Should coach Hoke start wearing the head sets when Michigan is in the red zone? Al Borges has made some questionable calls in the red zone especially on 1st and goal. I know that Vincent Smith made a bad throw, but why even take that risk when it's first down? On another 1st and goal he had Denard pass and he was sacked. I'm just wondering if coach Hoke would have over ruled some of these calls if he knew before hand. The 4th and inches call against MSU in the red zone last season was a gamble that he lost as well. It just seems to me that Borges takes to many risks when he doesn't need to. The defense was playing great and Michigan didn't need a ton of points to win this game. What do you guys think?
Red Zone Debacle
I'm going to be alone it this, but I have no problem with the HB pass. Dileo was open if Smith could have made a throw. At some point you need to trust your senior running back to eat the ball if the pass wasn't available.
If that play works borges is lauded by everybody around the country as a masterful coordinator pulling out all the stops to defeat a rival, but smith messed it up because he had a dude in his face and paniced so now everybody is all butt hurt at borges about it. I loved the call and its not like smith hasnt run that play before (last year against minnesota and I believe a few other times). Play just got blown up and defense made a play, defense is there to play too.
MY FIRST DOUBLE POST!!!! BOOYAH!!!
You're not alone... it's not necessarily a bad play call, he hasn't shown that look this year (as far as i remember) and it worked last year. Vince Smith typically sells it well. If it goes for a TD no one would even have called that play risky. Because it really wasn't that risky... no more than any other pass play.
What's funny is, after this game, i actually think we're better than I thought we were. I thought we were going to have an offense that didn't move the ball at all, but had an occasional big play (e.g. Alabama, VT, etc.) We moved the ball against "a good D." Denard had, what, 90 yards rushing? Breathe folks, breathe.
No more risky than any other pass play? Seriously? Our 5'6 RB throwing from the backfield to a 5'9 WR? Given the situation, it was a terrible play call.
He was rolled out and there's pretty much one target... i don't see how that's more risky than a standard pass play. Like i said though, i wish the target were DG. That play has worked more than it hasn't.
It's riskier in two ways- it takes a longer time to develop, and the guy throwing the ball is not used to handling that type of situation, resulting in poor decision making.
Unfortunately i still haven't been able to watch footage of the game, i was there live, but from the times in the past that this was run, he's rolled out, and there aren't all that many hands in his face. it's not like it was a 40 yard bomb. V. Smith is more than capable of making that play, he has in the past. it just didn't work this time. That play was just as covered as the play to Kerridge that DG threw.
As mentioned below, it may not be good timing for that play call.. i see that argument, i just dont think it's a bad play (in general.)
But w/ Teo in his face, Vincent panicked and threw a jump pass (off of his back foot in mid air, if that's possible), and badly missed behind Dileo, right into the ND defender's path.
Hey my first one too!
happens to us all.
We were in control...I thought both lines showed improvement and promise moving forward.
Dileo was heading to the back corner of the end zone. Smith leaps up and throws it almost across his body back towards the middle of the endzone. WTF was that? Throw the fucking ball to the corner (where your WR is heading) or throw it to your girlfriend/mom/anyotherfriendorrelativesufficientlyhighupinthestands.
thrown it to the corner but he was blinded by the smoke from his finger guns.
and probably would have scored. It was 1st and goal and Denard had just completed 5 of 6. There was absolutely no need for that play call at the juncture. Maybe on 3rd down, I wouldn't have had a problem with it, or definitely later in the game when Denard was completing more passes to the other team, but not when Denard was playing well.
THIS, i agree with. Excellent point that i'll concede. This is not a first down play. I won't argue with you there. If this were Alabama, i could see us trying to trick ND, just yet.
The problem with running it on 3rd down is it would have much less chance of success. The fact is it was pretty much open if he threw it somewhere near the receiver.
I'm still not saying he should or shouldn't have called it, but if he was going to 1st down was the best shot.
That's the kind of play you run on 3rd and short when the D is trying to cheat up and stuff your "obvious" run play. It doesn't make sense to try and trick a defense when your regular plays work fine. And Dileo was NOT wide open for a RB pass play. Did you see this play the last time we ran it? Dileo was wide open then and he still had to drag his feet by the sideline to make the catch from Smith.
