If the offense doesn't improve a lot, were we too hard on Borges?

Submitted by Cold War on

The firing of Borges and hiring of Nuss was good news in my book. But if the offense doesn't improve a lot this season, does it mean we placed too much blame on Borges?

I dumped the Dope

August 2nd, 2014 at 8:27 PM ^

I've seen the fire in Nuss's eyes.  I liked what he was able to do, even if he was throttled by the puppet strings of Master Saban.  I believe he really developed AJ McCarron from a player who could reliably hand the ball off and not throw an INT on 3rd down, to a player who could hurt the other team many times during a game.  Obviously Bama had big murderous dudes on the OL who could bulldoze with the absolute best in CFB, but just because you have some big athletic guys doesn't mean its automatic pot of gold.  I believe they developed those guys with repetitions.

I've seen Borges come trotting out on game day with body language like it was a major inconvenience to detour out of his elevator ride to the OC box.

Borges, in his career, has had wild successes followed immediately by weird fails, in terms of seasons.

I have no doubt Borges was a mad scientist when it came to designing plays...but when it came to the bottom line, so many times it was yang when the defense had bet the house on stopping yang.  The young and stirred cauldron of OL players obviously did not help.  But I have to believe there was some element of formation or lineup that tipped off defenses over and over.  Nebraska players outwardly claimed it. 

We will probably never know.  Johnny U probably won't get a tell-alll interview with Gorgeous Al.  Me, I have faith in Nuss until he proves otherwise.

NOLA Wolverine

August 2nd, 2014 at 8:35 PM ^

I don't think another guy not getting our offensive line to outperform the statistically second worst offensive line in the FBS exonerates Al Borges. And honestly, this is a really depressing thought experiment. 

YoOoBoMoLloRoHo

August 2nd, 2014 at 8:37 PM ^

Hoke should fire Nuss and rehire Borges for 2015. Kiffin will get canned for running a no-huddle offense that wears out the Bama D by week 8; Kirby will leave to head a Florida after Muschamp goes 7-5; Nuss will return to Bama as the HC in waiting as Saban claims only 2 years until retirement. Muschamp will come to UM as the heir apparent to Mattison for 1 year and eventually Hoke. Instead of rehashing history, let's just hypothesize about the future. Yes, Borges is history and he's not coming back.

DonAZ

August 2nd, 2014 at 9:25 PM ^

Hard to say ... they might go looking for the second coming of Spurrier / Meyer.  Or they might think they can tap into the motherlode of Alabama football.  The SEC folks love their defenses, and Kirby Smart is a good DC.  Get a good OC to balance him and Florida could work its way back.

stephenrjking

August 2nd, 2014 at 9:27 PM ^

If Muschamp is gone after this season, Florida is the hottest job in the country. They can basically pick from amongst available candidates. If they think Smart is the next Saban, sure. I would guess that they'd look at someone like Jim Mora if he is still hot, or whomever has a great year at a midrange school.

TheLastHarbaugh

August 2nd, 2014 at 8:46 PM ^

If the offense doesn't improve a lot then we might just have to come to the conclusion that the offense just isn't very good.

If the O-Line continues to struggle, then maybe that's on the players for just being bad and the coaching stuff foor doing a poor job of evaluating talent, and/or finding the right talent to fit their system, and/or developing talent.

If they do make vast improvements, all hail Nuss.

RobM_24

August 2nd, 2014 at 8:57 PM ^

He got fired for doing his job poorly. It has nothing to do with the person hired after him, or the success of the offense this year. They are independent of each other. It's possible that Nuss does worse than Borges, but that doesn't mean Borges didn't deserve to be fired.

reshp1

August 2nd, 2014 at 9:03 PM ^

I did a diary after one of the particularly rough games trying to assign blame one each play that didn't work and IIRC it worked out to about 25% Borges fault. As unscientific and nonrigorous as that was, I think that's about right.

