What DIDNT Go wrong against Msu
this may be of some local interest
What DIDNT Go wrong against Msu
The defense started out playing great! Gardner was playing well too when he wasn't getting buried in the turf... This one is on the offensive line.
Are you forgetting the massive breakdown on MSU's first series where the defense gave up like a 40-50yd play that let MSU get in FG range?
Somebody didn't read the article.
I call bs
I posted my comments over on the MnB site. It's a great read.
As I noted in my comments there, my hope is the MSU game will serve as a learning experience for the young offensive line. They saw the best. They got blown up by the best, but they saw what it looks like.
if MSU had to play Oregon, they would get shredded!
Oregon has issues against good defenses. See Auburn, Stanford etc.
behind Gardner, all momentum was lost
and you should see a young olineman who is clearly worried about getting to the next level to secure a block.
at least that is what i saw/thought
that article pretty much summed it all up...it was a good combination of many things going wrong that led to the ass-whoopin...hopefully things get better, but right now I just don't see Michigan winning more than 8 games with losses @ Iowa and Ohio
UM can certainly lose that game, but NU concerns me more because of their spread and the two weeks they will have to prepare for Michigan. Iowa has a freshman QB, bland receivers, a decent TE, and an overrated defense that is not up to the usual Iowa standards.
but I see Iowa grinding us down much like Sparty did on defense...hope I'm wrong about my prediction, but until I see evidence to the contrary I don;t have a lot of faith...but hell, anything is possible!
Iowa's defense isn't as physical, aggressive, or smart. I think M has a decent game against Iowa. Something like 26-14
DL controls well at the point of attack and lets the LBs flow freely. They can be heavily exploited on PA though, especially their young DBs. I doubt it'll be a high scoring game, but Michigan is more than capable of putting up enough points to win.
26-14 which way? My bookie is on hold.
is this. Borges knew our offensive line was in trouble. He knew their defensive line was deadly. In the first slide in this post, Zach highlights a wide open Funchess on a hitch. There were countless other times during that game where State was actually giving our receivers a cushion at the line of scrimmage.
I don't care if Borges is fired. In fact, I don't like to see anybody have their livelihood taken away. I wish him no ill. But going into this game, I said, with a reasonable amount of certainty that our game plan against this obvious issue was going to be short, quick passes, and a lot of them, in order to stay ahead of the chains. I understand that Borges began to do this late in the 3rd quarter, when in all honesty the game was already over. As a well respected offensive coordinator, why was this not his gameplan from the first snap? Why would such an obvious concept require a late game adjustment? I am not the "bubble screen guy," and I know it has become a bit, but why does Borges refuse to deploy this kind of scheme? Does anybody know the answer? Has he ever been asked?
I find myself asking the same questions almost every week
He's spent three years making things harder than they need to be and people have blamed Denard, Devin, and two full sets of interior linemen for the issues (not to mention a bevy of talented/productive skill players).
Roy Roundtree catches fewer balls, he's not that good really (except for saving our ass against ND, Northwestern, and nearly OSU last year). Denard throws more picks and his completion percentage plummets, he's not a real QB, Devin will be better because he's got NFL skills. Devin throws even more interceptions, errggg, the line sucks. You said that last year. Well these guys are too young. What was wrong with the 5th year seniors last year? Well they aren't the type of players we're bringing in. You mean the young guys who suck this year? What we need is a tight end and a fullback. Well, you know Al, you can just line that giant monster athlete outside and throw him the ball since he is bigger and faster than the guys covering him, he doesn't have to block guys, it ain't in the rulebook. But, the toughness!!! Yeah, you're teams look super tough not scoring TDs @ND, two years in a row against MSU, and not putting a single point on the board in the 2nd half @OSU. Well, we do understand the importance of our big rivalry games here at MEEECHIGAN.
HEAD FUCKING EXPLODE!!!
you have some good arguments with regards to Borges/play-calling...but MSU was going to burst up the middle no matter what (given the interior o-line and the lack of blitz pick-ups)....but yeah I feel you, not passing to Funchess was upsetting
that the highest % of pressure would be from the middle. So why is Lewan double teaming with the tight end (play #1 of the link) on their DE ? Lewan can hold his own against any DE. The formation for max protection should have included the TE in the backfield with the RB ... and then maybe he or the RB could have gone into the flat as safety valve?
Likely doesn't know how to properly block out of the backfield, which is completely different than blocking from the LOS or H-back position. From that standpoint, what will most likely happen, is you'll have a TE in the backfield not stepping up and meeting the blocker, then, because he's a very tall and inexperienced player, he'll either get completely run over or pushed into the backfield.
The solution here certainly isn't moving the TE into the backfield, especially on 2nd and 5 when the defense is hopefully still respecting the whole playbook. The reason the TE and Lewan are doubling is because you don't know if the safety that is lined up over the TE is coming on a twist blitz himself. They are playing a 2-on-2 blocking scheme all along the line. This is a normal 7 man protection in which a RB is responsible for picking up a LB. The issue is likely Bosch not getting the direction of the call (Rip) because it appears he thinks his tandem block is with Glasgow and not Fitz, but it seems fairly clear it is with Fitz by the way he is stepping.
Now, why call this protection here? Because it allows Fitz to pick up the smallest of the LBs. It also should allow each man on the defense to be accounted for with a blocker at the LOS to form a nice pocket for DG to step into.
and then motion him, their D ins't going to know pre-snap if its max protect or not. We often put the TE in motion from the LOS, so from the backfield shouldn't change their blocking assignment.
Also as MnB pointed out the call was a quick pass to Funchess from the slot, which on the play would have been successful against their gap blitz.. Again the preconcieved notion is that MSU is going to blitz over the center. Isn't this their most obvious tendency?
But I think I can answer either way. I'm not certain if you're talking about a TE being off-line, like in a U-back position, or actually in the backfield like a RB. As a U-back, his blocking assignment would change little than what he's doing as a TE. In the backfield he is going to have trouble because he hasn't had reps blocking from a RB position, which is a good deal different than pass pro from a TE position. At the end of the day, if you take a blocker out of the backfield and move him out to a TE/U-back position, then there is a real possibility that one will have to pick up a DL, which isn't optimal (we saw this later when a simplified pass protection scheme lead to Fitz picking up a TE). You have a back in there so you can ensure that you're RB is picking up a 2nd or 3rd level defender within the blocking scheme that is being used.
I also disagree with the premise that there is a quick pass here, because a hot route won't get put on when you have more blockers than defenders coming after the QB. So I don't think that's really an option in this case (the quick pass to Funchess).
