In defense of Borges
First, Michigan scored 34 points in regulation. I don't think anyone was unhappy with how the 3rd quarter worked; despite the 1st half, we were in a position to win. Then, we put on the brakes, which presumably gave the game away. Let's see how that worked.
with 6:35 left in the game, Michigan led 34-27. Herein lies the following drive:
7 rushes, 1 pass.
What did this "putting on the brakes" do?
It gave us the ball on the PSU 28 yard line, on first down, with NO PSU timeouts left. The time read 3:10.
We ran twice, for 1 total yard; there were less than 2 minutes left and Michigan was within field goal range at the 29.
I just don't understand how this could be construed as a failure. We took off 4 minutes left, and drove to within field goal range; if we made the field goal then the game is effectively over as we're up by two scores with less than 2 minutes left.
The failure:
Michigan then takes a delay of game. (Blame goes equally to Borges, Gardner, and Hoke). The DOG makes it 3rd and 14 from the 32 yard line; there are 80 seconds left and PSU has no timeouts. What would you do here? an incomplete pass gives PSU 30 more seconds, a QB draw is OBVS(!), and a run is also OBVS(!).
Borges chose to run it, and we lost 3 yards, taking us out of field goal range. Yes, this was a problem, but I think it follows sound game theory. A run takes the clock down to 50 seconds, and the punt means PSU has to drive it 80 yards, with a FRESHMAN QB. I mean, everything had to go perfect for us to lose. Playing not to lose isn't really a bad strategy when everything has to go perfect for you to lose. I don't think too many people were moaning about the choice to punt it after the failed run.
OT
Then, people are bitching about the OT. In OT #1 and #3, all we had to do was make a field goal. I don't know what everyone's seeing, but I still think that game strategy dictates that you just take the 3 free points and go home with a win. The fact that Gibbons missed/had blocked 2(!) field goals is not on the play calling.
OT is really what gets me. How does a pass, an end around, etc improve our odds of winning? We've got one of the best FG kickers in Michigan history, and were out around 25 yards. Of course, a TD could win it; DG also has 3 TOs at this point. Why not just take the easy 3 and go home?
October 14th, 2013 at 4:22 AM ^
WORSE!
October 14th, 2013 at 1:07 AM ^
And lost three yards on the next play.
So we traded the chance for the FG for AT MOST 10 yards absent the penalty.
October 13th, 2013 at 7:50 PM ^
The game wasn't "lost" per se when we failed to take the TO. (Remember, we were still up by 7, we still could have gotten in field goal range, they still had to drive 80 yards with a freshman QB, and even then, there was OT). Nevertheless, that was a bad decision, and needs to be rectified moving forward.
But the schoring successfully all game idea. . . They had scored 27 points through most of 4 quarters to 4 TOs. I mean, they had more TOs than TDs. I wouldn't call that super successful. Also, They had 1/4 of a playbook they could use from then on out due to time constraints.
October 13th, 2013 at 7:17 PM ^
If you could just "take" them or they were "easy", Michigan would have won.
October 13th, 2013 at 7:37 PM ^
If Gibbons is a 90% kicker from that range, that means the odds of him missing twice are 1%. That's still 1%, and it could happen (spoiler: it did). Just because the thing that had a 1% chance of happening DID happen, doesn't mean taking the 99% odds are stupid.
October 13th, 2013 at 8:19 PM ^
Stats don't take into account the difference in moments.
How many of Gibbons' field goals came at the end of regulation for the win? How many came in hostile environments? How many came after a previous kick was missed?
Football is not played in an emotionless void.
October 13th, 2013 at 8:49 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 9:51 PM ^
Oh I understand that. I'm just saying the odds of him missing were higher in these circumstances than they have been had he had 6 or 7 field goal attempts on a sunny day at home against UMass when we are up by 40.
October 13th, 2013 at 7:17 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 7:19 PM ^
if that's the only defense that you can come up with for borges, he should be packing his things right now.
