Space Coyote: "Play calling put players in a position to succeed."
Space Coyote brings a provocative play by play counter-assessment of Al's playcalls, and concludes with support of Al's overall game.
Personally, I think he's partially right: Al Borges used a lot more variety and counter work than people give him credit for, and given the weaknesses and strengths of the team, produced a gameplan that was good enough put Michigan up by ten in the fourth quarter.
When you have no OL and a QB that turns it over, your options are limited, and he worked with those options.
Where I hold Borges responsible? He's the offensive coordinator. He bears some responsibility for the line being bad in the first place. More significantly, he is the QB coach, and I don't have a lot of faith in him in that capacity. I wonder how much of Devin's TO trouble is coaching related.
October 17th, 2013 at 7:55 PM ^
That last drive took significant time off the clock and it would take some great play by Penn State to score the TD; unfortunately for us that's how it worked out. By definition the 42 yarder was 'a position to succeed'; if he makes the FG we win, we succeed. HOWEVER the 32 yarder was in a better position to succeed, and a 25 yarder would be even better than that. If Coach Borges had already predetermined he was going to kick the FG then why for the love of everything Maize and Blue did he not do his best to get closer?? The analysis Space Coyote makes on the possible mindset Coach Borgess had during the OT periods is logical but sometimes doing the logical thing is not the best thing; sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few; he should have ditched the philosophy and called the plays that best insured we would be in the BEST 'position to succeed'.
While what occurred in Happy Valley is painful and frustrating, what is more worrisome is this myopic execution of tactics has occurred in the past; OSU 2012 is a fine example. It seems Coach Borgess loses sight that he is there to win the game using all avenues at his disposal versus just the ones he wants to use.
October 17th, 2013 at 2:19 PM ^
if you think no one would have complained had that fg been made i don't know what to say to you. since i know i would have complained, and i am pretty sure Brian would have to. Before the drive even started I said to those around me "just please don't be cowards now, do not rely on a college kicker" And that is exactly what we did.
I didn't look both ways before crossing the street once and made it, i should probably use that strategy from now on.
October 17th, 2013 at 3:08 PM ^
I don't think many people would have complained. They may have complained about the 4th-quarter playcalling but not in OT. The OT playcalling would have been considered acceptable because of Gibbons's reliability. Despite what some are saying now, I don't remember many people complaining about the Sugar Bowl OT playcalling at the time.
October 17th, 2013 at 3:24 PM ^
Sorry did we try to center the ball at the Sugar Bowl? Toussaint ran that way but he was actually trying for yardage. Is Penn State's defense as good as Va Tech's was during 2011-12?
Almost everyone on this blog mocked Mark Richt mercilessly for centering the ball and kicking on third down a few years ago in the Outback Bowl. What we did against Penn State wasn't as bad, but it was close.
October 17th, 2013 at 4:22 PM ^
You're of course entitled to complain about the playcalling in OT, but I don't think you should pretend it isn't monday morning quarterbacking. Maybe you'd like to see him be more aggressive, and certainly with hindsight you would, but the strategy is, a priori, easily defensible.
Like I said above, Mark Richt did the exact same thing against Tennessee in OT that we did against PSU, and then no one mocked him mercilessly because his kicker made the FG...
October 17th, 2013 at 4:31 PM ^
But the more general point is, people don't complain about what works.
October 17th, 2013 at 6:08 PM ^
Because a victory papers over the cracks till its exposed in a game like this. When people do complain about bad strategy in a win (which is smart) people scream about how they should just be happy with the victory.
One thing I like about this blog is that in a victory Brian will still point out the flaws of a winning game plan, despite the many people who will criticize him.
October 17th, 2013 at 4:35 PM ^
I watched with started complaining before the second Toussant run--begging Borges, as indicated above, not to play for the 40 yard FG. Plus I have contemporaneous twitter exchanges from other friends pleading as well. I appreciate that you believe everyone is Monday-morning-quarterbacking. They aren't.
October 17th, 2013 at 5:32 PM ^
But if he had made the kick, I bet none of them would be complaining about it now. Everyone complans about playcalls in the heat of the moment.