How come when you say it everyone listens but when I say it I'm being just a pessimistic old fart?
I need better board cred.
If you think people here listen to me you have clearly lost your mind. And forgotten what happened a few years ago.
I didnt forget. But once M-Wolverine interviewed you your status changed from "trusted user" to "sacred cow" or something like that.
Seriously though....keep preaching brother. I 100% agree with everything you are saying.
Yeah, you're teams look super tough not scoring TDs @ND, two years in a row against MSU, and not putting a single point on the board in the 2nd half @OSU. Well, we do understand the importance of our big rivalry games here at MEEECHIGAN.
Dude, weren't you just saying before the MSU game that things were fine offensively and citing our PPG as evidence?
I bought the recruiting hype and banged my head against the wall telling myself Borges can't be this dumb.
The team is or should be good enough to win these next three games, I just don't have any confidence at this point. Hope I'm wrong and have reason to get excited for OSU.
Do we have evidence Gardner is very good at this quick pass?
Serious question. Maybe the issue is they've tried to implement this but for whatever reason Gardner requires a tick more time to get rid of the ball. Not every QB is equally good at the quick release.
If that is true, would it not be time to see if Shane Morris is any better at the quick pass than Gardner. I mean, you have to give yourself the best chance to win right, if Gardner is incapable of doing possibly the most important thing with the personnel available, I mean..........
I know I know, I am a jackass, he is a true freshman, I should jump off a bridge, I agree with all of that. But how much worse could it be than Saturday? Seriously, how much worse?
I'd like to see it. The redshirt is gone, so we may as well work Morris in more. We saw a bit of him in the MSU game when Gardner was hurt. If memory serves, his first play was a rollout left and an underthrown pass into the flat.
all I am saying is that if the answer is that our quarterback can't throw a wide receiver screen or a quick hitch, have we not found a signficant source of the problem.
People were saying the same shit last year about how much better Devin would be than Denard. But before that he totally had to move to WR because we didn't have any good players there (like a dude who led the team in receiving in 2010 and the guy who has led it the last two years, both of whom set all-time single game records here at UM). On the line it was supposed to be Kalis and Bryant (who both really probably should have been playing last year, we swear) who were going to show how much more talented they were than those poor bums Mealer and Barnum. That turned out great too, didn't it? And I'm sure glad Devin Funchess spent all last year blocking guys instead of being thrown the ball. Clearly the practice has paid off!
But was always a better pure passer than Denard. That's why Borges tried to have him throw some of the deep balls at MSU back in '11, because he knew Gardner had better arm strength and could push the ball over the top more effectively than Denard.
Michigan also didn't have a WR that had much size on the roster last year outside of Jackson, who, well, yeah. Devin still actually has great upside as a WR, probably better than Denard. The fact that they moved him to WR has less to do with the QB situation as it did with the lack of WRs of that type. For how much you puff up Roundtree, he was a mediocre route runner with average hands that wasn't extremely quick. Most of his yards came off the "QB Whoops" play, not off of designed routes or in situations where he had to create his own separation. Yet Roundtree improved. He got better at his route running later in the year. This gave him a chance to play in the NFL.
As for Funchess last year, we had how many TEs on the roster last year. We had, lets see, Williams and a walk-on. Funchess upside is still significantly higher as a TE, even if he becomes only a decent blocker. Deciding his FR year, when you've brought in other WRs, one a bigger bodied guy that just so happened to get hurt before this season started, doesn't mean it was stupid to play him at TE. In fact, realistically, if Michigan had some depth at the position and more bodies at WR, he'd still be there and be learning the position and only put in limited situations where he's forced to block. But they are still recruiting the position. And hey, how about that, they got some depth by recruiting the position and having Butt on the roster so I guess they could move him outside until the rest of the WR position gets up to speed and he learns how to block, so, you know, he can go back to his more natural position where he has a lot more upside.
Devin is better than Denard, so that excuses Denard's accuracy and ball security diminishing dramatically under Borges and Devin's being not much better. Have to understand he's raw. Can't expect a 4th year blue chip recruit to have any polish applied by the coaching staff.
Roundtree isn't good even though he gained a lot of yards for reasons that didn't stop him from gaining all those yards. The coaches are smart for not doing the things that gained him those yards (that would be almost cheating if we fooled the defense into leaving a guy wide open) and instead substituting height for actual production. God knows you need height. And besides, that Russell Bellomy looks like a gamer, recruiting profile be damned.
Funchess (who, what do you know, has that all imortant height we need so badly) had to play TE because you have to play a TE. It's the rules. ALABAMA does it! And being a shitty blocker with way fewer catches shows infinitely more promise than scoring TDs and being awesome. Tyler Eifert's making them big bucks from blocking.
All aboard the Hoke era logic train. CHOOOOOOO! CHOOOOOO!
Did Denard's accuracy actually get worse or was it a case of him no longer having hand wavingly open guys to throw to? This is a serious question and not one I am pretending to already know the answer to. I believe there may have been an attempt to answer this question at some point last year (via. front page post or diary) but I don't remember definitively.
No, Al Borges is not Rich Rodriguez/Calvin Magee and he is apparently not well-versed in their coaching methods. He has been trying to ween this offense from the spread and move them towards MANBALL or whatever the hell we're calling it. Obviously there are going to be growing pains and it's going to cost us some games in the meantime but the transition has to come. If it doesn't, this team will continue to lack an offensive identity and we can expect more of the same bastardized offensive gameplans we've seen.
I think it will take a few years before we can honestly determine whether or not Al Borges is the right OC for this program. He is working with guys from two different regimes. The veterans were recruited for one style of offense and the guys that Borges/Hoke have recruited are still extremely young. If we're still seeing crap output in a couple of years from veterans that Hoke/Borges recruited and are running the kind of offense Borges wants to run then, and only then, is it fair to say that he sucks, should be fired, is a bad OC, etc.
Regarding Devin, he is a fourth year guy with one year under Rodriguez, a sophomore year as a backup learning a new system, a third year that had half of it spent trying to learn WR and now is in his first year as "the guy". It is dishonest to paint it as though he has spent four years with the same staff at the same position.
I'm so glad we didn't do everything in our power to win games in a year we went 11-2 and lost two close games thanks to offensive ineptitude, so that now I can watch us plow behind Hoke's Hosses for 1 ypc @PSU and -40 whatever it was @MSU. Lining Denard up under center and running ISO @Iowa has born fruit.
Totally worth it.
