if he would consider being Auburn's head coach? Please!
Yes, I'm still pissed.
if he would consider being Auburn's head coach? Please!
Yes, I'm still pissed.
By the thousandth thread with the same subject matter I think Heiko may already have gotten some ideas although I would prefer he ask "why no bubble screens?".
I was thinking about that. It's going to be awkward for Heiko.
Is he going to ask the tough questions?
I guess it doesn't matter. The media is not going to make Borges a better coordinator.
What matters is whether they fire him or not.
Are MGoUsers upset with Borges? Someone should make a thread expressing those feelings!
redundant threads, how would members like yourself be able to unload all of their pent up sarcastic assholery?
I'm pretty sure all sarcastic assholery is expressed the moment it's conceived around here, and not pent up at all.
we wouldn't have members like yourself replying to pent up sarcastic asshole-ish replies, and that would just take all the fun out of this place.
This much is true..... but sometimes you just need to allow people to vent without taking an easy dig at them. It's probably just me, but it makes you come off as desperate for attention.
Did they run any of the freeze play? Was OSU just ready for it?
Quite simply, I would like Heiko to ask
Al, Do you feel like your play calling in the second half is responsible for the offensive failure and do you believe that your play calling lost the game for Michigan?
Have you updated your résumé recently, or will you wait until afer the bowl game?
For Hoke how do u intend on installing a more man ball focused line and do u feel it would solve this years issues with inside runs?
I like this question. In the 4 losses, wasn't that same dive play called about 40 times for a total of ZERO yards, with maybe one short yardage conversion out of 25?
I think a lot of the problem has come from this team trying to mix a Denard-centric scheme with a Borges-centric scheme. Oregon and Stanford do things very differently and both are successful, but I don't think you can take a little from column A and a little from column B and have sustained success.
While I think there are some oddities in the way we've gone about things even with Devin (Why do we throw so many bombs deep downfield?), next year's line is going to run the power play a zillion times in practice and they are probably never going to run the inverted veer.
With the benefit of hindsight, we needed to either go all spread-option (as it stands Denard has never really gotten good at his reads and there is little variety to that portion of our offense) or more traditional (sort of what we've seen with Devin) but with Denard being told to scramble on a regular basis. As it stands the things we do well we don't do enough of to keep defenses honest and there are a ton of things in the playbook that we aren't good at.
If things suck next year, then getting pissed at Borges makes sense. At this point it is just a sad missed opportunity.
Good stuff right here. This is a pretty level-headed outlook. It really does suck ass though, as this team had/has the playmakers to do quite a few things well. I think people are right to be mad at the OC, especially after this particular game, but your post is a pretty good summation of what's probably really gone on/why things have happened the way they did. Again, it just sucks, regardless of the reasoning.
I agree with your assessment generally, but don't OC's have to contend with similar situtations all the time? Isn't it quite often that a new coaching staff walks into a situation where the team is a mismatch with the coaches' offensive philosophy? And don't a lot of teams need to adjust their approach mid-season when a key offensive player gets injured?
Yes, Borges did try to the split the O into two very different looks, but I think he could have given the offense a more spread type of look when Devin was in there, which probably would have been easier to adapt to and actually had some success. As it played out, the only thing the two offenses had in common was the dive play that never worked anyway.
Al, is your house for sale yet?
There were enough threads and hours of hateful steam blowing....I thought this would be a decent one to actually present Heiko with some serious questions that we'd like to be asked. In my opinion, there should be some sort of thread or poll like this every week.
Tell us about the play that led to Denard's long run. Did it work so well because OSU was waiting on the veer?
Follow up: Would you consider this a constraint play, and will constraints be a bigger part of this offense in the bowl and next year?
Questions like these are the only way you'll get Borges to reveal anything interesting.
I'd also suggest starting a question with a stated premise such as -- "Coach, given the inability of interior of our offensive line to get push, what was your plan to overcome OSU's strong interior defensive line play?" Michigan's interior offensive line play does have difficulty getting push ... those are Hoke's own words, if memory serves.
Borges would then have a choice -- refute the premise, which would be an interesting thing for him to try to do; or accept the premise and thus have to explain why he was trying up-the-middle runs so much.
