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 12:27 PM ^
Devin Gardner isn't the answer at QB. It's tough to call a game with a QB that can't read defenses and makes bad mistakes. The kid has played some games now, went through Spring, training with QB coaches and has played in 6 games this year and it's the same thing over and over.
This is just a shit sandwich period.
Next year I have no idea what they do. They bring in any QB guru and or an OC, I don't think you will see a change in Gardner. Great athlete, below average QB with a horrible passing motion. Also the kid might have his degree and all but it doesn't look like he has much of a football IQ. Coaches are to blame but Devin could have called a timeout just as easy as anyone else out there late in the game.
It's a complete mess, maybe they wait and see what if anything Borges can do with Shane. That's they type of kid they have wanted all along. Sucks that we'll have to go through a shit 2014 and find out in 2015 but that's what is going to happen I think.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:30 PM ^
October 16th, 2013 at 1:27 PM ^
October 16th, 2013 at 6:38 PM ^
the o-line obviously is the main concern. but what is borges doing to mitigate this problem? run it up the gut 25-30 times; the main weakness of the offense. wouldn't a better philosophy to hit quick passing routes? this would mitigate the pass protection issues and get DG more into a passing flow. then, if the D starts playing their CBs close to the line, you can counter with fly patterns to funchess or gallon. or if the D starts dedicating their safeties to defend the pass, you can use fitz at that time. it's not a new phenominon to set up the run via the pass. it really isn't rocket science.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:33 PM ^
Borges coached some very good offenses. I mean explosive, efficient ones with a lot of balance in passing and running at Portland St., Boise St., Oregon, UCLA and Auburn. What's happening now seems uncharacteristic, like he's playing scared and overconservative.
There are a lot of things that Borges seems to be holding off on, like the short passing game involving real TEs, screens to RBs, that used to be really hard to defense at UCLA (Skip Hicks, De'Shaun Foster)
Raming guys like Vincent Smith and Toussaint into the line of 8 or 9 just seems very unlike Borges.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:36 PM ^
Run shotgun, roll out the quarterback, attack the edges with screens and option, anything to GTFO of the way of the DL that is overpursuing and killing your inside.
Just once I'd like to see a fucking center screen pass with all these opposing DLs crashing in.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:51 PM ^
unlike in physics where the macro/cosmological laws of physics seem opposed to micro/atomic laws, thus necessitating two theories that are not unified, that is not the case in football.
Learning on the field is not exclusive to winning games and in the PSU loss, as well as the Akron/Uconn 'almost losses', we should have been able to run an offense effective enough to get ahead by a comfortable margin, then if there is a learning mode to switch into....do it then. No coach is going to sacrifice wins one year for potential wins next year....
October 16th, 2013 at 12:52 PM ^
There is no such thing as "Smart Borges", because smart OCs call plays that win you games. This isn't the NFL where you know you'll have Drew Brees or Adrian Peterson in your backfield for 4-5 years, or Calvin Johnson deep and Orlando Pace as your tackle. You can build an "identity" for your team as much as you want, but the goal must always remain to win with the talent in front of you because you constantly have to replenish it, especially at key positions. Borges sticking his head in the sand and dreaming of an NFL offensive line and two first-round RBs and an accurate QB throwing to pro-style WRs isn't an offensive philosophy; it's stupidity. I know Brian and co. will point to games where Borges called a "great" game, and I'll counter that even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once and a while. He's never been my pick for OC, and along with Funk I question if either of them should be in these capacities come next season.
October 16th, 2013 at 1:30 PM ^
I'm not sure comparing theories on Al Borges to 9/11 is really in the best taste.
October 16th, 2013 at 3:31 PM ^
If the ChiTown banning extravaganza proved anything, it's that several of our fearless leaders have absolutely no sense of what is or isn't in bad taste.
October 16th, 2013 at 4:16 PM ^
They have you right here as an expert in all things bad taste! 
October 16th, 2013 at 4:33 PM ^
My name is OMG "Bad Taste" Shirtless! I'm practically an expert.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:57 PM ^
I can see some "manball" practice, but 27 times in a game that looked to be close from early on doesn't seem to make sense. "Practice" during games to set up long term success would be okay, but only on a limited basis until the game is in hand.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:59 PM ^
I very much like this theory, and giving the coaches some credit in general. Regarding important games, I would throw in ND, which would seem to be a datapoint in Borges's favor.
