Home
i'm an actor, not a reactor

Primary links

  • About
    • $upport (lol)
    • Ethics
    • FAQ
    • Glossary
    • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • MGoStore
    • Hail to Old Blue
  • MGoBoard
    • MGoBoard FAQ
    • Michigan bar locator
    • Moderator Action Sticky
  • Useful Stuff
    • Depth Chart By Class
    • Hoops Depth Chart by Class
    • 2017 Recruiting Board
    • Unofficial Two Deep
    • MGoFlickr
    • Diaries, Windows Live Writer, And You
    • User-Curated HOF
    • Where To Eat In Ann Arbor
  • Schedule/Tix
    • Future Schedules (wiki)
    • Ticket spreadsheet
Home Forums MGoBoard

Navigation

  • Forums
  • Recent posts

User login

  • Create new account
  • Request new password

MGoElsewhere

  • @MGoBlog (Brian)
  • @aceanbender
  • @Misopogon (Seth)
  • @Aeschnepp (Adam)
  • @BISB
  • @EUpchurchPhoto
  • @FullOfTwitt (Fuller)
  • Hail to the Victors 2016
  • MGoFacebook
  • MGoPodcast
  • WTKA
  • Instagram

Michigan Blogs

  • Big House Blog
  • Burgeoning Wolverine Star
  • Genuinely Sarcastic
  • Go Blue Michigan Wolverine
  • Holdin' The Rope
  • MVictors
  • Maize 'n' Blue Nation
  • Maize 'n' Brew
  • Maize And Go Blue
  • Michigan Hockey Net
  • MMMGoBlueBBQ
  • The Blog That Yost Built
  • The Hoover Street Rag
  • The M Zone
  • Touch The Banner
  • UMGoBlog
  • UMHoops
  • UMTailgate
  • Wolverine Liberation Army

M On The Net

  • mgovideo
  • MGoBlue.com
  • Mike DeSimone
  • Recruiting Planet
  • The Wolverine
  • Go Blue Wolverine
  • Winged Helmet
  • UMGoBlue.com
  • MaizeRage.org
  • Puckhead
  • The M Den
  • True Blue Fan Forum

Big Ten Blogs

  • Illinois
    • Illinois Loyalty
    • Illinois Baseball Report
  • Indiana
    • Inside The Hall
    • The Crimson Quarry
  • Iowa
    • Black Heart, Gold Pants
    • Fight For Iowa
  • Michigan State
    • The Only Colors
  • Minnesota
    • GopherHole.com
    • The Daily Gopher
  • Nebraska
    • Corn Nation
    • Husker Max
    • Husker Mike's Blasphemy
    • Husker Gameday
  • Northwestern
    • Sippin' On Purple
    • Lake The Posts
  • Notre Dame
    • The House Rock Built
    • One Foot Down
  • Ohio State
    • Eleven Warriors
    • Buckeye Commentary
    • Men of the Scarlet and Gray
    • Our Honor Defend
    • The Buckeye Nine
  • Penn State
    • Slow States
    • Black Shoe Diaries
    • Happy Valley Hardball
    • Penn State Clips
    • Linebacker U
    • Nittany White Out
  • Purdue
    • Boiled Sports
    • Hammer and Rails
  • Wisconsin
    • Bruce Ciskie

Links of Note

  • Baseball
    • College Baseball Today
    • The College Baseball Blog
  • Basketball
    • Ken Pomeroy
    • Hoop Math
    • John Gasaway
    • Luke Winn/Sports Illustrated
  • College Hockey
    • Chris Heisenberg (Class of 2016)
    • College Hockey Stats
    • Michigan College Hockey
    • Hockey's Future
    • Sioux Sports
    • USCHO
  • Football
    • Smart Football
    • Every Day Should Be Saturday
    • Matt Hinton/Grantland
    • Football Study Hall
    • Football Outsiders
    • Harold Stassen
    • NCAA D-I Stats Page
    • The Wizard Of Odds
    • CFB Stats
  • General
    • Sports Central
  • Local Interest
    • The Ann Arbor Chronicle
    • Arborwiki
    • Arbor Update
    • Ann Arbor Observer
    • Teeter Talk
    • Vacuum
  • Teams Of The D
    • Lions
      • Pride of Detroit
    • Pistons
      • Detroit Bad Boys
      • Need4Sheed
    • Tigers
      • Roar Of The Tigers
      • Bless You Boys
      • The Daily Fungo
      • The Detroit Tigers Weblog
    • Red Wings
      • Winging It In Motown
      • On The Wings
    • Michigan Sports Forum