Set up the passing, I suppose. Fantasies of a long, time-chewing advance downfield? Sometimes I really did feel that Herman suffered brain farts, and these repeated calls had a little of that quality. . .
Well yeah. Ace, Heiko and I spent most of the ride home going over this. Essentially I seriously doubt they're going to pull the plug on him, so the best bet is suggest things in the form of a question.
To ruin the suspense he's gonna get asked some nicely phrased version of "did you overthink things?"
I'm not an expert, but I don't think this is necessarily a correct interpretation of how Chris Brown says the "Theory of Constraints" should be appied to football. (http://smartfootball.com/offense/why-every-team-should-apply-the-constra...)
In general, Brown's real premise is that teams should not focus on adaptive plays that trick a defense but rather build a base package that suits the strength of the offense, has succes, and forces the defense to overplay something. Now, Ohio certainly looked to overplay the run, but it wasn't because we were particularly good at it (We have good players making big plays but not consistent offensive output).
The way I see it is that Al doesn't really have a very well-developed base package of plays that can consistently get us yardage. Therefore, the defense never really overplays anything we do.. We can pretend running (obv. I-form is neither suited for us nor successful and goes against the basic premise of what a "base package" should do) is succesful for us, but in reality, teams aren't overplaying our run, they are just commiting more defenders to it, because our passing game is shit.
If anything, I fault Borges for not really developing any semblance of a base package or series that really suits our players' strengths or has succes in recurrent situations. What did we run all year that managed to gain yards consistently in key situations? If we don't have a successful base, then constraint plays never work, because the defense doesn't fear anything, and thus, it never sets itself to overplay one thing over another.
I'd ask Al something like, "now that the B1G season is over, what do you think worked best for us as a series of plays or base package on third and short this year versus conference opponents?"
He's not likely to answer that however.
I realize I'm not Borges and can't give a real answer, but those plays are something I've been looking at for a while...
That has to be something Borges saw in film study. If you pull two lineman, have no defenders shoot the gap off of the lineman's hip (D lineman lined up opposite them or a LB responsible for the bubble previously occupied by the offensive lineman), and then don't see any extra defenders play side someone on the D is not doing their job. Ohio State came out in the second half and had linebackers flow a LOT faster to pulling lineman, so I would say it was their fault for the easy TD drive to end the half.
Can help at the fire Borges petition site. Just Google it.
"How much more do you make than Kliff Kingsbury at Texas A&M?"
followed up by "anybody got his phone number?"
And he gets a 50,000 a year raise for the next two years.....Jeep a drinking friends
Last I checked Kliff was only at around $400k, so Al gets a little under twice as much for way less than half the production.
Just that easy huh?
Sure, why not? Who wouldn't like twice as much pay? It's not like we can't afford it either.
"Had Jeremy Gallon not been tripped, Gardner would've thrown a 90 yard TD pass and your offense would've had 28 points, which was 2 points more than Ohio today.
Why do you suck so bad?"
Our offense has playmakers for sure. For me, the issue is consistency in specific situations.
What do we go to on a regular basis that can get us the yards we need on 2nd and 8, 3rd and 6? An offense should know what they can do on 3rd and 3 to get the yards. Something they can call that has worked, should work, and usually will work unless the defense makes a play. We call things that only works if the defense misplays us.
Our offensive production is akin to playing cricket when you're drunk. If you throw with enough conviction, sooner or later you're going to hit a bullseye and win some games. You just hope everyone ignored the 7 and 2 you hit with your other two darts.
I am pretty sure doesn't need any help formulating his questions. You may want to assist Al in coming up with viable answers.
Take a page from Frank Ricard in Old School: "W....what happened? I blacked out."
Isn't the coordinators press conference only exist before a game?
I remember after the ND game this year, it was a bye week, and Borges doesn't have a press conference until the Purdue week.
Is this the same in this case, where we might have to wait till bowl season?
After 12 games the running game is entirely Denard. Is the lack of running back productivity a result of scheme, play calling or talent?
I find it unacceptable for Borges to escape a grilling with only 14 yards on 10 carries from Smith & Rawls. Our short yardage offense was abysmal.
Borges has talked to the media before. Are you going to sit in a room and touch yourself if someone asks an intelligent question? Do you really think Hoke thought the short-yardage offense was good?
