Borges interview on dead horse
Please take my thread topic literally.
http://michigan.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1239666
Courtesy of gobluegr who did not have enough points to post. I hope he did not bait me into a duplicate thread posting...
Have you taken a minute to consider that what we know of Sheridan and Threet is through the spread? Did you consider that it is perhaps the fit between Sheridan, Threet, and the spread is the reason they looked, on the whole, like untalented QBs?
Are you argueing that Sheridan is anything more than a backup at the college level? As far as Threet, his mediocre numbers at ASU speak for themself. I was basing my opinion of Threet on what he did at both schools, not just at Michigan. What evidence is there to think that Threet could have been a good QB at the collegel level? And don't cite his recruiting ranking, because as we have seen those are not always accurate.
Of course I am not arguing that - that should be obvious to anyone with a pulse. I am simply arguing that what we know of Sheridan and Threet, in terms of how they performed here, is by way of a spread scheme that they did not fit. The point is that what we know of them is relational, we do not know of them in isolation. It is always relational, which is why some QBs shine when a scheme is fitted to their skill set.
As for Threet at ASU, his career ended prematurely due to concussions. And keep in mind that he had to go through another transition. I am not saying that he would have been a star, but you cannot deny that he performed better there under a system that better fit his skill set, than here under one that did not.
He threw for over 2,500 yards, and 18 TD to 16 INTs as just a second year starter, on a pretty awful team that went 6-6. No one said he was Denard Robinson, or Chad Henne. Not really much different than Tate Forcier was, and we thought he was all that and a slice of bread until Denard learned how to throw ANY passes. I don't think there were ever going to be any Threet Heisman campaigns, but there's just as good odds he could have been a good upperclassman QB on a good team. Places like Wisconsin have made hay off of guys like Threet. Running more zone read than Denard even does? That wasn't going to work.
better passing numbers than Threet in his first year starting. I will take a upperclassmen Denard over Threet any day of the week. Essentially RR was preparing the rest of offense in 2007 to learn the spread system, banking on getting a guy like Denard at the QB position. He did get that guy and the offense was a year ahead in terms of the rest of the guys being accustomed to the system. Would of worked out of fine, if he had handled the other side of the ball better.
Are you really basing your argument on full scale implementation of the spread in 2007, versus some compromise implementation, as the only way to make the transition?
Had he won some margin greater than 3 games his first year, a margin we can obviously only guess at, he would likely still be here. Shitty defenses and all. We can go on to guess that had he won more games he might have got better recruits, and so on. But he would still be here. He would have more time on that defense thing.
It all boils down to the fact that RR didnt win enough. RR didnt win enough.
RR. Didnt. Win. Enough. Period
And that 3-9 season was the start of that.
it through your head that nobody is saying RR won enough, but thanks for needlessly stating it over and over. My point was that even an additional 2 to 3 wins in 2007 (which is not a given considering the inexpierence on the offense), could have come at a cost of 2 to the 3 wins the next two years, due to offense being a year behind coupled with the horrendous defenses the last two years. That would leave RR in the same position win total wise, and likely the same end result in terms of being fired.
Wow. You argue that the offense would be "a year behind" in year 2, costing us more losses. AGAIN - Why would the offense be a year behind in year 2 if he did a compromise implementation? Nothing would have been learned in year 1?
Nevermind, done answer. I'm done. You are obviously not paying attention.
I'm done as well. Like I said gets pretty annoying that some posters are incapable of praising the new coaching staff, without taking the oppurtunity to bash the old one every chance they get. That is just how some posters are I guess.
You are essentially arguing that RR sacrificed wins in 08 to win more games in 09-10. The problem is history shows that theory is incorrect. Unless you're claiming we would have won less than 5 and 7 games had we not implemented the spread immediately. In other words, he was fired after following through on the plan you're advocating. It was either wrong, or it didn't make a difference, so you really don't have much to stand on.
really think winning 5 and 7 games the last two years would have saved RR's job's, even if the team had gone 5-7 in his first year anyways? I don't think 5 and 7 wins, in year 2 or 3 would have been good enough regardless, particurly with the ugly nature of some of the losses.
And the actual result that occured, represents hindsight. RR made that decision at the time based on what he looked as potential benefits in the long-term and because he felt he could recruit a better QB than Threet or Sheridan immediately (which he did as Tate and Denard both had better years in their respective years starting than Threet did last year for ASU). Just because it didn't work out for reasons mostly unrelated to the offense(defense and special teams), does not mean that it wasn't a logical decision at the time.
do you really think winning 5 and 7 games the last two years would have saved RR's job's, even if the team had gone 5-7 in his first year anyways?
No, that is exactly my point. We get the "logic" and reasoning he had behind his decision, but in the end it didn't make a difference, he failed. He might as well have tried to win more games in year one. That is the point everyone is making. We get why he did it, but history has proven that it wasn't the correct move.
I think what is frustrating Mgoblue96 is the ongoing conflation of RR's poor overall performance with specific decisions about the 2008 offense.
I think everyone--MGB96 included--agrees that RR did not perform well overall at Michigan. He did not win enough games, he did not develop a complete team, etc. However, just because he did not perform well overall does not mean that he never did anything right. Imagine a student who takes an exam and gets a 50% score. Yes, he failed the test. He has earned an F. But he did get half the questions right.