Beveled Guilt

Site Search

Diaries

  • New
  • Popular
  • Hot
  • Thirteen unlucky minutes (TL;DNR-This is a bit of rant about the refs)
    docwhoblocked - 2 weeks ago
  • Fan Satisfaction Index End of Season Bball Survey
    OneFootIn - 2 weeks ago
  • How likely are we to revert to the mean?
    Bo Glue - 2 weeks ago
  • It's time to avenge Villanova's 1985 NCAA tourney upset over Michigan
    Communist Football - 2 weeks ago
  • 14 Months Ago: The Fire Beilein Threads.
    stephenrjking - 3 weeks ago
  •  
  • 1 of 2
  • ››
more
  • This Month in MGoBlog History - March 2008: Pryor isn't coming, Boren has left, and some academic fraud allegations sprinkled in
    Maize.Blue Wagner - 215 comments
  • The Ballad of Jordan Poole
    k.o.k.Law - 176 comments
  • 14 Months Ago: The Fire Beilein Threads.
    stephenrjking - 91 comments
  • PreSpring Football updates from Sam Webb
    AZBlue - 90 comments
  • Thirteen unlucky minutes (TL;DNR-This is a bit of rant about the refs)
    docwhoblocked - 61 comments
  •  
  • 1 of 2
  • ››
more

MGoBoard

  • New
  • Recent
  • Hot
  • The Evolution of Commerce - What Industries are Dying, What's Thriving?
    3 replies
  • Softball Wins Series Opener Over Maryland, 6-0
    5 replies
  • OT: How do some student-athletes finish a bachelors so quickly (to transfer)?
    54 replies
  • OT: Avicii dead at 28
    60 replies
  • Chase Young becomes highest drafted Michigan lacrosse player
    20 replies
  • Podcast discussion on the conference
    31 replies
  • Matthews Declares WITHOUT agent
    44 replies
  • OT - Jalen Hurts possibly looking to transfer
    109 replies
  • Game Day Condos - who's gonna buy one?
    69 replies
  • OT: Arsene Wenger set to retire from Arsenal FC
    51 replies
  • OT: The Cube Inaccessible Until Fall 2019
    22 replies
  • It’s Friday - Time to POSBANG!!
    78 replies
  • RIP Earle Bruce
    47 replies
  • Final 2018 Basketball COMPOSITE Rankings
    34 replies
  • OT: Map of college stadiums that sell alcohol
    89 replies
  •  
  • 1 of 6
  • ››
  • OT: NFL Schedule Release
    12 replies
  • No additional protest of Shea Patterson appeal by Ole Miss
    113 replies
  • OT: MSU digs hole deeper, Engler adviser: Nassar survivor's claims of payout 'fake news'
    106 replies
  • OT: RIP Bruno Sammartino
    16 replies
  • Way OT: NYC poop sitting on a train in Alabama
    78 replies
  • OT: Sparty considering bringing back Reschke...
    74 replies
  • Whats the Best Way to Make Flight Arrangements?
    149 replies
  • ESPN very kind to U-M in latest bball recruiting rankings
    69 replies
  • Why should we be optimistic about 2018 M football?
    273 replies
  • BBall Recruiting - New 2019 Target/EM Top 100 Wing Jae'lyn Withers
    20 replies
  • OT - Question for mgoScientists on a quiet night
    73 replies
  • Potential basketball transfers. Out of the running for Matt Mooney, but in for Dachon Burke?
    46 replies
  • Police investigating Elysee Mbem-Bosse for death threat against Harbaugh
    224 replies
  • RIP OT: Former First Lady Barbara Bush
    57 replies
  • Beilein first NCAA game with Michigan
    32 replies
  • ‹‹
  • 3 of 6
  • ››
  • OT: Sparty considering bringing back Reschke...
    74 replies
  • OT - Question for mgoScientists on a quiet night
    73 replies
  • Updated 2018 Basketball Rivals 150: Big jumps for Castleton and DeJulius
    71 replies
  • Game Day Condos - who's gonna buy one?
    69 replies
  • ESPN very kind to U-M in latest bball recruiting rankings
    69 replies
  • If Moe Should Go
    67 replies
  • MSU Trustee Issues a Statement
    63 replies
  • Apparently, the NCAA has already received a response from MSU about Nassar
    62 replies
  • HELP WANTED! I'm moving to Chicago for school and I need good haunts to watch football/basketball games. Recommendations?
    61 replies
  • OT: Avicii dead at 28
    60 replies
  • Auston Robertson arrested again
    59 replies
  • Angelique on Patterson Transfer
    58 replies
  • RIP OT: Former First Lady Barbara Bush
    57 replies
  • OT: How do some student-athletes finish a bachelors so quickly (to transfer)?
    54 replies
  • OT: Arsene Wenger set to retire from Arsenal FC
    51 replies
  • ‹‹
  • 3 of 6
  • ››

Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon

How much control does Hoke exert over play style and playcalling?

73 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
December 2nd, 2013 at 10:40 AM
#1
BradP
BradP's picture
Joined: 10/17/2010
MGoPoints: 754
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?

