There is a myth that lives on this board that Denard was a better passer in 2010. This post is not meant to excuse Al Borges' playcalling, or bash Rich Rod, or elevate Lloyd Carr's run-run-run-punt strategy. It's just a look at the falsity that Denard was a better passer in 2010.
The unfortunate, painful truth that this diary reveals is that our passing offense is not much better than it was in 2010, when it wasn't very good at all (when it mattered).
Let's throw out the garbage games and focus on Michigan's games against opponents that had respectable defenses in 2010:
Ohio (3rd in total yds)
Iowa (16th in total yds)
Wisconsin (23rd in total yds)
Michigan State (32nd in total yds)
You might be wondering, "Where is Notre Dame and Penn State on that list?" Well, I'm glad you asked. They were 46th and 48th...behind powerhouses like San Diego State, Hawaii, and ILLINOIS!!! (the team we scored 67 points against). So they sucked. But we still lost to Penn State. Even though they sucked. Because our defense was, well, worser.
I don't need to lay out the stats from the ohio game. They trounced us, and Denard got pulled in favor of Forcier at the end of the game. We couldn't move the ball at all, and scored only 7 points.
Let's move on to Iowa...
Their defense was ranked 16th in 2010, and yet we were able to score 28 points. This is actually the best comparable for this weekend's Notre Dame game, since ND is ranked 17th in total defense right now. Yes, we lost the game by a score of 28-38, and those four TDs sure do look good...but only because you either don't remember what happened or judge a book (or score) by it's cover (or...score). Here are some relevant stats:
Denard 13/18, 98 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT
Forcier 17/26, 239, 1 TD, 2 INT
But here's the most important stat: We only scored 7 points when Denard was on the field. Denard get could get yards (108 on 18 carries) but not points. Iowa was stacking the box, and all the offense could muster was a TD on a drive when Denard threw three passes: one was incomplete, one was for a 6 yd. loss, and the last was a screen to Smith for an 8 yd. TD. Denard got hurt in the 3rd quarter and in came Forcier.
It was Forcier that brought the team back in that game, and Forcier that sealed our fate with his INTs. It's worth noting that completing passes underneath when you're behind by 21 points is MUCH easier. In fact, that leads to lots of confusion about the effectiveness of Denard's passing and the 2010 offense in general: we got loads of "soft" yards because we were hopelessly behind and our opponents played softer coverages and lighter fronts.
Wisconsin has a similar storyline, except that Denard played much more that game. We scored exactly ZERO points in the first half (although we did miss a 30 yd. field goal). With a 24 point lead, Wisconsin converted to prevent defense, and allowed us back in the game. Denard stayed in this time, and racked up a nice, meaningless statline: 16/25 for 239 yds, 2 TDs, and, of course, 1 INT. The important part: Denard was 4/9 for 22 yds passing in the first half. When Wisconsin was playing their base defense, Denard couldn't pass. Only the gooey butter cake version of Wiscy's D allowed DR some meaningless passing yardage. Further proof of this came in the fourth quarter, when we had come back to make it a 21-31 game. Denard couldn't move the ball anymore.
The final example is, perhaps, the most damning. Michigan State had a good-but-not-great defense in 2010. Their success was largely a result of their schedule and some good defensive coaching. They lost badly to Iowa (and 'Bama), snuck by a pretty lousy ND team in overtime, and narrowly edged out a VERY average Penn State team. Their only quality win was against Wisconsin, and that game was played in East Lansing. Despite their easy schedule, the Spartan defense was still only ranked 32nd in total yds. Michigan actually had the lead twice in this game, up 3-0 in the first quarter and 10-7 in the second. Denard was 6/8 for 51 yds in the first quarter, but threw an INT in the endzone. In the second quarter, Denard shined again. He was 4/6 for 81 yds and a TD. At the half, Michigan was down 10-17.
The second half was a very, very different story. Denard was 7/15 for 82yds and 2 INTs. The same guy we saw against ND. Only against a defense that wasn't nearly as good. And we were at home. The 4th quarter TD was only scored after MSU had rung-up a 21 point lead.
