Al Borges' solution to running woes: 1. moar under center 2. .... 3. WINS!
Everytime he says something like this, I die a little bit inside.
http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/michigans-al-borges-contempl…
September 14th, 2011 at 3:19 PM ^
Quit worrying about Borges and offense and plays and pay no attention to whatever he says, just watch what we do and when and how as the games come along. He obviously wants each and every defense we play to have to prepare for both the spread and the I-formation, regardless of what we use when and how and why.
You don't get to be an old and employed offensive coordinator being a fool, there are a lot of unemployed young wise men!
September 14th, 2011 at 3:24 PM ^
...who made Jason Campbell, Cade McNown and Cadillac Williams into 1st round draft picks.
September 14th, 2011 at 5:20 PM ^
Did Borges make Cadillac Williams and Ronnie Brown into first round picks? Lets give the players some credit for this.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:24 PM ^
His track record speaks for itself, and he has taken average QB's and made them great. The team is on a bit of a learning curve at this point, and there probably will be a few bumps along the way, but before long the kinks will be worked out. Besides, I think that asking Borges to run a spread offense just because of Denard will work about as well as GERG's 3-3-5.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:32 PM ^
Tell me this. For everyone that thinks we should simply design our offense entirely around Denard's ability to run, what happens when Denard gets hurt? Do we have one playbook for Denard and then a back-up playbook for everyone else that the rest of the starters don't get a chance to practice? I think that designing a playbook around a single player is very risky. If he god hurt (God forbid) we would be absolutely screwed since we don't have another Denard on the roster. I don't think its worth it to transform your system to maximize the abilities of one player.
September 14th, 2011 at 4:16 PM ^
I agree, but DG was recruited to run a spread offense and absolutely has the tools to do so. Not to mention our cadre of 5'7 slot ninjas who go totally unutilized when we put in McLoghan (sp?) at FB and the fact that our o-line is much better at zone blocking. The 40% of the time we run the non-spread portion of our offense, we basically throw yards away.
September 14th, 2011 at 4:36 PM ^
But he's also 6'4" and he doesn't run a 4.3. From most of the commentary I've seen, people want to eliminate the plays where the quarterback might have to throw over a defender and they want to utilize Denard's dilithium to turn safeties into linebackers. I don't think Gardner (or many other quarterbacks) would fit that system very well.
September 14th, 2011 at 5:05 PM ^
Our problem isn't I vs gun, it is finding any way to get someone other than Denard to get some yardage
September 14th, 2011 at 5:08 PM ^
with the caveat that I think the best way to do that is out of the gun. I'm certainly not asking for Denard to run power more often.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:37 PM ^
The top two RBs last year, LaMichael James and Mikel LeShoure, both ran out of shotgun offenses. I'm not familiar with all of the offenses on the list, but I bet the same is true for many of the other top RBs. It's just not true that you can't use the RB effectively from the shotgun. People are doing it everywhere. And not just on read-option and outside stuff.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:46 PM ^
The real question is: How effective were OUR running backs out of the shotgun last year?
Answer: Not effective enough.
September 14th, 2011 at 4:32 PM ^
Also, which of our backs have shown the ability of the aforementioned backs?
September 14th, 2011 at 4:33 PM ^
While that's certainly true, our running game itself was excellent. That's because we weren't asking the offensive line to block in ways they really aren't capable of doing.
September 14th, 2011 at 4:53 PM ^
Our running game was excellent because Denard always had an extra blocker and had 20 carries per game, or fewer if he got hurt. Everyone else was average at best.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:45 PM ^
relax.
Borges knows what he is doing.
Have a cookie.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:45 PM ^
uhh..so far our coachs have shown the ability to MAKE ADJUSTMENTS of which RR and GERG were very much unable to do. As much as I think 'Gun is the only way to deploy Denard, I am happy with them starting out a game; sucking at it, adjust @ halftime, #winning.
September 14th, 2011 at 8:36 PM ^
Until we play a team that's too good to suck for a half against...
September 14th, 2011 at 9:44 PM ^
It boggles my mind. Last year, we came up with every excuse in the book to say our offense wasn't any good and RichRod wasn't that great offensively because it stalled in the first half and we had to come back too often. Now we are using the exact same mindset to praise the current coaching staff for making adjustments and getting us back into the game. The only difference between the Wisconsin, Penn State, and Iowa games from last year and this past week's ND game was that our defense was able to stop ND a couple times
September 14th, 2011 at 3:47 PM ^
For the last two years, as the season progressed, the team regressed, admittedly in part due to tougher competition, but, regardless, the team did not seem to get better as the season went along. It may well be that Borges (and the rest of the coaches) believe that by playing both spread and I-formation in actual games, the team will improve its execution in both formations so that as the season goes along, the team will progress. That is not to say that the coaches did not care about beating ND, but my guess is that if they knew in advance that we would win only two of the three games against ND, MSU and OSU, they would choose wins against MSU and OSU.
We lost out on practice time when we lost the last 17 or 18 minutes of the WMU game. We needed those reps on offense. We didn't get them. We still have not run all that many offensive plays. It seems logical, at least to me, that the coaches will try to work out the wrinkles in our running game over the next three Saturdays so that when we face stiffer challenges at Northwestern and MSU they will be in the best position to determine what we are best able to do to win those two important conference games.
September 14th, 2011 at 7:29 PM ^
The offense has run around 75-80 plays so far this year.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:48 PM ^
I could care less what type of offense Borges professes to want to run Sunday through Friday; but on Saturday, I want him to employ the best unit for the talent and situation before him. I suspect we'll see a bunch of pro-style "MANBALL" runs against EMU, then a return to the 60/40 spread/pro against SDSU. Borges wants to win, and he wants to win now, so he's not going to push for Denard to change his game just to fit in.
