A Unified Theory of Al Borges (and the offense)
I've watched with some fascination as the board and its notable proprietors have discussed the debacle that was last Saturday's game against Penn State. Much of what has been said matches my feelings, and hence there was a bit of catharsis in scanning all the commentary about Borges, the offense, and the rest. Read the Borges Conference Video thread for a good example of this exposition.
What the board has been developing is what I call a Theory of Al Borges. It goes something like this:
- Our goal should be to win games, usually by as much as possible.
- Playcalling should reflect this goal.
- Current playcalling does not always (or even, often) reflect this goal, repeatedly doing things we are "bad" at and not taking what the defense is giving you.
- As related, current playcalling is predictable and thus defenses know exactly what is coming before it is coming.
If these statements are in fact true, it would seem that there is almost no conclusion other than (1) Al Borges is pretty bad at coaching football, and that (2) we are never going to become the offensive juggernaut many of us are hoping for. I will thus call this "Dumb Borges" theory.
Can Al really be that bad at coaching football?
As more time passed since the game, I have found my inner eternal optimist coming out, and have tried to piece together a different theory of the offense. This theory I will call "Smart Borges" theory. It goes something like this:
- Our goal, at this point in the Hoke Era, is not just to win games, but to set up to be a powerhouse in the future.
- To do so, we need to learn to be a power team, a.k.a., Manball.
- Given limited practice time, in-game time is being used not just to win games, but to see whether the O-line, etc., is able to block in certain ways, even if the defense knows it is coming.
- Thus, some fraction of playcalling will be frustrating by design, using games almost as if they are extra practice time.
- The reason this is happening in Year Three (and not Year One) is that Hoke and co. knew coming in that they had to win to establish credibility, and to do so with Denard. They did so, and now that the Denard era is over, are slowly building up to what they actually want to be.
- Thus, this year will feel a bit more like a Year One than perhaps we want, but only because that is exactly what the coaches want to do. And we know, from other examples, that Year Two can be really good.
Long story, short: perhaps the coaches are willing to sacrifice some wins this year to be better in the long run. They are using in-game time to see how the young guys do and give them real practice against live competition. While they are not throwing games away per se, this does have the effect of keeping games closer than we would like. In the Penn State game, it led to a highly improbable loss (after all, how many times are we going to give up a TD with 50 seconds left, or miss three field goals?), and it might lose us a few more games along the way this year. But, if successful, this will set up for a longer-term dynasty.
I desperately want to believe Smart Borges theory. I think there is some evidence for it, notably this excellent post (by rshp1). And like any good theory, it should be testable. If Smart Borges theory is true, I think we can make the following predictions about the upcoming season:
- That in some games this year, particularly where the staff thinks a win is likely, we will run some incredibly predictable and terrible plays. These games will be closer than we would like. Candidates: Indiana (esp. if we were not coming off a loss), maybe Iowa.
- That in "important" games this year, the staff will focus solely on winning, because they are not so oblivious to its importance. In these games, Borges and playcalling will make much more sense. Obvious candidates: MSU, OSU.
- That next year, we will have a much better and sensible run offense, with better blocking and rushing outcomes. And the year after that will be awesome.
So what do you think? Am I a rube for thinking that Smart Borges theory might be true? Which theory do you believe in? Or is there a third theory of what is happening in Michigan Football?
October 16th, 2013 at 11:26 AM ^
Sorry, too long of a post to comment...other than this comment.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:21 PM ^
take your pea-brain and GTFO
October 16th, 2013 at 1:13 PM ^
You're mighty tough.
October 16th, 2013 at 3:01 PM ^
seven paragraphs and some bullet points are just too damned hard to digest. We have come to this at mgoblog.
October 16th, 2013 at 3:11 PM ^
Clearly not too hard, just don't have the patience to read long posts like these.
October 16th, 2013 at 4:15 PM ^
But you felt the need to share your short attention span with the rest of us.
October 16th, 2013 at 9:35 PM ^
October 16th, 2013 at 11:28 AM ^
October 16th, 2013 at 11:35 AM ^
Yes Lewan didn't come back to help the team practice!
October 16th, 2013 at 11:50 AM ^
I think they want Lewan here to show the younger guys the ropes and also as a motivator/leader.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:48 PM ^
I think they want him here because he's a f'king All American player at tackle. They aren't "keeping him around" for inspiration; he's the best linemen they have by a country mile. You don't tell those guys to go to the pro or return just to inspire a bunch of kids who probably won't ever be as good as him.
October 16th, 2013 at 1:25 PM ^
of course, that, too. But they're not going to tell him, "Taylor, next year we are going to be phasing in a new scheme and we're going to be using our games as "extra practice time" so we think we'll lose more games next year. If you want to win a B10 championship, that's probably not going to happen, so go pro."