At what point do you make the transition then? And although "Hoke's Hosses" sounds cute you are also forgetting how young the depth is at that position.
What is so annoying to me about the complainers is that they absolutely REFUSE to see from whence the program came, understand that we're in a transition of schemes, and trying to overcome deep and destructive roster issues. Either one of these things can cause a program to struggle to meet expectations. When BOTH are happening at the same time, the results aren't always pretty. But, as you point out, the transition MUST happen or else Michigan will perpetually be transitioning. Short term pain, long term gain.
We ran ISO out of the I-formation regularly against them in 2011 and scored 16 points, losing a game in a season where we went 11-2. Can't remember the split being as dramatic, but we were under center regularly against MSU (especially on the diastrous 4th and short) in a game we lost where we posted 14 points. Both games would have been won with a decent offensive performance.
None of the linemen or RBs who will play next year were even on the team at that point. If you're cool with not going undefeated so that in 2013 we can put up 27 for 27 and -40whateveritwas (apparently the sweet tradeoff to all this transition), you are a fucking nincompoop.
You understand nothing dude -- absosmurfly nothing what's worse that your blathering ignorance is your overwhelming arrogance and near inability to discuss issues with coming off as snarky and downright hateful. I trust Hoke &Co. I think they're working through a tough time and in the long run the program will be better for it. You don't, you seem to want blood and are so hurt by poor performances that you lash out at everyone whom you, in your infinite wisdom, deem at fault. I don't think change will do as much good as harm right now. I think we need to keep on keeping on and get the roster back in shape. If you don't, fine. But, you're going to be disappointed because Brandon will NOT risk more change, and neither will Hoke. So keep being so hateful and angry if you must. I for one am enjoying the process as best I can. I hate losing more than anyone, but I also try to understand why things are the way they are and it helps me calm down after a loss.
I am sure glad YOU don't run things and would be willing to you don't run anything of much importance. I
I never said anything about change. Hoke should get at least 5 years no questions asked, just like any coach you hire. Said it before, will always say it. He and Al and the whole gang can keep all of their cholesterol rich blood. I'll pass.
I just think it's gonna be a bumpy ride to Shittown, and I don't like the screwdrivers they've been sticking in the wheels so far. Happy to bet you a dollar on it. I also don't like people defending stupidity for no logical reason except "I trust Hoke&Co." I will point it that out from time to time when I see it.
Can't compete? Lol ok dude whatever you say.
Your comment didn't really address any of the points he made. Rather than calling him names, why don't you respond to his post? He's not a troll and he's not flaming around here with bogus statements and poor references. He is looking at the data we all are and is drawing different conclusions. However, he is supporting those conclusions and - you - decide to personally attack him about it. Well done.
Was I unhappy with the Iowa and MSU games in 2011? Absolutely. Does it still sting? Sure. However if you think that we would have run the table and won a championship if we ran from the shotgun or threw hitches all the way downfield (or whatever your ideal playcall would be because I know how your responses go: "Did I say hitches!??!?!") against Iowa then you, sir, are the nincompoop. I don't see what Michigan not going undefeated in 2011 has to do with 27 for 27 or the most recent MSU game unless you are implying that the same logic that cost us a couple games in 2011 is what is currently costing us games now.
Also, who the hell do you think is responsible for bringing Mattison to Ann Arbor? Without his wizard performance with the defense in 2011 Michigan doesn't even have a chance to sniff the undefeated mark.
I wish Al Borges was the perfect OC but he isn't. I wish he incorporated more spread elements into his offense but he doesnt. The question is whether or not he will be successful running his plays with his players. Currently the roster is comprised of Rich Rod players and very young "Hoke & Co" players. We have yet to see how Borges' offense will run with seasoned, high-talent players.
Also, what is your solution? I know you don't actually have one but can you at least make one up? I'm willing to deal with transitional pains because I believe the payoff will be worth it. If we Fire Borges we are likely to experience more transitional pains with a new OC.
If he thinks Al's really got it figured out, fine. If not, make a change. His choice. Not the fans or the AD. Give him his five years with full support and full control and then see where we are. At that point judge him according to the other top coaches around the country who got the same time to build a program, and judge him in comparison to the strength of those respective programs in year 4 and 5.
We made the bed, now it's just time to lie down and take whatever's coming.
I didn't ask that. I asked what is PurpleStuff's solution. That is a rather mild stance to have for all the bombastic rhetoric you've been throwing out.
I do not own a time machine. If I could go back in time and tell Dave Brandon what I suggested above, I certainly would. I'm pretty sure he could still have hired Brady Hoke in 2013 if it all really did go to shit.
I know you're "witty" and intentionally vague so that people can't hold you to any specific stance and therefore you can argue against their interpretations because "technically" you didn't say it. But are you implying that you would have preferred that Brandon kept Rich Rodriguez? If so, I will play along.
Let's go back to that near undefeated season you previously referenced. Perhaps had Rich Rodriguez been around we would have won the game against Iowa. I'll give you that. However, that is assuming he would have been able to hire a DC as good as Mattison. Anyway, Rich Rod's 2010 outfit only put up a meager 17 points against MSU (your response: "3 MOAR THAN BORGES!!!") which is barely better than the 14 put up in 2011. That same 2010 team only put up 7 points on Ohio State, 33 less than the 2011 team. Although Tressell was no longer coach in 2011, Fickell was the DC under Tressell in 2010. The 2010 team also capped off that banner year by only scoring 14 points in their bowl game to finish the season 7-6. The 2011 team scored 23 points in their bowl game, finishing 11-2. Additionally, the 2011 offense averaged slightly more than a half a point more/game than the 2010 offense (33.31 in 13 games to 32.77 in the same number of games).
If you compare Rich Rod's three years vs. Hoke's three years, the offense has averaged over six more points/game under Hoke (33.65 to 27.51). This years offense is averaging more points/game than any previous year under Hoke or Rodriguez at 37.88 over eight games. Even with the Indiana game removed (34.29 in seven games) the statement still stands. For comparison, Rich Rod's 2010 offense averaged 32.77 points/game. This doesn't even take into account the defensive side of the ball.
Under Rodriguez Michigan's defenses gave up on average 30.55 points/game. Under Hoke Michigan has only surrendered 21.41 points/game. In 2011, with Rodriguez's guys, "Hoke & Co" only gave up 17.38 points/game. Those same group of guys gave up 35.23 points/game in 2010. This year's defense is the "worst" under Hoke when it comes to scoring giving up 27 points in eight games. That is still a half a point better than Rodriguez's best unit in 2009.
