QB Job "Wide Open"
Not much new information in the article, more of a summary of things we already know.
I really like that Drevno plans to organize the offense around the strengths of the QB, instead of putting a square peg into a round hole like we've been doing since 2008.
http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2015/03/michigan_qb_job_wide_open_offe.html
Kind of like throwing a hot dog down a hallway?
he was going to run his offense which certainly didn't help with the retention of players. Mallet tbeing exhibit 1.
Saying RR made it clear he was going to run his offense is probably true enough... but what else was he going to do? Rodriguez running a pro-style offense would be like Elon Musk telling Tesla shareholders they were no longer going to make electric vehicles.
The coaches have seen the players, what, two, maybe three practices so far. That's why I'm not really buying the "Malzone and Speight are getting the majority of the reps" and stuff like that. If you're getting more reps, it's probably in the flavor of you did something wrong so "run it again!" No one is getting a ton more reps at this point, the coaches have hardly seen the kids play enough to evaluate them at all.
And yes, all coaches adapt to their QB. I know people like to think Borges didn't, but the amount of QB runs show otherwise. Some of the pass concepts say otherwise. Some will adapt more, some will overhaul a lot of their offense to fit a guy, but most will adapt within their preferred scheme. Rich Rod went from less zone read, to zone read, to "QB Power" when going from Threet, to Tate, to Denard. Borges went from zone read to true "QB Power" to QB Counter and Veer when he went from Denard to Gardner, things he didnt' do previously. All coaches adapt. Harbaugh and Drevno will do no different. If a guy struggles hitting the corner route from the pocket, they'l roll the QB. If he's struggling with the timing on the dig route, they'll run digs with the outside receiver and run off the middle of the defense or not run digs at all. If he can't make the deep out, they won't throw deep outs. Of course, if they can do those things, then they'll take advantage of them. That's pretty much how these things work just about 100% of the time.
Denard was on pace to be a monster with RR. Borges stopped his progress and exposed his weakness in passing. Sure Denard beat the running QB record - but in the end from the HB position. RR passed to augment Denard's strengths. Borges ran because it was the only thing working for him. Denard created Borges' success for the most part.
Devin is another story but still doesn't fit squarely to adaptiveness under Borges.
Questionable. Here are Michigan's offensive efficiency (FEI) ratings for every year for which Football Outsiders has data:
2007 (Carr): #56
2008 (RR): #81
2009 (RR): #66
2010 (RR): #2
2011 (Hoke): #9
2012 (Hoke): #25
2013 (Hoke): #42
2014 (Hoke): #82
That trend is much more consistent with the story that Hoke's offense faltered when RR's recruits left than it is with the story that he and Borges didn't adapt well to RR's talent.
Am I missing something?
The story is not questionable and is consistent with my post. There was not an exodus post RR.
Maybe I misinterpreted your post. I thought you were arguing that Hoke/Borges didn't adapt to RR's players. I think the numbers suggest that they adapted pretty well (with early success) but didn't adjust well after Denard and the other RR guys left. Hoke's staff was worse at running their own offense with their own players than they were with keeping the RR/Denard machine going.
I get it.
What I was trying to say was Borges didn't adapt.
RR didn't need to adapt offensively - in my mind. His cupboard was truly bare. His offensive record speaks for itself. I think he would have been able to adapt had Mallett stuck it out.
But I don't need to. It's pretty simple at face value that he did adapt his offense.
Al Borges QB Rush Per Game:
2013: DG - 13.8
2012: DG - 9.4
2012: DR - 17
2011: DR - 17
2010: Ryan Lindley - 1.5 (Mostly Sacks)
2009: RL - 1.8 (Mostly Sacks)
So I don't need to get into the pass concepts he used or didn't use. I don't need to get into how personnel changed. I don't need to get into how he used specific players for specific situations by adapting to their skills (including using Denard as a RB, or using two RBs at Auburn). Borges made mistakes. Not adapting to his QBs outside of not overhauling his offense is not one of those mistakes. He adapted plenty within his schemes to the QBs he had, and that shows pretty clearly with the numbers above.
If you want to say he didn't adapt well to defenses, I wouldn't necessary agree for all points, but I think you would have more of an argument. If you wanted to say he tried too many adaptations over the course of a season, I'd agree with you. If you wanted to say his adaptations were misguided, there are certainly instances where I would agree with you. But to say he didn't adapt to personnel is misguided, plain and simple. There are plenty of fair criticisms of Borges and Nussmeier that they don't need false ones thrown at them.
I really like that Drevno plans to organize the offense around the strengths of the QB, instead of putting a square peg into a round hole like we've been doing since 2008.
