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.

I would prefer Borges when it comes to calling the offense. Hoke in the presser said the Smith call was a great call.

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.

…next question.

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 don't think the Smith thing was a bad call. He's a senior and he's executed that play sucessfully before. Borges had every reason to think he would execute it well on Saturday. Credit to notre dame's defender for not breaking off of dileo

I like cheese.

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.

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.