What's the point? It seems as though you think the previous guy could have done a better job than Hoke and Borges. It seems as though you think we should have stuck it out during his transitional period. Perhaps you think Michigan needed a new DC, not a new head coach. I think the numbers speak for themselves. Hoke has been definitively more successful during his transitional period and in the midst of his worst season yet has this team on pace to make a bowl and feasibly win 8 games. Not to mention they are averaging more points/game than any previous Hoke or Rodriguez outfit. In other words, barring a major collapse, Hoke's worst year has been better than Rodriguez's best. If this is the type of production that this coaching staff can get from players they didn't recruit and young talent that they did recruit, I am confident that they will be successful with a depth chart full of veterans that they hand picked themselves.
I know you're "witty" and intentionally vague so that people can't hold you to any specific stance and therefore you can argue against their interpretations because "technically" you didn't say it.
This is why I've learned not to go down the PurpleStuff rabbit hole. I think he is a smart guy, and we've shared a lot of the same opinions in the past, but arguing with him is futile. It inevitably turns into a meta discussion about the discussion itself.
Within 3 posts he will be telling you how when he said green is purple what he actually meant is that it's orange.
Keep on twisting!!!
Don't worry, you'll get there.!You're just at the first picture for now!
And probably 5-6 pop passes. A lot of other short routes, like slants and hitches, will be covered up all day by MSU's defensive scheme.
all I am saying is that if the answer is that our quarterback can't throw a wide receiver screen or a quick hitch, have we not found a signficant source of the problem.
For the record, I didn't say Gardner can't ... I asked if perhaps that was a contributing factor.
I tend to ask questions here because (a) I like to stir up discussion and (b) I don't for a moment think I have the answers.
How much worse? Imagine if a Michigan QB put up a Russel Bellomy versus Nebraska type performance in that game. Gardner is also built to withstand the beating any QB was going to take under the circumstances, and kept it interesting up until throwing a pick at the Sparty 3 yard line. If that drive somehow goes another way (and it looked for a moment like it may), it's a different game. With all due respect to Shane Morris, I am not sure he would have been able to carry the team under the conditions Michigan faced on Saturday.
There can really be no doubt of that. A true freshman QB, and one that nearly every recruiter agreed was "super high celing and talent, but raw," with our offensive line against that defense? Please, the mere thought is ludicrous.
Shane had a QB coach to work with. Borges has no time and this could hurt us when we may need Morris the remainder of this season and next season and when he starts in 2015.
Do we have any evidence that what he is calling against MSU (14 points scored being the high water mark so far) is working?
No, clearly it isn't. Maybe Borges truly is a stubborn horse's ass who can't see the obvious in front of his face. Or maybe he's not, and he's working with player limitations we aren't aware of. Or maybe I don't really have any clue whatever. Yeah, I like that last one. It feels right.
We did try short passes in the second half, that was the number one half time adjustment. They're tough to hit with defense playing press coverage and as a result a lot were dropped, broken up, or plain missed because the timing was screwed up with the receiver not getting a free release. You can't scheme your way out of an OL that can't block, run or pass. Put it another way, it's way too easy for a D coordinator to take away what little you have left.
Now remember that this is 2nd and 5 early in the game. You don't know for sure MSU is sending this many blitzers. Borges philosophy, whether you agree or disagree, is that you only have hot reads for 7 or more blitzers. You have hot reads only because they can't get picked up. This blitz look can relatively simply be picked up. It's 6 blitzers for 7 blockers. A hot read becomes dangerous in this situation because you don't necessarily know if someone will drop out or undercut the quick route from one of those positions. It's a difficult read for the QB.
So, whether you agree or disagree, that's how his system works and why that quick pass wasn't made. Because the pass pro should have been successful rather easily and you want to give the play a chance to develop not knowing what the defensive play call is before the snap.
When you have the inverted veer though, you say it was a good call, and blame Funchess for a terible block. I agree with that. But I think what many would say is that Borges is the OC, he should know Funchess is a terrible blocker, so assuming he's going to make that play is a failure.
It isn't necessarily a mistake by Funchess. The mistake could be the lack of communication. Now, the problem could be Funchess too, it could be he's supposed to know that the outside guy is considered a box defender, but these are things that can be communicated to help him out.
I defer to your football knowledge, but what evidence is there that Funchess will make a serviceable block even if the communications are perfect? It seems more likely that the playcall is asking a player to do something that he has proven he can't do at this point in his development. A playcall that puts a player in a position where they will likely fail is not "good".
It may not be as simple as "well Funchess doesn't even know who to block".
FWIW, the coaches had somewhat limited options, and this is a play that they have worked extensively with Funchess to block. The likely reason is because they want the pop pass threat off of it. So they have tried to reduce the number of blocking assingments they give him, but have clearly worked with him on this play because they have consistently run this to his side throughout the year, to admittedly mixed results.
I just don't see how "This play would have worked if Devin Funchess makes the key block on the edge" isn't seen as a glaring indictment of what has been wrong with the offensive staff for three years now.
The failure to take advantage of that Double A blitz with the quick pass (How long would the line really have to hold up?) is mind boggling as well. Is it really a surprise they are going to do that? And what was the better plan that totally would have worked if the line had held up? Same goes for the loping play action fakes on 2nd and 3rd and long when our RB gets 8 carries on the day.
We've got some very talented players when they have an opportunity to make a play, but we run way too much STUPIDBALL stuff like that.
"Everything went according to plan, unfortunately Jordan Morgan did not hit that corner 3 pointer we freed him up for to tie the game or it would have been the perfect call."
Here's the problem with this philosophy of yours: it doesn't account for what MSU did the majority of the time. MSU runs a cover for and they utilize their OLBs to stop any short crossing route. The strength of their cover 4 is in the middle, where you want that crossing route to go.
On many of the blitz plays, MSU ran what is called a "spy blitz". A spy blitz usually has the MIKE (but not necessarily) read the QB and the OL. If it's a 7-step drop, he looks for the opening and tries to shoot the gap. If it's a 3 or 5 step drop, he tries to read the QB's eyes and flow to the pattern, before he comes on his blitz. So, in this case, this shallow cross play you so desperately want is exactly what MSU wants you to run, so they can trick the QB into thinking "blitz" when in reality they have a player set up to under cut that route right away.
So you can look at a play here or there when MSU ran a double A-gap blitz and say, "here's how you beat it". Well, if Borges knew exactly when MSU was running that blitz scheme and the down and distance was correct to run it, then maybe he would have run it. Otherwise, the vast majority of the time it isn't that great of a call at all.