 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
Tags:
  • MGoBoard
  • football

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:04 AM
#2
Magnum P.I.
Magnum P.I.'s picture
Joined: 07/16/2009
MGoPoints: 11284
Don't know the answers to

Don't know the answers to your questions, but I think your assessment of our approach this year is spot on. Although I would say that part of the reason for "doubling down" was a fear of throwing interceptions. Another thing that Hoke hung his hat on when he came in was a low turnover rate, and they overcompensated badly to reduce turnover risk after DG's shaky start. Overall, just a total failure in assessing team strengths and weaknesses and putting players in position to succeed.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:21 AM
(Reply to #2) #3
Victor Hale II
Joined: 12/28/2011
MGoPoints: 8129
Good points.  Those turnovers

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:55 AM
(Reply to #2) #4
BradP
BradP's picture
Joined: 10/17/2010
MGoPoints: 754
I think you are certainly

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:14 AM
#5
Victor Hale II
Joined: 12/28/2011
MGoPoints: 8129
I'm no insider, but I'll play

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:16 PM
(Reply to #9) #6
Yeoman
Joined: 06/08/2011
MGoPoints: 13242
Was this team's talent level

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 2:38 PM
(Reply to #56) #7
Yeoman
Joined: 06/08/2011
MGoPoints: 13242
I don't have time to say a

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:58 AM
(Reply to #3) #8
BradP
BradP's picture
Joined: 10/17/2010
MGoPoints: 754
If I were to guess, I think

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:20 PM
(Reply to #3) #9
bighouse22
bighouse22's picture
Joined: 10/29/2013
MGoPoints: 1845
What if?

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:45 PM
(Reply to #45) #10
Yeoman
Joined: 06/08/2011
MGoPoints: 13242
Have you watched any of the

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 7:50 PM
(Reply to #45) #11
AlbanyBlue
Joined: 09/11/2010
MGoPoints: 497
Why?

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:15 AM
#12
TrppWlbrnID
TrppWlbrnID's picture
Joined: 10/29/2009
MGoPoints: 9842
I would say

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:18 AM
#13
skegemogpoint
Joined: 07/08/2008
MGoPoints: 1971
It's Al

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"). 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:27 PM
(Reply to #6) #14
Muttley
Muttley's picture
Joined: 07/07/2009
MGoPoints: -74969
But Hoke must have or should have been involved in

the decision to "just play for the FG" against Penn State.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:22 AM
#15
I Like Burgers
I Like Burgers's picture
Joined: 10/06/2012
MGoPoints: 23289
Good post

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:34 AM
#16
AlwaysBlue
Joined: 11/23/2008
MGoPoints: 7854
I am not

sure how you can make wholesale assessments given the season. There were games the offense clicked and games it looked just awful. I am certain there are multiple factors responsible. People hate Borges but in the presser last week he described what he considered the problems to be out of the Iowa game (out of synch and individual breakdowns). He said when they get it right they are a pretty damn good offense. Players talked after Saturday about their individual focus and preparation. I still think this is a young team learning what it takes.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:07 PM
(Reply to #10) #17
BradP
BradP's picture
Joined: 10/17/2010
MGoPoints: 754
Well, the problems I

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:51 PM
(Reply to #18) #18
AlwaysBlue
Joined: 11/23/2008
MGoPoints: 7854
And to that

I don't think there is a single answer. Again, I point to the press conferences when he talked about how they execute in practice and how things breakdown real time. That's what happens with inexperience and when kids are slowed by over thinking or don't have the reservoir of confidence that reps and experience bring. And each week is something different.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:39 AM
#19
NoHeartAnthony
Joined: 08/31/2009
MGoPoints: 262
The question I have is:

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?

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:09 PM
(Reply to #11) #20
BradP
BradP's picture
Joined: 10/17/2010
MGoPoints: 754
Precisely what I'm getting

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:44 AM
#21
KBLOW
KBLOW's picture
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 9763
It's the $600000 question,

It's the $600000 question, isn't it?

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:53 AM
#22
mgobaran
mgobaran's picture
Joined: 09/12/2012
MGoPoints: 18040
Yeah not sure

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. 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:35 PM
(Reply to #13) #23
bighouse22
bighouse22's picture
Joined: 10/29/2013
MGoPoints: 1845
Spread Attack

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?

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:59 AM
#24
Bill in Birmingham
Bill in Birmingham's picture
Joined: 08/30/2008
MGoPoints: 4175
This is one of the most

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.

 

 

 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:17 PM
(Reply to #15) #25
BradP
BradP's picture
Joined: 10/17/2010
MGoPoints: 754
I am not particularly

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:32 PM
(Reply to #23) #26
Erik_in_Dayton
Erik_in_Dayton's picture
Joined: 12/03/2008
MGoPoints: 34174
Your first paragraph points to something...

...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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:42 PM
(Reply to #28) #27
Reader71
Reader71's picture
Joined: 08/30/2009
MGoPoints: 22155
There are also two other

There are also two other phases to a football team. Special teams seem OK; FG have been good, punt protection has been good, punt returns have been OK. If our defense is consistently strong, we can afford the occasional down year offensively. I think that's what we're going for, as Hoke is a defensive coach. Think Tressel-era OSU. Krezel, young Troy Smith, young Terrell Prior, not great offenses, but great teams.

