Recent Comments

No one here -- even the RR defenders -- has said Casteel is "Mattison but good at coaching defense."  Casteel had a pretty good track record at WVU  This is his first year at Arizona, and they apparently were starting five walk-ons on defense at times this year.

Everyone here, including the RR defenders, loves Mattison. 

What many folks don't love, however, is that we have gotten a WCO re-tread who has a history of regressing offenses at each of his stops.  (Yes, we hired Gerry DiNardo's OC.  Glad we saved that money and kept our Manball philosophy alive.)  This was the first time in over forty years we had three games in which we didn't score a touchdown, if I remember correctly.  And that was with a senior Denard Robinson, who holds many of the all-time leading Michigan offensive records. 

Look at what RR's first year Arizona team did offensively, and then look at our slide in all offensive categories from 2010 to 2011 to 2012.  If you do not understand why some of us still wish we had a RR offense (or a Sonny Dykes or Kliff Kingsbury or Chip Kelly, etc. offense), instead of Big Al's, I don't know what to tell you.  By what metric is Al Borges doing well here and showing progression?  By what metrics did he show progression at Auburn, Cal, Indiana? 

Since you appear to like numbers, here are a few:

National Rank in Total Offense (Michigan)

2010: 8

2011: 42

2012: 81

National Rank in First Downs/Game (Michigan)

2010: 22

2011: 50

2012: 99

It appears we are sacrificing a lot just for a few quips at post-game press conferences.  I suppose it all depends on what you value more.

When we are ranked 81st in total offense, 99th in first downs, and had three games without scoring a touchdown (for the first time in over forty years), does there really need to be a name to our offense?  Is that really hampering the ability of the teams we are facing?

We're bringing back coach Frey? 

Interesting fact #1: we were 13th in the nation in rushing in 2010; Arizona is 15th this year

Interesting fact #2: SDSU has gotten steadily better in rushing with the departure of Borges and Funk: 48th in 2010; 30th in 2011; 16th in 2012.

But let's blame the personnel.  Obviously coaching only affects results on the defensive side of the ball.  When it comes to offense, you need four or more years to judge results, right?

Amazing how at the beginning of the season, we are incredibly worried about the lack of talent on defense, yet the coaching from Mattison and Hoke always seems to turn underperforming players into overperforming players.

When the opposite happens on the OL -- highly ranked upperclassmen regress -- we start blaming the lack of talent, and say that Borges and Funk will need four years to get their players and system in place.  Of course, Borges and Funk have never had success in year four anywhere, but let's not let facts and history get in the way of blind hope.  

What gives you reason to believe that MIchigan's offense going forward will be as good or better than ND's? 

I admit that I have not been a fan of the Borges hire from the start.  Our total offense ranking has gone from 8th in 2010 to 42nd in 2011 to 81st in 2012.  Having studied his past failures as places like Indiana, Cal, Auburn, etc., we are getting the regression that I expected. 

Hoke admittedly has no role in our offense (a defensive version of RR), so we don't need to debate the Hoke v. Kelly angle (which would not favor Hoke). 

I would love to have optimism about our offense, but see no basis for it.  The fact that Borges doesn't recruit just makes the comparison to Greg Robinson uncanny.  What logical reason is there to believe that we will be able to be as good or better than ND on offense with this offensive coaching staff? 

Unfortunately, I don't think he does.  When he said that Bellomy was prepared for Nebraska, I think Borges might have believed it.  A good coach would have said, We didn't do enough to have our team ready -- that falls on us.  When asked about whether he'd save anything for Ohio, he could have said something clever (e.g., If I did, would I tell you?) and actually have something ready for the Game, instead of showing every new idea in a blowout against Iowa.  When asked if he would do anything different after the Alabama game, he might have recognized that his game plan did not work, and at least admit that.  Instead, he wouldn't change a thing.  Failure hasn't prevented him from being repeatedly hired, so there are no negative consequences in his mind.  It wasn't that he was wrong; it's that reality refused to accept the correctness of his vision.  I suppose the only comfort we can take is that he is employed in a field where stubborn refusal to adapt to reality only results in lost football games and secondary effects in terms of other people's professions.  If he were in the military or medicine, the immediate negative repercussions of his approach would be much more dire. 