That probably won't mean we'll be 25% better without him. Most of the time, plays failed due to a combination of things so even if the OC called better plays, there's no guarantee someone else wouldn't screw it up. One the other hand, I think some improvement in playcalling and a more consistent approach on offense will likely have a cumulative effect that will allow people to get better throughout the season.

Gun to my head, I think we'll still struggle but have less groan inducing plays. It'll be more of a steady grind type of offense that struggles to make first downs by not getting enough yards consistently each play, rather than an offense that put itself behind in down and distance by shooting itself in the foot with negative plays.

stephenrjking

August 2nd, 2014 at 9:23 PM ^

One of the things I believe I have observed is that Borges would call "sound" plays but that his plays tend to have a lower margin of error relative to other philosophies. That is, there is a lot more that can go wrong and bust the play. Related, his tendency to install new plays (remember, just last week an anonymous opponent mentioned that they had to watch a lot of film because there were so many different plays they could potentially face) limited the offense's ability to get really sharp at what it ran. Contrast with golden-era Chip Kelly Oregon teams that could sprinkle maybe three pass plays with inside and outside zone and crush everyone with pace and execution. So while Borges often called the "right" plays, the chance the play executing properly was less than it would be for other teams. And the bad plays were accentuated because of the offense's inability to do basic things like gain three yards on the ground.

TheLastHarbaugh

August 2nd, 2014 at 11:33 PM ^

I don't know about assigning random percentages, but yeah, Borges definitely got too much blame last year. The play calling overall wasn't as apocalyptic as people were making it out to be. It certainly wasn't good, at times it was absolutely horrible, and no matter how you slice it Borges is to blame for the offensive struggles last year in one way or another. No tears should be shed over his firing.

I think the reality is though, that the offensive players last year just weren't very good. 

Our number 1 receiver was Jeremy Gallon. Our number 2 receiver was Jeremy Gallon. Our third option was an occasional Devin Funchess, who was at times spectacular, but then would have a 1 catch for 2 yards performance and just totally disappear. That was essentially the entirety of our receiving corps.

Our running backs were a horribly out of shape Derrick Green, and Fitz, who started for 3 years but basically only looked good for one half of one season,and failed to recapture the magic from that run he had his sophomore year. The injury could have played a part in that, as well as the offensive line play, but outside of a handful of games (largely against the Indianas, Illinoises and Purdues of the schedule) he didn't produce much.

The offensive line, regardless of whether they were put in a position to succeed or fail, was awful. At a certain point, when nobody is blocking anyone and guys who are supposed to be 4 or 5 star maulers are getting blown off the ball, you have to put it on them. The play calling might not have helped, but it certainly didn't seem to matter. The MSU game can't be put solely on the shoulders of Borges. They flat out got beat on every play. That was something that happened with frightening regularity.

Apparently the players who were supposed to be leaders on the team last year did a very poor job of doing that and setting a good example for the younger players, which probably only exacerbated things.

Devin Garder is a hero and a saint, and the only thing bad you can say about him is that at times he tried too hard to make something happen, and shouldered too much of the load.

To be frank, I'm not that optimistic about the offense at all, which I doubt is a particularly novel opinion. None of the running backs have proven anything. The offensive line lost their two best players, and the only person presently on the roster who has shown anything in the receving game is the supremely talented yet inconsistent Devin Funchess. Once again, we're going to be overly reliant on our QB to make every play and perform at a consistently spectacular level in order to win.

stephenrjking

August 2nd, 2014 at 9:15 PM ^

Borges became the sole scapegoat for a series of issues for which responsibility should properly be spread around. For example, a lot of people who gripe about certain play calls cannot supply any reasonable alternatives in situations where the offensive line is incapable of achieving any push or protection beyond the level of a mid-table MAC team. Now, it is quite reasonable to believe (and I do) that Al's constant tinkering harmed the OL's ability to grow and improve. You can also reasonably argue that certain philosophical choices (slow huddles, no bubble screens, etc) limited the offense's ability to perform. I do believe that the season would have looked a lot different if the offensive line was even adequate, and some of the "bad calls" wouldn't have looked nearly so awful. (For example, depending upon the game, people criticized him for running when Michigan couldn't run, or passing when Devin couldn't stand upright or hit his own players, without remembering that Al was dealing with an offense that at times could do neither). But I also believe Borges had flaws and stunted the offense's growth as the season wore on. He was and is smart and knows a lot more about football than we do, but his philosophy and his methods are incompatible with a team limited to 20 hours a week and he tends to decrease the margin of error on stuff he does run. Something had to change, and he was it. Even if Nuss doesn't work miracles this year (and he might not), Borges was never going to get Michigan over the hump.