So here's the bottom line: Denard has never been a good passer, or even an average passer. And against good defenses, we won't win until he's able to throw the ball somewhat effectively. Maybe that's why Borges keeps making him throw, especially before the B1G season starts.
So what's the difference between now and 2010? The defense. Because our Greg defense is not our GERG defense, we are in every game, and teams don't stop stacking the box against Denard. They don't stop blitzing. They don't play soft coverage. So Denard never gets to ring-up his stats, and looks even worse.
I certainly won't excuse Borges' playcalling on Saturday--it needed to be better. But the fact is that our only quality wins have come when Denard has been able to make plays in the passing game (or Hemingway was able to bail out Denard) and I expect it stay that way. If Denard can't pass, we're screwed, and 4 or 5 losses is our best case scenario.
This monthly offseason feature highlights some of the more famous personalities
here at MGoBlog. Without pulling back the infamous veil of blog anonymity, we’ll
get to know some of your favorite posters better and possibly shed some light
on their definition of why it’s so darn Great, To Be, A Michigan Wolverine.
Heiko Yang… the living, breathing “media availability” liason between the University
of Michigan and the online phenomenon/empire known as MGoBlog. I’ll admit, when the departures and subsequent replacements of Tim and Tom were announced, it was Heiko that cut under the radar the most. After all, he was some water polo guy, what could he offer, right? Well, we all learned quickly that Heiko took the press conference experience by storm, broadening the MGoBlog imprint in Schembechler and beyond, and ruffling some pretty big feathers in his own right.
I find it very impressive that despite all of the various outlets reporting weekly press conferences (especially Mattison’s), I always prefer to read Heiko’s first. What he injects and interpolates from the press room is one of a kind. And the fact that he makes it happen despite juggling some other imposing responsibilities makes it all
the more impressive. He somehow found the time to sit down for this
1. In your own words, explain to what it’s like to be THE MGoBlog representative among the rest of the media types during press opportunities?
My first day on the job was as frightening as: A third year medical student’s first day on surgery.
I’m just kidding. It wasn’t bad at all, especially since Tim was still there to hold my hand. Plus no one was actively trying to make me cry. Not that I know of, at least.
It was surprising to find that the presser atmosphere was much more relaxed than I imagined it to be from watching the videos. It makes sense. Many of the reporters have worked together for quite a few years and know each other well. Game faces are on when someone like Hoke is in the room, but when they’re not peppering coaches with questions, the reporters turn around and talk about everything from their romantic lives to what they had for dinner last night. You can learn some interesting things by paying attention to the small talk.
If anything, I was nervous around the coaches and players since I hadn’t introduced myself to any of them. People like Angelique Chengelis from the Detroit News and Larry Lage from the Associated Press are on a first name basis with nearly all of them, and having that kind of rapport really helps when you ask an open ended question (“What do you think about _____?”) and expect to get a good quote.
The good thing about being a diligent MGoReader, however, was that I knew most of the pertinent storylines right off the bat and had no problem interjecting questions of my own. I settled in quickly after I popped my first one (“Are you playing more at 3-tech or 5-tech?” to Ryan Van Bergen). After that it was just a matter of not stuttering.
These days my job is as frightening as: Asking Al Borges about bubble screens, which (see below) is kind of fun! I like going to the press conferences, and I always feel incredibly lucky when I’m there. To be able to interact directly with the coaches and players on a daily basis is any Michigan fan’s dream, and the nature of my job -- transcribing quotes, as opposed to coming up with angles and writing stories on deadline -- doesn’t ruin the experience for me or dampen my fandom at all.
Who in the press has impressed you, perhaps by being welcoming to the blog guy, etc? Or has anyone in the mainstream media given you something of a cold shoulder?
I already knew Chantel Jennings and the kids from the Daily because I worked with them last year. They were immensely helpful last season whenever I got confused by protocol or my tape recorder didn’t work or I just needed a ride back to lab, which was often. I’m not terribly close with anyone else in the MSM, but I did also get to know Kyle Meinke from AnnArbor.com later in the season. He reads MGoBlog. Cool guy.
2.So you get to go behind the curtains inside Fort Schembechler and sit in the press box during games. What’s the best part about those opportunities? What’s the worst?
