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 11:17 AM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:35 AM ^
It's been several hours since I've seen Hoke's role in the offense discussed. Thanks, very threadworthy.
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:37 AM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:40 AM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:43 AM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:00 PM ^
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:15 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:31 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:00 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 2:44 PM ^
"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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:03 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:03 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:29 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:32 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 7:17 PM ^
according to the maths
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:52 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:29 PM ^
December 2nd, 2013 at 5:04 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 6:02 PM ^
How do you know the play was the same before and after the timeout? All you know is that the formation was the same.
December 2nd, 2013 at 7:24 PM ^
December 2nd, 2013 at 10:05 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 2:15 PM ^
I think the MANBALL mandate has hurt this team and will ultimately result in Al Borges being sacrificed at its altar. Fire David Brandon.