Space Coyote: "Play calling put players in a position to succeed."
Space Coyote brings a provocative play by play counter-assessment of Al's playcalls, and concludes with support of Al's overall game.
Personally, I think he's partially right: Al Borges used a lot more variety and counter work than people give him credit for, and given the weaknesses and strengths of the team, produced a gameplan that was good enough put Michigan up by ten in the fourth quarter.
When you have no OL and a QB that turns it over, your options are limited, and he worked with those options.
Where I hold Borges responsible? He's the offensive coordinator. He bears some responsibility for the line being bad in the first place. More significantly, he is the QB coach, and I don't have a lot of faith in him in that capacity. I wonder how much of Devin's TO trouble is coaching related.
October 18th, 2013 at 10:09 AM ^
The 1/10 chance of a sack pretty much matches what happened in the game - ~33 dropbacks, 3 sacks.
As for the likelihood of getting positive yardage - 90% is probably a bit high. Based on past completion numbers for "extended handoff" type passes, it's probably more like 70%.
So call it 10% chance of lost yardage, 20% chance of incompletion, 70% chance of positive yardage.
As for running - for the game:
18% chance of losing yards (5/27) with an average loss of 3 yards.
37% chance of no gain (10/27)
44% chance of positive yardage (12/27) with an average of 3.5 yards
October 17th, 2013 at 3:31 PM ^
I've noted this elsewhere in this post.
And the idea behind this post has never been that everyone else is wrong and Borges is right. The point has always been that there is no "one right way to do things and everything else is wrong". There are many philosophies and schemes and in terms of what Borges is trying to do in the situation, they make sense.
October 17th, 2013 at 2:35 PM ^
First, there was clear pass interference on the throw to Butt on 2nd and 13 in overtime #2. The LB slaps Butt's right hand away (heh!) just before the ball arrives. The last replay angle shows this clearly.
Second, while I agree with Space Coyote that there's no way Borges can predict PSU would come out with a formation that stacks the box, I think the point is that Gardiner has not been given an option to check into something else and/or the play gets in so late that there's no time on the playclock to signal in a new play.
October 17th, 2013 at 2:52 PM ^
The PI was clear on replay, but in real time it looked like he just made a good play on the ball
October 17th, 2013 at 2:59 PM ^
Yeah, that's true.
October 17th, 2013 at 3:00 PM ^
I called it out to my lady as we watched. The replay merely confirmed it. In some sense though it doesn't matter the goal should be not to be in the position that a call can cost you the game. Bad calls happen.
October 17th, 2013 at 2:36 PM ^
October 17th, 2013 at 2:41 PM ^
I'll stick to what I have always thought of Borges given the facts of his career, the longer he stays at one place the more predictable he gets.
I like SC and how he explains things...with that said he seems to be on the side of the "you stop us" type of offense that Michigan has done for years. I completely understand of not letting someone dictate what you want to accomplish but that was fine in the early 90's, Football has changed since then and it has given every chance for the O to succeed.
October 17th, 2013 at 3:33 PM ^
First, I'd like to say this isn't my philosophy, my post is in regards to Borges thinking, scheme, philosophy, etc, that what he did made sense.
He also very much adjusted his play calling. He didn't continue to bang his head against a brick wall. I think people perceive he did, but he didn't.
October 17th, 2013 at 3:57 PM ^
The PBP certainly bears this out. In the 2nd half, Fitz ran the ball 4 times total outside of the clock-killing drive. My main gripe has been Borges inability to draw up a sequence of plays that take advantage of the previous series, play, etc. He runs his gameplan, adjusts slightly at halftime, and goes from there.
That was my previous point. It's not that Borges didn't counter, he did, but we were already down 11 by that point and could've been down more if not for the defense. If Al sees that stacked box on the first run play, he needs to adjust immediately, not 29 minutes later after wasting a half.
I think the OL play, the turnover bug biting Gardner, and Borges' way of thinking (by drive instead of by play) limits the offense big time. Not that I'm accusing you of trying to absolve Borges of all criticism.
