I hate to say it, but Borges looks like the Greg Robinson of the offense
| Year | Team | Rush | YPC | Pass | Pass Eff | YPA | Total | Scoring | FEI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | Cal | 80th | 3.4 | 76th | 95th | 6 | 93rd | 80th | — |
| 2001 | Cal | 87th | 3.4 | 53rd | 96th | 5.9 | 77th | 104th | — |
| 2001 | Indiana | 4th | 5.5 | 95th | 72nd | 6.9 | 19th | 51st | — |
| 2002 | Indiana | 93rd | 3.2 | 33rd | 84tth | 6.8 | 69th | 95th | — |
| 2003 | Indiana | 59th | 3.4 | 101st | 105th | 6.1 | 98th | 114th | — |
| 2003 | Auburn | 29th | 4.4 | 83rd | 43rd | 7.8 | 61st | 66th | — |
| 2004 | Auburn | 29th | 4.3 | 40th | 2nd | 10 | 25th | 18th | — |
| 2005 | Auburn | 25th | 4.8 | 70th | 37th | 7.6 | 37th | 30th | — |
| 2006 | Auburn | 47th | 4.1 | 88th | 37th | 8.0 | 76th | 56th | — |
| 2007 | Auburn | 53rd | 3.8 | 103rd | 90th | 6.5 | 97th | 84th | 24th(!!!) |
| 2008 | SDSU | 117th | 3.1 | 42nd | 95th | 5.9 | 99th | 104th | 104th |
| 2009 | SDSU | 116th | 2.9 | 30th | 73rd | 7.1 | 86th | 85th | 93rd |
| 2010 | SDSU | 48th | 4.8 | 12th | 20th | 9.0 | 16th | 19th | 26th |
This is the graph Brian posted on the front page. I take no credit.
To me, I see exactly one time where Borges coached an offense that was ranked higher than 69th (ugh) that also wasn't stacked with highly performing future professional players. Auburn of '04 featured Cadillac Williams, Ronnie Brown, Jason Campbell, and Marcus McNeil - that runs the gamut of "really important offensive players who would do very well in the NFL," as that would be the two running backs, the quarterback, and the left tackle respectively. Auburn of '05 wasn't as stacked, but still featured Kenny Irons (a pro washout allegedly due to attitude issues but a stud in college and a high draft pick), McNeil again, and Ben Obomanu, who is a decent NFL wideout in Seattle.
The "outlier" - that is, the time when a Borges offense was better than average without obvious pro talent, was the most recent SDSU team. While I suppose this might be comforting because of the fact that the great season is in recent memory, it also is complicated because we haven't seen how NFL teams evaluate the talent level of the current SDSU team to provide a rough approximation of "objective player quality," but I have a hard time giving Borges much credit for deciding to hand off to Ronnie Hillman or throw to Vincent Brown a lot - those are two of the most dominating non-AQ skill position stars in college football right now.
This is my point: I hate to be pessimistic this early in Hoke's tenure, but when I see a coordinator whose performance is average to terrible except when he's coaching a stacked team, I think precisely of Robinson. The analogy is deepened when you consider the fact that Borges is going to be pressured to run an offense that isn't truly his own. A straight, dyed-in-the-wool west coast like Borges seems to favor featuring dominant running backs and quick-decision, accurate (albeit mobile!) quarterbacks is pretty much THE system I think we're least suited for at this moment. That leaves him with two options - Borges can run a system that doesn't fit our personell at all, or he can be forced to coach something he doesn't prefer to run. Either way seems bad.
I want to be positive. I'm all in. I didn't like the Hoke hire initially, but I'm coming around to the man himself and I will support him with everything I have. But I can't see it going well if Michigan's offense is going to be run by Borges.
Can you reassure me?
EDITED because Jason Campbell and Carlos Rogers are two different people, evidently.
January 13th, 2011 at 2:27 AM ^
So we're not going to even bother to hear what the guy has to say about how he's going to scheme this offense based on the talent he's inheriting?
Did we not listen to Coach Hoke's presser today? At least give the guy a chance to explain himself before you throw him under the bus.
January 13th, 2011 at 2:36 AM ^
I did listen to Hoke's presser and I loved it. He seems like a very nice man who could be a good face for our program.
I'm also totally willing to wait and see - that's what makes football fun! In the meantime, though, can you think of any encouraging signs about the Borges hire that may soothe my nerves?