October 17th, 2013 at 5:59 PM ^
but an ugly win is not JUST a win. it may be predictive of a loss in the future, if the reasons for the win being ugly aren't fixed in future games.
people have been complaining about borges for a while now, in wins and losses. and the playcalling that puts us in bad situations hasn't changed, so people will continue to complain. because people think it is predictive of doom in the future.
October 17th, 2013 at 10:08 PM ^
and we would have been thrilled if it had, but I assure you we would still have been complaining, as it was the wrong strategy--for that game and for what it porteds for the future. And it only reinforced what we'd seen in most other big games--those delineated by Brian. You somehow want to persist in the Monday-morning-quarterbacking argument. We complained beforehand--we were proved justified in our fears.
October 17th, 2013 at 6:43 PM ^
I think there will be complaining if such a scenario occurs in the future. Why roll the dice on a long FG that is 50/50 when you can improve the odds of winning by 'playing to win the game'?
October 17th, 2013 at 2:04 PM ^
And it certainly was overstating the point a bit, but Gibbons hit one of that distance earlier and the game and just kicked one that was long enough for this range and was perfectly on line. Obviously gaining yards is a plus, but I don't think in this situation it was a must.
Essentially, you take what you can get here and don't turn the ball over.
October 17th, 2013 at 2:45 PM ^
But that said, even five extra yards are huge, and running power has been shown time and again in this game to be as likely to move you backwards as forwards.
Forget about bubble screens/extended handoffs; Borges has shown he can generate some really easy throws that will pick up safe, positive yards. The pop pass/quick slant in the 2nd OT is a perfect example. I would consider that "playing it safe," and has a much much much higher probability of success.
October 17th, 2013 at 3:00 PM ^
Safe does not have to mean handoff to Fitz. Safe could mean a run/pass option rollout to DG. Or a screen. Or quick slants. Or shoot, how about a read option or inverted veer? Those were working too, and DG can actually make those reads correctly. You don't have a clock to worry about, the only thing you worry about is losing yards and turnovers.
So while the RB handoffs are defensible in that they had an automatic FG opportunity, I would argue that they should have just attempted a FG on 1st and 10 if all they were going to do is hand the ball to Fitz for two useless carries before centering it.
It was like Hoke and Borges were suddenly paralyzed with fear that the ball would go to the other team. It makes no sense, honestly.
October 17th, 2013 at 3:36 PM ^
October 17th, 2013 at 3:55 PM ^
Unless you're going to take a knee or spike the ball, you bring turnovers into play. It's just the nature of football.
October 17th, 2013 at 4:17 PM ^
That's the binary way of looking at it, but there are varying degrees.
Devin Gardner has16 INTs in 305 attempts for a rate of 5.2%. Fitz has 448 carries and although I can't find his career fumbles number, I'm 100% sure it isn't anywhere near 16.
October 17th, 2013 at 4:35 PM ^
But likewise, not all pass attempts are equal. If Penn State is going to give you one-on-one coverage with no help on seemingly every snap, the risks there are really, really low.
For example, if you let Jeremy Gallon (or god knows Devin Funchess) run a quick slant without a defender in the general vicinity, that pass just doesn't get picked off.
October 17th, 2013 at 4:49 PM ^
That's fair, but also keep in mind the sort of INTs Gardner has thrown probably more often than any are short throws. I agree the odds of the CB rolling up right before the snap to jump the throw are pretty low at that point, but still. You can still get a deflection, it can get ruled a fumble (correctly or incorrectly), etc. I think a hand off is still comparatively safe.
October 17th, 2013 at 4:51 PM ^
The risk of a handoff is lower. But so is the reward, and I would argue that they got the short end of the stick with that trade-off.
October 17th, 2013 at 4:49 PM ^
Hoke never coaches scared. He'll go for a 4th and 3 from midfield because it's the right thing, even though he'd catch crap if they failed. In this game, for the first time it seemed like the coaches called plays with the primary goal of mitigating risk.
Colloquially speaking, they coached scared in OT.