Actually, I think a play like that is almost always run on 1st down, so the offense has two more chances if it fails (and isn't intercepted). Also, on 1st down the threat of the run is much more credible. On 3rd and goal, we would not run the ball from the 10-yard line.
The playcall was a gamble, but I don't think it was necessarily a terrible call. It's hard to score touchdowns on ND. They've given up three all season, and one (against Navy) was in garbage time against their second string. Unfortunately, the worst-case scenario happened.
When we ran it against Minnesota it was on a 2nd and 4 from the 17 at the beginning of the second quarter. Vincent Smith had 3 carries for 19 yards and a TD up to that point, including a 10 yard run on that same drive. There was actually a threat of him running the ball. This was our second drive and Smith had 0 carries. The safety was not thinking "Oh no, a Vincent Smith toss to the outside! He has been gashing us so I'd better come up in support!" Instead he got to be all "Oh wow, Te'o is about to kill this gu...Oh here comes the ball."
You're definitely not alone... but I'm not with you. I get the argument, a lot of people are making it, but we were moving the ball. There was no reason to take that risk. AND, as far as I could tell on tv, ND wasn't exactly sending their safeties screaming upfield every time we handed it off or tossed it. They didn't need to. I just see it in the same category as all those stupid play actions from under center.
What is wrong with this sentence? " You have to trust your senior RB to eat the the ball if the PASS isn't there."
Why is my senior RB even put in a position on the 10 yd line to make a pass into the endzone? Not to mention the only setup to the play was a toss to the other side with the other RB that got blown up?
I 'd bet the farm if he makes the that call from the 25 or beyond people are still upset but it wouldn't be as bad as it is for this.
Either way I think all of us can agree that Borges needs to stop getting cute in the redzone and just pound it one way or another.
I get it. Passing the ball isn't Smith's role. That's a fair point. But playing smart shouldn't be dependent on position.
I couldn't agree more.
I hate to be half-glass-empty, but Borges play calling was horrendous. After the first couple drives, I was impressed at our O-lines ability to make a pocket. It didn't necesicarly equate to points, but from the onset, it was obvious that Borges was running some tricky plays. Two end arounds........got the Defense on their toes....maybe to a fault.
As for the headset....that's all I've heard from arm-chair-qb's, after the game. Does that mean that hoke really has no clue what Borges is calling? I can't imagine anyone with half a football mind would allow a 5'8" kid, to toss the ball into the End ZOne, when you have a 6'4" Devin Garder, available. Mechanics, and decision making......just poor from start to finish...
not for nothing, but i'd rather have 5'8'' ince smith make that pass to a 6'3'' gardner, than a 6'3'' gardner passing that to anyone on the field. Plus, it would have been even more obvious what we were doing. So if anything, i just wish the target was DG on that play.
I would prefer Borges when it comes to calling the offense. Hoke in the presser said the Smith call was a great call.
Where, exactly, are you in Bolivia? Want to hang? I'm currently residing in a middling community in Cochabamba. Haven't met many people, yet.
Im at the welcome center skinning guinea pigs for lunch.
Hoke in the presser said the Smith call was a great call.
Of course Hoke, to his credit, will never criticize another member of the program, be it a player or coach, in public. (That's not to say that he didn't like the call, just that we can't really tell from that soundbite.)
I think we don't need to re-hash this over and over again. Hoke does not mess much with his coordinators. It's a reason why people like working with him. He's done a great job so far, and asking him to interfere in stuff he doesn't know a lot about will turn into the RR days. Your suggestion is ridiculous. If Hoke doesn't like the calls, he'll find a different OC. Personally, it's way to early, and Borges has had good games as well.
They should just kick field goals everytime we get past the opponent's 30. If we had done that on Saturday we would have won, even with a few misses. lol
The V Smith pass was not a bad call. He just made a really bad throw. Dileo was open but Smith threw way behind him. He was facing pressure from the hulking manbeast that is Manti T'eo, he wanted to get rid of the ball.
Shit happens. We beat ourselves, the defense gave us plenty of chances, and we simply did not execute. As we learned from last year's game, turnovers will absolutely kill you.
I'm sorry but on first down that is a bad call.
