the season.
- Brought in more blockers who were unprepared and unable to handle their blocking assignments.
- Moved Lewan all over the formations, in ways that worked for a drive but then became unsuccessful as he principally took on lesser assignments while becoming a 6'8", 315lb "RUNNING HERE" flag.
Ultimately, as the season went along, they began to make changes that seemed painfully obvious, like spreading Devin out wide, or running bubble screens and using them as a constraint (although as it was the only thing that could work, it got ran into the ground, literally).
It didn't seem like the coaching staff wanted to make any changes that might make it more difficult to run their intended style until desperation set in. And it seems like it took the looming expectations of a blowout to OSU to finally make the basic change in scheme: going from a team that attacks the middle of the defense to open up the edges and deep routes, to a team that spreads the defense horizontally by attacking the edges and flats to open up the inside running game.
Borges obviously has a lot of leeway with the offense, but he has in the past orchestrated some fairly wide open offenses that spread the field with receivers in a way that he now seems allergic to.
Hoke, meanwhile, has maintained since he arrived that he felt that it was necessary to run that sort of pro-style running game in practice to toughen up the offensive and defensive front, where he believes games are won.
So the question is two-fold:
1) How much do you think Borges ran the offense as he wanted, and how much do you think he was handcuffed by what Hoke wanted to see run, especially against his own defense in practice?
2) Do you think the offensive struggles that occurred year-long, as well as the defenses inability to handle OSUs power rushing attack may have led to Hoke/Borges to abandon that belief to some degree?
December 2nd, 2013 at 10:04 AM ^
December 2nd, 2013 at 10:21 AM ^
Good points. Those turnovers seemed to make everyone extremely gunshy and may have dictated much of how the offensive plays were called during much of the season. The sad part is that many of us armchair coaches were pining for lots of quick passing to what is a pretty talented group of receivers to open up the running game. Look what happened when the game plan went that route. Dang near beat a very good OSU team.
Many people here were speculating about how The Game 2013 might look a bit like the 2008 Capital One Bowl, when an awesome performance in one big game was juxtaposed against a dismal season, and they were pretty much dead-on....except we lost this one.
December 2nd, 2013 at 10:55 AM ^
I think you are certainly correct in this, but I think you are correct because of the results. I couldn't really tell you what changes the coaching staff made that seemed to strangle Devin and the passing game.
I would say that going mass protect and cutting down on the number of receivers, rather than going with quicker and shorter routes, but I'm not sure how much that explains.
December 2nd, 2013 at 10:14 AM ^
I'm no insider, but I'll play along.
1) Assuming everything has to go through the Head Coach, and the coordinators are extensions of the HC's philosophy/vision for his team, I'd have to say that while Borges was doing what he and Hoke agreed upon in preparation meetings, that agreement was met with an understanding that UM would be a power running team, dammit.
2) I don't think the power football "belief" is likely to be abandoned by Hoke, but I sure hope he sees the benefits of adjusting the schemes and play calls to the personnel until they're ready to do things how he'd like. Taking OSU down to the last play counts as a "benefit" here. We've sure seen the negative consequences of not doing so (Iowa, Nebraska, PSU, etc).
I just hate the thought of the coaches sacrificing potential wins while using games as "practices" to get better for the future. That idea has been tossed around here, and it really doesn't seem all that far-fetched when you look at how this season unfolded. Then again, I suppose you have to fully install your brand of football at some point.
December 2nd, 2013 at 10:30 AM ^
I don't disagree with the idea of sacrificing games in the present for future benefit...so long as the ceiling for that team isn't very high, a la 2008. At best, you're looking at an 8-4 team in 2008 if everything goes according to plan. This year's team had a much higher ceiling. If you take the MSU game as a given loss, offensive debacles against PSU, Nebraska and Iowa (and nearly NW) cost this team an outside shot a Big Ten title as well as a BCS at-large birth.
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:16 PM ^
Was this team's talent level on offense really that much better than '08? Here's how things looked at the beginning of each season (I grant that some things went wrong during the course of '08). Rivals ratings throughout.
QB: 4-star RS JR Gardner vs. 4-star RS FR Threet. Gardner wins on experience, obviously. The use of Sheridan was forced by RR's completely understandable decision to install his own offense.