In fact, I think this focus on defense might be issue #1-2 between the staff and this blog, the other being the offensive philosophy.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:59 PM
(Reply to #34) #28
Erik_in_Dayton
Erik_in_Dayton's picture
Joined: 12/03/2008
MGoPoints: 34174
I don't have a problem prioritizing defense

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:09 PM
(Reply to #34) #29
aiglick
Joined: 11/27/2010
MGoPoints: 7860
It's fine if you want to be

It's fine if you want to be defensive minded but you can't neglect the offense or have it be good enough for the defense to win. Alabama is not flashy and is definitively pro style but they are still one of the better offenses in the country. If we want to be an elite team and nationally relevant you need to have some balance and though one side may be slightly better you still need the other to be very good. Yes MSU is nationally relevant with an average offense (who has gotten better week to week) but they play in a decidedly mediocre conference and it will be interesting how they fare in whichever BCS bowl they play in this year.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:46 PM
(Reply to #15) #30
bighouse22
bighouse22's picture
Joined: 10/29/2013
MGoPoints: 1845
Coming Around

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!

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 4:06 PM
(Reply to #51) #31
BluCheese
Joined: 04/14/2011
MGoPoints: 881
That offense

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. 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:57 AM
#32
Indiana Blue
Indiana Blue's picture
Joined: 09/19/2010
MGoPoints: 4916
Hoke is a D line coach ...

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!

 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:10 PM
(Reply to #16) #33
Sten Carlson
Sten Carlson's picture
Joined: 11/16/2009
MGoPoints: 4520
"How do we not roll out

"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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 2:41 PM
(Reply to #20) #34
Indiana Blue
Indiana Blue's picture
Joined: 09/19/2010
MGoPoints: 4916
Sten ..

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!

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 4:01 PM
(Reply to #61) #35
M-Wolverine
M-Wolverine's picture
Joined: 10/04/2009
MGoPoints: 42199
So we either didn't have one 2 pt play we practiced ready

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:29 PM
(Reply to #16) #36
Reader71
Reader71's picture
Joined: 08/30/2009
MGoPoints: 22155
I'm one of the guys who says

I'm one of the guys who says the line is problem #1. The answer is that they just blocked better. Its surprising, but not confusing. The schemes were the same. We still ran stretch, inside zone, ISO, power. We ran them out of the same formations. We added a little more 3 WR sets, but it wasn't like we exclusively ran spread. Same offense, we just blocked it better. And pass protection was still having individual breakdowns, Kalis having a few major struggles.

The biggest difference in this game was the calling of a lot more screens than usual. That may have slowed the pass rush a bit. I am a huge proponent of the screen game, and wish we did it a lot more during the season. That we didn't is a +1 for the Fire Borges crowd.

In short, execution and a few wrinkles. We've had wrinkles all year, some better than others. We haven't had execution.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:51 PM
(Reply to #27) #37
pescadero
pescadero's picture
Joined: 03/28/2013
MGoPoints: 5991
"The biggest difference in

"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.

 

 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 2:47 PM
(Reply to #27) #38
Indiana Blue
Indiana Blue's picture
Joined: 09/19/2010
MGoPoints: 4916
The old axiom is still true ...

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!

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:14 PM
#39
Seth
Seth's picture
Joined: 10/14/2008
MGoPoints: 94411
I've asked insiders. Next to

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:21 PM
(Reply to #21) #40
Erik_in_Dayton
Erik_in_Dayton's picture
Joined: 12/03/2008
MGoPoints: 34174
Interesting

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. 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:49 PM
(Reply to #24) #41
Yeoman
Joined: 06/08/2011
MGoPoints: 13242
Miles a delegator?

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:24 PM
(Reply to #21) #42
BradP
BradP's picture
Joined: 10/17/2010
MGoPoints: 754
Awesome.  Thanks Seth. In

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)

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:35 PM
(Reply to #21) #43
Reader71
Reader71's picture
Joined: 08/30/2009
MGoPoints: 22155
He's also from the Bo, Mo,

He's also from the Bo, Mo, Lloyd line of coaches. Those head coaches did not call plays. They were involved in everything, but outside of the occasional 3rd down, 4th down, 2 point play, they didn't call plays. For better or worse, Hoke is an old-school head coach. He sets the general philosophy, he is responsible for the character of the program, etc etc etc, but he's not a coordinator.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:37 PM
(Reply to #29) #44
Erik_in_Dayton
Erik_in_Dayton's picture
Joined: 12/03/2008
MGoPoints: 34174
Just curious:

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. 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:55 PM
(Reply to #31) #45
Reader71
Reader71's picture
Joined: 08/30/2009
MGoPoints: 22155
I might be wrong on that one,

I might be wrong on that one, actually. I know he had Cam Cameron as the QB coach and the man up in the box. I'm not actually sure who called the plays in that scenario. I do remember him talking to the defense on the sidelines a lot, something I'm not sure a play caller has time to do.

Anyone have an answer on this one?