Instead, he kept 7 blockers in for 6 blitzers, which theoretically gives the opportunity for any play/route combinations to develop and work.
So there's that...
I don't mean for this to come off as an attack, but rather an indication of what an OC is looking at and why it isn't so easy to just call a certain play and it'll work. There are positives and negatives to everything, and yes, if MSU is running a double A-gap blitz and playing their cover 3 behind it, then the shallow cross is a great way to beat it.
FWIW, you all can get more of this type of analysis later at Maize n Brew when I write up a post addressing a lot of the suggestions. Sure, there are positives to the shallow cross, but it isn't as simple necessarily seems.
The guy in the photo I'm referencing is not covered off the line of scrimmage. The linebacker is flying in on the blitz when the photo is snapped. Devin could throw it to him immediately or as soon as the guy commits. Going forward, standing still, flaring out for a screen, or heading downfield. Whatever. Like other teams do. Instead nobody is looking for that throw at all. We perpetually allow teams not to defend the entire width of the field or to cheat against what we're trying to do. We don't seem to have any hot or quick read throw that we can use to any effect either, even when everybody in the world is asking Gorgeous Al about how to defend against just what State is doing on that particular play.
If what MSU is doing is so obvious, then why hasn't this staff figured out a way to score more than 14 points in three seasons?
As for a quick pass, they did run the pop pass a lot this game. And that's considering: a) you don't know pre-snap that the LB is coming; b) the safety is likely lined up about 8-9 yards off the LOS here directly over Funchess and his first step is not backward; c) the CB to the outside is in press coverage, could come on a blitz, or crash down on that if he reads it, and this also makes it extremely difficult for the WR outside to get leverage.
So to answer your question, despite it not being nearly as simple as you make it out to be and outside of the context aobut how most teams utilize hot reads, Michigan still did run plays that took advantage of that opening, including reading the outside CB backing off so they could run a bubble.
Every play is impossible to run.
I get that the X's and O's are more complicated than I care to get into, but this offense does nothing to simplify them and has had the same problems the entire time Borges has been here. Teams cheat against what we're doing (PSU against the run, ND not respecting the flats, etc.) and the coaches blame the players for a lack of execution.
I frankly don't want to get into that argument. But Michigan did attack the flats probably more than most other teams do against MSU, because MSU is adament about taking away anything quick in the flats.
I'm glad we can respectfully have this debate, but I'm going to end it here because I still have a post to write of my own for later this week and I don't feel like having all my whole post already written for everyone to read before I even write it. But really, I do appreciate the civil debate and discussion.
Instead of moving Schofield to LG, we moved Lewan to TE next to Schofield for packages so he can totally maul an OLB or S while the guys who are struggling have to deal with the actual d-line. Or they can both double team one guy. Genius stuff if you ask me.
To further the basketball analogy above, we decided to have Shaq shadow their backup point guard and stuff every shot he tries to take. Seems like a winner.
The Maize & Brew link should come with a warning that it'll raise your blood pressure and cause you to beat your kids.
"This was the game plan you roll out if you want to attack Michigan State's defense. Unfortunately, there were just too many breakdowns to do so."
This is in reference to the run / pass mix, and I agree with this. From the standpoint of method, we tried to do precisely the right thing. MSU is vulnerable deep, so this is what was attempted as the primary attack, but if the line play isn't where it should be (for a myriad of reasons) and Devin can't get the time to make those throws, then your chances of beating that defense aren't too promising.
Great article, and thanks for sharing it!
90% coaching 10%percent players
There is an offensive counter for every defense alignment and play. Borges was trying to make MSUs D react and adjust our O..he failed miserably. Once he couldn't make them adjust he needed to adjust. He files miserably at that too. Honestly I feel like nwestern( assuming they're healthy). Has a decent shot at MSU just because their o is quick hitting and nothing takes long to develop.
There is an offensive counter for every defense alignment and play
Assuming the offense can execute the counters. When the OL can't pass protect or run block you don't have any counters. The only thing you have quick throws and we tried that and failed because MSU knew that's all we have left. They just jam the receivers at the line because they know they'll never get beat over the top because our OL won't give the QB enough time.
Disagree. You can play with a mediocre line. They're being asked to do more than what they're capable of. There were minimal quick throws, zero screens and zero throws to Rbs in the back field.
This is a lie. I'm not going further into it because what you said as far as support for being able to play with a mediocre line is just completely factually incorrect.
The thing is, when the o-line is totally inept that's still on the coaches.
If Sparty is truly as good as they looked last Saturday, this is a solid premise. Under this scenario Michigan got beat by one of the better defenses in the country, more or less by losing man-to-man battles between young and experienced blockers and talented and experienced defenders, as is illustrated in your post.
It is truly hard to get perspective mid-season, after a disappointing loss in a rivalry game, but generally speaking this is where I come down as well. (Michigan didn't do anything necessarily bone-headed gameplan wise, like run Touissant 20+ times.)
I just hope the team is putting the game behind them and focusing on the opportunities coming up.
Thanks for posting. In a week in which irrational, inflammatory, reactionary comments have seemed to consume this board your article served as a nice reminder of why I continue to visit MGoBlog. It was informative in a way that felt digestable and agenda free. It also made me optimistic for the future when the depth chart is more mature and more compatible with what the staff is trying to accomplish.
I agree that Borges' game plan against state was significantly better than what we've seen in other games during his tenure (particularly penn state this year, and both Ohio and Iowa last year), but it's not like he's blameless in this one either.
The third and 2 call near the goal line was inexcusable, not to mention all the slow-developing play action on clear passing downs, which didn't slow down state's pass rush at all and forced Devin to turn his back to the line
I find it odd that every article like this turns into a defense of Borges.
Maybe it's because every thread turns into FIRE BORGES
as much as a deeper look at some of the things that happened and why some of these plays didn't work as well as what the defense was doing. I still think he has a hand in some of these plays not working, but there are enough instances of players just failing to execute relatively simple things (Funchess whiffing the downblock on an IV) that you can't put it all on Borges.
I'm not really a big fan of Borges and his play calling style or offensive philosophy (spread 4 life). However, I think the offensive line issues in this one were a bigger issue than anything he did or didn't do, so I wanted to look a little closer at some of those and hopefully get people like SC to jump in with more nuanced explanations of what I was seeing (or what I missed).
Lately it seems like a lot of people just want to jump on board the "fire Borges" bandwagon. I'm not quite ready to do so (nor do I think it matters because he isn't getting fired this year anyway). I just want to get a better idea why an offensive performance like this happens.