Pit2047

August 2nd, 2014 at 9:25 PM ^

This year because the offensive coordinator seemingly forgets basic offensive principles and we some consistent common sense play calling then we made the right decision. I count at least 4 or 5 games the past three years we lost because Borges, if we could just stop doing that I'd be happy.

MChem83

August 2nd, 2014 at 10:00 PM ^

should have been the one to lose his job last year. Borges may not have adapted well to what he had last year as far as blockers, but in spite of that, in spite of having a very poor YPC average and a lot of TFL against us, we still managed to put up decent overall numbers on offense. Our PPG and total offense were not particularly bad. Our total yards were pretty close to our average for the last ten seasons, and were only significantly below 2010 of any of the seasons from 2004-2013. Our PPG was above our average for the last ten years, and not significantly below even our best year from 2004-2013. Truth be told, as ugly as our offense looked at times last season, our defense was at least as big a problem. It was significantly worse than the two previous years, and for no good reason. I'd go so far as to say that if our defense doesn't improve quite a bit this year, it's Mattison who should be under fire.

Reader71

August 2nd, 2014 at 10:17 PM ^

Truth be told, as ugly as our offense looked at times last season, our defense was at least as big a problem.
Whoa. AT LEAST AS BIG A PROBLEM? Wrong. I get the point you are trying to make, but you should just make it rather than nuke the whole world.

GoBLUinTX

August 2nd, 2014 at 10:35 PM ^

if the D does as well as they did in 2011, they give up about 9.5 fewer points per game.  Now the 2013 offense scored right about 1.1 points per game less than in 2011.  So the point differential is 8 (can't score parts of points).  If the Michigan D allows just five fewer points per game, Michigan flips four losses into four more wins.  It's a fact, it might not taste good, but it is a fact.

Reader71

August 2nd, 2014 at 10:49 PM ^

Michigan Total Offense: 86th in FBS. Michigan Total Defense: 41st in FBS. Comparing the units to different teams over different eras is pretty silly. Comparing those units to others who played last season seems a better idea, no? Particularly as football has become a much higher scoring game. Also, your analysis is deeply flawed. It only concerns PPG and the average margin of victory. I can easily say that because our defense couldn't stop teams as well as they did in 2011, our offense only needs to score 5 point more per game. That's not even a touchdown!

GoBLUinTX

August 2nd, 2014 at 11:23 PM ^

to be ignoring that the 2013 Michigan D was horrible.  Absolutely horrible*.   I certainly hope Greg Mattison takes it serious that the D gave up so many points per game, and I rather hope he compares his unit's efficiency against the best defenses in history, not just the top 40 from last year.

*Go over to Rivals and see what other teams had to say about Michigan's D.

Reader71

August 3rd, 2014 at 1:13 PM ^

Rivals board vs. Statistics? The total offense stat shows our defense was not "absolutely terrible" but in fact, right outside the top 1/3. The defense was inside the bottom 1/3. Much closer to "absolutely terrible". I think you believe I loved 2013s defense. I didn't. But I'm trying to use data instead of your gut feeling, or the opinion of opponent fans on Rivals.

MChem83

August 3rd, 2014 at 7:52 AM ^

and 61st in points allowed. We scored more PPG than State. What do you think the difference between their season and ours was? We've had a lot of seasons that were much better than 2013 when we scored fewer points per game, but we've never had a better season than 2013 when we gave up more PPG. In fact, as someone else pointed out, other than the RR years, we've had no seasons in our whole history where we've given up more PPG than last year, recently or otherwise. Bottom line, allowing 27 PPG was a poor performance. Even if our offense is not better than last year (and I think it will be), if we get our defense back to 19-20 PPG, I guarantee you we'll be a 9-10 win team.