Now, for the tackle-over stuff, I think it makes a lot of sense to deploy it for the two-game Minny/Penn St. stretch. Its a totally sensible gameplan against Penn St. in particular who are thin at the linebacker position. However, it would very much be a datapoint against the coaching if we continued to see it this year.
I think another factor behind running non-optimal plays partway through the season is that we want to hide plays from Michigan St. and Ohio. Make them prep for weird stuff, and then throw something completely new that they haven't seen. There are only so many times we can reinvent the offense during the season, and it makes sense to try to have some stuff off-film going into those games.
For example, it would make a lot of sense to me see this team turn into a short passing team that utilizes the strengths of Gallon, Dileo and Norfleet in those games. But if that (or some other direction) is coming in the future, we don't want it on film yet, so it should stay in the barn against inferior opposition. Furthermore, if that is the plan, then you don't want to be throwing lots of bubbles, because you don't want to see press coverage on every play.
October 16th, 2013 at 1:04 PM ^
some of you like to forget that Borges called some pretty good games here, too. "Smart Borges doesn't exist!" is an insult to Borges as a coach of football. Obviously it does. OSU 2011...Nebraska 2011...South Carolina 2012...ND 2013...those were pretty good games on offense against good competition. He's had other good games, but apparently he doesn't get any credit for UTL I even though people bring up last year's Nebraska debacle as if it's OK to ding Borges on the fact that Denard got injured and Bellomy was the backup at the time. And I guess it's OK to completely ignore that Borges did pretty well thrusting Devin in at QB midway through the season. The OSU game last year was a debacle on offense in the 2nd half, but people so soon forget that Brian was praising Borges in week 2 this year/
That, to me, is where the GERG comparison breaks down. When did GERG ever call a good game defensively at Michigan? Ever?
October 17th, 2013 at 4:17 AM ^
Every game better be a good game or you need to be replaced. I can't stand hearing this "He's called some good games" crap. What would you say if you were in the hospital and your doctor misdiagnosed a routine problem you and you died. Then in court his defense is I've made some good diagnoses during my career just not that day. you wouldn't be satisfied with that and his ass would lose the lawsuit.
Borges has clearly underperformed here. This is Michigan and there is not room for his "bad games."
He is not getting it done.
October 16th, 2013 at 1:08 PM ^
"Maverick, that was some of the best flying I've seen yet.... Right up to the point where you got killed."
To borrow (steal?) the movie's next line (spoken by Iceman in his pre-fat days):
"Al, it's not your play calling, it's your attitude. The opposing defenses are dangerous, but right now, you're more dangerous. Dangerous and foolish. You may not like all of the fans complaining about you, they may not like you, but whose side are you on?"
October 16th, 2013 at 1:08 PM ^
Surely you must mean Borges - Smart Theory ....
or BS Theory for short!
October 16th, 2013 at 1:49 PM ^
I am amused by the fact that this site treats Schembechler as a god and crucifies Borges. Al Borges is a far more creative coach than Schembechler or any of his assistants were back in the day. The tradition of Michigan is to run into a 7 or 8 or 9 man front, take your lumps early and wear down the opposition. I spent many a Saturday in my youth watching far less creative efforts than that versus PSU last Saturday. It always caught up to Schembechler at some point in the season.
October 16th, 2013 at 2:26 PM ^
October 16th, 2013 at 2:14 PM ^
My theory is simple:
Offense goal is to score as many points as possible.
Defense goal is to prevent the opponent from scoring as much as possible.
Special teams goal is to give the offense the best field position as possible.
Turnovers are implicit to all three conditions. Offense is the only facet of our game that is not using this theory. They are not playing to maximize points. Quite frankly I don't know what they are playing for.
October 16th, 2013 at 4:06 PM ^
October 16th, 2013 at 2:18 PM ^
October 16th, 2013 at 2:34 PM ^
We can talk smart Borges or Dumb Borges all day.
Some people have pointed out that he has called some really good games and we have all witnessed some really bad games.
We are a major college program. I don't understand how we can have about as many bad game calls as good game calls. He makes alot of money at Michigan. I would understand a few times that he would make some calls that didn't fit what all of us would want, but to have that many is just really hard to handle.
October 16th, 2013 at 4:08 PM ^
"He makes alot of money at Michigan."
Yep...
"Borges -- who is in his second year on Brady Hoke's Wolverine staff -- is the highest-paid offensive coordinator in the Big Ten, and the third-highest in the country."