October 13th, 2013 at 7:52 PM ^
the defense is that he did the things that put the players in the best position to win, at least at those three points in the game. I really don't think there's a better answer out there for the OTs, but I guess Mathlete would know better than I. If the odds are 90% of a win in both scenarios, why would that be a bad call?
The fact that we didn't win doesn't mean the coach didn't do the best job possible.
October 13th, 2013 at 8:09 PM ^
If Borges does his job properly, we don't need a 90% FG chance to beat a PSU team that got throttled by Indiana a week earlier.
October 13th, 2013 at 8:13 PM ^
If Mattison had done his job, we wouldn't have needed to score 34 just to get to OT.
See what I did there?
October 13th, 2013 at 8:57 PM ^
You're 100% correct. Waiting until the 2nd half to bring heat on Hackenberg really cost us. On both short field TD's we gave him all day to throw. We only rushed 3 on the first one (a 3rd and 9). And obviously only sending 4 on PSU's final drive was dumb regardless of Stribling playing or not. The kid didn't make a long completion all day when we blitzed and IU won that game b/c they were pressuring him all day. The IU tape should have made that clear to Mattison.
October 13th, 2013 at 9:04 PM ^
I happen to agree with you, but I have no idea what that has to do with Borges doing his job. So, no, I don't see what you did there.
October 14th, 2013 at 1:15 AM ^
You're just picking fights now. Mattison didn't have a great game, either, but PSU's first two TD's were off of turnovers with a really short field. Those points are more on the offense than the defense. Gardner made a couple of poor passes on those INTs, but the poor guy only gets to throw when it's third and 11 after two stuffed run plays, trying his best not to mess up so that his passing privileges are further reduced.
October 14th, 2013 at 4:15 PM ^
I'll admit, this comment really was just me trying to be contrarian. Drank a little too much I suppose :-)
For the record, I think Mattison did have a great game.
October 13th, 2013 at 7:20 PM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 1:02 PM ^
+10
Correct answer. Borges can try this, or something (he should know) will not work. He chooses the latter, and he did it throughout the game. Enough said.
October 13th, 2013 at 7:22 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 7:23 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 7:24 PM ^
MGrowOld is right about these threads. 34 points are definitely not Borges's. What about Frank Clark's scoop and score? What about the interception that lead to a field goal? What about when Michigan got the ball at midfield off of a punt, and could only get a field goal? That's 13 points that I can think of not being entirely Borges's. And 21 points against Penn State's defense is nothing to be proud about. Borges is a horrible offensive coordinator, end of story.
October 13th, 2013 at 7:47 PM ^
+1 Insightful
October 13th, 2013 at 8:16 PM ^
I do think Borges needs to go. What I'm stating is that not all of this is on him, and he in fact did better than most give him credit for.
P.S. I've thought Borges needs to go since last year. I just think we're pouring a little too much vitroil on him right now. People like simple things, and scapegoats are simple; I think there's a little bit of grey in this black-and-white picture everyone is painting.
October 13th, 2013 at 7:24 PM ^
Exactly how I feel today. There are some frustrations but not much of it, for me, lies with Borges (just all the inside runs in regulation, not counting our final drive).
October 13th, 2013 at 7:30 PM ^
It comes down to the fact that we are back to the Lloyd Carr style of don't make a mistake and take no chances. If Michigan keeps attacking to end the game I'd bet it doesn't even get to the point it did.
God forbid you score a late TD instead of trying ot burn clock. At what point besides the last drive had PSU actually driven the length of the field?
October 13th, 2013 at 7:40 PM ^
Borges has been MUCH more of a risk-taker than Lloyd, as Brian has repeatedly pointed out. But don't let's let facts get in the way of our plebian call for the King's head.
Because it feels good to be in a big crowd and watch somebody pay the price. One of humanity's little weaknesses, but hey. . .
October 13th, 2013 at 7:56 PM ^
i guess it comes down to how you define risk. i think plowing a little RB 27 times with no success very risky in terms of trying to maximize points.
October 13th, 2013 at 9:24 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 7:32 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 7:34 PM ^
In defense of Borges, he really helped me poop yesterday. I literally shit myself.