RB: 4-star RS SR Toussaint, 5-star FR Green, 3-star FR Smith vs. 4-star JR Minor, 4-star JR Brown, 5-star RS JR Grady, 4-star FR McGuffie, 4-star FR Shaw. By the end of the year when Green and Smith were ready to play things were different, but experience and depth favor '08.
WR: 4-star RS SR Gallon, 3-star SR Dileo, 3-star RS FR Chesson vs. 4-star SO Clemons, 3-star SO Hemingway, 4-star JR Mathews. A little better talent in '08, more experience in '13. More or less a wash. Including Funchess here just replaces one 3-star with another.
TE: 3-star SO Funchess, 4-star FR Butt, 3-star SO Williams vs. 3-star RS JR Butler. No contest. Literally so, since only one of these offense featured tight ends.
LT: 4-star RS SR Lewan vs. 3-star RS JR Ortmann.
LG: walk-on RS SO Glasgow vs. 3-star RS JR McAvoy
C: 3-star RS SO Miller vs. 3-star RS FR Molk. We know better, but based on experience and rating I don't have a choice.
RG: 5-star RS FR Kalis vs. 4-star RS JR Moosman. Opinions may differ here but I think two years of experience at guard is worth a star and then some, at the beginning of a career.
RT: 4-star RS SR Schofield vs. 5-star RS SO Schilling. Same choice as at RG. If anything you can make a better case for Schilling than Kalis because (1) it's later in his career and the extra expereince is counting for less (year 4 to year 5 doesn't change a whole lot IMO) and (2) apparently experience matters less at tackle than guard. If you want to take Kalis over Moosman, you have to take Schilling over Schofield. Works out the same either way.
Both squads were young and the talent levels mediocre by traditional Michigan standards. There were two 5-stars on each squad; '08s had some experience while '13s were both freshmen. '08 had five 3-stars starting if you include a TE; '13 had three or four 3-stars starting (depending on whether you count Dileo or Butt) plus one walkon.
Maybe there's an overall edge for the current squad--quarterback's a critical position after all--but it isn't huge. I think '08 seemed awful because we were used to better. By '13 we were used to three-stars and the younger better guys seemed like an improvement, but all we've really done so far (I mean players on the field, not the commits still in HS) is return to late-Carr recruiting levels.
Of course when you put a walk-on at QB '08 becomes much much worse. But again, that decision was forced by the change of offense.
It's not so much that I disagree with your coments on '08; that ceiling sounds about right. Where we differ is that I don't think the ceiling was high this year either. That Football Outsiders prediction of 7-5 because the interior of the offensive line wouldn't hold up? It doesn't look so strange to me, comparing the two rosters.
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:58 PM ^
QB: Gardner obviously wins this. 1-0 for 2013
RB: Sorry, but your analysis strikes me as off. This year we returned a two year starter who had a 1,000 yard season under his belt and the top RB in the 2013 class, as well as another 4-star RB in Smith. Not to mention, Hayes and Norfleet are both 4-star RB recruits. The only way you can give the edge to 2008 is if this year's team suffered an injury to Fitz, thus making depth more important. Minor was oft-injured, Brown and Grady never lived up to their potential and the freshmen that year were lower in rating than the freshmen this year. 2-0 for 2013
WR: 2013 again, because I do include Funchess (who was a 4-star player to three out of the four recruiting sites) here. An experienced Gallon is clearly the best of the bunch and his supporting class isn't weak enough to make than irrelevant. Not to mention, again, that in 2013 we didn't really suffer any injuries (other than Dileo for a couple of games), whereas in 2008 WRs were in and out of the line-up throughout the year. 3-0 2013
TE: Blocking TE favors 2008. Receiving TE favors 2013. I'll award a point to each team. Push. Still 3-0 2013.
LT: Lewan obviously. 4-0 2013
LG: 2008 wins by default. 4-1 2013.
C: I would actually give this to 2008 as well, except...the interior of the line is tricky. If Glasgow had started at C from day one, is he better later in the year and thus does the potential of the team go up? I say yes. Glasgow is physically more imposing than either Molk or Miller and has proven himself to be an adequate blocker. His biggest fault seems to be the occasional wayward snap. 2013 wins here as well. 5-1 2013.