Did the personnel at his disposal change significantly from the first half of the game to the second?  Did something happen that forced his hand into running up the gut again and again without success in the second half?

Also, the defensive coaches took a D line that everyone rightfully worried about pre-season and worked wonders.  Our O line continues to regress (even Lewan).  Just as Mattison and Hoke might be good defensive coaches, maybe our regression on offense has something to do with our coaches.

"This is Michigan"

Means offensive dark ages

Rivals do not lose

When we played Alabama, we were beaten by a better team.  
Now, can we talk about the other games we have played, and what Borges, Funk, et al. have done with this offense?  Thanks.

Unless we wish to gauge things by hopes and dreams (Borges plus a junior Shane Morris will be great!), the offense is not trending up.  We have steadily and significantly declined from 2010 to 2011 to 2012 on offense -- be it total yards, first downs, etc.  Al Borges might be more entertaining at press conferences than Greg Robinson, but his effect on the offense is similar to Gerg's on defense -- steady and significant regression.  

Each year, we have pre-season worries about personnel on the defensive side of the ball.  With very good coaching (Mattison), those worries/limitations are overcome.

The exact opposite happens on offense.  As we regress further on offense, instead of looking to the coaches, we simply start blaming the players (many who had success prior years).

Of course, a Michigan coach has beaten USC recently -- unfortunately, it was after he had been fired by Michigan.  I admit that I sometimes watch Arizona just to see what their offense does.  There was an interesting point made last night -- RR has a goal of how many first downs he wants in a game.  I had never focused on that before.  (I've seen our regression in terms of total yards, etc.)  I just looked -- we were 22nd in 2010, 50th in 2011, and are now 93rd in 2012.   Al Borges is our Greg Robinson.  I hope we can put a competent OC together with Mattison, who won't be here forever.  

He has failed everywhere he went.  Notice how when OSU noticed we were playing soft on the corners, they would throw quick passes for 5-9 yard gains -- i.e., taking what the defense is giving you.  We failed at running up the middle all day, but Borges/Hoke/Brandon think Michigan football/MANBALL is about imposing your will.  Doing the same thing over and over again when it fails every time is insanity, especially when there are other options.  Dave Brandon got the OC he deserved, and he is seeing the results.  Someone should let him know when his next marketing meeting is over that OSU is not going to be going back to an interim coach anytime soon, and though we have added Maryland and Rutgers to the B1G, this isn't the MWC.   We can do better than an OC that has bounced around for two decades and ended up at SDSU.

Unless we are blessed with transfers of three first round picks who happen to be seniors (and were thus developed by a different staff) at QB (like, for instance, Jason Campbell) and RB (Ronnie Brown and Cadillac Williams), we will never have the personnel in which Borges has achieved success in a big six conference this century.  I am not optimistic that we will be getting those three transfers any time soon.

Meanwhile, when Holgerson started at West Virginia, he was able to use that personnel pretty well.  RR, in his first year at Arizona (which won all of four games last year), has used that personnel to go 5-3 so far and put up 39 points on a ranked USC team, 59 points on a ranked Wisconsin team, 35 points on a ranked Oregon State team, and 48 points on a ranked Stanford team.  (That offense is now ranked 4th in the country in yards per game and 20th in points per game.)  Meanwhile, our offense statistically regressed last year (80 fewer yards per game, for one), and has now taken regressed further.  There is no reason to expect anything but further regression next year.  Borges supporters say we should be patient for year 4.  Yet the only place at which he has lasted four years this century reveals a story of consistent regression.  (Year one he enjoyed the three senior first round picks in the backfield.)  I am interested to hear of other major programs who are moving to a WCO and achieving success.