The best part is hearing the other members of the press, particularly the ones who have been around a while, talk about their experiences. I love listening to Angelique go on about what Brian Griese was like in person or how crotchety Lloyd Carr used to get when she’d get cheeky with him -- her memories are always entertaining. It’s not just the other writers, either. The staff, when they’re not in super serious official Michigan athletic department mode, gets in on the chatter sometimes, and they’ll occasionally drop little hints or make offhand remarks about things the coaches or players would never tell you. I guarantee that I learn more about Michigan football when my tape recorder is off than when it’s on.
Gamedays at the Big House are even better, when guys like John Bacon hang out in the press box and shoot the shit with you all afternoon. You’ll be having a coffee with him during halftime and -- hey, was that Mike Hart who just walked by? Wearing green and white? That’s ironic. Oh, and there’s Gene Smith talking to Eddie George, who’s still enormous and hate-inspiring.
I feel silly admitting this but I am a kid in a candy store every week during football season. I’m sure Ace feels the same way. Two more years of this and we will develop diabetes.
The worst part … if there is even a negative aspect of the job … would have to be the cheering prohibition in the press box. I have to make an active effort not to talk during movies, so trying not to react out loud during football games is extra tough. My knuckles ended up in my teeth pretty often last season. I also sort of miss tailgating with my friends and staggering into the student section in a jersey (on time, of course), but I’m okay taking the bad with the good. They get rained on; I get free cookies.
3. Let’s talk about the coaches (Borges, obviously, more on that in a second). We all read the words, watch the interviews… but what have you learned about these men as people sitting in that room with them week after week? Your favorite, or favorites?
I probably don’t know whole lot about the coaches that astute readers wouldn’t figure out for themselves from reading the transcripts and watching the videos, but I’m guessing not everyone reads every word of the transcripts nor watches every minute of presser film. Off camera and off record they’re all lighthearted guys. Rarely does a press conference start without a joke or witty remark of some sort with the media. I used to transcribe the jokes and use them as my photo captions until I realized they weren’t funny to anyone but me.
The coach I enjoy listening to most is Greg Mattison. You can tell there’s no bullshit when he says that his number one passion is for coaching his players and developing them into “Michigan Men.” He’s so eloquent when expressing his pride in his players that I regularly got chills last season just hearing him talk about it. Here’s another penny for the broken record bank: it’s easy to see how he is a fantastic recruiter. He could probably convince me to drop out of school and transcribe Michigan football pressers forever if he wanted to. Please don’t, though.
Mattison’s personality is reflected in how he coaches his defense to play. He’s not the complicated, scheming type, and it rarely seems like he’s trying to hide anything. He knows who he is, nothing tricky about it, and he doesn’t care if you know who he is. He earns his salary and his defense wins games the same way: through maximum effort and attention to detail.
If Mattison could be considered a dog person, Al Borges would be a cat person. Borges strikes me as a lot more cerebral and calculating, which are probably good traits to have if you’re an offensive coordinator, and more on guard.
The last bit might be a product of his environment. Compared with fans’ expectations for Mattison where anything he did would have been an improvement over the last few years, the expectations for Borges really put him in a hard spot. Where are you going to go but down when you inherit a NCAA-record setting 2500-yard passer/1500-yard rusher who played in a system you don’t believe in? Early in the season it seemed as if he was more sensitive to the pressure to use the spread and run Denard or not run Denard. He was defensive about his decisions and often said things like “everyone wants to kill the offensive coordinator when a play doesn’t work.” He eventually opened up once he got comfortable with the personnel. As with most things in sports, a successful record was instrumental to the survival of the Al Borges-Denard Robinson fusion cuisine.
Personally, I like Borges a lot (I know, I know, death stare, bubble screens, etc.). Whereas with Mattison I could sit in a seminar room and listen to him all day, with Borges I can totally imagine myself hanging out with him at a bar and having a couple beers and talk about, idunno, women or something. Speaking of women, his young daughter made occasional appearances at the pressers last season. I suspect baselessly that it was a ploy to lessen the wrath of the media after the Iowa game.