A good bit disappointing that the A-gap blitzes were still pwning us. It's not like MSU has been running those like mad men for the last 2-3 years
This is a paraphrase, but a very close one, to what he said after the game. I understand youth and that O-line argument. But if it is true that they ran the exact same blitzes as two years ago (and I imagine last year's couldn't have been so different) why can't we coach our young offensive lineman to recognize and pick these up? What am I missing?
It seems to me I see a contradiction in your reasoning: you state it isn't all on Borges, but later make an observation, and I'm paraphrasing, that they (M) called some good plays but MSU was prepared for them. If MSU is prepared for Borges' playcalling, blows it out of the water, and he can't adjust--then who is that on? I agree the O-line play was abysmal. I have never seen worse in the 35 or so years I've been a Michigan football junkie. However, Michigan schematically had no answer for what MSU threw at them. In terms of preparation, Narduzzi kicked Al's ass up and down the field. Personally, I would call it at least a 60/40 split leaning toward preparation. I guess it really doesn't matter since both aspects, preparation and execution, were collectively a tire fire in a dumpster.
MSU's defense is really good. Sometimes a defense just makes a great play or beats you with RPS type calls. You could still have made a solid play call and just gotten beat by a great defense.
The thing is I wasn't trying to really establish blame here. Just look at some of the things that went wrong and better understand them.
Assigning blame on the internet is a worthless endevour. All we can hope to do is understand things better.
Why is our line so young inside?
What I mean by that specifically is: Why aren't Bryant and/or Miller and/or Bars and/or Braden and/or Kalis playing over a true freshman? Part of me says "obvs because they weren't getting the job done" but another part of me asks "is it them, or is it coaching?" Hoke's brought in quite a few guard/center prospects in some pretty loaded Oline classes, and Funks had years to work with average-to-top talent, and none of them are even remotely serviceable over a (now injured) walk on and a true frosh? Why? Why are so many kids still relatively incapable of blocking?
I know nothing, I freely admit that, but to me the best cure for our line would be lining up our best few together and running that-a-way, with max protect beefing up the weaker side. Lewan-Schofield-Glasgow-Kalis-Magnuson or maybe Magnuson-Braden on the right would've been preferrable in Lansing.
How many times a game do we snap the ball and immediately throw it to Devin Funchess, forcing a DB to tackle him in space. Or Gallon for that matter.
I'll hang up and listen.
Michigan threw him a WR screen and about 5 pop passes, some of which were dropped. So, about 6 or 7 when they were given against MSU. And that's a lot, considering MSU typically tries really, really hard to take those things away. That might be more than any team outside Indiana has tried to throw on MSU.
There have been so many chances throughout the year to just snap the ball and immediately throw it to Gallon or Funchess in space, and it's as if they dont even consider it. You can say they ran X amount of plays attempting it but I watched the game and was regularly yelling throw it to gallon immediately only to see a slow developing drop back pass that was bull rushed. You continually state that MSU does not allow pases to the flats but I can tell you during the Iowa game it was the only effective offense that worked for the Hawkeyes.
A RB flare screen. And no, MSU doesn't allow quick passes to the flats unless the DBs get run off (like a RB flare screen).
Keep repeating things that have no base in reality though, if it continues to make you feel smart or better about the state of things.
You're making excuses for a guy that hasn't put up a single touchdown against MSU since 2011 (or, you know, since Ohio State last lost a fooball game). Because he has a "system" and you claim to understand it. Nobody is impressed by the man behind the curtain anymore.
Because you never have to know if you're right or you're wrong, you can just believe you're right.
I'm not defending the system. I'm defending football in general from people that have completely made things up in order to try to claim the supposedly stupidity of something they are ignorant of. Honest discussion? Fine. Honest debate? Fine. Attempting to learn or thing or two? Great. Just speaking out with no basis in how things work, well, I guess I should just let that be your prerogative, because clearly you'd rather continue with complaining and not understanding. It certainly makes facing reality and feeling good about yourself easier.
Honest question SC is there anything else quick play wise michigan or any other team for that matter could use to exploit the over aggressive tendency of MSUs defense??
I do think the flare screen was a pass that should have been used on Saturday. It doesn't really do much as far as misdirection, but it actually manages to get a RB in space against a LB most of the time within MSU's scheme.
I thought Michigan pulled out the pop pass to good effect. Pop pass does need the run action though to at least freeze the LBs, otherwise they'll just squeeze the route.
I think if Michigan had Dileo, you would have seen some option routes as well. This makes it easier to run the hitch, in, or out (basically just find the void in the defense), but Michigan doesn't have another player on the roster like him. IMO, he would have received quite a few of those pop passes that Funchess was having thrown his way if he was healthy, which is what Borges did last year.
You can also run quick outs. The key is you have to run the outside CB off first, and you have to threaten the safety vertically, which is a bit different than a bubble screen which doesn't have enough time to develop to run the outside CB off or threaten the safety vertically. Again, if Michigan had Dileo, you probably would have seen more of this.
Thanks for the response. Why couldn't they have used Norfleet in this role...is he just that poor of a route runner?? This speaks to my frustration with the current coaching staff, we were told Norfleet will be a slot guy and yet we've never seen him used as such and I wish I knew why because he is so quick and can make guys miss.
Oh well, thanks again for the answer. You confirmed my thoughts on option routes and quick outs. Thanks.
He probably doesn't yet have a full understanding of the nuances of being that option route, scat kind of receiver. This is something that can be put on the coaches, as they've continued to move him around all over the place until this fall. But my guess is he's still a work in progress as far as route running and understanding defenses from a WR point of view, which is why he's only really seeing time when the ball is being put in his hands for him to create things from there.
You argued that getting less production out of Roy Roundtree is somehow a sign of coaching acumen, as if doing less with more is good or that getting guys glaringly wide open is evil voodoo that can't/shouldn't be practiced here (is there an equation where SharpRoutes > Yards+TD). You argued that getting way more pass production out of Devin Funchess wasn't a great idea from the start because of the mystical "upside" making talented pass catchers block defensive ends produces (I don't know what the equation is where BadBlock+FewerCatch=Better). You look at a photo where a guy is or would be glaringly wide open and argue that we just don't know if that same guy will be wide open every time so nothing can ever be done about the situation, as if every football play has one option and one option only and people are advocating chucking the ball blindfolded into State defenders.
Your X's and O's analysis is probably sound, especially in the vacuum you describe. Your illogical opinions about what makes a team successful offensively are completely ridiculous.