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:02 PM
(Reply to #37) #46
Yeoman
Joined: 06/08/2011
MGoPoints: 13242
Cameron, in an interview

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 2:44 PM
(Reply to #40) #47
Reader71
Reader71's picture
Joined: 08/30/2009
MGoPoints: 22155
That was my impression. So

That was my impression. So even Moeller, who was the OC before Bo retired, had a play caller. Its tough to be a head coach/playcaller because of all of your other responsibilities and the fact that you are on the sideline.

Now, Moe was more involved in the actual calling of plays than Hoke is, hence the headset. But generally, head coaches at Michigan have been involved in making the game plan, not calling the plays. Hoke is no different.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 2:21 PM
(Reply to #21) #48
BlueMan80
BlueMan80's picture
Joined: 01/21/2011
MGoPoints: 7559
Hoke always states he's a D-line coach

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:17 PM
#49
Erik_in_Dayton
Erik_in_Dayton's picture
Joined: 12/03/2008
MGoPoints: 34174
SDSU

OP mentions Borges's wide open offenses in the past, and the oddity for us is that one of those offenses - at least in my view - was at San Diego State with Hoke.  Does Hoke believe that you can't line up with three wide most of the game and win in the Big Ten?  Did they just not trust DG to make the reads (especially given the short amount of time he usually had to make them) that they trusted Ryan Lindley to make?   I don't know. 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:35 PM
#50
Cold War
Joined: 01/15/2012
MGoPoints: -3537
It's been several hours since

It's been several hours since I've seen Hoke's role in the offense discussed. Thanks, very threadworthy.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:37 PM
#51
Smash Lampjaw
Smash Lampjaw's picture
Joined: 11/10/2011
MGoPoints: 2025
I, too am stubborn.

So I am sticking to a theory I mentioned here early in the season. I think that the season Notre Dame had last year, and especially Michigan's game against ND, influenced the off-season planning and the general approach to this season. It certainly would have infuenced my plan. I think Al's own preference would be for a wide-open, pass-happy offense that draws a lot of attention to the genius of the play-caller. All they needed to win the ND game last year was 5 less turn-overs, and all Notre Dame needed to do to get to the BCSNCG was to minimize mistakes and play sound defense.

Actually, for all but two or three games this year, that is all it should have taken for Michigan. Subtract two bad to's from the Penn State and it never would have come to overtime. Even with overtime, they had every right to expect an easy made field goal to win. The plan worked at MSU until the 4th quarter, but maybe Michigan was not going to win that in any event. I just now decided not to go through all the losses again, but whether the thinking came from Brady or Al or the entire coaching brain-trust it was almost right, and without a bizarre twist and turn here and there the season might have been totally different. Such is life.

 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:40 PM
#52
jackw8542
jackw8542's picture
Joined: 10/30/2010
MGoPoints: 2685
Awful Too Often

It looked awful too often and almost invariably during the last half of the season did worse after halftme than before.  While the first halfs of the MSU game and the Iowa game were not good, the second halfs were dismal.  Borges not only frequently had awful game plans that had us repeatedly running into 8, 9 and even 10 men in the box situations, he rarely (if ever) made useful adjustments at halftime.  He seems stubborn and inflexible, and this year he did not develop game plans that emphasized strengths and minimized weaknesses.  It was usually just the opposite.  I hope one good game doesn't enable him to keep his job.  Even in the OSU game, the play he called for the 2 point conversion was awful, and that was where he needed to pull an unstoppable play out of his bag of tricks.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:43 PM
#53
Sten Carlson
Sten Carlson's picture
Joined: 11/16/2009
MGoPoints: 4520
I agree with Reader71 in that

I agree with Reader71 in that what we saw (or didn't see) from Michigan's offense this season was almost 100% about the OL, it's youth, and it's near inability to execute.

What we saw in The Game was a young OL that "turned the corner," and exectuted well enough to afford the OC some flow and an expansion of the play book because they stayed (for the most part) ahead of the chains.

I think this season's struggles, although frustrating, are going to pay off next year and beyond when Michigan's OL has 100+ collective starts.

 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:00 PM
(Reply to #35) #54
Reader71
Reader71's picture
Joined: 08/30/2009
MGoPoints: 22155
Love you Sten, but I can't

Love you Sten, but I can't say the line was almost 100% to blame. I do think they line was the biggest problem (far and away) and I think it was at least 50% of the problem. That's still an enormous problem and totally capable of torpedoing an otherwise sound offense. But you gotta give the TE/FB another 25%.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:15 PM
(Reply to #39) #55
Sten Carlson
Sten Carlson's picture
Joined: 11/16/2009
MGoPoints: 4520
I...eh...love you too Reader

I...eh...love you too Reader (LOL),

I miss read what you wrote above.  I thought you said 100%, but you actually said, #1 -- my bad.

I think the best way to say it is that BLOCKING was the issue this season.