I have the least to say about Brady Hoke because to me, Brady Hoke is an enigma. The man is so much smarter than he lets on. He’s so adept at playing the media and parrying loaded questions with mollifying non-answers, and he’s so impressively diplomatic in the “foreign affairs” aspect of being a head football coach.
Ten bucks says that he makes up words on purpose.
Let’s get back to Borges and the bubble screen. Or Coach Hoke and the spread punt. Your ability to provoke tete a tete showdowns with the staff has quickly become the stuff of legend and a bona fide MGoMeme. How does this happen? Are you simply carrying out the orders of Brian, or are you pushing for something printworthy? Tell us about the experience of ruffling their feathers.
Man, you make it sound like I go to these things in a helmet and pads. Actually, you know what, I kind of like that image. Let’s go with it.
Before I head out to the press conferences I usually get online and check with Brian to see if there’s anything he wants me to ask. Brian’s questions are often about schematic nuances or game decisions, things that he notices while watching the game or doing the UFR that he can’t explain, e.g. assignments when defending the veer option, why Craig Roh crashed down inside the tight end instead of keeping contain outside, and what’s the point of sending Koger as a U-back across the formation when linebackers end up in Denard’s face anyway.
I started adding the “MGoQuestion” tag to these questions halfway through the season upon request but felt silly doing so because Brian’s questions are so obviously different from ones like “How did you feel about such and such position group last game?” Especially when juxtaposed with my own questions, which I come up with occasionally when Brian has nothing for me and I just want to satisfy my own curiosity. You can tell which MGoQuestions are mine by whether you can imagine an excitable dude wearing a No. 16 jersey shouting them from halfway up section 28.
Anyway, the spread punt question to Hoke falls into the Brian category, although if I remember correctly it may have been prompted by a reader email. On that note, if you have questions about Michigan football, ask Brian, and he’ll ask me to ask a coach, and the coach will likely stare at me impassively before giving me an answer from Monosyllabia. Yeah, I probably could have done better. Instead of asking “Have you considered using the spread punt?” I should have asked, “What do you feel is the advantage of using the traditional punt formation as opposed to the spread punt?” They teach us how to frame our questions strategically in medical school in a unit called “The Difficult Patient Interview.” Lesson learned: Brady Hoke is a difficult patient.
The bubble screen question to Borges was completely my own (un)doing. During the season I keep up with a bunch of other Michigan-related blogs. The day of the bubble screen question, I had just read BWS and what must have been his second or third rant on “Why no bubble screen?” when I decided, you know what, maybe I’ll just straight up ask Borges and see what he has to say about it.
It was actually a lot funnier than a lot of readers made it out to be. Because of that incident and that I’ve been bugging him about it off camera ever since, Borges now knows my name. At least, I think he does. He recognized me at the NSD presser and asked me my name.
Over the course of last season, I’ve definitely asked my share of annoying questions, but I don’t think the coaches really care. They understand that the media are there to increase exposure to the program, which is usually a good thing. They’re just not thrilled when their methods are questioned by people who have never played or coached a single down at this level. I have to give them a lot of credit for their patience and humility -- especially Mattison and Borges, who are willing to explain their thoughts with such honesty and such detail that no MSM reporter would ever be able to use the quote in a 500-word story. To us, however, and to the readers, those quotes are gold because they truly enhance how we watch and appreciate Michigan football.
4. On top of all of this, you’re pursuing an MD/PhD?? First of all, how do you make all that happen? What sort of unique perspectives does your medical pursuits give you with regards to following Michigan sports? And finally, where would you like this unique skill set take you in the future?
It sounds impressive, but the secret is that the MD and the PhD don’t happen at the same time. It’s two years of med school, four years of thesis work, and then two more years of med school. It’s an eight year slog, and right now I’m somewhere between year four and five overall. For all you math majors that have been keeping track, it means I’ve been working in a lab for two years now.
Being in the PhD phase of my training is what makes all of this possible. My project is independent and my hours are fairly flexible, so I can duck out of lab for an hour or two a few times a week during football season to hang out in Schembechler Hall. They feed us on Mondays, which is nice.