January 13th, 2011 at 3:43 AM ^
we are hoping the new OC takes advantage of DRobs talents and runs a type of offense he hasn't historically done.
you know like GERG running the 335.
January 13th, 2011 at 7:07 AM ^
What is this defensive talent GERG was taking advantage of?
January 13th, 2011 at 2:34 AM ^
I HOPE all goes well but, I have about as much faith in Hoke's OC as I did in RR's DC's. I'll give it time but, to think that there is some migical genie of an OC out there that can run ANY offense is just being naive - or stupid.
January 13th, 2011 at 4:51 AM ^
That OC doesn't exist. Its going to be a pro set, the same scheme that hasn't won anything since USC in 2004 and we all know how that turned out where the record book reads _________. Denard and the offense played just south of horrible out of the I formation and its more than reasonable to expect more of the same next year, but hey, i'm only looking at facts, so take it for what its worth.
January 13th, 2011 at 5:04 AM ^
That Stanford team that won the Orange Bowl runs an interesting version of the spread. What do you call that?
January 13th, 2011 at 5:44 AM ^
January 13th, 2011 at 10:01 AM ^
If you think Alabama runs a pro-style offense, you don't much about one of the following: (1) pro-style offenses or (2) Alabama's offense.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:21 AM ^
Alabama ran a combination pistol/pro style offense in 2009. There were plenty of pro style elements. Don't get all condescending.
January 13th, 2011 at 8:14 AM ^
Don't say you're looking at facts when all you're doing is looking at things to fit your argument. Not to mention your "facts" are simply flat out wrong.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:50 AM ^
Wait, so LSU didn't win a NC in 2007 and Alabama didn't win one in 2009 running a pro style offense? And wait, USC didn't play for the NC in 2005, and Ohio State didn't play for the NC in '06 and '07 running one?
Teams that played in a BCS Bowl game since 2004
2004: Michigan (9-3), Pitt (8-4), Auburn (13-0, with our current OC, by the way), Virginia Tech (10-3), USC (13-0)
2005: Ohio State (10-2), Notre Dame (9-3), Georgia (10-3), Penn State (11-1), USC (12-1)
2006: USC (11-2), Michigan (11-2), Louisville (12-1), LSU (11-2), Notre Dame (10-3), Ohio State (12-1)
2007: USC (11-2), Georgia (11-2), Virginia Tech (11-3), LSU (12-2), Ohio State (11-2)
2008: USC (12-1), Penn State (11-2), Alabama (12-2), Ohio State (10-3)
2009: Ohio State (11-2), Iowa (11-2), Alabama (14-0)
2010: Wisconsin (11-2), Stanford (12-1), Ohio State (12-1), Arkansas (10-3)
I hate to tell some of you this, but just because Michigan got beat by some spread teams over the years, that doesn't mean that it's the only way to be successful.
January 13th, 2011 at 2:34 AM ^
What exactly did GERG do in the last decade? He rode the coat tails of VY, and ran Syracuse into the ground. At least Borges won OC of the Year in 2004. At least Borges has experience running multiple offenses, unlike GERG with defensive schemes. And I have my doubts Hoke is going to be trying to meddle in offense when his thing is defense.
January 13th, 2011 at 2:40 AM ^
A HC leaving a coordinator to his own devises, that worked out great for the last guy.
January 13th, 2011 at 2:57 AM ^
you really think running the 3-3-5 is a resul of "leaving gerg to his own devices"?
January 13th, 2011 at 8:01 AM ^
By a former player and GA under RR, the 3-3-5 was RR's baby not Gerg's. RR forced Gerg to play it. End of story (yes Gerg still sucks)
January 13th, 2011 at 2:23 PM ^
If RR would have actually let Scott Shafer run the defense he wanted, instead of forcing him to run his bastardized version of the 3-3-5, Shafer would probably still be here - and so would RR.
January 13th, 2011 at 6:02 AM ^
Seven Years is a LONG time in college football. GERG was win the Rose Bowl a mere five years before he got to UofM.
January 13th, 2011 at 2:44 AM ^
Well in his defense I think if all it takes is some pro level talent for him to be a good OC he should be fine. We should have some solid talent for him to coach, Hopkins and Toussaint have the potential to be good/great backs. Roundtree, Stonum, and Hemingway are solid wideouts. I believe we'll have Denard back, and he is easily one of the best offensive threats in the nation.