Others have touched on the issue of the INT's early in the season, and I don't think it can be emphasized enough.  All one has to do is go back to the Akron, UConn, and PSU games and see the effect of those INT's on DG's moral, but more importantly, the moral of the opposition.  Several of those INT's/turnovers, went for defensive TD's, and most resulted in eventual scores, or at the least a flip in field position.  Further, the didn't result in points or flipped field position for Michigan.  I realize that is a bit obvious and elementary, but I don't think most people who are so anti-Borges really full understand how they limit what an OC is willing to do.  Now, add to that a young OL that is having trouble executing, and you have what we saw this season. 

Amazingly, with all the offensive ineptitude, DG and Gallon broke Michigan and B10 records, and one of those was against OSU -- pretty impressive.  With even an average OL, this offense is going to be very powerful.   I think next season the OL will be average at the beginning of the season, and be considered above average/good by season's end.  With Green and Smith continuing to develop in the off season, DG getting more coaching and development, I think we're going to see a night and day reversal next season.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:31 PM
(Reply to #35) #56
StephenRKass
StephenRKass's picture
Joined: 07/15/2008
MGoPoints: 17271
Completely Agree

I completely agree with your comments on the OL being the main problem. The experience they gained this year was huge. Next year, the OL will still be mostly redshirt sophomores, with two more years of eligibility in 2015 & 2016! Going forward, we should have more depth, more upper classmen, and more experience on the line. These will all make a huge difference.

Beyond the OL, the RB's have more experience, and some are bigger (i.e., Green.) The receiver depth and experience increases (Funchess, Chesson, & Darboh all have experience, with 4 more on the roster, headlined by incoming freshman Drake Harris.) The tight ends finally have depth and experience, with 2 - 3 solid receivers, and more ability in blocking. Gardner has been through the wars, is a senior QB, and we finally have real depth, with two guys having been in the system a long time (Bellomy & Morris) allowing the incoming freshman (Speight) to redshirt and acclimate.

Without going over the defense, I fully believe they are getting stronger, bigger, faster, and the overall quality of each player is getting higher by the year.

It would be a terrible mistake to make a coaching change right now, anywhere at all. Team 135 will be one very hungry, focused, and mean bunch. Other teams won't know what hit them. And fans will be shocked at what's going to happen next year.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 2:00 PM
(Reply to #47) #57
BradP
BradP's picture
Joined: 10/17/2010
MGoPoints: 754
My problem with your

My problem with your statement about the OL's experience this year is that it really didn't show up as this season went on.  The performance against Iowa was really, really bad, and that was the 11th game of the season.

With this line regressing throughout the season, I find it hard to believe that spring and fall practices are going to yield a very good line next year.  Especially when you are replacing apparently the only guys on the line that could block.

Something certainly wasn't right with the development of the OL, and whether that was Funk, or a combination of Hoke/Borges/and Funk, something really has to change with the coaching there.

I think there is good reason for alot of optimism about this defense next year, but for the offense expecting more than competence seems like wishful thinking at this point.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:44 PM
(Reply to #57) #58
Sten Carlson
Sten Carlson's picture
Joined: 11/16/2009
MGoPoints: 4520
"With this line regressing

"With this line regressing throughout the season, I find it hard to believe that spring and fall practices are going to yield a very good line next year."

Your statement, IMO, displays a lack of understanding about the developmental process of athletes.  First, regression is not uncommon, and in fact, is often likely when you have players in over their heads experientially.  They're trying to draw on past experiences and thinking their way through their execution.  The problem is, that those experiences (for the most part) were against high school players whom they dominated, and thinking is not reacting. 

Further, sping and fall practice is EXACTLY where the largest leaps in player development take place.  There is no game planning, and detailed attention is spent on individual technique.  Then, when they draw on past experiences, the experiences (even if they were failures) will be against college players, and they will be able to react instead of think their way through their assignments. 

Lastly, this goes back to the OP somewhat.  The long term benefit of running the system, despite poor results, will be that the players won't be thinking as much because they've run that scheme all season.  When their technique improves, which it will, they're going to gell into a much more cohesive and effective unit.

I think many Michigan fans are just seeing the whole situation as "glass half empty."  I suppose I understand why, but at the same time, I think it's a bit foolish to assume that playing time and continued coaching is going to yield worse results.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:03 PM
#59
hfhmilkman
Joined: 04/15/2009
MGoPoints: 458
Borges history

Borges has never had success developing players that were recruited on his watch.  My prediction is there may be success next year because he is limited to the damage he can do to Gardner.  However, 2015 will be a struggle because Morris will be completely mishandled.  That is what happend at UCLA and Auburn.  

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:03 PM
#60
hfhmilkman
Joined: 04/15/2009
MGoPoints: 458
Borges history

Borges has never had success developing players that were recruited on his watch.  My prediction is there may be success next year because he is limited to the damage he can do to Gardner.  However, 2015 will be a struggle because Morris will be completely mishandled.  That is what happend at UCLA and Auburn.  