I’m not sure whether my medical/science background offers anything unique per se regarding Michigan athletics. I recognized Denard’s staph infection the minute I saw it on his hand and made the connection to the abscess on his elbow when that news broke, but that’s about it. I certainly don’t know enough to even begin to discuss sports injuries (except for concussions, but only because I had one recently). That kind of stuff isn’t cool to talk about without actual expertise, nor is it cool to talk about until they officially release it anyway because private health issues are supposed to be private.
This is where I’m going to sound like a job application essay or a self-help book: While there aren’t many obvious parallels between science, medicine, and sportswriting, an important connection that I’ve drawn is that the people who are most successful in any of these fields all possess the ability to ask the right questions. Of course, a lot of effort goes into finding out what the right questions are -- that’s why it takes so long to train doctors, why the best scientists often spend more time reading papers than doing experiments, and why Brian has his own UFR -- but it seems to be a winning formula. (/end PSA)
I’m not sure what specialty I want to go into yet, so I can predict even less how the sports aspect will fit in with my future. Check back with me in four years. I’m keeping an open mind as to how everything plays out, but I’m perfectly okay if this ends up just being “That sweet hobby I had for a few years through which I got to meet Denard Robinson.”
Crazy. I’m sure you are no stranger to hard work.
So what do you like to do for fun?
I play a bunch of intramural sports with other med students, and I play music. In fact the reason I’ve been AWOL the last month was because I was spending all my waking hours in the pit band for the annual musical that the med school puts on at the Mendelssohn Theater.
On that note, recently I acquired a didgeridoo. Does anyone know how to play a didgeridoo? I’m having trouble learning how to breathe circularly.
5. Well... I know there are rules against cowbells and airhorns in the stadium, but to my knowledge there are no such restrictions in place concerning the preeminent Aboriginal instrument of Australia. Why are you a Michigan fan?
I went to high school in Ohio but was oblivious to the rivalry until one day I showed up to class wearing a Michigan shirt. It was pretty easy to pick sides after that. And now I go here, so I mean, duh.
6. And finally, who is your all-time favorite Wolverine?
It would be difficult not to say Denard, but there is a special place in my heart reserved for former Michigan volleyball player Lexi Zimmerman. Anyone who has ever written for Daily Sports knows that you will never forget the first time you deploy the Massive Profile Machine. For me it was Lexi.
Imagine yourself, ten or fifteen years from now, having to visit the doctor.
Perhaps you need your cholesterol checked, or maybe it’s even the dreaded prostate examination that becomes more and more terrifying as I get older. But either way, you’re led into the doc’s office and find yourself looking back at a small shrine of Michigan lore. Pics of your doctor shaking hands with Denard, or being held in a headlock by the offensive coordinator. You see all those framed diplomas, adorned with that famous golden seal with the magic lamp. And, as he walks into the room, either in block M-bedecked scrubs or sporting a striped maize and blue tie under his crisp lab coat, you hear the song in your head. By the time you get to the part
that says, “Leaders and Best,” it all fits perfectly.
You spend a little time interacting with Heiko and one thing immediately makes
itself clear: this dude is going places. Ambitious, well-written, yet without any presumptions about how people should treat him. He’s a fan, and he’s one of us—but at the same time you can’t help but feel that’s not all he is, or is capable of or will become. Who knows, maybe one day it’ll be Al Borges telling stories of the time
he was interviewed by Dr. Yang.
As you may or may not be aware, our offensive coordinator wrote a book. I finally got my hands on it thanks to Michigan's ILL Department and wrote up a short summary/review of it. Take from it what you will.
Title: Coaching The West Coast Quarterback
Author: Borges, Alan. Borges, Keith.
Publisher: Coaches Choice
Length: 120 pages
What This Book Is:
This is the kind of book I'd expect a high school offensive coordinator to be reading, along with giving his quarterbacks a copy of it. It does assume you already know the fundamentals and as such is light on the drills. The book tells you what kind of stance the quarterback should be in, but doesn't provide instruction for how to correct a quarterback's stance. That's left for other instructional videos (Borges also made a series of videos that carry the same title as this book).