October 13th, 2013 at 9:02 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 7:36 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 7:58 PM ^
and if nothing is there instruct gardner to throw it away. and if he's sacked, who cares? you're going to punt anyway if the play fails.
October 13th, 2013 at 7:36 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 7:48 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 8:04 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 7:42 PM ^
I'm not upset about the strategy to bleed clock. That's what every damn coach would do. The problem is our team sucks at the one play that is good for bleeding clock. You don't have to throw, but using our worst play over and over again is not advisable given the 1 YPC stat so far. We absolutely need some misdirection to help ourselves out there. We were burning PSU on read options, inverted veers, etc for a few series there. That is almost as safe and every bit as good as I-form for bleeding clock, yet a lot more likely to pick up some yards. Instead, we held up a giant sign that said we're running up the middle and proceeded to do just that, lighting down after down on fire.
I agree, I have no problem with OT1 and 3. That's the smart play, kick the field goal and go home. The OTs where we played offense first weren't all that conservative.
In the end, we had more than enough opportunities to win and failed on every single one. We deserved to lose.
October 13th, 2013 at 8:08 PM ^
Disagree on OT1. A 40 yard field goal is not a guarantee, especially in a hostile environment and especially after your kicker just missed a game winner. We should have tried to make it as easy on Gibbons as possible and the coaches did not do that.
OT3, I agree to a large extent, but having 3rd and 1, we should have at least tried a play that might succeed instead of the one that hadn't succeeded all night. Again, while I expected Gibbons to make that one, we should have tried to make it as easy on him as possible and again we settled on the exact spon we were in rather than trying to advance the ball.
October 13th, 2013 at 8:33 PM ^
Whether you are an old school coach that has been through hundreds of games or just a coach potato like me who likes to look at some stats, we all implicitly or explicitly subscribe to some type of situational football strategy. Because these strategies are all based on prior experiences, by default they average everything - they work best if your team is average in every facet of the game and so is your opponent.
To make these strategies truly effective, you need to be able to make some tweaks. A 6-3 game is very different from a 50-47 game, and playing a cupcake is a little different than playing Alabama or your biggest rival (to use a few extremes).
When you have essentially zero production from your running backs, it is appropriate to tweak your game theory strategy. We can certainly argue about what exactly that might be, but presumably it would be anything other than I-form HB run between the tackles.
October 13th, 2013 at 7:43 PM ^
manic depressives now putting on their bicycle helmets because the sky is falling will be--in an equally exagerrated way--telling us all we're going to kill MSU. You didn't used to have such very lame stuff predominating here. But as the numbers rise the collective IQ, inevitably, plummets.
October 13th, 2013 at 7:43 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 7:46 PM ^
from earlier in the week. Penn State has depleted personnel, especially on the defensive side. The accountability begins with the coaching. And it's been a problem all year. It's just now we finally got burned and lost. And Hoke has still yet to beat a 500 team on their home field.
October 13th, 2013 at 7:47 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 7:48 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 7:48 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 7:51 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 7:50 PM ^
No, im tired of making excuses for this guy. Can we stop? there is a reason he has been bouncing around for 30 years as a OC, he is just not that good. There is a reason he was fired from Auburn then needed to go to SDSU.
October 13th, 2013 at 7:57 PM ^
This is one of the things that gets me. I'm curious how many times an offense shows marked improvement after he is no longer in charge of it.
October 13th, 2013 at 8:11 PM ^
Borges was let go BEFORE A BOWL GAME at Auburn as his offense degraded the past 2 years significantly from where it was earlier. He had a great offense in 2004 with 2 stud RBs. By 2007 they didnt even want him coaching the bowl game. I looked at the stats about 6 months ago but the 2006 and 2007 seasons were not pretty compared to 2004/2005. The offense was 101st in the nation in 2007.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2007/12/al_borges_out_as_auburns_offen.html
(edit - I relooked up the stats)
2004: 420 yards per game playing with the #1 defense in America, 32.1 PPG
2005: 410 yards per game, 32.2 PPG
2006: 321 yards per game, 24.8 PPG
2007: 335 yards per game, 24.2 PPG