Oh right, I didn't. You're twisting what I said.
Rich Rod's system of getting Roundtree open was great. People often neglect the fact that by the end of Rich Rod's final season, teams were taking it away by running cover 4 and keeping the safeties high. This forced those routes to change to out routes. This is similar to what happened against MSU. Anyway, what I said is that Roundtree was never a great all around WR. Sure, he could give yards that were given to him. So could other players. So could Gallon. I would have loved the QB pop pass. But it didn't happen in Borges's system, I'm sorry. And outside of that isolated play, Roundtree didn't really offer much. But as a complete WR, as a WR that learned to run routes, he did improve under Hoke and Borges and this staff. So you can bitch and mone about stats however you want, my initial point still stands.
I never said Funchess was better because of a lack of production. I said that bodies were needed at a position that is fundamental to Borges's system. You can want it to be another system all you want, but it isn't, this team needed TEs and didn't have any. It certainly didn't have any that could run routes. There was less need on the outside for Funchess than there was at TE, which is why he played at all as a true FR. As for upside, he's not going to get great separation at the next level. He'll be a big body but not huge. His upside is maximized by his talents and abilities as a Vernon Davis type TE. At WR, his immediate effect is likely more optimal at WR (which, hey, he's playing a lot of WR right now), but is ultimate position and potential is optimized where they were playing him: TE. But you'll twist it as if I said "a crappier offense is a better offense", because that's how you're acting.
What are the illogical options that I've described that make a team successful? Because no team runs a hot route that you want against a blitz package that has less pass rushers than blockers? Talk about isolated vaccuum all you want, what I'm saying is the opposite of that. You're the one taking a picture of a single play, looking at it after the snap, and saying "hey that guy looks open, he should stop and they should throw it there". Despite the fact that you don't know where the safety is. Despite the fact that MSU often undercuts that route with their LBs in a cover 4. Despite the fact that no team runs hot routes when they have more blockers than pass rushers because there should be time for the play that was called to develop because you have one more blocker than they have pass rushers. See, what I'm doing is looking at the play as a whole, as in how football works from an offensive and defensive standpoint before you know every detail about the play that happened in the past. If that's considered a vaccuum to you, so be it, I honestly have no idea what to tell you.
Obviously I'm not going to change your mind, so you can keep on thinking what you want to think and look at football in your limited scope. While I understood it before, I've realized to a much greater degree, that some people won't listen no matter what information is presented to them, and they'll keeping spewing nonsense to fit their agenda, possibly or probably because they want to be miserable people that complain about things. I'd feel sorry for you, sorry that you hate what's happening so much right now, but I think that what you want. Woe is you for having to suffer through such offensive incompetence from this staff, it's as if they, or people that have actually learned a thing or two about football, have no idea about anything.
Alright, I'm done with you from here on out.
We all get it. You know what you're talking about. There was no way to successfully attack the same attacking-style MSU defense we've seen for four years in a row. Bitching and moaning about actual yardage gained is dumb, sharp routes are what count. Worrying about the draft status of a true freshman should determine the stupid shit this offense does, at a position that is completely optional in modern football. If it's in the system it just has to be. But you're not defending the system, right?
Keep talking about hot routes like everybody else is a boob while Rome burns.
You're almost all the way to completely twisting logic to fit your belief or whatever it is you want to hear in the argument. Unfortunately, I do not have a stepped picture that also describes taking things completely out of context, so I can't help you there.
You've twisted this whole thing so much I don't even know what your argument is anymore. Rich Rod was better? You would have thrown a short route on that play that was pictured? You hate Borges? I have no idea because you're not really saying anything meaningful or with a point. In fact, I'm pretty sure you're just successfully trolling me and some others on the board. And talking about how the coaches have high cholesterol, which is a nice touch.
This is really bad. Stop. You're better than this.
Why? He's right.
its obvious that you know your X's and O's and no one is challenging that. However, there are a lot of head coaches and OC's and DC's that certainly have a much more thorough understanding than you. That doesn't mean that "their" understanding makes them successful or even right. Your defense of running the clock vs. playing an opponent in the PSU game ... is simply passe football. Its old style ... I know, I'm old and I grew up with it.
PurpleStuff adds emotion and color to his posts, and he isn't claiming to be "defending football". Who are you to be making that statement. Everything here is opinion, some based with an explanation ... others not so much. Perhaps you need to re-read your last post, its probably the most inflamatory post I've ever read from you ...
That every D1 OC and DC knows a ton more about football than I do. And I agree, that doesn't necessarily make them successful. All I've tried to say is that there are different ways of doing things and that it's not always as simple as people are making it out to be. There are also different ways of being successful as far as systems. I feel like this system is being attacked, which is fine to a degree, it does have its flaws, but it's being attacked mindlessly and for a large part, for the wrong reasons.
For whatever it's worth, I did try to have a reasonable conversation with PurpleStuff and thought we were, but he did start attacking me, while not directly, between the lines of his posts. He kept challanging me by saying stuff that is flat out untrue. I would defend other systems the same same, it's not about the system itself, it's about making a point that people are not prepared to defend so they just make stuff up without regards to how things actually work. It's just as bad as the people that said the spread couldn't work in the B1G.
for a respectful and well defined answer. I agree there is logic in the current offensive system, but I and many others think it's regressive compared to football "standards" in 2013.
Alabama has really taken the old school method and made it successful, for now Great running backs and a QB that "doesn't lose games" (stupid phrase) and a solid defensive unit. Success breeds success, but in football success never lasts (yeah but 10 - 15 of a run sure would be nice, huh). The SEC isn't what it was 3 - 5 years ago, even they are starting to implode slightly. If Alabama stumbles (which they have in the past), it may well be Oregon and FSU playing for the MNC - which to me would be a breath of fresh air.
I think the offense has regressed in terms of how successful it is, but I don't think that's purely or even mostly because the system Borges is running is stupid or out of date.
As far as Oregon or FSU winning it, I think both have a legit chance. I think Bama is a flawed team. I don't think their OL is great, and I think there are ways to attack them. And there isn't nothing that Oregon or FSU runs that will prevent them from being successful at that level.
Again, the thing that frustrates me are the mindless attacks, and to a large degree, how PurpleStuff is purposefully trying to twist logic to fit his agenda above, and is doing it with tons of snark.