RG: RS JR Moosman > RS FR Kalis. 5-2 2013.
RT: Schofield > Schilling. Schilling never became the player he was supposed to be and didn't even equal Schofield when they were both seniors, so there's no way he wins this one. 6-2 2013.
It's a landslide really. The two interior guard spots are the only places you can point to 2008 having an upgrade over 2013. There is more talent and experience almost across the board this year AND there were almost no injuries (and its not like they used Dileo when he came back either). The ceiling was much higher for this offense and it showed in games against Indiana, Notre Dame and Ohio State. HOWEVER, the debacle level sunk beyond 2008 depths and the first four games of November were worse than any four games in 2008.
And really, I don't see how someone could actually, you know, watch the games and think our ceiling couldn't have been higher. We win with a first down against Penn State. We win with 20 points against Nebraska (a truly terrible defense). We win with, you know, something more than 5 3 and outs and 45 yards of offense against Iowa in the second half.
This year's offense had plenty of talent, experience and potential and the coaching staff failed to make the most of it. I know you disagree. I've read your stuff. You're in the camp that the results are what they are and there was literally nothing that could be done. I just think you're incredibly wrong and I think the Ohio State game shows, more than anything, that there is something flawed with the OC and his consistency.
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:38 PM ^
I don't have time to say a lot, but a few things:
1. In each case, the decision to transform the offense was made before the season started. What happened during the season with injuries and (unexpected) player development was irrelevant to the decision, so I didn't consider it. What I'm really after here is how reasonable the decision was to sacrifice some performance, and some wins, in order to implement the transition.
2. I disagree about Schiling/Schofield--I see them as basically equivalent as seniors, if not a slight edge to Schilling. He was drafted, after all. Schofield doesn't currently project to be at any of the draft sites Ive looked at (sometimes he's listed as "7/FA" so there's a chance he might go at the end). Schilling was Outland watchlisted; Schofield wasn't.
3. The injury to Toussaint had already happened and the lack of depth hurt badly. Post-injury Toussaint was never the same, unfortunately, and I'd give the edge to every single one of the '08 upperclassmen. Of course, because of the transition RR decided to go with the freshmen, who were better suited to his offense.
December 2nd, 2013 at 10:58 AM ^
If I were to guess, I think they believe the gains from the increased physicality would help win games right away.
I just think they way overestimated the benefits from gains in toughness, overestimated the actual toughness the team could gain, and underestimated how much it would cost the offense.
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:20 PM ^
What if the identity of Michigan Football should really be what we saw against OSU on offense? Why does it need to be a traditional power running team? Quite frankly the best games this year were against ND, Indiana and OSU with a much more diverse offensive approach. I prefer this style of play to the 3 yards and a cloud of dust or even the stale West Coast Offense.
If you ask me OSU's running attack was as good as it gets! Wouldn't we love to see our offense perform to the level that it did in this game every week. You are using elements of the spread and misdirection to open up the run.
Develop a top defense like MSU and we are talking about National Championships not just Big Ten Championships.
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:45 PM ^
Have you watched any of the SDSU film on youtube?
You should. It wasn't stale.
A lot of the verbal emphasis on power running is for public relations purposes, to both boosters and recruits. It won't be cloud-of-dust and it isn't really an old-style WCO because there's much more vertical stretching of the defense..
Unless anything but the spread is "stale". I know there are people that feel that way.
December 2nd, 2013 at 6:50 PM ^
Why does it need to be a traditional power running team? Because that is what Hoke and Borges want, apparently to the detriment of competing for a Big Ten title this season.
Sadness.
December 2nd, 2013 at 10:15 AM ^
that with Hoke's familiarity with the DL and the defense's general depth issues and wearing down as the game goes on, it would not surprise me that he dictated that the offense not go uptempo.
December 2nd, 2013 at 10:16 AM ^
No idea of the answers to your questions. I think only people inside Fort Schembechler have that knowledge.
This year sucked, but I think the OSU game will open Hoke's eyes a bit as to the dangers and shittiness of low variance football...especially when you don't have an Alabama or Stanford O-line.