What will be interesting is what Borges does once Denard leaves. Then he'll have a 5* in Devin and a 5* in Shane, one designed for the 60% offense and the other for the 40%, with less overlap/reliance on a singular player like Denard. My guess is that he'll try to push Devin more toward the I-form, pro-style offense with designed runs we saw with teams like Va Tech, OSU (with Troy Smith), and Syracuse (with McNabb). But who knows. Right now, though, this coaching staff has shown a proclivity toward talking up the blue hairs while still being realistic with the capabilities of the offense. That's a smart coaching staff, and so I'm fine with how they gussy it up for the papers.
September 14th, 2011 at 4:01 PM ^
I actually think he would be an excellent pro-style QB. He's got the arm, the height and more escapability than the average dude, although not as much as Denard. When Denard is gone we're going 100% West Coast baby. And, I should note, at that point I will have no problem with it because a west coast style will be an optimal use of our personnel. The problem is that this year running ANY plays out of the I-form not in goalline situations is essentially throwing away yards.
September 14th, 2011 at 4:11 PM ^
Borges explicitly said that he would like to be under center "a little bit more, not a lot but a little bit more."
A little bit more.
Breath deep and try to survive.
September 14th, 2011 at 4:15 PM ^
"I'd like to be under center a little bit more," Borges said. "Not a lot more, but a little bit more."
From your own goddam link.
Edit: In other words, what that guy right above me just said before I said it.
September 14th, 2011 at 4:14 PM ^
Coach Borges is right. This staff has to find away to get the running backs more involved in the offense. Coach knows the only way to compete in the Big Ten is to have stability. Without the running backs contributing this staff will end up being a repeat of the last staff, look good against the cupcakes, and sputter against the top dawgs. Denard can’t be the entire offense otherwise we don’t stand a chance in the long run.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:03 PM ^
but you don't need to be under center to get better production out of the RB's. You can run plenty out of the spread formation.
September 14th, 2011 at 4:37 PM ^
Denard is allowed to be Denard + hot RB action = wins
September 14th, 2011 at 4:44 PM ^
I commend you for making it obvious that this was a neg-worthy thread just from the title.
September 14th, 2011 at 5:22 PM ^
People still think spelling "more" as "moar" is funny.
September 14th, 2011 at 5:30 PM ^
I think it's likely that Borges will continue to do alot of tinkering to find a way to develop a consistent non Denard running game and that will result in lots less offense from Denard than is acceptable in Mgoblog land. Even if we're 5-0, there is liikely to be quite an uproar
September 14th, 2011 at 6:02 PM ^
No kidding...Denard is likely to win a Heisman with a spread game. So, yeah, we're gonna be in an uproar if he is cramped in an I form only offense that is not suited to his skill set.
I'm hoping for a heavier slant towards spread formations this year (75/25) and less every subsequent year until we get to a mix that fits our offense the best at any given time.
September 14th, 2011 at 5:42 PM ^
to suggest that "the kids are going to get confused" because they run Power I AND spread formations at the same time.
There are tons of examples of teams that do it all. Norm Chow at USC ran I-formation, split backs with trips, Ace, offset I, and shotgun pro. Borges did the same at UCLA. The playbook was huge. Those players were on great teams. They were not confused about their identity as "Smashmouth" or "Finesse". They knew how to do both. They just played and executed and scored a shitload of points.
I don't understand why Michigan fans are so wrapped up and vested in the offensive identity badge that Michigan should "officially wear" because we're Michigan!. Forget that shit.
Besides Michigan is already doing everything under the sun right now.
All that matters is scoring a ton of points and beating opponents as decisively as possible. Sometimes that means bringing the hammer with Manbaw 36 belly shit, and other times it means breaking out Denard and running speed option, faking opponents out so badly their faces melt Indiana Jones style.
September 14th, 2011 at 5:45 PM ^
Ohio State runs both...
September 14th, 2011 at 11:55 PM ^
Thankfully, we don't have Jay Paterno coaching Denard.
September 14th, 2011 at 5:59 PM ^
doing things, I happened to look to the side at what some of our Big Ten brethren are up to.
Don't look now but 3 of the top 4 rushing teams in the Big Ten conference primarily operate out of the shotgun and happend to be scoring more touchdowns than PSU, Iowa, MSU and Ohio State....
Illinois 566 yrds, 8 TDs
Northwestern 547 yrds, 8 TDs
Wisconsin 449, 7 TDs
Nebraska 448, 8 TDs
Michigan is dwindling down in 9th place with 304 rushing yards in 2 games and 4 TDs.
September 14th, 2011 at 7:26 PM ^
How many of those yards are by the teams QB vs from their rb's??
UM getting production out of their running back was a problem out of the shotgun last year too.
September 14th, 2011 at 8:04 PM ^
Betcha wisonsin is still the number one B1G rushing attach by the end of the year. It all depends on where the team has talent.
September 14th, 2011 at 9:45 PM ^
And ND is better than most of the teams they played. Hell, Western is.
September 14th, 2011 at 8:36 PM ^
Calm down people. This is his exact quote: "I'd like to be under center a little bit more," Borges said. "Not a lot more, but a little bit more."
September 15th, 2011 at 12:09 AM ^
Navy annually gives teams fits because they are not used to it. WHy not throw it a smidgeon of option under center to throw teams off? The sight of Denard running with the ball surely will cause some defenders to go Tommy Rees and have eyes only for one man.That should open some lanes for Fritz/Shaw/Hopkins.
I never understood why RR did not try this. At least show some different looks in terms of formations. He had an I-form already. Why not use the triple option?
Is it because of the blocking scheme is so radically different than what UM is currently using?
Perhaps the experts on here can shed some light on reasons why UM has not used the triple option.