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:29 PM
(Reply to #42) #61
Bill in Birmingham
Bill in Birmingham's picture
Joined: 08/30/2008
MGoPoints: 4175
I cannot speak to UCLA, but

I cannot speak to UCLA, but that is simply not true about what happened at Auburn. They had a down year in 2007 that was due at least as much to a worse than normal defense as problems on offense. At the end of the year Tuberville panicked and went with a spread even though it was completely inconsistent with his overall defense and kicking game focused coaching philosophy. The next year, his first after Borges, Tubs was fired. You can complain about Borges' performance at Michigan all you want. But he did a good job at Auburn.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:32 PM
(Reply to #42) #62
FormerlyBigBlue71
Joined: 02/20/2011
MGoPoints: 361
I completely agree with your

I completely agree with your double post.  Just look at Borges track record, a few years here, a few years there.  If he was even a somewhat competent offensive coordinator he would have been in the NFL or a college Head coach.  There is a reason he was exiled to the mountain west or WAC or whatever it is.  If this man is not fired and somebody innovative hired, Michigan will have another failed season.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 8:17 PM
(Reply to #42) #63
Muttley
Muttley's picture
Joined: 07/07/2009
MGoPoints: -74969
A double negative post equals a positive post

according to the maths

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:52 PM
#64
TheThief
Joined: 09/17/2011
MGoPoints: 273
Plenty of blame to go around.

First, let me give the caveat that we really are a very young team. I don't look at other program rosters so maybe this is not unique, but I looked at ours and saw that we have something like 60 F or RSF listed. That is astounding. So simply allowing those guys to get bigger, stronger, faster and more experienced should solve some of our problems. It should provide more depth, and give the coaches more confidence in the next guy up. It is obvious letting Devin run more would have helped, but these guys seemed too damn scared to lose him for a game. Devin has to make no apologies in my book, the beating he took against MSU and against Ohio, let you know the kind of guy he is on the field. Let the guy create, it is obviously what he is good at, and what will win games.

Since Brady is sans headseat during most of the game, saying that Borges is the reason the offense runs plays that are destined to fail, means that Hoke is looking at Borges during the week and saying, I want you to run X amount of times out of the I formation or between the tackles. That seems far fetched to me. Maybe one could argue that Hoke told Borges to run MANBALL at all costs before the season. If that were the case then Borges would not be culpable. However, I would think even if this was the mandate, Borges would have gone to Hoke after Akron or Uconn and said...time for plan B.

I also, think that maybe Hoke probably needs to get a little more detail oriented. While Ohio was driving at the end, it was obvious we would give up a touchdown. All I was thinking was, I wonder if Borges knows what play he will call for the 2 point conversion if we score. The helter skelter way the 2 point try went down, with an obvious playcall and Hoke asking if we should go for it, is inexcusable. Borges should have had that playcall nailed down way before we scored (actually we should have practiced that exact situation during practice last week), and if not, Hoke should have been on the headset to tell him to nail down his playcall, and make sure it is his best call of the day.

I love that Brady loves Michigan, but he is starting to look as unflexible in his ways as RichRod. Just as RichRod oftend seemed too focused on offense to give the defense much thought, it seems that Hoke is so focused on defense/lineplay that he doesn't put any detailed thought into our offense. I think the difference between a coordinator and a Head Coach is that the HC must have his fingerprints on everything.

It became pretty clear what the strategy was against us as the year went on..blitz. There are a half dozen ways to counter that, and Michigan never did. So why didn't they adjust, was it because of Hoke or Borges? To me that is the central question of the season. Someone must answer for that, because it is just freaking negligent. Why didn't we adjust to the gameplan that we knew was coming? Whoever kept us from adjusting to the defenses that were being called against us should be fired. Bottom line. That person cost us at leat 3 plausible wins, and that is inexcusable.

Also, stop wearing a polo on the sidelines if you're going to wear a shirt underneath that has longer sleeves, you look stupid.

Also, why is Borges not involved in recruiting, is he that bad with people or is he above it? If he thinks he is above it, he better wake up. If he is that bad with people, how is he gonna gain the trust of the kids playing for him? Who is the real Borges the one who is great against South Carolina and Ohio or the guy who regularly craps the bed against average teams. I honestly don't know. How can one team be so bi-polar?

This is looking more like a team that will be self-limiting and myopic and therefore lucky to be in contention for a Big Ten title game every 4 or 5 years. Despite all the talk of this is Michigan fergodsakes, I think there is a reluctance to push beyond what is known/comfortable. This team could easily be the equal of any team in the country. Including those vaunted SEC teams.

Stop aiming so low. Dave Brandon should be accountable too..it was his responsibility to bring us a guy that can get us to play for National Championships, not just to beat Ohio. He holds a petty grudge against RichRod, and makes a big deal of Brady knowing the fight song. I don't care if we have to teach a coach the fight song, as long as the guy wins. You think Nick Saban knew the Alabama fight song when he was hired? Michigan enjoys a brand like few I have seen. I travel all over the country, and my Michgan hat gets comments of "Go Blue" from NYC to LA.  In fact I am shocked how many times I hear it all over the country. The brand is there to compete for much more than we are.

Finally, why are we so bad away from home. Good college teams love playing on the road...this metric must improve, regardless of who we keep or discard.