I haven't watched them play, but they put up 30 against Navy, 27 against Michigan State, 39 against Ball State (in the loss you mention), and 49 against Ohio State.  Does Indiana have more talent than Michigan on offense?  Do they have more highly recruited and talented OL than we do?  I find that hard to believe.  But they do have our former OL coach, and they likely have better coaching in general on offense.  Moreover, Indiana is putting up with these numbers starting a true freshman at QB.  Yet people are saying that years of QB regression or stagnation are excusable in Borges' offense, and we should wait until a chosen one receives years of tutelage in his arcane system before we evaluate.  I think the years of failure and regression at Borges' previous stops bode ill for us, and we are seeing ample evidence of that right now.  We can dance around it, and make excuses, and say things like: he's been doing this for year -- did he forget how to coach?  I would say this our current regression is consistent with his previous coaching stints, and Greg Robinson had far more ammunition to make the argument that previous successes (four Rose Bowl wins, two Super Bowl wins) should drown out recent failures.

I understand your concern, but there seems to be little or no factual support for the idea that Borges' offenses at a location improve over time as he gets "WCO personnel" into the program (and they start the long learning process that the WCO apparently involves).  In the past decade, he lasted one year at Cal (everyone was fired), two years under Gerry DiNardo at Indiana (in which the team regressed from 3-9 to 2-10 and the offense regressed from 258 points to 178), four years at Auburn (with steady regression, the pinnacle being his first year, in which he inherited a team with a first round pick senior QB and two first round pick senior RBs), and two years in the Mountain West (with a year of unemployment).  Even if we are going to swear off spread offenses, and presumably Run and Shoot offenses, can we not find an OC who offers the style that Hoke/Brandon want who has had success implementing it at other schools?

Yes, it bothers me.  The inability to move quickly (call it a two-minute drill, but even down two scores with 7 minutes left in more than one game, we cannot even manage a slighly above-our-average temp), the burning of a timeout near the beginning of each game (this time it came slightly later than usual), the wasted timeouts at the end of the half.  Nearly everything about our offense is "not optimal."

If we somehow end up with a first round pick at QB (say, Jason Campbell) and two first round picks at RB (Ronnie Brown and Cadillac Williams), and they develop under another staff, and then Borges "coaches" them as seniors, then I think we have a chance to be competitive at an elite level.  Unfortunately, I don't see that happening in the next fifty years. 

Isn't the bigger problem that Borges' "system" takes years to implement, and he hasn't shown the ability in the 21st century of developing a QB?  As I understand it, his supporters point to (a) the 2004 Auburn team, in which Borges inherited a first round QB, two first round RBs (!), and various other NFL talent; and (b) the 2010 Mountain West SDSU team, in which Lindley, coached by Borges, managed to complete 57% of his passes.  Compare that to, for instance, Texas A&M this year.  Consensus three-star prospect and redshirt freshman Johnny Manziel is completing 64% of his passes with a 16 to 6 TD to INT ratio.  I don't see the reason why years 3 through 5 of Borges will be any different at Michigan than it was at his other stops: regression and failure (though many places he never lasted to year three). 

It's the same thing with this board's newfound claim that our OL isn't very good, and therefore isn't very talented.  Our former OL coach is now at Indiana.  Somehow they are managing to put up 27 points on Michigan State, 29 on Northwestern, 49 on Ohio State.  Does anyone think that Indiana has recruited more talent than Michigan?  We've seen what good coaching does with the same players on the defensive side of the ball, and are willing to (rightfully) praise Mattison for the work he has done.  And it is logical to expect that -- he has had success at the highest level in the past and is highly sought.  But now that we are experiencing regression with the same players on offense, a regression that most of Borges' teams have experienced throughout his tenure, why can we not recognize that Borges has not had consistent success, much less at the highest level, and his system isn't being implemented at any of the elite programs?  The New England Patriots are not talking to Borges to learn how to run our incompetent two minute drill or painfully slow developing plays. 

What is even more depressing is that we might wait until 2015 to see any change in the offensive coaching.  Denard helps mask Borges the rest of this year.  Next year will likely be a train wreck, but Borges will get a pass -- almost no one will expect Borges to have developed Bellomy or Gardner, and Morris will only be a true freshman.  There will be some natural bounce in 2014 -- will that get Borges a fifth year? 