Gardner is good when given time...see ND and OSU games. Our O-line will be much better. D-line will be deeper with Pipkins back and all the guys a year older. Secondary gets upgraded with Peppers.
I think Michigan 2013 = Michigan 2005. Just painful to watch and way too many close games against inferior talent. I think we have a great one next year...and this is coming from someone who has been extremely critical of the staff this year.
December 2nd, 2013 at 10:18 AM ^
Hoke has made it plain that his coordinators run the show, with few exceptions. The offense is Borges's. That is not to say that they don't collaborate during the week on the best approach. I hope they do (note: "hope").
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:27 AM ^
the decision to "just play for the FG" against Penn State.
December 2nd, 2013 at 10:22 AM ^
I think Hoke shares as much responsibility for the offenses struggles as Borges does. The OC is an extension of the head coach. As much as people faulted RichRod for forcing a 3-3-5 defense on coordinators and personal that weren't suited to run it, you've got to fault Hoke for doing the same with Borges.
Ignoring your strengths and playing into your weaknesses falls on the head coach. Given how good the offense looked against Ohio State, it makes the previous failures that much more glaring. And the success wasn't just "execution" progress. They were doing things they hadn't done all season long -- quick passes, screens, jump balls to Funchess, etc. So you can't pin the success on the young guys finally figuring it out in the last game of the season.
December 2nd, 2013 at 10:34 AM ^
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:07 AM ^
Well, the problems I described would show up on the field as a team that is out of sync and having lots of individual breakdowns.
That's kinda been the argument:
Borges side: The playcalling is sound, the kids just aren't executing consistently.
Detractors: The kids aren't executing because the playcalling is difficult for them to execute.
I'll wait for more analysis before saying this definitively, but the playcalling from saturday didn't look much like the playcalling from earlier in the season. The strategy seemed profoundly different.
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:51 PM ^
December 2nd, 2013 at 10:39 AM ^
Does Hoke undermine Borges? Would Borges prefer to call games such as this last one, or is he shoehorned to call a more conservative plan by Hoke?
Or is it the opposite?
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:09 AM ^
Precisely what I'm getting at. Borges may be fairly inflexible and certainly put a bad offense together for most of the year, but there is no doubt that he is at least competent and knowledgeable.
I'm worried that Hoke may fire Borges thinking he incompetently implemented and called a sound strategy, rather than handicapped by a failed strategy.
December 2nd, 2013 at 10:44 AM ^
It's the $600000 question, isn't it?
December 2nd, 2013 at 10:53 AM ^
Idk, to some extent, I believe Hoke is 100% responsible. It is his hire who calls the play. It is his call if that guy should remain calling the plays or not. I do think it was his mindset to go full Manball before the team was ready for Manball. But our interior linemen, where all of our problems are, are manball molds. So the spread offense lineman excuse doesn't work anymore.
And no one has fit the Braylon mold for a WR in a pro style offense more than and less than at the same time than Jeremy Gallon. I don't get it. But it's true. And idk why Gardner didn't throw the out route fade to him for the 2 point conversion either. Gallon was wide open if Gardner waits a beat longer.
One thing I was surprised by and upset about in this game was Toussaints inability to make something happen when he got the ball in space. So even though he is a spread back, the osu game sure didn't make him look like it.
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:35 PM ^
I don't think you have to have a spread back to implement aspects of the spread into your offense. Look at OSU, they run a spread with a very good mobile QB (wish we were staying with that mold) and a power back (Hyde). Hyde fits the power mold more than the spread mold. Look how good a big back with speed looks when you spread out the defense with multiple receiver sets.
I think this is the direction we should be heading. It is virtually unstoppable with the right players. In today's version of the game, style points matter as much as wins if you are going to get to the National Championship Game!
I think this team has repeatedly stumbled on the formula (ND, Indiana, OSU games) on offense. The question is do they recognize it?
December 2nd, 2013 at 10:59 AM ^
This is one of the most thoughtful posts that I have read on this Board in a while. It is also why I have been slower to call for Borges' firing than most here. To me it seems very plausible at a high level for Hoke to be committed to run between the tackles even though he dosesn't call the plays. He has said from Day One that is who he is. I believe this year, the first post-Denard, was the year the staff committed that this is who we are going to be even if we take our lumps in the process. And because of that, the OC is the obvious person to target.