October 17th, 2013 at 4:52 PM ^
One man's coaching scared is another's playing the odds. I doubt you can quantitatively say running the ball there is the wrong choice, certainly not overwhelmingly wrong. I'm honestly interested in the statistics on this. Maybe Mathlete can look in his database for us.
October 17th, 2013 at 8:45 PM ^
I also think it's easier to take chances when there's a sense that there's nothing to lose. One of the writers for BSD (who may or may not represent the general feeling at PSU) outright stated after the game that he would have been nearly as happy and just as proud if Penn State had lost that game. I don't know of anyone at Michigan feeling that way after the game.
October 17th, 2013 at 9:17 PM ^
O'Brien made a comment after the game to the effect that he thought his players were exhausted--"had already given everything they had" was I think how he put it-- and he wasn't sure they had another overtime in them so he knew he needed to end it there one way or the other.
October 17th, 2013 at 4:26 PM ^
October 17th, 2013 at 4:43 PM ^
that you can't simply eliminate the plays that might result in a turnover, because that leaves you with [null set].
Remember the first play of the 4th quarter of UTL 1? Hopkins slams into the line, fumbles the ball, and Denard scoops and scores. These things happen. Fitz fumbled against UConn going in from like the UConn 10. And let us never forget A-Train against Northwestern (/pours out a little liquor).
So statements like, "turning the ball over is a fireable offense" just don't hold water, because you can botch a snap on the safest play in the world and it wouldn't make it the coach's fault. You can throw a pick on a given pass and still have that pass be the right call 100% of the time. If, for example, you get Funchess isolated on a 5'3 corner with one arm, and every now and then the fade route gets tipped and picked off, but is there a universe in which you don't throw that ball?
October 17th, 2013 at 7:22 PM ^
October 17th, 2013 at 3:01 PM ^
Maybe I'm a complete a--hole but I don't feel anywhere close to "good" about a 40-yard field goal. I don't think I even feel good about a 30-yarder.
October 17th, 2013 at 3:50 PM ^
October 17th, 2013 at 2:53 PM ^
October 17th, 2013 at 2:12 PM ^
I appreciate the individual analysis of plays and how it fits into the greater scheme of the game. The offense did put up enough points to win in regulation and PSU made some great plays of their own to make it to OT. The biggest problem I have is the mindset that thinks "if a kicker is good every other time, he should be good on the road in an overtime game against a team that has proven they are fighting tooth and nail to win". You typically see a team try to achieve at least one first down in overtime to get a more comfortable kick. Michigan basically achieved that once in four opportunities. You can say Borges was trying to get more yards on individual plays (i.e. the Butt missed pass), but when push came to shove, they chose (yes, chose) to accept @ 40 yard kicks. That is a recipe for disaster in college football and it has been proven time and time again over the years. There is no play with more variance for succes than putting the game on the line from 40 yards out with a college kicker now matter how good their statistics say they are during normal game time. This is what I was most upset about. Put your player in the best position to succed. Don't rely on the player to succeed in difficult circumstances.
October 17th, 2013 at 2:31 PM ^
I'm with you. I've seen too many parade of horrors from watching teams try and kick FGs in OT to think that the strategy should be anything besides get a first down. If you want to settle for a fg then, fine. Still not my preference, but a 25-32 yard attempt is far better than a 40 yard attempt. The difference isn't "just a bonus."
October 17th, 2013 at 3:13 PM ^
Two things people seem to have forgotten about this 1OT field goal attempt:
1. It appeared to be on-line. It isn't like Gibbons shanked the thing terribly; there is a chance that it goes in, but...
2. It was blocked. By a dude with zero leaping ability. With his armpit.
Now maybe the extra yards everyone is moaning that we didn't get changes things drastically, but I'm not sure that field goal is good from 30 yards. Or 15 yards (yes I know that isn't possible).
While we gnash our teeth over whether or not Borges should have played for more yards before the kick and whether you should trust your experienced kicker to knock home a pretty straight-forward 40 yarder, let's keep these things in mind.
Sometimes, the play just fails.
October 17th, 2013 at 9:01 PM ^
a 40+ yd attempt requires max effort from gibbons and a lower trajectory. shorter FG are done with higher trajectories and blocked far less frequently.