October 16th, 2013 at 11:32 AM ^
The problem is that the 'Dumb Borges' personality has been dominant for three seasons, this isn't the first time that its appeared. 'Smart Borges' has only ever really come out against ND.
October 16th, 2013 at 11:33 AM ^
October 16th, 2013 at 11:35 AM ^
I don't buy your "smart Borges" theory. Borges had all game to do what you're saying. He only "sacrificed a win" by continuing to do it late in the 4th and in OT. It makes a lot more sense to assume that Borges is simply terrified of Devin Gardner and wants to avoid turnovers at all costs, to the detriment of everything else.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:50 PM ^
Putting aside the shitty playcalls and Borge's murky 3-year record.... in the game immediately after akron and uconn, isn't it completely justified to be afraid of DG?
October 16th, 2013 at 6:16 PM ^
wasn't the game immediately following akron and uconn the minn game? with zero turnovers?
October 16th, 2013 at 6:39 PM ^
It makes a lot more sense to assume that Borges is simply terrified of Devin Gardner and wants to avoid turnovers at all costs, to the detriment of everything else.This, and also a lot of faith in Gibbons.
October 16th, 2013 at 11:38 AM ^
Something else to add to the Smart Borges theory: I don't there's any reason to believe that the spread --> manball transition should be especially easier than the manball --> spread transition. Some extra complexity to the spread, perhaps. However, you're still trying to get your players to do new things and approach the game differently.
I think there's a lot of merit to the idea that Hoke and his staff saw Rich Rod try the rip-the-band-aid-off approach and decided it wasn't conducive to their longevity. So they're taking the change a lot slower. Which in turn puts Year 3 a little behind what it might have been, but the fanbase doesn't immediately revolt either.
October 16th, 2013 at 11:39 AM ^
but Borges is making this team far worse than could/should be...your theories are just that: theories...and unlike gravity, Borges hasn't done jack-shit to prove that his "Smart Borges" gameplans work worth a dam against even mediocre defenses
October 16th, 2013 at 12:44 PM ^
It's a hypothesis, at best. One that I don't agree with, btw.
October 16th, 2013 at 3:04 PM ^
you are very correct
October 16th, 2013 at 11:39 AM ^
I'm with Herm Edwards on this one. You play. To win. The game. (not just The Game)
October 16th, 2013 at 11:48 AM ^
October 16th, 2013 at 12:08 PM ^
This is the best summary I've seen of the problems with the Borges offense. Although the bubble screen thing is been talked about ad nauseum, the fact is we are absolutely terrible at getting the ball in the hands of Gallon, or Toussaint, in the open field where they can make plays.
I still don't know how you throw a screen out to Gallon, he gets 13 yards, and you never touch that play again. Yet, you run Toussaint 27 times for essentially nothing. Also, where the heck are the RB screens in this offense? That was a bread and butter play for UM for years, an easy completion for your QB, and gets your running back the ball without a brick wall to run through.
October 16th, 2013 at 3:47 PM ^
and we probably get a big gain out of it. You're right; it used to be a bread and butter play for us.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:10 PM ^
as Brian said in the podcast, "all of these things are because that way of playing football makes you a pussy."
October 16th, 2013 at 11:59 AM ^
October 16th, 2013 at 12:47 PM ^
I literally LOL'ed at this as my students were working during class. Well done.
October 16th, 2013 at 1:39 PM ^
October 16th, 2013 at 1:58 PM ^
October 16th, 2013 at 11:42 AM ^
Don't you think WINNING would be the ultimate key to "long-term success"?
You win more games, you recruit better, you slowly impliment your system...etc etc
Sacrificing wins makes no sense. Pound the rock in spring and fall camp....if you're not going to be successful "revert" back to a different approach.
October 16th, 2013 at 11:45 AM ^
Long story short: there is no explanation for running the ball 27 times with your running backs when they only gain 27 yards in total.
Other than a Gary Busey-esque brain aneurysm.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:24 PM ^
October 16th, 2013 at 11:46 AM ^
Ah, I'm soaking in the irony that the OP will most likely be the first head coach fired in the NFL this year.
October 16th, 2013 at 11:46 AM ^
We'll keep the "Should He Stay Or Should He Go?" thread below, and this thread for other observations, but I am thinking that might be the cap on Borges threads. I don't see where people are doing much more than venting or speculating at this point, and we don't need endless threads for it.
October 16th, 2013 at 11:46 AM ^
I'd buy the "smart Borges theory" if we were spending the game grinding out 2-3 yards a carry from iso, power, and other man-blocked interior runs. That's what predictability in the name of maximizing game reps for our future identity would look like.
But we aren't - we added a lot of new stuff (zone stretch, pistol, "tackle over") that doesn't directly apply to the BIG TEHN POWAH MANBALLLLL model. Why do that, unless you're flailing to find an identity that you've yet to nail down?