Being married to an Auburn fan and going to one or two of their games a year usually, I can say that I have seen Borges run some very good offenses. And I have heard the stories about three first round draft choices in the backfield on this board. But the truth of the matter is those guys and that offense badly underachieved before he got there. I have had very knowledgeable Auburn fans (including people who played at the college level and know more than most of us) tell me how jealous they are that we got him. Tuberville's record went south when he let Borges go.
I understand the frustration at the play calling this year. I don't know how many times I have sworn at a run up the middle this year knowing it was going to fail. But I don't believe this is as simple as "Borges sucks" like many of us are trying to make it out to be.
I hope Bolivia is nice this time of year.
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:17 AM ^
I am not particularly impressed with Borges' track record. The common refrain seems true, he calls a good offense with good talent, he flounders with less than good talent. In that sense, he may actually suck, simply because he is a piss-poor judge of what his offense is capable of doing on the field.
That's why this is an important question, did Borges misjudge badly, or was he not given much of a chance to go with some different choices. Furthermore, if we have a guy that is a good playcaller with talent, he may be rather successful in a couple years as his personnel starts to fulfill its recruiting hype.
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:32 AM ^
...that I think (however naively) that we should all be able to agree on. Borges has had success, sometimes in a big way. He's also (obviously) had failures. He's likely neither outstanding nor terrible.
He reminds me of Kirk Ferentz, who looks like a genius every four years when his team is loaded with seniors but who looks very mediocre a great deal of the time too. The question is whether that's good enough. It may be that Michigan can avoid the down years Iowa suffers by consistently recruiting at a high level. I don't feel particularly confident in that, but I don't know.
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:42 AM ^
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:59 AM ^
My concern - and I hate to say this - is that Meyer forces you to up your ante. I think Tressel was a great coach, but he also often didn't have a lot of competition from the rest of the Big Ten. Michigan won't have that luxury as long as Meyer is around (and Dantonio, to a lesser extent). Michigan would have to roll out a really f-ing good defense every year to compete with Meyer, who won't settle for what OSU is doing on defense this year, if the Wolverines don't have a high functioning offense.
I have no problem, fwiw, trying to protect the defense by trying to eat up the clock. It just seems to me that Michigan might be able to accomplish that and have a consistently better-schemed offense, but then again I am nobody's coach.
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:09 PM ^
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:46 PM ^
I am starting to come around a little bit on Borges. I have seen in games like ND, Indiana and OSU how good his play calling can be. He is at his best when the offensive philosophy is more diverse, like this past Saturday. Not that my opion counts with anyone that matters, but I definitely could come around to a Borges lead offense when it incorporates elements of the pro style and the spread. I don't believe the athletes need to be mutually exclusive for one or the other.
Remember the bowl game against Florida in Carr's last year. They used predominantly pro style athletes in spread formations and beat that team. I wonder if that is Urban's model with OSU now. We need to learn from our successes!
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:06 PM ^
That offense was taken from Tom Moore of the Indianapolis Colts. He was brought in as a consultant before the season and that is the offense they wanted to run all year. They kept it under wraps against App State and then the injurys to Henne, Hart, and to a lesser extent, Mannigham put it on hold.
December 2nd, 2013 at 10:57 AM ^
in addition to being head coach. I think he is infinitly more concerned with the defensive aspects of the game than the offense. I think the offense was 100% Broges, but Hoke probably told him to go "balls out" on the ohio game (since it would be his last ? - hopefully).
So did the Oline improve that much in 1 week? All those pundits that claimed the Oline was the #1 reason the offense struggled have to be a bit confused. I maintained all season that our offensive "weapons" were tied to quick passes and that was proven on Saturday. We had ohio looking pass and voila, the running attack was effective too.
Still depressed on the outcome and c'mon we don't have a "tricky" 2 point play that we've working on for 3 months just for this chance to beat ohio? How do we not roll out Gardner as the base portion of the 2 pt. conversion anyway? Arghhh
Go Blue!
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:10 AM ^
"How do we not roll out Gardner as the base portion of the 2 pt. conversion anyway?"