PS- I like your stuff a lot, but you're bringing a knife to a gunfight here when talking X's and O's, and it really shows. SC uses logic to explain things, with information, and you're reacting emotionally when you have no similar knowledge to counter his with. His explanations make total sense to someone like me who played football for 11 years and strongly considered coaching football. Yours don't, and it's because you are arguing with emotion and not analysis, and are arguing a topic on which the person you are arguing is-- the actual x's and o's, the reasoning behind things-- has demonstrated a significantly higher level of understanding. You think it's all b.s., what SC says? I think that just means you don't understand what he says. You think you do, though, I know that.
Again, I love about 98 percent of what you post, and, hell, I, too, react with emotion way too much, so I get where you're coming from completely. But bashing SC and fighting back against his logic with emotion isn't a good way to go.
I made one off hand comment with the term "hot route" used loosely and SC keeps acting like I want to grab the headset. He responded to that, not the other way around. The only X's and O's talk was people frustrated with a complete inability to tactically deal with MSU (for whatever reason) for a third year in a row and looking for answers in vague terms. Then SC calling those people liars and idiots for not breaking down the particular play he may have looked at and knowing where MSU tends to play their safeties thanks to detailed film study. Instead of just noting that maybe it is dumb to run loping play-action in long yardage when you don't ever hand the ball off, like everybody knows without the specialized knowledge he claims to have (I personally don't want to get involved with the details of the game on that level, I am merely a spectator).
The things I argued with him about are not X's and O's related, but "What it means to have success as a football team?" related. Throwing more interceptions is bad (Denard in two systems). A lower completion percentage is generally a bad thing (Denard again). Still throwing loads of interceptions in year three with the new guy who is a "better fit" is bad (Devin). A receiver gaining less yards is bad, especially when people then blame the receiver instead of the coach responsible for the change, then watching him win two games for us singlehandedly (Roundtree). Funchess not catching passes in the B1G season last year because he was blocking guys (poorly) is bad (even Borges seems to have realized the error here). I don't know how anyone could disagree with any of these statements. I brought up some of these things as negatives I see under Borges's entire spell here, and SC defended them on bullshit grounds that had nothing to do with saying "this somehow makes the team more successful at football", then went back to talking about nobody else knowing when you can technically run a "hot route" in the Borges system like a condescending douche.
You do a great job detailing the complex world of football schemes and techniques. Remember, Michigan fans (at least in here) have become a miserable lot who only seem content when they have something to complain about, and that is usually how good our players are and how bad our coaches are. Throw in a bunch of unrealistic, impatient expectations, ignore all logical discussions of roster issues, pine over "grass is greener" comparisons to what other program with elite coaches are doing, and repeat (as above) falsely based criticisms over and over, and there you have us MIchigan Men -- a once proud lot.
It is what it is guys. All parties from HC to GA and players are at fault -- they're the ones doing it. Michigan young and likely a bit under talented still. But we're coming off an historic low in terms of record and personnel. As Hoke said in the pressed, when he arrived there were 8 OLinemen on the team when most teams have at least 14. Today, there are 15, more coming, and few leaving. It's gonna be ok. Quit being so pessimistic guys!
So could you try disagreeing without being a dh? I'm starting to doubt it.
But there are some posters that I've passed on discussing with or tried disagreeing with, only to later see them say the same things that are flat our false. And, yes, I shouldn't answer them in the way that I did. I should just not answer them at all, because no matter how I respond it won't change their opinion.
FWIW, I held out for a very long time with being very polite and very non-confrontational on this board, only to see more people come along and just spit nonsense. It's worn on me. I should take a break from this again. And, in fact, if you look in this very thread, of responded or disagreed with people amicably, at least at first. Not that it makes my response better. But if others can play the "anonymous on a message board" game, then so can I.
I don't think tone is a problem, and considering the tenor of some of the people he is having discussions with it is entirely warranted.
Excellent read. Thanks Zach.
Haven't read the other comments but most of our plays should have been set up as a "how can we succeed if our O-line can't block anyone at all." Using plays that required an O-line to block consistently for a normal period of time should have been an obvious recipe for disaster based on previous games as evidence. That is on Borges. I hate to get on Team Bubble Screen but I feel like that needed to happen early and constantly in this game along with running Gardner out immediately (not even rollouts).
"Using plays that required an O-line to block consistently for a normal period of time should have been an obvious recipe for disaster based on previous games as evidence."
Oh THOSE plays. The ones that DO NOT require the OLine to block -- cuz there are soooooo many plays like that. I guess at this point we need an OC schooled in how to, as so many have suggested, "scheme around an OL that can't block."
Or maybe, as Hoke said, you keep on grinding until the OL can block effectively -- after all, nothing is more important than reps under fire for development. Further, you never know whether they're up to the task until you try. If they're not, you keep trying until they get it. It's called preserving through adversity.
No, fuck that excuse bullshit, fire everyone! /s
Going forward is for Gardner to be instructed that anytime Gallon or Funchess have a decent cushion at the line of scrimmage, snap and throw it immediately which should in a worst case gain a couple yards but offer an excellent chance for nice play with a single broken tackle. AND the best part, it takes pressure off the O-line.
Michigan would completely switch to the short passing game, but they didn't. I also thought the inline trips formation was dead from the start with 2 seconds to get the pass off. All 3 of those WRs are covered with no time to pass the ball. Set up to fail.
To watch this game on dvr - as I was at the game and didn't get to see the whole field or replays and I couldn't make it through the first quarter. The combination of four and five stars missing blocking assignments over and over, devin holding the ball too long or not taking off soon enough, fitz missing whatever tiny hole was opened up (didn't happen much) and then fitz being left out to die one on one with Calhoun really makes me wonder about the coaching staff and what they are doing all week or the entire off season. There was a report on the Detroit news app that talked about how each year holes teams have score fewer and fewer points Vs MSU. And no tds in the last two games...
I thought the pass to Funchess detailed was pretty good, didn't you?
Looks like somebody got their points back! Time off for good behavior or were you just considered to be rehibilitated and therefore no threat to the rest of society?
Um ... Thanks...I think.
If you must know, I'm working on entry strategies that enhance the performance of our firm's futures trading algo, and continuing to raise more funds -- no big whoop. Although, both of your suggestions are intriguing ideas.
all I do know after coming here the past couple mos. is that its BORGES fault. It doesn't matter if you are a coach in the NFL, do not mess with the BORGES culpability factor. At least not on this blog mister
If I was Al Borges, I would have looked at MSU's results and identified which offense had the most success against them. In this case, the answer would be Indiana, who scored 21 points in 3 quarters of relevant football, which is more than any other team has scored against MSU all season.