Red Zone Debacle

Submitted by graybeaver on

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?

Blue-Chip

September 24th, 2012 at 1:24 PM ^

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.

HipsterCat

September 24th, 2012 at 1:39 PM ^

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.

willywill9

September 24th, 2012 at 1:39 PM ^

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.

willywill9

September 24th, 2012 at 3:36 PM ^

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.)

lbpeley

September 24th, 2012 at 1:41 PM ^

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.

hart20

September 24th, 2012 at 1:55 PM ^

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.

BlueManballGroup

September 24th, 2012 at 2:53 PM ^

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.

snarling wolverine

September 24th, 2012 at 5:31 PM ^

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.

 

BlueManballGroup

September 24th, 2012 at 7:34 PM ^

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."

evenyoubrutus

September 24th, 2012 at 2:09 PM ^

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.

JT4104

September 24th, 2012 at 5:18 PM ^

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.

langkyl

September 24th, 2012 at 1:24 PM ^

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...

willywill9

September 24th, 2012 at 1:41 PM ^

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.

snarling wolverine

September 24th, 2012 at 5:39 PM ^

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.)

FreddieMercuryHayes

September 24th, 2012 at 1:28 PM ^

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.

Perkis-Size Me

September 24th, 2012 at 1:42 PM ^

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.

Gary_B

September 24th, 2012 at 3:27 PM ^

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...

Bronco648

September 24th, 2012 at 2:06 PM ^

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.

akim

September 24th, 2012 at 2:11 PM ^

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?

Darker Blue

September 24th, 2012 at 2:21 PM ^

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. 

artds

September 24th, 2012 at 2:22 PM ^

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

these wolverines

September 24th, 2012 at 2:31 PM ^

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.

snarling wolverine

September 24th, 2012 at 6:17 PM ^

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).

 

 

mgowill

September 24th, 2012 at 2:31 PM ^

 

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.