Does ANYONE think Al Borges is the best OC in the B1G? Third best in all of college football?
October 16th, 2013 at 5:08 PM ^
I've followed UM for 35 years and I do not mince when I say Al Borges is probably tied with Purdue's and Illinois' offensive coordinators for last place in the BIG, and probably near 100th on the D1 list. He must go come year end.
October 16th, 2013 at 5:18 PM ^
Why not? At Ohio State, Urban calls the plays, not OC Tom Herman (the same kind of arrangement Rich Rod had with Calvin Magee), so there's no reason why Herman should be paid more than Borges. Outside of Ohio State, which other school in the Big Ten should have a higher-paid coordinator? Nebraska's OC Tim Beck doesn't have anywhere near as impressive a resume as Al Borges does. At Penn State, Bill O'Brien calls the plays and doesn't even have a dedicated offensive coordinator. Wisconsin couldn't run a two-minute offense with an entire quarter at its disposal, so there's no way their OC Andy Ludwig should be making more than Borges. Iowa is coached by Kirk Ferentz, who gets off on punting. Northwestern has a good offense, but do you really expect a school like Northwestern to break the bank on paying its offensive coordinator? So who else is there? Hoke has never been a coordinator before, which is why he delegates so much responsibility to his coordinators. That's why they're so highly paid.
October 16th, 2013 at 5:48 PM ^
You've just presented a number of explnantions for WHY Borges is paid more, even though he isn't deserving.
I was more interested in actual justification for his pay.
October 16th, 2013 at 3:37 PM ^
How is your theory in anyway consistent with Hoke's often stated overriding philosophy that the be all and end all is BIG championships, and all else is failure?
October 16th, 2013 at 3:44 PM ^
Bullet point number two of "Smart Borges," if true would be the most damningly myopic and wilfully ignorant of all.
There are many ways to skin a cat, and Borges chooses to attempt it with glue and more fur.
October 16th, 2013 at 3:47 PM ^
I dont care about a theory...I just want to fucking win
October 16th, 2013 at 3:59 PM ^
Al is a guy that develops his plan for each game, scripts out plays and when it works he looks like a genius... But when it doesn't he has shown 0 ability to adjust because he is either incapable or too stubborn to deviate from his plan.
October 16th, 2013 at 5:03 PM ^
Bro, you're like a guy mincing between the brand of two or three tires in a mile high tire fire. Singling out Borges' playcalling is just the tip of it. What about the fact that in three years, he has yet to install one successful element of his pro-style game?
QB pocket passer - Derp
RB running load - Derp
Mauling offensive line - Derp
Mauling tight ends - Derp
Over the top receivers - Derp
What has been the only thing to keep Michigan in games against, wait for it, mighty Akron, UCONN and half-scholarship PSU that got blasted by mighty Indiana? A mobile QB, oh yeah, the quality Borges is recruiting AWAY from.
The man is an utter failure in every facet of his job, from play calls, to coaching up QBs, to offensive line play, to things as fundamental as getting plays in with time enough for check downs, and even the check dows are woeful the few times they happen.
He is an utter failure. He must go at the end of this year, and I expect the imminent losses to MSU, NW and Ohio will hopefully sway Hoke to make the change.
October 16th, 2013 at 9:24 PM ^
October 16th, 2013 at 5:58 PM ^
Because Borges has never called a terrible game against a rival..... except half the time aka every tough road game. People say throwing bubble screens wouldn't fix things, but if Al gave Devin a check for the bubble or even the quick screen, it would make what Al wants to do easier. Al is dumb. Brady may be dumb. I'm sick of this team underachieving, especially offensively.
October 16th, 2013 at 7:51 PM ^
I think the original points by the OP are insightful. However, even if this year can be viewed like a "Year One" building process to fully establish the power manball game moving forward, it still doesn't change some very obvious in game calls he should have made. See the picture that has been shown around everywhere of the first drive in OT when they have 9-10 in the box and a bubble screen/short out was not thrown. Power running into the box at that point is not just establishing an identity when it matters most to win a game, it is just stubborn. First and foremost should always be the motivation to run the play to help get the win
October 16th, 2013 at 8:13 PM ^
"perhaps the coaches are willing to sacrifice some wins this year to be better in the long run. "
Doubtful. In the words of the great Al Davis, "just win baby". Coaches want to win. They want to win now. Because if they don't, fans go crazy and they get fired.