Sorry, I  know this was a long rambling post, that beat some dead horses, but I don't post often and had a season's worth of frustration to get out.

 

 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 2:29 PM
(Reply to #55) #65
Reader71
Reader71's picture
Joined: 08/30/2009
MGoPoints: 22155
Your lost presupposes a lot

Your lost presupposes a lot of things.

First, you act as though Borges didn't have the play call planned before the score. The fact that we ran the same play after OSUs timeout would lead one to believe that they knew exactly what play they wanted, had been prepared for it, and had repped the team on it in practice.

You also call the play predictable, which duh fans always know what routes are coming, but couldn't it be that the play was designed to be run in that situation because Ohio has a tendency to run a certain coverage when defending on the goal line or 2 point conversions? The fact that you don't give this a thought seems to be a presupposition that the coaches are dumb/bad/stubborn/etc.

As for Hoke asking the team, I think that is the single best thing this staff has ever done, and if Brady Home is fired tomorrow, I will always be grateful that we had a coach whose love for Michigan was such that he was able to completely bury his own ego and include the players - who bleed and sweat and cry for every yard - in the decision. Those seniors will never play in that stadium again. Giving them some ownership over the decision to go for two is absolutely the right thing to do.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 6:04 PM
(Reply to #59) #66
TheThief
Joined: 09/17/2011
MGoPoints: 273
Let us say the play was planned.

You are then asking me to accept that Michigan lined up after OSU called a timeout (I have erased the recording too upset to rewatch, so I don't know if we had timeouts left to counter theirs), saw how OSU was lined up and then decided to run that play anyways? If that is the case, then it was a play which had a low degree of success, seeing as OSU took the time out specifically to see the alignment and then prepared themselves for that play. OSU played it perfectly. How, do you come out an run the same play knowing they took a timeout? Strategically, it boggles the mind. As a coach you plan contigency upon contigency, especially for the final 2 minutes.

Your post presupposes a lot as well. It presupposes that I am critical because the play didn't work. It was a bad play call against that defense even if it did work. You also presuppose that I didn't figure Al had thought about it. I did entertain that thought, I dismissed it because the evidence leans strongly to the contrary,and I can only go on what evidence is before me, I am not prescient. Finally, all arguments come with presuppositions, it is understood in all epistemological efforts that presuppositions precede apology, otherwise the person would not be making the point.

Anyways, it is not one play that is at the heart of the matter, it is a season of missed opportunities that is the matter.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 7:02 PM
(Reply to #68) #67
Yeoman
Joined: 06/08/2011
MGoPoints: 13242
How do you know the play was

How do you know the play was the same before and after the timeout? All you know is that the formation was the same.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 8:24 PM
(Reply to #68) #68
Reader71
Reader71's picture
Joined: 08/30/2009
MGoPoints: 22155
I didn't presuppose that you

I didn't presuppose that you didn't consider Borges thinking about it, you said it outright in your OP.

That aside, your qualms are perfectly legitimate. The problem I had with your first post was that you implied that the coaches weren't ready. Said something about the way the play was brought in. I took the fact that we ran the same play before and after the timeout (which we both agree was weird and isn't seen much) as evidence that they were exactly prepared. This was their play.

Anyways, the reason the play didn't work wasn't so much scheme as execution; Kalis didn't block. This is almost always my reply to complaints about play calling: if the play is run properly, it will always have a chance. Hell, the earlier touchdown to Butt was thrown into double coverage, with one of the guys right on him. Not great design, not great execution. It worked, though. And the guy behind me loudly praised Al Borges for the great play call.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:05 PM
(Reply to #72) #69
TheThief
Joined: 09/17/2011
MGoPoints: 273
I understand what you are saying.

Still, your response to playcalling critique, if logically applied, means that every possesion would end in a score, except for those meant to eat up time, or other special exceptions. I think this type of thinking is flawed in that it doesn't take into account the constraints of your team abilities. A good coach maximizes the teams strengths and minimizes its weaknesses for opponents. We see this done effectively on the opposite side by Mattison. While our defense has been far from great, he has maximized what we could have logically excpected from that side of the ball. I don't think any of us can honestly say that about our Offense. Anyways, I understand what you are saying, and I think we basically feel the same, so I am not looking to get into any argument. I appreciate you giving me something to think about and at this point, I am done with airing my frustrations.

For the record, I would have been very dissapointed if we had let go of Brady Hoke this season. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and regardless of the dissapointment this season, I think his recruiting, the fight this team has shown, his ability to bring in Mattison and keep Denard, all speak to the fact that he is a good coach. Maybe just one that needs more seasoning. Just like freshman lineman, coaches often get better with experience and though he has coached other places I think he is still growing as the coach of the Michigan Wolverines.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:15 PM
#70
Tater
Tater's picture
Joined: 08/13/2008
MGoPoints: 30564
MANBALL

I think the MANBALL mandate has hurt this team and will ultimately result in Al Borges being sacrificed at its altar.  Fire David Brandon.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system
Theme provided by Roopletheme; sidebars adapted from Chris Murphy.