October 17th, 2013 at 7:03 PM ^
into stacked fronts with 6 or so blockers is not banging your head against a wall? 27 carries for 27 yards is not banging your head against a wall? Give me a break.
October 17th, 2013 at 11:42 PM ^
Folks are parroting 27 like it's the magical number for TOO MANY RB HANDOFFSS!!!!
But completely ignore the fact that Michigan had NINETEEN (19!!!!) drives in this game, and over 90 offensive snaps. Including Green's 3 carries, that works out to 33% handoffs to your RB.
You can still think that's banging your head against a wall, and there is a bit of an argument to be mad ethere. But I think people are forgetting the context there...contrary to Michigan's game against Minnesota (they only had 8 drives and people were so ANGAR that they didn't blow them out earlier...), this game had a TON of drives. So naturally, the number of futile RB handoffs will be greater in this case. You can't just never hand the ball off again.
October 17th, 2013 at 2:44 PM ^
I appreciate Coyote's analysis, as I think it's important for the fanbase to recognize the ways in which Borges does adjust when things aren't working.
The problem I have is that his adjustments, while schematically sound, don't seem to address the real problems. His adjustments are in response to what the defense is doing (within the limited set of things he's willing to do, obviously), which is important, but they are not in response to how his offense is performing.
Given:
-Devin Gardner, despite his TO problem, is one of the most effective QBs in the nation,
-His receiver corps is very solid,
-His OL sucks,
it doesn't matter how schematically legit his adjustments are if they rely on a good OL and ignore his talent elsewhere.
That Borges seems to have doubled down on his mistakes rather than simply calling the stuff that works more often is very concerning to me.
October 17th, 2013 at 2:57 PM ^
October 17th, 2013 at 10:55 PM ^
running gardner just one or two more times at the end of regulation or the first OT likely wins the game. so he ran 20+ times, but that extra one or two may get him injured. i think that's a weak argument. granted, i don't want garder running that much. 10-12 times is my preference; primarily from reads/vears with a few pass scrambles.
October 17th, 2013 at 2:46 PM ^
I'm pleased to read from SC that Borges was actually "aggressive" when needed, and conservative when appropriate.
We spend a lot of time whining about the last :50 of the game then the OTs, but it wouldn't have been necessary if Michigan wasn't constantly gifting points away to the opponent.
1st Qtr: 11:57 INT to Jordan Lucas to UM14 (Results in 7 pts for PSU)
2nd Qtr: 14:50 INT to Anthony Zettel returned to UM18 (Another 7 pts for PSU)
2nd Qtr: 7:06 Gardner fumbles at PSU 40, killing drive that started at UM28.
Sure Michigan got their scooped up TD from a PSU fumble too.
But Michigan's turnover plague is just not getting better week to week.
Obviously Michigan isn't good enough defensively to bail out such mistakes. As long as that's the case, I think we should expect many more wins or losses by a butthair (like PSU) for the rest of the year, and probably again this Saturday.
Somehow, the 43-40 4OT score is very fitting outcome, because in this horrible BIG10 league of 2013 neither Penn State nor Michigan are very good football teams.
October 17th, 2013 at 4:40 PM ^
wanted to say I really appreciate seeing an opposing viewpoint. It can kind of sound like an echo chamber around here, especially after a tough loss so it's good to hear a differing opinion
October 17th, 2013 at 5:15 PM ^
I think people's main problems were the run plays borges called in the 1st OT and 3rd OT, and that those runs were from I-formation--something we have been terrible executing for the last 2+ years and had been terrible at in this very game.
So on 1st and 10, you really shouldn't expect a run from the I-formation to do much. You can talk all you want about getting the the defensive in the alignments you want them in, but we've done nothing this year to show we can take advantage of that power.
On 2nd and 9, a gain of 2 yards should not be "pretty much exactly what Michigan wants."
On 3rd and 1, a run up the middle, which has not worked all day, should not be expected to pick up the first down. You should just kick the field goal then if that is what you're strategy is.
