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 7:30 AM ^
Carlos Rogers was/is a cornerback and probably not part of the offensive equation.
Jason Campbell on the other hand was the QB who was drafted first round by the Redskins. (coincidentally the same team that Rogers ended up on)
January 13th, 2011 at 10:57 AM ^
Man, great catch! I MEANT Jason Campbell, NOT Carlos Rogers - that's why I referred to Carols Rogers as the quarterback above.
Mea culpa. +1 to you, sir.
January 13th, 2011 at 7:40 AM ^
I'm pretty sure Borges will work out. He's been toiling with sub par talent since he left Auburn and now that he's going to have the athletes here at Michigan, you'll see what he's capable of. He's a veteran OC, he'll be able to adjust!
January 13th, 2011 at 7:42 AM ^
His early years were downright stout, and his time at SDSU shows that he still at least somewhat knows he was doing, as SDSU had a better scoring offense than we did last year. Furthermore, they managed more points against TCU than Wisco did. He had some rough years, but at the same time, when coaching at Indiana they were...Indiana, and for Auburn Tuberville is notorious for reverse Richrodding his teams (messing with the OC's mojo).
January 13th, 2011 at 7:49 AM ^
Why is it when people refer to Ronnie Brown and Cadillac Williams they act like these guys are hall of famers? Have you seen them in NFL, dont get me wrong they were pretty good at Auburn but I think we should give Borges the benefit of the doubt. And what does Carlos Rogers have to do with Al Borges offense? really? Seeing that just makes me think you dont know what your talking about and just trying to randomly throw people under the bus.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:00 AM ^
I confused Carlos Rogers with Jason Campbell because I had a momentary brainfart. It's been edited above. As Campbell is a starting NFL quarterback, my point still stands (such as it was!).
January 13th, 2011 at 8:03 AM ^
SDSU was getting better under Borges, 'Cuse got shittier under GERG. Note the upwards trend in passing and scoring at SDSU.
January 13th, 2011 at 8:05 AM ^
January 13th, 2011 at 8:15 AM ^
As long as we have a stellar defense, having a mediocre offense shouldn't be a problem. I think that's the thing we're hoping Brady Hoke brings - a return to defensive fundamentals and consistency.
I know you guys all hate Debord, but Debord wasn't a bad coordinator for a team with a stout defense. There are very few teams with excellent defenses and excellent offenses. I'm not saying Michigan should settle for one or the other, but you can be a good team with a solid defense.
We saw what good offense + bad defense gives you...a 7-6 record and a new head coach.
January 13th, 2011 at 8:55 AM ^
Having a stout defense is vital to the whole mental outlook of a team. Just like a baseball team with a lousy bullpen always dreads the 9th inning and plays with a cloud overhead, a football team with a lousy defense dreads the final drive and can never really believe they will win anything close. But if you have a defense known to rise to the occasion, everybody -- offense and defense -- feels it and plays with confidence. I think we saw that some this some with our second half offense this past season. They looked desperate at times, in a way that they wouldn't with a decent defense.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:10 AM ^
There are very few teams with excellent defenses and excellent offenses.
We typically call these teams "champions".
January 13th, 2011 at 10:45 AM ^
Fun Fact: Mike DeBord is the only Michigan offensive coordinator to win a national title. And, one of the few to even win a Rose Bowl
Also, this hire is everything about fixing the D. We all thought our offensive acumen was the problem during Coaching Search 2007.
In reality it wasnt. The D program was breaking then, we didnt know it, Rodriguez didnt know it and by the time fans and new coaches realized it was full fledged broken. We were wrong what truly ailed the program three years ago.
When I think of this hire, I lean on the Stones: "You cant always get what you want (A Rodrigo led ninja offense with an experienced QB), but you get what you need (some better D recruiting, development and in game strategy).
What Michigan needs is actually the true road to Championship football.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:00 AM ^
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
While we may not have future professionals on our offense, our players are excellent, if young. I think we'll do just fine in Borges' dumbed down spread over the next couple of years, if the defense significantly improves. This won't be Rod's O, but it won't be Gerg's D on O either.
Then Borges'll probably retire after a stellar 2012 that sees Heisman-winner Denard lead us to triumph in the Rose Bowl. And that opens up a whole other can of worms.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:09 AM ^
Michigan last year:
B+ offense
F defense
F special teams
C recruiting
this averages to a 1.3 or F.
If the new OC can get us a B offense and the rest of the program goes all Bs then the program and team is much better. Offense is not the whole picture
January 13th, 2011 at 9:33 AM ^
A new post regarding Al's offense. More will come as more higher quality game tape is released of SDSU.
http://offensivebreakdown.blogspot.com/2011/01/michigans-new-offense.html
Al should be able to adapt pretty well, his offense is designed to do that. Now it's a question of how well will he adapt.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:34 AM ^
it's the exact same feeling that I can't shake.
We are in a similar situation to the last three years right now with a fine head coach and less than ideal coordinators surrounding them. We just swapped weaknesses at coordinator from defense to offense.