Hmm, must have missed Tate & Denard's breakout seasons
Gardner had the arm talent to be a pro-style QB. You saw it early on when he took over the starting QB job. He showed he could hit a deep out. He showed he could get rid of the football. He showed he could do a lot of the things needed to fit that offense, while they continued to run him ~10 times a game. That's why at that point his was projected to go in the first few rounds as a QB, because people saw the fit and the potential to fit that type of system.
Gardner fit the system fine. It was what happened around him that ruined him, not the system. It was the shell shock from being destroyed repeatedly that ruined him, not some idea that he needed to play in Oregon's offense because he was mobile rather than a West Coast Offense with built in QB runs/options.
Gardner didn't fit the system. The system wasn't sound. 27/27.
15/28 - 240 Yards - 3 TDs - 2 INTs
24 Carries - 121 Yards
I guess I forgot how DG's 8.6 YPA and 21-11 TD:INT ratio didn't fit him. What 27 for 27 has to do with Borges adapting makes no difference. Claim he didn't adapt in that game? Fine. Claim he didn't adapt overall? You're out of your scope.
This is one of those cases of throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks. "Borges changed his offense too much throughout the season and never developed things". "Borges didn't change or adapt his system at all." How many passes did DG throw over the short and intermediate middle against PSU? This argument is like saying Rich Rod didn't adapt for PSU in 2009. You know, when his QBs were 13/33 and 2 INTs and his run game averaged 2.75 YPC (by the way, 2013 averaged 2.76 YPC against PSU). It throws out any sense and just points to misleading and in many ways unrelated stats in an effort to get people on your side.
I disagree with you fundamentally here with a few exceptions. But I'm under the gun at the moment. Later tonight.
I'd love to come back later and talk about it, but I don't think I will. I've already said what I have to say, I think my argument has solid ground to stand on its own. I'm not a fan of defending an OC that got fired and has no part in Michigan football anymore. I get even more tired of people bringing up my name whenever they discuss Borges being anything but the worst thing ever. I think he deserves criticism, I think many of the criticisms thrown at him are false. That's why I defended him then, that's why I said something now. But I already said more than I wanted to say on the subject, and I feel I've said everything I need or want to say on it.
If you don't want to talk football - fine. I take exception to your tone and your logic and your analysis. If your answer is to not play - well that is fine.
Are we back in 5th grade? I'm not throwing shit on a wall to win people over. Is this all about MGo points for you? If so you win. I honestly don't give an ef about that.
I am at work. I do disagree with you . If you want to have a meltdown. Go for it.
If you want to talk football - I will check back - because unlike you - I enjoy talking about football with an open mind. Yours on this issue is not.
By ignoring the passing concepts to make some argument about Borges' untilization of Denard in the running game you are missing the boat. If you want to say Denard was utilized as well under Borges as under RR - you are wrong... in my opinion. Deal with it.
I clearly said I don't want to discuss it anymore because every time I talk about Borges I get a bunch of shit for it. I've spent my time defending him, he isn't at Michigan any more, it isn't worth it. I'm busy at work and on my own things as well, I don't want to spend my time talking about the OC that was fired over a year ago and won't be coaching at Michigan again. It isn't a meltdown, I don't want it to become one, I don't want to talk about it more because it's essentially pointless. People have made up their mind that Borges was the worse OC ever in every way, including ways that contridict each other.
I'll talk football, I talked football up above. I referenced how the passing concepts were adapted to better fit the QBs (again, how many passes over the short and intermediate middle of the field were thrown, with either QB?). I can get into specifics, but it isn't worth it. People don't want to hear it and it isn't worth the time to defend the guy (I've already made these arguments in the past, where I'm willing to keep it).
I didn't say Denard was better utilized under Borges as under Rich Rod. That's 100% either misinterpreting what I said or moving the goalposts. No one would claim he was. I would claim that Borges adapted his play book and play calling within his scheme to better suit Denard, relative to his nominal offense. He did the same for Gardner.
Now, again, I'm done defending Borges, there is no gain in defending him. All I get out of it is my name dropped in random threads when people want to shit on me or Borges without really having an understanding of things or my defense, like you prove when claiming I said "Denard was utilized better under Borges". I get negged at any tangential reference to Borges not being the worst, it's stupid. So it's not just discussing football. If you want to discuss football, I'm all game. If you want to twist this into something else, I'm out, because I've said my piece and proved my point.
I appreciate all you've said and learned a ton from your commentary both here and on your site.
Borges was always about the install. We are not hearing that here from Drevno and that's refreshing. It will be interesting to contrast the 2011 season to this year. Borges came in and talked install when he had Denard. Drevno has no starter and is all about playing to the talent. I suppose that is to be expected when you consider that Borges could concentrate on the install without worrying about who would be the starter.