October 16th, 2013 at 11:55 AM ^
Did you already forget GERG? I'm sure if you search, there is a "Smart Gerg" theory somewhere on MGoBlog.
The problems with your theory are:
1) Hoke and every single player talk about winning the B1G Championship.
2) Do you think Lewan came back to basically be a practice helper or to win every game?
3) Fitz is not a manball type RB (and can't passblock, IMO), but he could be successful in a spread scheme (see 2 years ago).
4) Lining up Lewan and Schofield does not have anything to do about next year, as both kids are gone and Michigan won't have 2 Sr. NFL players on the line at the same time to replicate this.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:05 PM ^
As beaten to death on this board, the offensive creativity inclusive of 1) allowing for and encouraging audibles at the line 2) 1st down play selection and 3) tempo are all not there which is minimizing your basic advantage as the offense to control the content of the game.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:15 PM ^
Is people claiming that Borges isn't even trying to call plays or form a game plan to win the game. You can disagree with what he does, that's opinion, that's fine. There is a defense for it, more than most will admit, but it's fine to have an opinion. Complaining about play calls or not having types of plays, understandable, sometimes misguided on some things, but understandable.
Claiming the guy isn't trying his best to win. Claiming he's throwing in the towel like he doesn't care, like he's not competitive, like he's a guy that isn't invested in the outcome. Give me a break. Don't act like the guy doesn't care about his job, don't go that road. Don't act like he's not gameplanning every game to win. Because it's idiotic and demeaning. No one gets to this level if they feel that way about coaching, absolutely no one. It's not just insulting to Borges, it's insulting to other coaches that are trying or have tried to make a living being a coach. I take it as a personal insult when people say that, because it becomes an indirect shot at me, whether you believe that or not.
EDIT: this isn't really directed at the OP, but some of the comments and what is being said between the lines in a lot of these comments and posts.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:43 PM ^
It's not that Borges doesn't want to win. It's that he prioritizes the gameplan over offensive productivity. It's not that he doesn't want to win--obviously he does. It's that he wants to run a certain gameplan and wants that to be the way that we win.
I know you've called people out for cherrypicking examples that fit the Borges hate theme, but whatever, I'm gonna do it again:
It was 3rd and 1 in the fourth quarter, I forget the exact position on the field and time remaining, but yeah, 3rd and 1. We've already had a whole game's worth of sample size to determine what has and has not worked in the game. What has worked? Devin running from pistol, and the passing game is moderately improved. What hasn't worked? Running from I-form up the gut.
Now, a coach that prioritizes winning over gameplan will choose the play that is most likely to succeed. He would choose literally any play other than a run from I-form up the gut. Or else...that coach is...bad.
A coach that wants to win by following the gameplan? It's the only way he chooses to run from the I-form up the gut. And, as we all remember, that's what Borges chose. And, predictably, it failed.
So to me, you really have to hope that Borges is stubborn and wants to follow the gameplan. Or else, you pretty much just have to conclude that he is a bad coach.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:55 PM ^
And I respect this idea, don't get me wrong. I've talked about it with Meyer against Northwestern a bit. Sometimes you have to take what the defense is giving and sometimes you have take what you want. Sometimes Meyer goes too far one way and I agree that sometimes Borges goes too far the other. But I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be.
October 16th, 2013 at 1:08 PM ^
But 30 RB carries for 28 yards... Yeesh.
October 16th, 2013 at 1:52 PM ^
It's just certainly the biggest in my mind.
October 16th, 2013 at 10:07 PM ^
October 16th, 2013 at 4:00 PM ^
"Claiming the guy isn't trying his best to win. Claiming he's throwing in the towel like he doesn't care, like he's not competitive, like he's a guy that isn't invested in the outcome. Give me a break. Don't act like the guy doesn't care about his job, don't go that road. Don't act like he's not gameplanning every game to win."
I agree, and I think it falls under the rubric of Hanlon's Razor -
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:14 PM ^
While I love the optimism...haven't we seen Al get more experimental with lesser competition? Like CMU this year, we opened up in shotgun and ran no-huddle. If they wanted to experiment wouldn't that be a better environmet to do so with less risk involved?
October 16th, 2013 at 12:15 PM ^
Can't we talk about UNIFORMZ already?
October 16th, 2013 at 12:22 PM ^
When the OC cannot trust the Qb to execute the scheme neither Smart Borges or Dumb Borges would apply. It's the difference between Newtonian and Quantum Physics where Newtonian Physics breaks down.
As long as the Qb is auditioning for a role in Turnover Santa:The Movie neither theory of Borges works. Manning camp would seem to be one of the biggest wastes of time and money there is IMHO.