"Am I a rube for thinking that Smart Borges theory might be true?"
yes. 27 runs 27 yards
October 16th, 2013 at 10:07 PM ^
October 16th, 2013 at 10:35 PM ^
I sort of agree because of the fact that we looked so good versus ND and the fact that we followed a similar pattern last year and showed a few great games against higher level opponents. So, it wouldn't surprise me that we are purposefully being predictable because we are trying to instill principles and work on what needs work and only change/adapt when the game is on the line and/or neccessary...hence the difference between the first and second halves at PSU. But, the problem with this theory is that next year will be better. Why will next year be any better? Our o-line will be worse by my account. Granted the interior line will be a year older and more experienced, but we replace our only two capable players on the line...our tackles with more young/inexperienced guys. Next year's o-line will be even worse IMO. Hopefully Gardner's development will improve, Funchess will still be Funchess, Darboh is back and adaquately replaces Gallon, Butt develops, and either Chesson develops or Harris is ready in year one. It makes sense that a guy the recruiting calaber of Green should be good in his second year. The defense should continue to slowly trend upwards, especially with Ryan healthy, Peppers arriving, hopefully Pipkins healthy, and another year for our young guys. But, man the o-line next year looks bad. Until the 2013 o-line class is in year three (2015) man ball simply won't work.
October 16th, 2013 at 11:00 PM ^
nope. don't buy it.
October 16th, 2013 at 11:58 PM ^
Let's start at the top. Does anyone think that Dave Brandon is a savvy athletic director, capable of competing with more experienced ADs at big time schools? He has no prior experience whatsoever as an AD. He's a marketing guy. He was in the coupon business and later the pizza business.
Zero professional career in athletics until taking over one of the most prominent AD jobs in the country. Zero experience. I don't know about you, but I want a CEO job that pays a million a year and requires no prior experience in the field!
A pizza mogul wasn't exactly what I was hoping for in an AD for my university.
Does anyone really think that his hire of Brady Hoke was as strong a hire as the one made in Columbus?
The OSU AD appointed a temporary guy, while he waited for Meyer to be available. That was smart. Yes, they lost a few games in 2011, but look what they gained!
What did Brandon do? Instead of giving RR another year, so he could find a great hire, he rushed into taking an unproven guy who was available and loved the school. Look, I really, really like Brady Hoke, the person. But does anyone who is not sipping Blue kool-aid truly think that Hoke will be as successful as Meyer?
How long did OSU have to wait for Meyer to build his program? Two years? Three? No. They went undefeated in year one, and they still haven't been beaten. To think that we are going to beat them this year is at best wishful thinking.
In Hoke's third year, we have a team struggling to get one freaking yard on a run play for an entire game. One yard per play? Come on. Smart Borges? Dumb Borges? How about Living in Dreamland Borges?
Michigan almost lost to Akron. Michigan almost lost to UConn. Michigan lost to a depleted PSU squad. The away record for all three years is poor.
I love Hoke. I want to see him remain in coaching. Just not here.
I can't stand Dave Brandon. But no one's going to remove him until he wants to retire. So we have what we have. Brandon's tied to Hoke.
Michigan keeps hiring former businessmen because putting up buildings is what the University does. Raising money is what the University does.
Playing great football is what the University used to do.
Hoke is not ever going to replace one of his guys.
October 17th, 2013 at 7:43 AM ^
October 17th, 2013 at 11:34 AM ^
I'm sad about it, too, mostly for the kids on the squad who are very talented, and at least on the offensive side of the ball, may not reach their potential.
Look at Wisconsin's continued success since Alvarez was appointed AD there, not only on the football field, but in other sports. And they haven't missed a beat changing coaches twice! He's an excellent athletic director, and was a proven commodity when he was promoted. And that school was perhaps the worst football program in the B1G before he coached there.
Louisville (!) has great success with their programs.Tom Jurich had success as an AD at two smaller schools. He was a proven athletics director, and is quite savvy. Michigan hasn't had a guy like that since Canham, and I say that since Bo didn't last very long as an AD. He simply wasn't built for that job.
Gene Smith was the AD at three schools before going to OSU. He knew the game when he started.
Dave Brandon stepped into our program as a completely untrained rookie. His idea of an athletics program is that of a salesman. Why did he get the job? Well, for one thing, he was instrumental in hiring the University's president as a Regent. He raises money. His job was a reward, not a forward-thinking move to bolster the University's athletics programs.