Those 3 plays alone are what I, and I think several others, are beefing. Now, you can't look at plays in a vacuum and all that, sure. But, it kind of felt a liiiiitle bit like a straw-man argument because it talked a lot more about the possessions where we wanted a TD, and glossed over the main play calls people disliked.
October 17th, 2013 at 5:20 PM ^
October 17th, 2013 at 5:32 PM ^
The most commonly cited reason is that if you have a bad snap, you can eat the ball on 3rd down, and try again on 4th.
But, captain foresight here: if you kick on 3rd and 1, the defense is gonna be pretty confused. They can't sell out on the kick, because they may be more scared you're gonna fake it. Makes it less likely that they'll block the kick.
Those are my two best shots.
October 17th, 2013 at 5:23 PM ^
I completely agree with SC's assessment of the OTs and the play-calling. It is spot on. He has demonstrated perfectly valid reasons for all of the calls Borges made.
BUT, that doesn't get to my specific gripe. Borges uses "set-up" plays to open spaces for big plays later. He does this very well. But his big plays are already set-up when we start the game because teams are playing to our tendency (ie, run on first).
What I would like to have seen (and to see) is for Borges to come out throwing, and force teams to do what PSU did--switch to seven in the box. THEN we can run the ball.
I understand AB's hesitancy--his QB is a turnover machine. But we've proven we can't run the ball against stacked fronts. And we have two very good receiving options in Gallon and Funchess, and some good role players in Dileo, Butt, and Chesson.
Borges should, IMO, be using the pass to set-up the run early in games with our team. We simply have not shown the ability to run the ball with any consistency. And he should be quicker to bail from the MANBALL philosophy to try force the defense to react.
We just can't run into stacked fronts. So I think it's on our OC to "un-stack" the defense. That said, I understand his hesitation given DG's proclivity for turnovers.
October 17th, 2013 at 6:37 PM ^
October 17th, 2013 at 5:23 PM ^
Finally some sanity on this. Amazing what a group think can develop in a place like this, especially when the rarely questioned "gurus" lead the way.
October 17th, 2013 at 5:27 PM ^
October 17th, 2013 at 5:27 PM ^
October 17th, 2013 at 7:05 PM ^
It's just incredible to me that Michigan can turn in the worst RB rushing performance in the history of the program, and people here are still defending Borges. What a joke.
October 17th, 2013 at 7:15 PM ^
Maybe it's time to find a new hobby.
October 17th, 2013 at 7:17 PM ^
October 17th, 2013 at 7:31 PM ^
Ha as if there is some good explanation for producing the worst performance in 134 YEARS. Oh but excuse me and my idiocy. I am simply too stupid to see how the nuances of such a complex sport would easily explain a historical low point in our running game. Surely a more intelligent view of our playcalling would allow me to see how brilliant it is to run 27 times for 27 yards. And just out of curiousity, why is SC an expert? What are his credentials? Do you even know?
October 17th, 2013 at 7:36 PM ^
October 17th, 2013 at 7:40 PM ^
He's a troll. Ignore him. This is his third account at least and he'll be banned in 3.2.1
October 17th, 2013 at 7:23 PM ^
to criticize Borges? I mean honestly no matter what the guy does people continue to make excuses for him. When you're running into stacked boxes with 6 blockers against 8 and 9 defenders mutiple times, when you have better options available ( quick screen passes, etc.), that is the defination of banging your head against a wall. The fact that this team never checks at the line is also a fair criticism of the offensive scheme.
The fact of the matter is Al is a guy with a middling track, and has done nothing to indicate he is any better that. That might be good enough for some teams with lesser aspirations, but not for a program that has aspirations of being a championship team at some point. I don't see who in their right mind could think Al is an championship caliber OC based on what he has shown so far. Al does not have a good enough career track record, to sit there and blindly trust the guy as some of you are proposing.
I understand the o-line being terrible makes AL's job more difficult, but that doesn't excuse not taking what is given to you as an OC. Al is obviously not the only problem right now, but that doesn't mean his playcalling has been optimal.
October 17th, 2013 at 7:33 PM ^
I don't think anyone is saying Borges should be immune from criticism. Noone has defended the OL and its inability to move the point of attack, and everyone can agree that is a direct result of insufficient coaching. That's a problem.