Either Borges or Funk deserve most of the blame for our OL not performing.  Look at what our former OL coach has accomplished with Indiana's OL.  Are you telling me that he has more to work with at Indiana than we have here at Michigan?  Just as our supposedly poor defensive players turned around quickly with competent/very good coaching, it is possible for things to change the other way.  I don't know why people simply want to give Borges and the offensive assistants all a pass, because of one positive season in the Mountain West (against abysmal competition), or a 2004 Auburn team with first round picks in the complete backfield. 

Actually, we have a much larger sample size to look at.  How did he do in years 2 - 4 at Auburn -- any QB progression?  Two years at Indiana -- any QB progression?  One year at Cal (canned before he should show any regression).  Even in his second year in the Mountain West (where he landed after the SEC), his pro-caliber QB didn't muster a 58% completion rate.  Yes, he has been in the football community a long time.  But he has not been very successful, and his QBs and teams have not shown progression during his stints.  Greg Robinson had two Super Bowls and a college national championship on his resume.  Does that mean we could not criticize his defenses?  I just don't see why people hope for something different from Borges when his history tells us he is not going to do well here long-term. 

All of us had at least as much OC work during 2008 as Al Borges (after his run at Auburn). 

And plenty of posters have lasted here on this blog longer than Al has lasted at any job in the past two decades. 

But this truly has become like Hollywood.  It doesn't matter if you've directed 10 crappy movies; if you once made one that did fairly well, and other people have hired you, then you must not be that bad.  Can I get a Greg Robinson amen?

They also put 48 points on Stanford, 59 on Oklahoma State, 35 on Oregon State, etc. (besides putting 38 on and beating USC, which Michigan hasn't done ...).  Anyone who has watched RR's first year offense in Arizona and our second year offense with Borges can only weap for our team (and post negative posts, like I do). 

Agreed, and unfortunately, I think the only time in the past decade that Borges has managed to "coach" a QB to a 60+% completion rate was when he inherited two first round draft picks at RB and a first round draft pick at QB.  Should that occur at Michigan,yes, Borges might be able to not screw that up.  How often, though, can we expect to have a full backfield of first round picks, and might we want a coach who can succeed with slightly less than once in a decade (or more) talent?  Somehow, the talent he had at Cal, Indiana, the rest of his years at Auburn, etc., etc. were not sufficiently his type of talent.  I don't see how this works out well for us.

Instead of going to Jurassic Park and looking for some Paleolithic football DNA to re-animate, can we hire an OC who runs a modern offense and has had recent success?  Someone from the Mumme/Leach/Holgerson/Dykes/et al. tree? 

If history is a guide, if we manage to obtain two first round RBs and a first round QB, and those players develop under a different OC, Borges will then be able to call one season's worth of games before regressing again.

To what do you attribute the regression in OL play?  This is another very disconcerting development. 

He has taken an unranked Arizona team that won 3 games last year, and put up 39 points against USC in a win (eclipsing all of the points Lloyd Carr's teams put up against USC in two Rose Bowls), and 48 against Stanford in his first season.  Make-shift O-line?  Are you telling me that Michigan's O-line is worse than the OL of Southern Miss, Northwestern, etc. (all of whom had more offensive success against Nebraska)?  A good OC with our talent, including the probably the best dual threat QB to ever play college football, could do so much.  There is a reason (actually, many reasons) why other college football teams are not trying to replicate the WCO of Al Borges.

Even 0-8 Southern Miss put up 20 points on Nebraska.  We weren't on pace for that, even with Denard.  My snowflake: look at Borges' history.  His offenses have regressed at every stop, and he has never sustained success anywhere.  He was unemployed for a year, and landed in the Mountain West after being in the SEC.  There's a reason why he isn't highly pursued, versus Mattison, for example.  And considering Meyer's success at each stop and the fact that his team (in his first year) hung 60 on Nebraska, I am very concerned if the Brandon/Hoke long-term plan is to win 12-10 slugfests (with a slow motion two-minute drill) as a matter of course.

Considering the regression that QBs and offenses enjoy under Borges (at least, at all of his previous stops), not sure that three 4 star players would matter.