I would have preferred to see a throw back screen to Denard
Because it didn't work? It's easy to criticize, but why be conventional on first down. I've read the same negative comments about running play-action on obvious passing downs from under center. Borges gets slammed for being conventional when he should "open up the playbook" and conversely for having terrible play calls when he should have been more conservative. If the play worked, he would have been called a genius. Instead, the masses are wondering how well he fits as our coordinator given the personnel. Some people just can't win...
Do you think that Borges will simplify the offense going forward?
I still don't understand the lack of a short passing game (bubble/lazer screens - or something into the flat). Does UM not have the personnel? Is that not part of the WCO?
Apologies for being WCO Offense ignorant.
I wonder if Borges did the trick plays to try to force big ten teams to prepare for just ONE MORE THING against Michigan? kind of like with the diamond packages last year?
I think we should all storm down to Schembechler Hall and punch Borges in the face. What a B1G jerk face.
Seriously though, we're gonna be fine. Relax, go smoke a bowl or something.
I like cheese.
Swiss, Bleu, muenster?
Like others guys if he makes that play it would be the best call ever so theres no reason to keep going back and forth...what i had a problem with is just like the drive before the hb pass throwing pitches in the redzone against a fast athletic front 7, i dont even throw pitches in madden bc everything has to be perfect and i havent seen this team do them unless im mistaken. You run denard 4 times plain and simple rich rod did bascially our offence should play off denard..because now teams are just gonna rush 4 and zone up and let his beat them with his arm. More qb rollouts and more running with fitz., we came out that 2nd half and ran the ball all over them then stopped.
I seem to recall about a bazillion points left on the field in 2010 due to our poor red-zone execution. Three Denard carries in a row and then a missed field goal sums up the year nicely. Hell, look at Arizona this weekend. They only had 160 fewer yards than Oregon and were beat 49-0.
Arizona was also terrible in the redzone against Toledo. They needed OT to beat a team they massively outgained because they kept failing to cash in when they got close.
There does seem to be a lot of revisionism going around about the Rodriguez years lately. When he was actually our coach, lots of fans hated his play-calling, especially in the red zone and short yardage situations (Vincent Smith had a lot of 3rd and 1 carries).
Rather than engage in a point-by-point response to the textual interpretation of Al Borges's fulminations, I want to respond to the more general issue at hand. First and foremost, some people apparently believe that if we don't bother Al, Al won't bother us. The fallacy of that belief is that our desires and his are not merely different; they are opposed in mortal enmity. Al wants to skewer me over a pit barbecue. We, in contrast, want to alert people that I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that only through education can individuals gain the independent tools they need to compile readers' remarks and suggestions and use them to take stock of what we know, identify areas for further research, and provide a useful starting point for debate on his biased casus belli. But the first step is to acknowledge that Al used to be a major proponent of larrikinism. Nowadays, he's putting all of his support behind fogyism. As they say, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Al's tender and delicate adjustments and readjustments of his convictions may succeed at convincing a few disingenuous headcases that the world is crying out to labor beneath his firm but benevolent heel. Nevertheless, a man is known by the company he keeps. That's why I urge you to consider the Chaucerian panorama of draffsacks in Al's retinue: deceitful, renitent schnorrers, morally crippled Zoilists, and sullen scatterbrains, just to name a few. It's almost as if Al wants us to think that his catch-phrases are based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit the truth, will have some very serious consequences for all of us when you least expect it. Al doesn't perceive that anything is wrong with him. Still, I recommend you check out some of Al's assertions and draw your own conclusions on the matter. Now that this letter has come to an end, I hope you walk away from it realizing that Al Borges has become a patsy to his own malevolence.
WTF are you talking about? I feel dumber having read this, if only because I don't understand it at all.
If a DE that is a foot taller than you is in your face, tuck the ball and run so you don't have to launch the thing a mile in the air.
Borges' red zone calls. I might pull a little trickery later in the game ONCE our offense fails to control the running game line of scrimmage ... but our first 2 trips to the 10 yard line saw ZERO attempts at power football. Turns out that M liine was productive against their vaunted defense. Makes me wonder if Borges doubted our O line and was reading the South Bend paper /S.
Also leads me to think that at halftime Hoke told Borges to "PLAY FOOTBALL" not gimmicks. We played a solid 2nd half offensively and Denard's fumble in the 3rd quarter was the turning point in the game ... because we had dominated that entire quarter and if we had punchd in 2 scores and taken the lead .... well whatever.
