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 5:05 PM ^
McColgan is not very good at what he is supposed to do (eg., blocking/running/catching passes). Gallon (or whoever else we're talking about) is much, much better and creates many more matchup problems. Plus, using a FB is tactically a bad decision. You are basically conceding being able to outflank the defense. This is a big deal when we are physically inferior to most teams we're playing and the guy at fullback is a walk-on. This is nothing against McColgan. Also, Hopkins is a HB for a reason.
September 14th, 2011 at 2:41 PM ^
I wish a guy with Al's knowledge believed that. Better blocking by the offensive line and better RB's will cure the running game.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:03 PM ^
While I agree with the main premise of what you're saying, on our particular team whether you run out of the 'gun or under center definitely makes a difference. How many QB designed runs come from snapping under center? Although we haven't used it much in the last two games, the zone read is always ran from the 'gun. Basically we have our multi-dimensional QB running designed QB runs and zone reads when we run from the 'gun, and when we are under center we are running power plays, off tackle, and dives from our RBs. I would definitely say that is a difference. Wasn't meaning to be argumentative to your post, just that in our specific case there is definitely a change out outcome as far as YPC when we are running out of the gun or under center.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:34 PM ^
I'm saying that if you want to run the ball better than you are, it does not follow that you then must run more from under center. You can run the ball better from the gun as well--if you have better blocking than we have had, and better RB play.
September 14th, 2011 at 2:40 PM ^
I hope people don't get too worked up over coach-speak. We have a staff that is great at it.
September 14th, 2011 at 2:50 PM ^
I know that GMat and Gorgeous Al have been around, but man, even Brady speaks in couched/white lie coach-speak like no one's business. The philosophy seems to be, tell 'em what they want to hear...then do what you want to do, how you want to do it.
To a point, it's almost like, why even bother listening/taping/writing it down.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:04 PM ^
and I don't mind it. I think one thing Brady immediately recognized when he took the job is that a very influential portion of the fanbase wants a return to old school ways, like REAL old school ways (at least offensively), so he has taken it on himself to at least make them believe that is what he is doing. Unfortunately it seemed RichRod was, I guess, "too honest" to the point that those elite few stopped believing he could ever succeed.
I take everything these coaches say with a grain of salt, and I suggest everybody else do the same. For example, Brady has preached MANBALL since he came in, but also admits he mostly stays out of the offensive stuff and Al's track record doesn't favor MANBALL.
I do love this coaching staff and don't mind the "lies". Makes everything a bit more interesting and, I think, will help keep some of the politics off his back a bit.
September 14th, 2011 at 5:18 PM ^
I'm not worried as much about MANBALL as I am that the West-Coast type offense being installed is fitting a square peg into a round hole.
Putting it another way, I don't necessarily see it as a good thing that Denard throws endless amounts of precision passes with zero threat of him running and trying to rely on the ineffective ground game to generate fear of PA.
There are plenty of pro teams now that barely run out of the I-form in non goal line situations. The Patriots and Lions don't even have FBs on their roster anymore. I just don't understand why people don't consider the 1-back shotgun a "pro" formation.
September 14th, 2011 at 2:41 PM ^
yeah. I hope it is justingoblue said, because otherwise, we are left with this...
September 14th, 2011 at 2:43 PM ^
If only Al would use Picture Pages with Brian Cook, all his offensive woes would be solved. And the way all you little scholar Picture Pagers are catching on, Brian oughta be able to franchise this and make billions. Any head coach worth anything will sign up at once.
September 14th, 2011 at 2:59 PM ^
I guess I'm missing the funny part of your sarcasm. It can't be sincerity, because clearly Michigan has the resources to do their own picture pages. So yep, it's just unfunny sarcasm.
got it.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:03 PM ^
Well, you're definitely missing something.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:10 PM ^
He's being unnecessarily harsh, but it is getting a little silly that amateurs around here seem so adamant that they know better than Borges despite having a trivial fraction of the experience, track record, and familiarity with this roster that Borges has.