The way I look at it, if he fits the offense to the talent we have it should be great. I'd rather have all of the above on my team than Irons, McNeil and Obomanu. Also worth noting, that '05 team played some great defenses; putting up 28 points on an Alabama team that held Florida to only 3 points, and a very solid LSU Defense.
This could be all high hopes from me, but I am going to try to stay positive until I can see how this team is handled... hope that keeps you off the cliff
January 13th, 2011 at 8:31 AM ^
Yes, the critics fail to realize that we do have some outstanding talent for Borges to work with on offense. I am hoping the regime change reinvigorates our running back play: Fitz/Hopkins running downhill will be nice to see.
January 13th, 2011 at 8:44 AM ^
Can I have a pair of your rose colored glasses? Listen nothing against the guy and I hope he does well, but the facts point to a difficult transition with real possible problems next year.
January 13th, 2011 at 8:53 AM ^
I am afraid that I am not as impressed with the power of the alleged "facts" in this case. Our head coach was announced yesterday, he assured us that he will mold the offense around the current talent, and the incoming OC does have a record that shows some variety in offense approach. Therefore, because of the survey of past data, we now are told that the facts prove that we are going to be terrible and the sky is going to fall. Yes, give me rose-colored-glasses.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:00 AM ^
As for rose-colored glasses, well it's sports, guys. I have a day job where I have to be sober and analytical about everything. Can we not buy in without immediately souring everyone's experience? And as for offensive talent, I don't need rose tints. In addition to QB, receivers, and potential at running back, I neglected to mention Molk, Omameh, and donkey-rider Lewan. This is a talented offense.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:02 AM ^
What exactly are these facts?
Dont confuse your paranoia, sky is falling mentality with reality
January 13th, 2011 at 2:50 AM ^
January 13th, 2011 at 2:56 AM ^
if the criteria for not being greg robinson is "has success without nfl talent", then wil muschamp = greg robinson
i dont know much about borges but if you want to figure him out, i suggest looking more closely at the data we DO have, and not throwing out half of it fairly capriciously
January 13th, 2011 at 3:13 AM ^
How is the above "half" of the data?
January 13th, 2011 at 3:16 AM ^
fine, a third. youre right, my rough estimate really diluted the point
January 13th, 2011 at 3:23 AM ^
So what is the 2/3 of data we aren't seeing?
January 13th, 2011 at 3:33 AM ^
???
there are 9 years up there. he threw out 3. 3/9 = 1/3, which i egregiously overstated as half
January 13th, 2011 at 3:14 AM ^
I think that's exactly what we should do - look more closely at data. I'm not much of a data analyst though. I meant this post to serve ONLY as a jumping off point.
As for the first point, success with NFL starters isn't a black mark. Lack of success without them is, however, and that's the part that scares me.
January 13th, 2011 at 3:31 AM ^
Well by data i dont necessarily mean numbers.
Looking at his career before this decade, he had very successful stops at boise and oregon before going to ucla, where his offense averaged 32 ppg and cracked 40 twice
Very few people can succeed with indiana level talent. Borges seems to not be one of them. I'm hoping he never has to be
January 13th, 2011 at 3:10 AM ^
So, he flamed out at a historically decent football program as HC and then led back-to-back historically terrible defenses at a program reknown for good defenses, and employing stuffed animals as a motivational ploy? Oh wait, he was the OC on a team that went 13-0 in the SEC? Oh, nevermind.
January 13th, 2011 at 3:15 AM ^
I think you missed the point. If you didn't miss it and were trying to be funny, you weren't.
Also, Gerg was the DC for a national championship winning team.
Oh nevermind.
January 13th, 2011 at 3:38 AM ^
If the point was 'coaches are better when they coach talented teams,' I apologize if I didn't find it as profound as you did.
Also, GERG was getting tuned at Syracuse, finishing 1-10, when Texas won the national title in '05. Unless my memory and this wikipedia entry are both, independently, fucked, you had some other national title in mind, or I missed your point
January 13th, 2011 at 8:57 AM ^
January 13th, 2011 at 3:14 AM ^
to the OP - you're a f*cking idiot, a dbag, a phony fan, a moron (and imagine me going on like this for two more hours).
you've never even seen the guy coach a game. all you've done is read some stat geek sheet. go watch the f*cking tcu game moron. he put up 35 pts against them - the second most all season was the 'great' wisconsin's 21. he also coordinated auburn's 13-0 squad.
go f*ck yourself with your negative bullsh*t. maybe harbaugh or miles will let you suck their dicks. if that's your dream...quit wasting time posting here, and start writting them letters.
f*cking moron.