RR failed overall because of epic failure on the defense and special teams. There is also an argument that the offense contributed to his failure by committing excessive turnovers and failing to score in key situations against better opponents, though this contention is much mroe controversial. Nonetheless, RR did do some things correctly; two indisputable examples are his recruitment of Denard Robinson and development of some very good offensive linemen like Omameh and Lewan.
As for whether RR made the right decision by installing the spread in 2008, I will refrain from stating an opinion. However, to have an honest discussion about that decision, you have to isolate it. If, as MGB96 argues, it was the correct decision to install the spread that year because it improved Michigan's long-term offensive prospects even at the cost of a couple wins in '08, then you either have to explain why that argument is unconvincing, or else concede the point. You can't reply with "he just didn't win enough games" or "we had no defense" or some other non sequitur.
Let me try to clarify my point of why I think "not winning enough games" is directly tied to this issue. For argument sake lets say RR did sacrifice 2-3 wins in 2008 to install his offense immediately. History shows that his offense was not productive enough in 2009-2010 to produce enough wins. I know, it was the defenses fault overall, but we're arguing about what actually happened, and separating offense from defense, like you say. So given the defense as a constant, the offense was not good enough in 2009-2010 to win more than 5 and 7 games. So the sacrifice was not worth it, or didn't make a difference.
In the alternate scenario, if RR wins 5-6 games in 2008, maybe that changes everything. Maybe he doesn't have to fire Shafer as a sacrificial lamb. Maybe 5 and 7 wins in 09-10 are good enough for one more year given that he didn't absolutely fail in 08. The point is, the decision he made, ultimately failed, so in hindsight I'd obviously take the unknown to the failed trial. That is my point
Boy, is this dumb. Threet, while no Tom Brady, performed pretty well in his first year at ASU and rated on par with Christian Ponder. In an appropriate scheme, he would have been more than adequate in Ann Arbor. Blame RR for his mulish insistence on a scheme ill-suited for his players.
rating last year, it is true that Threet was close at #53, but how exactly is that a high measuring stick in terms of passing rating? Both their qb ratings were mediocre last year. Christian Ponder also had more td's in 35 or so less pass attempts than Threet , threw 8 less interceptions and posted the 16th best passer rating in 2009.
Threat retired due to concussions, since I am sure he would have been a first rounder and potential NFL started this year. Those NFL guys must have just overlooked him I guess. I love me some threet, will never forget his run against Wisconsin(?) but catering an offense to him? Ga tech didn't do it, either did Rr so maybe it's not the coaches...
Georgia Tech recruited him to run a pro-style offense. He transferred before their coaching change.
Exactly.
Steven Threet was not the garbage QB people here often make him out to be. If not for the concussions that ended his career, he was likely to be a two-year starter at Arizona State, in addition to his year starting at Michigan - so he would have started every season he was been eligible in college. He transferred here expecting to play in a pro-style offense. Instead, he had to run an offense terribly-suited for his skills (and which caused him to take a beating). If he looked bad when he was here, you have to wonder how much of that was just him being too inexperienced and how much was him not being a good fit for that offense.
As for Sheridan, the fact that the previous staff somehow thought he should start the season opener is not to their credit.
his numbers at ASU last year were mediocre, considering there were 52 other starting college QB's who had a better passer rating. A large part of the reason he started at both places is because both ASU and UM were in pretty bad shape at the QB position when he arrived. He probally doesn't start either year, with more ideal conditions.
Who knows maybe he would improved signficantly in his senior year, but in his 2 years of starting he was mediocre at best. Like I said I will take an upperclassmen Denard and Denard from last year, over Threet any day of the week.
I like how, at the end , Borges talks about matching up with Mattison's defense.
Last year the rumor was RR wanted the defense to get the offense ready.
Now maybe they'll get each other ready.
What practices were like between our offense and defense last year? 95 yard run on a spike ball drill.
Borges is probably one of the most underrated offensive coordinators in the country. He's getting overshadowed by Mattison a bit, but his track record is no less impressive. Anyone who coached an offense that went undefeated while averaging over 30 points a game in the SEC, went 10-2 while averaging 40 points a game in the Pac-10 (twice), and turned Cade McNown and Jason Campbell into first round NFL draft picks and top-5 all time passers at their respective schools can flat-out coach.
That post made me laugh.
When any mention of the word "offense" ends up with Brian and RR being burned in effigy. Can't we just have a nice peaceful supper without all the bickering for once?!
I don't see anyone burning Brian in effigy. I see one posted calling his attention to the fact that Borges spoke of running the shotgun 50% of the time. Why is that uncalled-for?
Personally, I'd rather err on the side of free discussion than be like Rivals or Scout where the staff writers are blindly fawned over, no matter what they say (or how incoherently they say it).
Ugh - I can't even muster the energy to feign interest in these debates anymore - let's play some football, please.
I've been saying that since January 2nd!
Everyday, I see Rich Rod crawling back towards Michigan, and I just gotta FIRE RICH ROD all over again, just to be sure that sunnuvabitch stays fired.