Shouldn't he be? Shouldn't Denard be the whole running game? He is/was our best running back? It bothers me that the one year RichRod runs Denard into the ground, he barely misses playing time. But, the two years we try to "keep Denard fresh," he gets seriously hurt, and our offense is severely affected by it. Irony.
You saw something that Ohio was doing schematically which casued you to deviate from the gameplan which worked so well in the first half. What was that?
Also, please explain what deficiency in Ohio's defense you were trying to exploit when running from the I-form package.
I would have liked us to run the diamond/inverted wishbone QB sweep a few more times to try and get the edge or find a crease there.
Who do you think you are?
Do you flip a coin or roll dice to determine the next play you are going to run?
How do you think Ohio's halftime adjustment of " tackling the guy with the ball" affected your play calling?
Will you be receiving a pair of gold pants as well?
What do you think will win film of the year? Lincoln, Life of Pi, or The Hobbit?
Mr. Borges, what have you seen over this year that made you think running from the I-Formation would work?
Why was Denard not used as a running back against Ohio?
Why did you run so many trick plays against a terrible team when you could have saved them for Ohio?
The damage is already done. Even if somebody had the balls to ask these questions, I would only be furious with the answer.
"Do you think bubble screens would have helped Michigan move the ball in the second half?"
might as well troll him.
Al: "Did you apologize to the offensive or defensive players first for that debacle?"
In the words of the great Joe Pesci in his academy award winning performance in the epic film My Cousin Vinny...."Maybe you're ready for a thicker set of glasses"
Remember when there was that mini offseason drama about Borges taking a HC job somewhere? Just think of how that could have turned out for us. Yes, we were probably a bit more positive about him at the time, but that would have given us a chance to break the bank on a great OC without much drama.
I'd like to ask him how much money he won betting on Ohio State? Because that is the only explanation for his play calling in the 2nd half.
You saw what you saw! Clearly saw what you saw!! I just watched it again for the 10th time! Clearly saw what you saw! Hats of to the D they kept us on the game in the 3rd and 4th quarter when you saw what you saw with the play calling in those quarters!! I'm still pissed! I hate Ohio!! Go blue!!
Ask him this: How many times do you believe that it takes to run a single failed play before you conclude that it's not going to work?
That's a legitimate question.
Well we know the answer will be higher than 612.....
Denards final run in the first half was pretty successful...given that Ohio was without their best lineman, who plays on the edge, why did we not continually run that play towards the edge in the 2nd half!
Question 2: we saw a lot of devin and denard together vs. fricken Iowa...why did we not see more of it, particularly in the 2nd half against Ohio?
You didn't seem to notice Robinson needing to break tackles and juke defenders in the backfield in order to get outside? Because he did, every time. We couldn't block them at any point.
Not every time. His long TD run was exactly something Ace was calling for after watching a Nebraska game where the Huskers ran an option out of the veer look. I have only seen it live from the top of the stadium so far but I think Borges RPS'd that one.
This wasn't a Robinson play but the other long TD in the first half was a big RPS as well--there were three WRs bunched to that side against two defenders.
according to both Denard and Hoke after the game per ESPN. It just wasn't called. The real question should be why Devin and Denard weren't on the field at all after halftime. Why were all those plays wasted against Iowa? Why continue running play action when you have no run game? Could the O coordinator breath because his head was clearly up his ass?
We'll never get the answers we really want to hear.
The main question that needs to be asked is why there were NO plays in the second half (specifically 4th Qtr) with both Devin & Denard in?
All I know is if this incompetency continues next year, he should be bumped down to QB coach and relieved of his OC duties.
We really want to know the issues the solutions for 2013 (assume min changes for the bowl), not to cast backwards blame.
Could some probes on scheme and goals for next year induce him to indicate this year's core problems:
What formation and blocking style will you focus most time during the spring?
Which college or pro team currently executes an offense that is closest to UM in 2013?
Without Denard and given the low yardage from RBs this year, what position will pick-up the carries and yards? When will a "feature back" become a staple of UM's O?
You installed your version of the West Coast O in less than 2 yrs at SDSU. How will the offense in yr 3 at UM closely resemble your SDSU O or stay simlar to UM 2012?