Did you see how hobbled Gardner was at the end of the game? I think that factor alone was what determined Hoke's decision to go for the two point conversion. As we've seen all season, in the red-zone the run/pass option of Devin on the edge (and even in the middle) is very hard to defend.
Monday morning QB's are amazing in their willingness to ignore the obvious to suit their narrative.
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:41 PM ^
its not Monday morning QB'ing to have been practicing a 2pt. conversion play all season in preparation for what transpired on Saturday (it didn't even have to involve Devin). I also believe that Hoke simply made the decision to go for 2 - but the call was all Borges'.
Hoke says they practice "fire-drill" FG's, si just makes sense to have that ONE 2 pt. conversion play ready when you need it most.
Go Blue!
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:01 PM ^
Or we didn't switch it from our one 2 pt play to another after the time out by OSU. Argh.
Unless you win, you can't really win.
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:29 AM ^
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:51 PM ^
"The biggest difference in this game was the calling of a lot more screens than usual."
A LOT!
Like, about as many in this game as in the rest of the games combined.
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:47 PM ^
Establish a run sets up the pass AND conversely, establish the pass sets up the run. For Michigan - this is simply playing to your strengths. Quick passes get the linebackers on their heels and they then cannot attack the LOS consistently. Most NOTEWORTHY of this strategy is that ohio could not put 8 - 9 men in the box (see - PSU and Nebraska games as references).
Go Blue!
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:14 AM ^
I've asked insiders. Next to zero. He allows his coaches to coach--he makes suggestions to them. Except interior DL where he is very very involved. Most of the Heininger Cetertainty Principle can be traced to Hoke's personal positional coaching.
I asked a guy who would know directly whether Hoke's MANBALL comments were a demand on the coaches, and the answer came back (too late for the article) a major "no." Borges discusses what he's doing and Hoke trusts him to make that call.
However redshirting decisions go through Hoke. He was the one who refused to let them burn Kalis's shirt last year.
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:21 AM ^
I'm sure people will criticize Hoke for doing things that way, but there is nothing wrong with it. Plenty of coaches have succeeded while delegating most of the detail work - to my knowledge, Bobby Bowden, Les Miles, and Mack Brown were/are examples.
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:49 PM ^
That's funny, because the article I quoted Cameron from below was about the general perception that Miles meddles too much in his coordinator's jobs.
Not that I disagree with you; I think it's just a matter of what you expect. He doesn't call the game, but he doesn't sit back and let someone else call it either. So from either perspective it looks like the other.
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:24 AM ^
Awesome. Thanks Seth.
In this case, Hoke has some MAJOR thinking to do at this point. He's seen the results and can't be happy. But he also seems loyal and focused on the long game.
I'm not a Borges fan. However, I think Hoke keeps him and after seeing one offensive coaching staff get the axe before their personnel really blossomed, I won't be that upset, yet. (I can't really believe I said that)
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:35 AM ^
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:37 AM ^
Even Mo didn't? I always thought he was fairly involved in the details of the offense, but I was also twelve when became Michigan's coach, so my memory may not be so great.
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:55 AM ^
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:02 PM ^
Cameron, in an interview about his new job under Miles and how the playcalling would be handled:
“Everyone on the staff will have input,” Cameron said earlier this month at LSU’s media day. “I look forward to (Miles’) input. We’ve always had that kind of communication. We called plays together at Michigan. When I was a head coach, I had a play caller, and I gave him input.“But,” Cameron said, “ultimately I’m charged with making the call.”
I don't think he'd say "we called plays together at Michigan" if Moeller was handling all the playcalling; it sounds like Cameron had the call with input from Moeller and the position coaches.
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:44 PM ^
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:21 PM ^
Which seemed to imply that he's not the best guy to call the offense. He knows his limitations. I've always thought Al had plenty of leeway to choose plays and schemes for the games. Given that, it will be interesting to see what Brady does with Al. Let him call the bowl game and give him a chance to re-prove himself or start looking now? You know Dave Brandon will want to know the offensive plan going forward and the logic behind the choices being made when Brady gets his evaluation after the season. Given the results, it would be reasonable to expect some changes being made.