All that said... of course Borges did adapt his playbook for Denard and Devin. The bubble screen meme with Heiko had it's point as well. There are adaptations Borges just did not want to do and didn't. Denard's completion % fall off (and persistent INTs) and Devin's failure to launch make it hard to appreciate what Borges and Nussmeir were attempting. You have stepped into that breech...it's not a fun space to write.
Unlike Chris Brown who cherry picks the latest success and innovation your analysis has focused on the B1G. 2015 should be ripe for the picking.
You seem to be conflating "change" with "adapt".
I'd argue that Borges changed his system significantly in an attempt to adapt, but never did adapt.
If this makes Space Coyote happy then peace be with him brother.
Adapt (verb) - to change (something) so that it functions better or is better suited for a purpose
The playbook was changed (to include more runs, to exclude throws over the middle of the field and other passes that the QBs weren't capable of making) so that it functioned better and was better suited for the personnel with the purpose of moving the ball down the field and scoring TDs.
Adapt (trans verb) - to make fit often by modification
The playbook and play calling was modified to make it better fit the personnel
Nope, Borges adapted his offense, by pretty much all applicable definitions.
Better (adjective) - more attractice, favorable, or commendable; more advantageous or effective; improved in accuracy or performance.
I would say Borges adaptation of his offense made it more attractive and favorable, more advantageous and effective, and improved in its performance than it otherwise would have had he not adapted.
Also, Michigan was 9th in FEI and 11th in S&P+ in 2011, which fits the definition you picked as well. Quit trying to insult my intelligence by moving the goalposts.
I'd disagree with that definition.
Adapt (verb) - to change (something) so that it functions or is suited for a purpose.
Being the top turd on the dungpile isn't an adaptation, it's just polishing a turd.
The offense was changed so that it functioned for the purpose of moving the ball down the field better. The 9th best offense in the nation I wouldn't consider a polished turd. And besides, it's a relative thing. Borges's nominal offense rarely featured a running QB, let alone one that was the centerpiece of the offense. But if your definition of the word differs from dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, and freedictionary.com, then I'm sorry for not using your definition over theirs.
So, was Borges better off changing his offense by utilizing QB runs so that it functioned with the purpose of moving the football down the field? Or would he have been better off not changing his offense and trusted Denard to only run once or twice a game? Which option is better suited for the purpose as an OC? I would say his adapted offense. But that's just the by the definition.
But keep on nitpicking to steer the conversation away from essense of the initial argument. It's typically how you formulate your rebuttals when responding to me. And now I can be done arguing semantics.
So, was Borges better off changing his offense by utilizing QB runs so that it functioned with the purpose of moving the football down the field? Or would he have been better off not changing his offense and trusted Denard to only run once or twice a game?
We're all better off not engaging in false dichotomies.
Borges changed his offense from his preferences to better utilize the skill of the players he had - but he didn't go nearly far enough.
A 10% grade on a test is better than 5%... but neither are passing.
Keep on bolding quotes from me and trying to refute them in ways to make it seem like you have a clue what you're talking about. What I presented isn't a false dichotomy, by the way, in no way did I present them as the only two options. Instead, I presented the nominal and what was run to demonstrate the fact that the offense adapted (which is the primary subject of this conversation, just so we're clear).
Borges changed his offense from his preference to better utilize the skill of the players he had, meaning that he adapted. You can question if he went far enough, but that's not the subject of debate. Your preference would seemingly be that Borges didn't adapt, and instead just ran Rich Rod's offense. That's great in some magical world, but typically running a scheme you don't understand doesn't work out well (see: Greg Robinson and the 3-3-5 vs Greg Robinson running his 4-3). So adapting is typically the best you can get.
But no, your argument really makes sense because Michigan went from #2 in FEI offense to #9, and from #18 S&P+ to *gasp* #11. They improved in one of the two generally accepted advanced statistics. Interestingly enough, both of those numbers are in the 90th percentile, which is on the opposite end of the bell curve all together, but that's only like 3 standard deviations away, so almost the same as going from 5% to 10%. Thus, this makes your argument a false dichotomie, because your two views are: he adapted and he was successful; or he didn't adapt and was unsuccesful. Obviously, those aren't the only two cases, but it's a nice Red Herring (you introducing something other than the subject of debate), a nice look at a Questionable Cause (that because Borges was ultimately unsuccessful means he didn't adapt), etc.
So, just so we're clear, your rebuttal is a nice straw man, or should I say polished turd, in a field full of shit.
But thank you for admitting that Borges adapted his offense to better fit his personnel.