Weird that I feel better about team 133 now than before the loss.
might pull a little trickery later in the game ONCE our offense fails to control the running game line of scrimmage
But trick plays aren't desperation moves. They're supposed to catch the opponent off-guard. They're probably most effective earlier in the game, when the opposing team has no particular reason to see them coming.
I'm sorry, but Borges seems blind in how to enhance the best part of the offense, which is Denard running. They averaged 5.1 minus sacks/bad snaps and that was with Notre Dame cheating and not covering the slot the whole game. I wish that when coaches said they would adjust to personnel that they would actually do it. I lose my frickin mind everytime Michigan lines up under center. Lining up under center renders the most dangerous aspect of Michigan's attack useless and when you are controlling the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball it is painful to watch. Borges is outsmarting himself.
I honestly think Smith seen Te'o coming for him and just threw it up. The play was still out of place with the flow and how Denard was picking them apart that drive. So Borges has to take at least half the blame and Smith gets the other half as a senior who should have just ate the ball.
a very good creative offensive mind but needs to be more conservative on 1st and goal and feel out the defense first, then maybe later on use those creative plays if he feels necessary
For purposes of this discussion, Michigan's red zone efficiency since 2010:
2010: 44 of 57, 40 TDs and 4 FGs.
2011: 49 of 58, 37 TDs and 12 FGs.
2012 (through 9/22/2012): 11 of 14, 8 TDs and 3 FGs.
The 2012 stats are through 4 games, of course, but the point here is that when Denard Robinson took over the duties of starting QB in 2010, we experienced a 12% jump in red zone efficiency. When Borges took over the offense, we experienced a further improvement. The way things are shaping up in the conference, I would expect similar results or even marginally better than 2011 for our red zone efficiency. Barring Notre Dame, our experiences in the red zone have not exactly been nightmarish overall.
As for the headset, one of the great things about Hoke's management style is that he gives the coordinators great leeway to make decisions, and it is probably one of the reasons some of the best want to work for him. We can argue individual calls obviously, and sometimes rightly so, but we can't really argue with the bump in overall success. When we're humming, we're humming, and Al is also part of that as well.
You want to use numbers? You're not addressing the issues!!!!1111111111111
3 in one game dude. How's that for numbers.
Regaring "some of the best want to work for him" -- I agree that the phrase applies to Mattison, and I'm certainly glad Hoke+Brandon's newfound checkbook made that happen. But it's hard to see how some of the rest of the staff would qualify.
How did Borges fare in his stint at UCLA, especially in 1999 and 2000 (after years to implement his system)? His two years (and five wins) at Indiana? Did he develop the offense at Auburn, showing improvement year over year? When he had a senior QB at Auburn, who had started for 3 years, was he showing the hallmarks of a well-coached QB in a well-designed offense? Or was this senior completing less than 60% of his passes, with a TD-to-INT ratio of 9:13? After being let go from Auburn, he doesn't work for a year, and then ends up in the Mountain West. Hoke was the right person at the right time to unite the Michigan football community, but let's be honest about Borges.
Putting aside everything else about Saturday, do those who think Borges is doing a tremendous job at OC believe that the drive with 6 minutes left down two scores reflected a well-coached, effective up-tempo/2 minute drill type offense? Modern teams run much faster as a base, yet we could not speed up even when we needed to.
I realize that we found some amber with the 1997 UCLA offense DNA in it, and thought re-animating it would be an inexpensive, MANBALL way to get Michigan back to being Michigan, but sometimes it just pays not to fight evolution.
I hate it when coaches outthink themselves in the red zone after their standard offense mows its way down field to have first and goal.
Just keep running your stuff.
If any of the other 119 coaches in FBS had done that, i would pound them for it. Same for Gorgeous Al. Save the trick play for later. You deserve to get burned for playing it cute down there
I think we'll be ok with Al in the future. We all kinda knew it would be a little rough when these coaches first came to A2. I'm thrilled with the defensive play. Mattison sure has rallied these guys over the past few weeks and they played one of the best games I've seen Michigan D play in a long time. It's always bothered me that Hoke doesn't wear a headset. He's the only coach I see that doesn't wear one.. why is that?? It has just never made me comfortable about Brady. I love the guy but I just don't get it.. anyone else feel this way?