Hoke has said he's going to fill out his staff in 3 to 4 days. I'd argue that the coordinators are at least as important as who our head coach is. That's a pretty short time, with a pretty short list of available options.
In the next 20 days, Hoke is going to have ample opportunity to prove himself with 1) recruiting, and 2) how he staffs this team.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:45 AM ^
Why do people have such an obsession with where the team finishes in some arbitrary statistical category? Didn't we just have it pounded into our collective skulls this year that being a "top 10 offense" isn't a guarantee of victory?
To call Borges the Greg Robinson of offense is beyond ridiculous. Unlike GERG in the five or so years before he came to Michigan Borges has had great success. Auburn. Undefeated season. San Diego State back from the dead. I watched a replay of the Pointsettia Bowl last night and guys absolutely knew their responsibilities and they were efficient as hell. Not GERGesque in the slightest. Couldn't be more different.
And there is this collective hysteria about how you have to run a spread offense to win. Say what? Didn't Alabama just win the NC a year ago running a pretty conventional offense? Does tOSU run the spread n shred? Of course not. This is ridiculous.
If you recruit the right players, you can win with a variety of systems. For now, Borges has a box of shiny new toys to play with and if he has any ability at all he'll put them to use in a way that maximizes their talents. Besides, the team is a collection of football players, not puzzle pieces. They are adaptable, malleable and -- who knows? -- just maybe the new coaches can find better ways to utilize the talent on hand.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:16 AM ^
I don't think you're being fair to me.
I have never asserted that the spread is the best system in the land, nor have I claimed that the spread was necessary for football success. It IS true that the best offenses in the country are usually spreads, but this doesn't mean that by not having the spread we're dooming ourselves to bad offense.
The thing about hiring Borges is that two options are now available for next year. The first is that an offensive coordinator who has a speckled record of success will have to run an offense that is not his own to fit his talent. This is, in my opinion (feel free to disagree!) the "Greg Robinson clone" scenario and my assertion is that this will only end in tears.
The second option is that we play the exact, precise system Borges wants us to play. This would mean having Denard throw short, accurate passes and will force one or two of our running backs to carry a big load. The trouble is that our running backs are not very good (I would take one Ronnie Hillman for six Mike Shaws and Shaw is not a bad player) and Denard is, also in my opinion, terribly suited to a west coast package throwing short, accurate passes through multiple reads (note that this isn't because I don't think he's a quarterback, just not this type). This would also be bad.
Thus, I see two bad options. I love Michigan football and I want to be happy. Help me see the light.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:45 AM ^
BUT you didnt watch SDSU this year..their offense was impressive, and was able to do a variety of things (spread/west coast). I dont believe he is the greatest, or a big splash but there is worse out there...ex: OSU
January 13th, 2011 at 9:54 AM ^
I had the exact same reaction. Hope we're both wrong.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:08 AM ^
All this tells me is when he has talent, he does well. Extremely well. 14-0 at Auburn. Yeah, but he had all this talent. Blah, blah, blah. At Michigan, he has the best QB depth chart in the league
He will have talent here. Maybe guys like Stonum and Hemingway can flash their skills better in an offense that produced a pair of 1,000 yard deep threats a year ago.
Also, if you dont think Denard can play in an Al Borges style of offense, then, really, you dont think he's much of a quarterback to begin with. As for Borges, he's probably thinking what he could have done with jason campbell had he had the other skills that Denard has.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:05 AM ^
Don't understand the part of your argument about Denard. I think he is a quarterback. I think he's the best one in the Big Ten. I don't think he's the OmniGod of quarterbacks that will play equally well in any system, because no quarterback is that quarterback. That's not a condemnation of Denard, it's a testiment to the limits of human ability.
I ALSO think that a system where he needs to make quick reads and short accurate passes would be the worst one for him - it wastes his amazing arm strength and forces him to make accurate throws against multiple looks, which has been his only downfall as of yet.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:15 AM ^
On the plus side, Borges does appear to be on much more of an upward trajectory coming into UM than GERG was when he came here. Not quite an apples to apples comparison due to the requirements of a head coach as compared to a coordinator but it's something.
I don't get all the insults being thrown your way, it's a legitimate question. We probably won't know for sure whether it's a good hire for a few years but between now and the first game optimism reigns supreme so I'll choose to be optimistic that he can put something good together.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:19 AM ^
Not a huge nitpick, but I wouldn't consider Kenny Irons a "high draft pick" - he was taken in the middle of the 2nd round in a very weak RB class.
Probably a different definition of what a high draft pick is...
January 13th, 2011 at 11:07 AM ^
I think this is a good point to a degree. Yeah, you're right - not a high draft pick in terms of the draft as a whole. But it IS a high draft pick when considering team talent - a mid-second rounder will usually be a top-ten player in a particular league at any given time, and my point was that it shouldn't be hard to have a good statistical offense when you've got guys like that around.