September 14th, 2011 at 2:44 PM ^
I actually completely agree with Borges. Let Denard work under center, focus on passing technique and letting the RB's be the focal point of the running game. This saves Denard from heavy contact (hopefully), lets the RB's get in groove for games when we will really need them, and gets Denard mroe comfortable with passing tenchique/timing.
September 14th, 2011 at 2:50 PM ^
September 14th, 2011 at 3:32 PM ^
Agreed. He probably always will be. That being said, we don't need to work on Denards running right now. We need to work on Fitz, Shaw, play-action from under center, and pro style passing aspects of the offense.
To me, this is a good opportunity for us to work more on our weaknesses. I guarantee that if push came to shove, Borges will abandon the pro style and let Denard do what needs to be done.
September 14th, 2011 at 8:30 PM ^
Except that we DO need to work on Denard's running, and, more importantly, the O-line's ability to block for him. Remember, our offense wasn't good enough to beat the best teams last year. Since the best case scenario for under center running with our personnel and experience level is "okay but not as good as Denard running from the gun" we should perfect the things we're pretty good at rather than try to get to mediocre at new things.
Borges has already shown that, when we really need to score, he'll draw deeply from spread concepts that suit Denard's talents. So why waste time on plays you're not going to trust when the chips are down?
September 14th, 2011 at 2:52 PM ^
Absolutely. These running backs need to get their act together sometime, and against teams like we play in the next 3 games is the perfect time. It's also the perfect time to not put Denard in a position to get injured as much. We've GOT to have a rushing offense that doesn't rely on Denard, and from what I understand, that is easier to do from under center.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:28 PM ^
Exactly. I should have put that in my original comment.
These next few games are a perfect time for us to work on the things that are going to be crucial for our us to be good at later in the year.
I like this "hybrid" offense, but the problem we have right now is the under center aspect of it. Once that gets more reps and becomes more polished...watch out.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:37 PM ^
I completely agree... as long as the running backs can, you know, run. There's no point in hampering Denard so that the running backs can split 30 carries per game if they're not producing. I'm sure Borges will go with what produces results; he's not stupid.
September 14th, 2011 at 2:49 PM ^
I was impressed at Lewan's speaking ability. I know newspapers cut out "ah"s and "um"s, but his interview translated nicely onto paper. I used to read transcripts of myself in court and I read like a blithering idiot. I quickly stopped reading them.
September 14th, 2011 at 2:53 PM ^
by putthing the onus on the o-line, where it belings IME.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:10 PM ^
Can't tell if impersonating Dark Blue or not.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:20 PM ^
doing a good job... yea bad spelling, and for some reason I can't edit
September 14th, 2011 at 2:51 PM ^
Well the two runs that appeared to work successfully vs ND were two zone-read keepers out of the shotgun. The two most successful runs vs WMU were zone blocked handoffs out of the shotgun to Fitz and Shaw. We all know how well the RBs ran from under center.
To the untrained observer, its obvious that we have to run more from under center...
To quote Denard, "WHAAAT?"
September 14th, 2011 at 3:15 PM ^
Our three best running backs (Fitz/Shaw/Smith) carried the ball three times against ND. One of those carries came from under center (the offensive line refused to block anyone and Shaw made a great play to avoid a huge loss). This team can be effective running the ball from under center and Denard showed he can make big plays in the passing game there too.
The only valid criticism of Borges is the fact that he gave Hopkins the bulk of the carries against ND. The design of the offense is fantastic, whether we're under center or in the gun.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:19 PM ^
Is a good point. Hard to extrapolate from a game where we were behind the whole time. But doesn't that make it all the more worrisome that he waited until the 4th quarter to open it up?