I think one of Morris, Speight or Malzone will do a good job this season. I am nervous, sure, but I'm pretty confident that these coaches will identify and know what that guy can or can't do well. I've said before, but I don't think they'll need the QB to carry the team, just be able to make the offense function, stay on the field and move the ball. All three are unproven but talented enough, in my opinion. I believe in this coaching staff.
the QB this season doesn't need to be a world beater. Even just decent QB play should get us to 8+ wins if the D holds and the O-line continues to improve. I have supreme confidence in JH's ability to make at least one of the current QB's into a serviceable game manager in a run-heavy offense.
That the "winner" starts week one but is in a battle all season long? That's what I envisioned under Harbaugh unless the winner is head and shoulders above the second guy.
I would guess. Harbaugh has been known to switch QB's mid-season in the past. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the quy that starts at Utah is not the same guy that starts against OSU.
For that reason (and the possibility of injury), I'm a little nervous about designing an offense according to the Week 1 starter's strengths. Maybe Malzone, Speight, and Morris are more alike than I think, but you obviously don't want to be in a situation where Speight's being asked to run a Malzone-based offense or vice versa. Then again, I'm sure the staff is on top of that.
This isn't Oklahoma in the mid 80's where you Aikman and Jamielle Holloway battleing for the job. One a true drop back pocket passer and the other a wishbone QB where you had to decide on 2 offenses which were completely opposite.
Yeahhhhh....as other's have pointed out, we hear this same crap every year. Not that it's crap yet (obviously I'll give Drevno his chance) but just because he said it, doesn't really mean all that much *cough**cough* Borges *cough*
Agreed, but from what it sounds like Drevno really doesn't have much to do with the QB selection...that is Fisch's and obviously Harbaugh's call.
In 2011 Denard Robinson ran the ball 17 times per game. The passing game was simplified, believe it or not, from Borges's standard playbook. There were games where he tried to expand it with miserable results, but overall, the pass game was highly simplified and the run game was very much overhauled to fit Denard's skills. It may not have been the offense people wanted with Denard, and obviously wasn't the best offense for Denard, but it was very much adapted to try to fit Denard.
In 2012, Denard ran the ball 17 times per game again in games he started at QB and finished. Borges tried again to expand the passing playbook to do more of the things that fit his system, but still very much adapted the pass concepts to fit Denard better. He never asked Denard to throw a deep out, he rarely asked Denard to throw a deep corner route or a fade. He rarely asked Denard to make passes over the middle of the field. The offense was adapted for Denard.
Then Gardner took over and the offense was drastically adapted and simplified again. Much of the pass concepts were simple "All Hitch" or "All Cob" routes off of weak PA to give DG the simplist of reads, freeze the defense to clear out the underneath, and take advantage of his stronger arm to be able to throw to the sideline. When Denard was healthy enough to run the ball, the offense was adapted again to fit him in as a RB with very limited experience playing RB (meaning you can't use him as a pass blocker, he still can't really catch the ball, etc).
In 2013 the offense adapted as well. They tried to run stretch to take advantage of the tackles. They tried to run tackle over to put them on the same side. They ran a ton of down field routes with clear reads to avoid Gardner's issues with reading defenses quickly. They tried to adapt. It wasn't successful. In many ways they tried to adapt too much. But to make the claim that Borges did not adapt his offense for his team, particularly his QBs, simply because he didn't run the Rich Rod spread is awfully misguided. He made personnel mistakes (AJ Williams being used as a blocker), he didn't adapt to fit every single player (Norfleet), but he certainly adapted his offense overall in an effort to fit the QB position and adapted to players and how he used them (Gallon, Funchess, DG, Denard, Hemingway), he just didn't adapt to completely run a different offense.
By the way, Nussmeier adapted as well, so I'm not throwing him under the bus. Just there are fewer people making complaints about him. If we have to cover the ways he adapted in one season (making it a bit more difficult to do), we can. All coaches adapt in different ways, but no coach goes into the season saying "Screw it all, I don't care if it means we suck, I'm not changing at all because of my personnel".
So, Hoke should have been retained?
Apparently
Harbaugh will Harbaugh these guys into Harbaugh shape. And one of them will eventually just Harbaugh the position. I refuse to worry.
I don't see how anyone who looks at Malzone's film (which is excellent) and looks at his track record as a consistent winner in one of the state's toughest conferences can think he won't be our starter next year. The other QBs simply aren't on his level. It's like Henne coming in all over again, except Henne actually had to beat out a talented senior for the job. Malzone doesn't have that hurdle.
Fine, then it's Tate coming in and beating out Sheridan and prompting Threet to transfer. I'm telling you this kid is game-ready. His highlight tape shows him making NFL throw after NFL throw and displays excellent footwork and a high football IQ. He's also shown the ability to rally the players around him and win, which is something Shane didn't do in HS. When I watch Malzone's tape, it feels like I'm watching a college QB and evaluating his pro potential, as opposed to watching a HS QB and evaluating his college potential.