Borges has never made it to year 5.  Would love if Hoke cut the slow bleed short, but he'll probably not make the move any earlier.  The question is whether Brandon opens the checkbook and is open to bringing in someone who is not a "Michigan Man." 

RR's first year, unranked Arizona team just put up 39 points on and beat USC (which beats our total output in our two Rose Bowl losses to USC under Carr with ranked teams) and you still feel the need to hate?  Maybe Arizona can pine for Al Borges, and a two minute drill that gets off three or four WCO plays.

Looking ahead, Borges has never been at one place more than 4 years.   I've seen some posters suggest that we could "bring home" Loeffler.  I'd love to think we could start looking outside the pool of individuals with previous ties to Michigan, but I think Brandon would give an OC with Michigan ties significant preference.

Everyone should read this article.

Putting aside the desirability of the WCO, one of my biggest concerns coming from the Notre Dame game was our inability to speed up in the fourth quarter when we were down two scores.  From Saban's comments about the speed of play, to New England's no-huddle and Belichick's meeting with Chip Kelly, to the success of Oregon, to teams like West Virginia, Baylor, etc. (Mike Leach coaching tree), to even RR at Arizona now (48 points on Stanford with record pass attempts and pass completions in a Pac12 game), it seems clear that the ability to move quickly on offense and to limit defenses from substituting and getting into complex schemes is a significant advantage.  I don't get the sense that Borges recognizes this or can coach it well.

Is LSU's offense really something to emulate?  And yes, USC and Alabama have had success using old school, pro-style offense approaches.  Do you think we will be able to consistently recruit at Michigan the level of talent of the top two programs in the country -- one located in Los Angeles and the dominant program in Southern California and the other a traditional power in the South, with multiple recent national championships, a coach who talks about how his AD, and the school president, etc., etc. recruit, and that will medically redshirt any four star talent that doesn't pan out?  I would rather adopt an offense that is not so dependent on having a top 3 recruiting class year in and year out. 

Well, we won't rob defenses of these opportunities.  Even down two scores with five minutes left, we will huddle and slowly proceed to our next play.  (Yes, the tempo from the Notre Dame game is still killing me.)

Watching WVA and Baylor earlier, and Arizona and Orgeon State tonight, is anyone else depressed at the thought that we simply will not have a modern offense with Borges?  The tempo, high efficiency passing  (Lindley didn't complete 60% of his passes; neither did McNown his senior year; add in the Indiana QBs and steady decline at Auburn), etc.  How many years are sufficient to judge his performance at Michigan?  If we have four years of steadily declining offensive results, will we bring in someone new, and would Hoke/Brandon hire someone without Michigan ties?  Would we ever experiment with someone like a Holgerson/Art Briles/ Sonny Dykes/ Leach, or would we hire someone who believes in MANBALL (see Hoke's comment about a spread offense hurting the defense who practices against them)?  Who are the good up and coming OCs having success with that type of style (if they exist)?  

Congratulations on your sophisticated analysis, which apparently consists of calling someone "butt-hurt." What was Lindley's completion percentage under Borges?  Did it ever break 60%? (Answer: No.)  Don't let facts get in your way.  How much "quantum improvement in performance, year over year" did McNown show under Borges?  His interceptions nearly doubled from his junior to senior year (6 to 11), and his completion percentage fell back to 58 percent.  And this is the one, 15 year old astounding success (the improvement from sophomore McNown to junior McNown) that you are hanging your hat on?  How did his QBs at Indiana, for example, do?  (Those teams under Gerry DiNardo went 3-9 and then 2-10.  Don't even think about a 60 percent completion rate.)  I suppose those were successes as well?  

History has given us a QB who started for three years under Borges (at Auburn).  His senior year he completed less than 60% of his passes, had a TD-to-INT ratio of 9:13, and put up worse numbers in all categories compared to his junior year.  (And worse numbers in almost all categories compared to his sophomore year.)  Given Borges' history of teams and QBs doing worse over time under his watch, why are people surprised that Denard is not making progress?