That said, I don't think it is as easy as everyone thinks to call a game. Borges gets too engaged in the chess match sometimes and ignores the low hanging fruit. Hopefully, he is open to the feedback from the staff, players and peers. I hope he's not taking the feedback from the fickle neophyte media or bloggers to develope his game plan.
October 17th, 2013 at 7:48 PM ^
easy, but even a casual fan can tell it is not a good idea to run into a stacked box with 2-3 less blockers than defenders.
Also people keep on glossing over the fact that the offense never checks at the line is a major issue. There were several plays that were DOA before the snap, when something more productive would have been available with a check. Even Carr's teams utilized checks at the line.
October 17th, 2013 at 7:48 PM ^
There were also several plays that were money because of running into a stacked box. Its tough to know what the right balance is. I'd tend to agree that 27/27 isn't where its at, but we have the benefit of hindsight, and a loss, to view the decisions.
October 17th, 2013 at 7:22 PM ^
I'm glad to see that Space Coyote has been saying this, because I've been saying the same thing.
Offensive play calling has been an issue, yes, but it's not the issue.
It doesn't matter what plays you call if your offensive line is consistently mis-reading assignments, late to assignments, and getting blown off the ball. That needs to be fixed.
We have to be better at the point of attack, and that starts with knowing where the point of attack is and getting there. That will fix a whole host of our offensive problems and allow for a bit more creativity in terms of play calling because the coaches will have more confidence in the offensive line's ability to execute those plays.
October 17th, 2013 at 7:28 PM ^
So fixing our terrible offensive line will allow us to call plays that rely less on the blocking skills of our offensive line? Huh? Do you think the way to mitigate a bad line is to run straight into it 30 times? And do you think a great O line of 5 guys can handle 7 blockers? Is that what you are saying?
October 17th, 2013 at 7:27 PM ^
you can put all of those runs on the o-line. Running into stacked boxes is doom for any offensive line, let alone one that isn't very good.
That is ok though, people can keep on believing that better personal will magically make a OC with a mediocre track record into a championship caliber one.
October 17th, 2013 at 7:30 PM ^
Yep. Forget the fact that roughly 60 teams are both younger than Michigan and have a higher YPC from the RB position. It's all personnel! Nevermind the two all-Big Ten tackles and 5 star RS freshman. Just give it time! Perhaps next year. Oh wait, we lose both tackles and will have two new starters. Okay fine year 5! Yeah, year 5! Then will we have a good O line!
October 17th, 2013 at 8:06 PM ^
Running into stacked boxes doesn't equal doom all of the time. Teams run into stacked boxes or against run defenses all of the time, and with success.
For example, from what I've heard from people, there were certain plays where we were running against stacked boxes that, in theory, should have worked perfectly, but we just didn't execute.
If the defense is stacked to one side, and you are able to call a running play to the other side where you actually have a numbers advantage, it should be a solid play.
The problem is, we were not executing any blocks what so ever in the running game.
Our only positive running plays were essentially, "Devin scambles around wildly."
If you can't execute simple blocks and you're consistently getting destroyed at the point of attack, there is no way you can "scheme" your way around that fact.
October 17th, 2013 at 11:00 PM ^
October 17th, 2013 at 11:02 PM ^
Could Omar be next?
October 17th, 2013 at 11:13 PM ^
October 17th, 2013 at 11:28 PM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 10:15 AM ^
"For example, from what I've heard from people, there were certain plays where we were running against stacked boxes that, in theory, should have worked perfectly, but we just didn't execute."
No, what you've heard from people is there were certain plays where we were running against stacked boxes that, in theory, COULD have worked perfectly, but we just didn't execute.
October 18th, 2013 at 9:22 PM ^
No.
In theory they would have worked.
In practice they could have worked.
October 17th, 2013 at 7:36 PM ^
of the issue. The question is not whether some people think Al is not as bad as others are impying. The real question is whether he is the guy who can take this team to a championship level. Does anybody honestly believe that is the case right now?