I'm sorry to say it, but if you want to know why our program hasn't been up to the levels of OSU and some of the other elite programs, you have your answer.
October 17th, 2013 at 4:10 PM ^
OSU didn't hire a temporary guy waiting for anyone. They did because of how late THE SCANDAL broke and who would be available at the time. That you're crediting an AD for overseeing a scandal and having to replace their highly successful coach because of it is kind of mind-boggling. The fact that they lucked into one of the two best coaches getting out of Dodge for nebulous reasons and then coming out of "health-mandated" retirement after only one year (who also happened to have big state ties) wasn't some master plan as much as happenstance.
The fact that he went undefeated has a lot to do with being a good coach. It also has a lot to do with having more talent than anyone else in a really bad conference. There was no building to be done. They had one bad year when the program was in complete turmoil, and then bounced back to right where they were before. If anything, if the team was really that good you should have great confidence in Hoke because they almost beat that great team down in their place.
And would you really want Meyer, and all his player arrest and other shady baggage? Because if you do, you're only really a fan of wins and loses, and not the Michigan Program.
October 17th, 2013 at 9:08 PM ^
You're underestimating what goes on behind the scenes to get a guy like Meyer.
Funny thing is, I'm not seeing a lot of "shady baggage" with Meyer at OSU, any more than any other Big Ten program. We've had plenty of players arrested for a variety of misdeeds in recent years.
Yes, I'd be happy to have Urbz as a coach here, but that's not going to happen, so it's rather a moot point. What I'd like to see is an elite coach on his level.
Do you think Hoke is elite on that level?
I'm a Michigan alum, married a Michigan alum, have contributed to the school, and have had my children graduate from the University. I also guest lecture at the University.
I'm in a far better position to judge for myself how I feel about Michigan and it's athletic programs than you are.
Don't presume to tell me what I am, or am not, a fan of.
October 18th, 2013 at 10:34 AM ^
But he has a track record at Florida that you'd be ignoring, and that was when you'd be hiring him. And I think people who really value Michigan's program value doing things the right way and not just hiring the best mercenary for the job.
Do I think Hoke is on a level where the only other coach probably better than him is Saban? No. But if you aren't getting Meyer or Saban, who are you hiring that's on that level? Jim Harbaugh isn't on that level yet, though he could have been/or will be. At least you're hiring a guy who still has a chance to come close to that, instead of a guy who's already proven he's not that.
And no, I don't think it's that difficult to get a guy looking to get back into coaching when you not only have one of a small handful of elite jobs, but also one of his dream jobs available. Was he going to wait two more years for jobs at Texas and USC to open up when he had no idea if those would be available any time soon rather than his one chance to coach his homestate team? Please. Behind the scene workings that would have been tough would have been Brandon getting him to agree to the job so soon after he "retired" like you wanted, because Meyer would have looked even more ridiculous.
October 17th, 2013 at 4:01 AM ^
Because as long as you run against bad numbers you won't be successful. Watch Alabama and LSU (this year). They don't run against 8 in the box. LSU did last year and the OC got replaced. Their offense is much better this year. How about calling plays that the team is capable of executing to build confidence in the young O-line? How about not giving the seniors a couple of losses they shouldn't have? If your theory is in fact correct Hoke should go along with fat Al and promote G-Matt to head coach.
I think Al is just a bad coach and that may be why he never had an elite job before. I don't consider Auburn elite. He also got canned there.
October 17th, 2013 at 9:45 AM ^
I buy that Borges and Hoke are trying to develop an offensive identity around a pro style offense, and I'm ok with that. And if he wants to get up two scores and then run power to develop the team, I'm OK with that.
But I can't buy that Borges risks winning games for extra power practice reps.
IMHO, the major possibilities are:
1) Borges has not developed the players to run the kind of plays Brian and Ace want to see, and now he doesn't have confidence that they can do it. (Unprepared Borges).
2) Borges knows something we don't, and accurately believes that our players are even WORSE at running the plays that Brian and Ace want. (Helpless Borges).
3) The team could run a short range passing attack in place of half the power runs, and would be successful, but Borges doesn't. (Dumb Borges).
4) Brian and Ace are wrong, and Borges is correct that you can't run a modern college football offense and win. (Smart Borges).
I'm comfortable ruling out (4), but am open to the other 3.