Still Borges spent a lot of time on the West Coast and the West Coast offense definitely played a formative role in how Al Borges does things. Plus the book has value by itself, if you're a coach, it's worth at the very least paging through it.
Interesting Random Fact:
The only copy Michigan's ILL service could find is from the Library of Congress. So we don't own a copy of the book, nor does any other B1G school.
Preface and Chapter 1, The Fundamentals of QB Play:
The book opens up with a lot of the stand lines about what you want in a quarterback. You know standard stuff like leader on and off the field, toughness, etc. The most interesting part here I found were the quotes:
'Intelligence is important, but a great work ethic can overcome much of what some players lack in natural "smarts."'
'He [the QB] should know exactly how his coach thinks and be able to regurgitate it verbally at the drop of hat.'
The first quotation pretty much sums up Jason Campbell. At the risk of taking too much from a single sentence in the book, it does show a willingess to engage in development projects with high schools who have the talent and work ethic but no the smarts. The second quote is fairly standard, as every OC out there wants to mind meld with his QBs, but not ever coach uses regurgitate in their writing. Another point for Coach Borges.
One interesting comment though that did come out of this section is:
"Keep in mind that the quarterback does not look over 6' 4" and 6' 5" linemen. He is seeing and throwing through windows in the pass rush."
In other words, good line play can compensate for a shorter quarterback. Assuming the line knows where the QB is looking, it is their job to clear guys out of Denard's field of vision. Clearly it helps if the QB is taller, but in the book Borges specific states he values mobility over the QB standing tall and looking over linemen. An interesting fact to trot out next time you're stuck around family who want to complain about Denard being a midget.
Also in this section Borges covers the "Sprint Out" concept. Throughout the entire book, he stresses the idea of a mobile quarterback that can add an extra threat with his legs as being desirable. Although he does seem to be talking about more about a Tate Forcier kind of quarterback: pass first, use your legs to buy time, and then run for a few yards if needed. Also throwing the ball away is stressed as something that should be done as opposed to forcing the pass. You can tell the book was definitely written before the rise of the quarterbacks like Denard. The overall tone of the book though does suggest that even if we get RoboMorris, he'll be running more frequently than RoboHenne did.
We even get a little bit of option ball out in the book. Although it is merely two pages tacked on to the end of the capture on fundamentals. The main take away on the option is that "When executed precisely, the option can be low-risk and very productive." He only covers the speed and dive options though in this book.
Chapter 2, Philosophy of the Passing Game:
One of the concepts that Borges mentions here is that half the passing yards should come through the air and half the passing yards should come via yards after catch. So who knows, the days of the tiny little slot ninjas with cloaking devices might not be over. Borges also stresses the concept though of always having a deep threat wide reciever who on any play can be hit for 6 points. In terms of WRs Borges has three:
Hands Guy: Dependable at catching the ball.
Deep Threat: Can get six points
Route Runner: Most likely to be open.
From there the book goes into a review of the Delta, Flood, Option, China, Crossing, and One on One concepts. Also overthrowing or "putting it where only the good guy can get it" is stressed. So Denard's overthrows are actually a sign he is learning from Borges, although accuracy would be even better.
As an interesting side, Borges estimates that if the defense rushes six that it is unlikely for them to all remain blocked for more than 3 seconds. So if you are trying to raise a young quarterback run some drills to make reads and release within 3 seconds.
Chapter 3, Reading and Understanding
Chapter 3 is the diagram heavy chapter of the book. Covering reading the defense, hot routes, and the like. The most interesting part starts on page 40 with the contours of the defense. The contour of a defense is created by drawing a line from the one side of the field to other, connecting the defensive backs. So if all the safeties and corners are at the same depth you would have a flat line. As they move up or down you get peaks and valleys. The quarterback can guess the style of defensive coverage (three deep, two deep, man, etc) based on how the defensive backs are lined up. Although Borges does point out that a good defense will always run out of the same contour or change on purpose to bait the quarterback. A defense will poor coaching will tip its hand by changing the contour of the defense depending on the called play.