January 13th, 2011 at 4:35 AM ^
It's also worth considering that a) he was highly successful in the '90s with Oregon (1 season) and UCLA (5 seasons) and b) his most recent team showed rapid improvement. This is important because he has some record of past success and he has been able to work well the the man who will be his head coach, something that was apparently problematic at Auburn.
I can only find Points per Game as a measure of offense for the years in question at the moment, but here they are (incl. Bowl Games):
1995 Oregon: 29.1
1996 UCLA: 30.0
1997 UCLA: 39.8
1998 UCLA: 39.7
1999 UCLA: 20.9*
2000 UCLA: 29.4
1999 UCLA featured RS freshman QB Cory Paus. He replaced Drew Bennett early in the season and had a mediocre performance. This lack of talent and experience at QB submarined the offense. Paus greatly improved over the offseason and had what was arguably his best season in 2000, and the offense improved accordingly.
January 13th, 2011 at 8:54 AM ^
I don't think the point is that he sucks, but that he may suck until he gets his style of personnel. He has not demonstrated any experience with a running quarterback but many have the expectation that you simply plug Denard into this offense and away we go. Victor may be a fine coordinator but just don't expect the offense to improve significantly and expect the real possibility they take a step back for a year or two.
Would Michigan have been better off if we had run a defense scheme more familiar to GERG? Who knows.
He seems a bit older than I thought
January 13th, 2011 at 9:04 AM ^
Victor Borge (pronounced /ˈbɔrɡə/ BOR-gə; January 3, 1909[1] – December 23, 2000)
January 13th, 2011 at 4:59 AM ^
Interesting stats.
But it's hard to predict what will happen. We had great stats this year on offense, and let's face it, mediocre results because the stats didn't mean much against the better teams in the B1G.
I think we tend to get lost in bolstering predictions with stats. Let's see the stats after next fall in the win-loss column. That will tell us more. We don't need to panic over a guy who hasn't coached a single down here yet.
Otherwise it's just fear stuff.
I think Ron English had a point in one of the papers: he said UM's guys were just too small this year to win against the better and bigger teams. That bothers me a lot more than a coach's stats.
January 13th, 2011 at 5:12 AM ^
What do you say we give the guy a chance before we declare him GERG...
January 13th, 2011 at 5:32 AM ^
...michigan fans being michigan fans.
January 13th, 2011 at 6:25 AM ^
Sam interviewed Jason Whitlock yesterday. As many of you know Whitlock is a STRONG proponent of Hoke and wrote a piece detailing why last week. He was asked about the offense and defense and said .. (gulp) we will have a standard pro style offense and a multiple look defense.
He went on to say that Hoke would probably look for a 6-4 or 6-5 qb to run the system. Sam didn't ask any questions about adapting the system and after the interview seemed somewhat uncomfortable with what Whitlock said.
It's only two days into the regime and I'd rather not be standing on a ledge but it was disconcerting.
January 13th, 2011 at 8:16 AM ^
Whitlock is not the incoming OC. He may think he knows what Borges will do, but I doubt any of that is coming from Borges, or Hoke, or anyone. No way those guys talk about what they would do at Michigan before they are hired, or even so soon after. Whitlock is making assumptions about Borges, nothing more.
January 13th, 2011 at 8:35 AM ^
This is probably what we will look like after Hoke's recruiting has molded the team. But yesterday we were flat out told that BH would mold the offense to the talent that he presently has. Whatever that means, it cannot mean a standard pro set of the kind you run with a Ryan Mallet-type QB.
January 13th, 2011 at 6:53 AM ^
I hope this doesn't happen but Borges play calling resembles Mike DeBords.
January 13th, 2011 at 6:59 AM ^
Borges is the man, or if he has not been in the past he will be soon.
All in. Go Blue.
January 13th, 2011 at 7:10 AM ^
that makes it such a compelling read, but for now I will choose to ignore the statistical comparisons and analysis of our new coaching staff. We've got eight months until they strap them up. All I care about right now is how many of the current team stays and what the new class will look like.
January 13th, 2011 at 7:35 AM ^
is not perfect and is not very accurate in predicting the future. Millions have tried (stock market, sports...) but the truth is that you can't predict the future.