Reader71

August 3rd, 2014 at 1:27 PM ^

Right. If we don't let anyone score, we don't need to score a lot. That's how MSU did it, and it works. It is entirely possible to let them score a lot and we score more. That's how OSU did it, and it works. If our defense is better this year and our offense stays the same, we will probably win 9-10 games. If our defense is the same as last year and our offense improves, we probably win 9-10 games. Which scenario is more likely? I say the defense improves before the offense does. Why? Because the offense was a much greater problem last season.

YoOoBoMoLloRoHo

August 2nd, 2014 at 10:07 PM ^

Georgia - Auburn game from past year as one of the 25 best on ESPN. What's striking is Auburn's resurgence on O. I attended the UGA-AU game in 2012 and it was a bloodbath. 1 year and Malzhan later, they completely transformed the O. Scheme, timing, execution. Talent hardly changed and they went from 2-8 to 12-2. Coaching matters and our O laid multiple eggs last year. UM requires better than Borges whether it's Nuss or another solution.

MaizeRage77

August 2nd, 2014 at 10:10 PM ^

Can you be too hard on a guy who A) would repeatedly run the same play even after the defense had shown him that it wasn't going to happen, B) find a play that worked and immediately burn it to the ground by overusing it, and C) not understand the particular skill sets of the people he has playing for him, thus not utilizing them properly?

Reader71

August 2nd, 2014 at 10:33 PM ^

The answer to "were we too hard on Borges" is "Yes" regardless of what happens this season. That line was very, very bad. It is hard for any OC to make an offense go with very poor blocking. I am of the opinion that the line will improve to 2012 levels (still not great) because there will only be one starter with 0 career game reps as opposed to the 6 over 3 positions last year. Still, Nuss will struggle at times this year because the line will make his job difficult. Borges was fired. He deserved to be. Nussmeier is an upgrade. But we lost our collective shit last year and blamed everything on Borges instead of sticking to his legitimate faults. There will also come a time when we do the same about Nuss. That's the nature of being an OC. 115,000 in the stadium and millions watching on TV could have called a better play than that.

pescadero

August 3rd, 2014 at 10:19 AM ^

The answer to "were we too hard on Borges" is "Yes" regardless of what happens this season.

That line was very, very bad. It is hard for any OC to make an offense go with very poor blocking.

 

I keep seeing this strange dichtomy popping up - a college coach, to be any good, has to be a good "on field" coach, a good developed of players, and a good recruiter/judge of talent.

 

A coach who is good at scheming, but can't evelop players or recruit well is NOT a good college coach.

 

Borges bears some of the responsibility not only for how games were called, but also the "poor blocking" caused by lack of development and poor recruiting.

Reader71

August 3rd, 2014 at 1:03 PM ^

Sure. I never said he was a good coach. I'm on record as saying Al Borges is the definition of average. I still think we were too hard on him. Our criticisms weren't about player development (Devin improved under him both from year to year and in-season). They weren't (nor should they be) about his ability to coach the line, as there is a line coach. They weren't about recruiting, as the staff were considered ace recruiters despite Al not going on the road much. The criticisms were about offensive philosophy and play calling. And having a coherent philosophy when the line proves unable to block a single scheme or play right is hard. Calling a game when the line has not shown the ability to run at all and pass protection is only marginally better is very hard.

Jimmyisgod

August 2nd, 2014 at 10:45 PM ^

The change had to be made, but I don't remember too many of us complaining after the IU game last year when we were 6-1 had just rolled up 750 yards and were on pace to break records.

Borges was a good coach, but for some reason he lost his mind for several games.  I also think the MSU game robbed the offense of any confidence they had.  Nussmeier has a nice pedigree and I'm anxious to see what he has in store, love his record with QBs.