A good example of this would be when we'd push Kovacs up and create a contour that suggests we're blitzing Kovacs. We of course did just that with great success, but other times we'd have Kovacs drop and set him up for a pick. This might also help shed some light on the whole "Martin drops into coverage" thing we tried. You blitz Kovacs and then the QB throws in the direction of the blitz reflexively, but Martin is there to swat the ball.
In this chapter Borges also covers the different defensive aligments (4-3, Bear, etc) and their weaknesses. A common theme here is Borges seems to view a lot of the defensive sets as vulernable to inside-out. That is a runningback or tight end moving out and catching the ball, possibly with WRs to block and create a screen. As mentioned in snoopblue's review of the Gulf Coast offense, Borges likes throwing to running backs. Here we see the same theme covered repeatedly. Earlier when talking about receivers Borges stressed that you must have a running back with good hands.
Borges also discusses how a defender who is backpedaling and flatfooted is always a threat because the QB never knows how well he'll jump. Borges really stresses you have to force the defenders into some kind of lateral movement that creates either a leading or trailing window for the ball. Consider for a moment on the bubble screen, if the DB doesn't backpedal off the WR (because they plan to play bump, bail or kick), you're left with a defender who is flatfooted, which Borges hates. Coupled with his love of inside-out, I can understand why he might have some objection to the bubble screen, if that area of the field is weak Borges appears to prefer to send a TE or a RB into it and throw to them. Take that for what you will and of course keep in mind the age of this book.
If you were lurking around the board earlier in the season you might remember a few debates on how our DBs always seemed to be a step behind the WRs. Some of the other posters did an excellent job explaining trail coverages. On page 69 of the book Borges provides a great rundown of both DB and Safety play techinques, including trail and robber. Someone with more patience than myself and access to the torrents from two years ago should consider going back and checking to see if we were frequently changing defensive contours (thus tipping our hand) and if we altered techinques frequently. Borges specifically mentions good defensives will frequently vary techinques. Each techinque has a set counter the WR can undertake, so good defenses will alter them. Bad defenses will not and thus make it easy for the WRs to adjust.
So a defense that rarely changes contours (or changes them to bait) but frequently changes techniques (bump, bail, engage, kick, backet, etc) is a well coached defense. Defenses that do the opposite are not. I think next year I'm going to watch a lot of Michigan games and then Arizona games and see if I can spot the difference and thus prove that Gibson is a terrible, terrible, coach.
Last Third Of the Book:
The last third of the book is a specific breakdown of various routes, the footwork involved in them, and the theory behind audibles. I'll gloss over it as it is mostly mechanics. Once again though definitely something to have any future QB you are trying to raise read.
One interesting section is on page 103 where Borges breaks down third down decision making. He does not say anything like "center it for a punt and play defense", so we're definitely out of the DeBord era for what it is worth. Here also is where Borges stresses he expects the QB to be able to run for 3 or 4 years and get the first down. However you only run if you have a clear lane, scrambling is solely to buy time for the pass. I'd imagine his time around Denard may have made him rethink that last bit.
The final thing of note is on page 105 where he talks about the 4 minute offense and how to bleed the clock while moving to score (and ensure the other team won't get a chance for a rebuttal). Borges gets real specific including that the team should unpile as slowly as possible after the running play to further bleed the clock. Definitely interesting as you never hear the talking heads on TV discuss the 4 minute offense.
The book concludes with some basic QB drills like scramble drills and throwing from your needs. Borges does mention footwork is much more important than arm motion. This helps explain why Campbell had a horrible throwing motion but always was good at planting his feet and aligning his shoulders.
As I said this isn't like some super deep look at the mind of Al Borges or what he'll do here. This is a fairly straightforward "Here is how you run the West Coast Offense" text. That being said I'd encourage picking it up solely for Chapters 2 and 3. Read those two chapters, understand the diagrams, and you'll definitely increase your knowledge of the game. It's not that hard of a book to wrap your head around and you'll walk away with a greater appreciation for it.
By the way if you're a current student, staff, or faculty member, consider taking a moment to fill out a request that the library buy the book. The book itself goes for 20 dollars on Amazon or takes 3.5 weeks to get via ILL (and I'm holding the current copy of it, so you're out of luck). If a bunch of us request it, perhaps the library will buy a copy.