September 14th, 2011 at 3:44 PM ^
The offense was pretty wide open from the get go, largely because ND overloaded the box and often kept a spy on Denard. The only thing that changed late in the game is that Denard made better throws and guys hung onto the ball. If our guys had executed like they are capable of early in the game we would have put up six or seven hundred yards worth of offense, against a pretty decent D.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:58 PM ^
I should probably wait for the UFR before making proclamations. I was pretty drunk. But we had 85 yards of total offense in the first half, 44 of which came on one throw.
On a similar note, I guess my question would be this: when you say "what our guys are capable of" in relation to execution, what do you think we're capable of out of the I-form? Because most of the positive plays out of the I-form I can remember this year (again, standard caveat, alcohol, etc) have been Denard making shit up after the play breaks down.
I fully admit I'm probably missing something significant here.
September 14th, 2011 at 8:32 PM ^
Umm, the sample size is small because it was obvious early on that the plays weren't working. Or would you have preferred we go 3 and out a few more times just to see if under center runs would start to work?
September 14th, 2011 at 11:48 PM ^
Mike Shaw had one carry in the first half (a zone read out of the shotgun that Denard misread that would have been a huge gain had he kept the ball).
He didn't carry it again until late in the 3rd quarter (we scored two plays later). Smith didn't carry the ball until the 4th quarter (again out of the shotgun, and we scored on the next play). Where are all these three and outs being caused by a refusal to abandon the ground game?
Stephen Hopkins should never have vaulted to the top of the depth chart, but complaining that under center running didn't work because the line sucked on one play (the only one run by any of our top three backs) is kind of insane. Even Hopkins' runs didn't cause the offense to sputter in the first half. He gained three yards on a 2nd and 10 carry where we failed to pick up the first down on the next play. He then had two short runs on first down later in the half. One was immediately followed by an INT and one was immediately followed by a long TD pass.
September 14th, 2011 at 2:57 PM ^
Ultimately, I trust Borges. But under the center will work only against subpar teams right now. Great, get it going against EMU. But we better show something else by the time Big 10 play comes around.
September 14th, 2011 at 2:57 PM ^
We've started both of the opening games lined up in the shotgun with Denard's number being called on a number of designed runs. If the running game isn't in a rythm it is because we haven't called running plays.
Acting like Denard is somehow stifled under center is ridiculous. Just rewatching the ND highlights, all 4 TD passes come with Denard under center as did the 15 yard gain to McColgan. Seems like he was pretty effective there to me, and a lot of that was because ND bit hard on play action over and over again. I'd just like to see Al mix it in earlier in the game and get the backs involved from the start.
Not giving Stephen Hopkins the bulk of the carries when he is the 4th best option on the team would also probably be a good idea.
September 14th, 2011 at 5:16 PM ^
To quote Brian from an earlier post, "the only difference between Denard's passes this year and Denard's passes last year are the defenders." Last year, Denard's threat of running from out of the shotgun gave him wide open receivers to throw to, to which he completed better than 60% of his passes. This year, we are completing passes in double coverage (Hemmingway, Gallon in the end zone), and throwing up jump balls to guys in single coverage. If its not the scheme, then what is the reason that our receivers look so much better covered this year?
September 14th, 2011 at 5:38 PM ^
He had over 100 yards rushing against ND and averaged nearly 7 yards per carry despite taking a knee a time or two before the half. If he doesn't repeatedly make the wrong read against ND on Saturday he would have had another 200 yard game on the ground easily.
If you think Junior Hemingway standing 40 yards downfield with a DB nearby is covered then you are just mistaken. Just like in the Indiana game last year, that is an easy chance for a huge gain, and something that has always been a staple of Al Borges' offense (go back and watch McNown throwing to guys like Farmer and Poli-Dixon and completing "jump balls" all day).
We scored more points against ND this year than we did last year (despite their defense probably being a little better and the fact that we gave the ball away three more times) and averaged 2.4 yards more per play. And that is with Denard playing horribly in the run game and missing open receivers. Denard had 338 yards on 24 attempts on Saturday with 4 TD. Last year he had 244 yards on 40 attempts with 1 TD. I'll take the former, even if it comes with a lower completion percentage.
People seem to be remembering the big plays (we had about two through the air against ND last year) and forgetting all the quick hitches to a covered receiver and the screens thrown behind the line of scrimmage. I'm guessing any difference in perception has to do with people's eyes rather than any overestimated change in scheme.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:03 PM ^
If we don't throw the ball once, and Denard gets ZERO carries against EMU, and we get the win (of course), I would consider this game a tremendous success.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:06 PM ^
Give it up guys. We're going to run probably 40% of our plays from under center, stop complaining about it. I'm fairly certain Borges knows more about running an offense than we do. What's wrong with diversifing the offense? It's not like the shotgun is going away. Plus, if we actually establish an I-form run, it makes Denard even more dangerous on bootlegs and the like. I recall seeing a few wide open plays from under center where Denard simply missed the big play throw or overlooked the wide open receiver (wheel route). If he can make better reads and throws (like a good QB should), he will be lethal.
Quit looking at the short term...
September 14th, 2011 at 4:42 PM ^
September 14th, 2011 at 3:01 PM ^
underpants gnome.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:04 PM ^
After Borges' comments, you might want to keep the firearms locked away.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:06 PM ^
We act like Mike Vick played in a strictly spread option offense both in college and the pros. Also, I fail to see how Borges is a moron for eventually wanting to run his offense. With Tyrod Taylor, an outstanding runner, under center, Va Tech won the ACC title multiple times in a pro style offense in recent years. With Terelle Pryor, OSU won a minimum of ten games a season. Is it as excting? No. Can it win games? You bet.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:19 PM ^
Defense and special teams make kind of a big difference in those examples. Not to mention in the OSU case in particular when they had to score? Spread.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:25 PM ^
I mean, we still run mostly spread. We run a hybrid offense, and Borges is running it in a hybrid manner. This is similar to how both OSU and VaTech ran hybrid offenses.
September 14th, 2011 at 5:19 PM ^
We also act like Denard Robinson has as good of an arm as Mike Vick. He doesn't. Lets help him out and put him in positions to be successful.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:15 PM ^
when facing the bigger DLINES. I don't mind saving DROB in these smaller games...but come MSU we better go back to the shotgun. I suspect Borges practices are 50/50 under center /spread.
September 14th, 2011 at 3:19 PM ^
I think people forget that Michigan was not exactly an offensive dynamo after the Illinois game last year. I've never seen so many people bitch about our offensive gameplan after we just gained almost 250 yards in the 4th quarter, mostly under center. Sure the first 3 quarters were a mess, but lets give the new staff a chance to figure things out.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:52 PM ^
Those 4th quarter yards were pretty much a fluke attributable more to coverage busts and winning contested jump balls with midgets than to anything the offensive design created for them.
It's bloody obvious the I-form is sub-optimal with this personnel and the two formations (I-form and gun) don't complement eachother at all. You want to be sub-optimal 40% of the time?
Rodriguez's spread was based on having legitimate counters to everything the defense did to disrupt Michigan's base plays (inside zone, outside zone read option and qb power). This hybrid looks like its just a hodgepodge of plays that don't complement eachother.
Now, finding a way to integrate a more advanced passing tree on top of the spread base plays that were already established last year? That is something the offense may have been lacking and something I can get behind.
I think that a spread shotgun base with power running concepts (pulling,downblocking) is the most logical solution from a scheme standpoint and also one which maximizes the efficiency of Michigan's practice time (because they already know most of it).
September 14th, 2011 at 6:58 PM ^
Thanks for reiterating exacting what Brian said. RR's spread also didn't do sh!t against any GOOD teams last year (see points scored against good opponents). The end.
September 14th, 2011 at 7:30 PM ^
but that doesn't mean i'm reiterating it.
I've been making this point to people for months/years
And just because yards didn't translate into points last year doesnt mean you need to 'get tougher'. It means you need to find a way for the offense to quit stalling out in the red zone and turning the ball over. I form doesnt solve either of those.