Indiana Blue

November 27th, 2013 at 8:57 AM ^

we had an offensive pulse in 2011.  If you need reminded ...go look at the stats.  How many of those ytards came from improvisation ? .... probably about 50% of them.   Denard covered up the incompetentcy of Borges as a play caller.  But it is truly exposed now.  There is ENOUGH data to prosecute Borges for the crime of ruining the 2013 season.  His play calling has LOST 3 B1G games, and I don't think he's that far removed form the debacles of Akron and UConn.

He has failed, and unless removed, will be the ultimate cause for Hoke to lose his job as head coach.  Sad ... but true.


November 26th, 2013 at 9:29 PM ^

I actually wondered this myself. One team that comes to mind that operates a spread yet still brings the BOOM is Oklahoma State.

I understand that Brady believes in pro style and physicalness but if that were the case he should've had Al install it immediately. Transitioning in year three was a very bad idea, especially with the expectations surrounding the program.

I don't understand then why Brady would publicly tell several different media outlets that he "really likes this team" and he "doesn't usually say that". I know that he did follow up those statements saying something along the lines that him liking the team didn't mean anything as far as results were concerned but wow, that's a terrible evaluation.

In this day and age i believe the best offense is the hybrid that can beat you in a myriad of ways. Unfortunately, Brady and Al enjoy running into 9 man boxes over and over again like its a bad dream.

steve sharik

November 26th, 2013 at 11:37 PM ^

You can say we were fortunate to beat Akron, UConn, and Northwestern and easily forget how unfortunate we were to lose to Penn State, Nebraska, and Iowa.  Usually those things even out.  Yes, we could easily be 4-7.  We also could easily be a fraudulent 10-1.  Eventually, you regress to the mean, and if you're an average team and you play an average schedule, you'll end up right around .500, which looks like will come close to happening.  The fact that we're going to finish 7-6 or 8-5 means we either are a slightly above average team or our schedule is slightly below average.  Judging by the lack of success by our non-conference opponents and the weakness of the B1G, I'd probably go with the latter.

Simply put, we're an average football team.  It just feels like we're terrible because this is a place where we expect excellence.


November 27th, 2013 at 9:32 AM ^

Literally one play from a win. Nebraska had a 4th and 2....probably committed a false start and the D didn't step up to make that stop. With a stop M could practically take a knee and win.

I know the offense is to blame primarily for the losses, but lets not act like they're the only ones who failed with the game on the line. This team is young...young teams lose like that.


November 27th, 2013 at 8:44 AM ^

would you say that we've looked terrible for the majority of each of those games?  i think that if we had an above average offensive coordinator then we probably could have won those games by 2 tds each.  then if that was the case, would we be a fraudulent 10-1?  no, we would just be 10-1.  its not the fact that we were fortunate or unfortunate, or we could be 10-1 or 4-7, its that those game should not have been that close to begin with, regardless of if we ended up losing a close game or winning it.  i don't think that it unrealistic to think this way

Space Coyote

November 27th, 2013 at 8:45 AM ^

It happens pretty much every year. And over the course of time it pretty much all balances out. Not just for Michigan, not just in football, but in life. To a degree, luck is what you make of it, but it's also still pretty much luck in the end.

I was just mocking the fact that we were 2 plays from losing 3 more games. In retrospect I wish I wouldn't have provided that snark, as now I have another person following me around looking for things I've said so he can respond to get back at me for a snarky comment. Ill-advised on my part, especially because I agree completely with what you said.

Space Coyote

November 26th, 2013 at 11:55 PM ^

Was my sarcasm based on someone saying "you either hate Rich Rod or love Hoke" false? Because, I dunno, I liked and supported Rich Rod and like and support Hoke. So I don't think my pointing out the absurdity of the comment that I responded to is false.

Willis Ward

November 26th, 2013 at 11:59 PM ^

The number 1 problem with RR was keeping GERG once it was clear he was the problem. We will see if Hoke goes down the same path with Borges. If Hoke gets rid of him, I'll believe that Hoke could still be the right hire.


November 27th, 2013 at 12:09 AM ^

Just to clarify, I don't want Hoke gone and I won't bash Borges, although I do think he needs to go and I hope he can succeed elsewhere.

I'm not saying that firing RR was a bad idea, I just think that there was no need to fix something that wasn't broken, you want to be a little more physical? that's great but when you know that you won't have many offensive linemen in a couple of years, that the ones you have have been playing the spread, that you'll run out of tight ends by your second year and there is no fullback... oh and you don't have the perfect fit for an undercenter attack at QB ( I know Garder can do the job, but he's been forced to catch up with things on the fly) I don't really understand why he had to change the offensive identity of the team when they were playing ok, at least better than this... Not that they can run the exact same offense but there has to be some middle ground isn't it? 

The Crootin' Crouton

November 26th, 2013 at 9:40 PM ^

In large part due to the sabotage of a former butt hurt coach who actively encouraged players to transfer and hadn't recruit well for years.  Add an intolerant fanbase who couldn't and wouldn't accept a non-"Michigan Man."  Now a "Michigan Man" comes along and people are willing to offer up their first borns to protect him.


November 26th, 2013 at 9:36 PM ^

This is total revisionism. The #1 worry when Hoke got here was if he would run off Denard and half of the RR guys. When he didn't and won 11 games with those guys to boot, no one said a peep about how waiting to transition was a "bad idea." You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Oh, and this running into a 9 man box meme needs to die. We haven't done that with any consistency for going on 5 games. Have you not noticed the sharp uptick in sacks since it became readily apparent that we abandoned the run game? Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too.


November 26th, 2013 at 9:50 PM ^

Hmm I never mentioned anything about wanting it one way or another.

Opinions are exactly that so if you are Mr. Know it all then please by all means grace us with your solution to this problem...

I actually liked the fact that the coaches molded their scheme around the players they had to work with. However, the coaches know better then anyone what we have to work with so if you're telling me that you're fine with this ridiculous transition in year 3 with a QB that clearly is not pro style and a line that can't block that scheme then hey good for you.

All I am suggesting is that Brady should've thought about this transition and he should've had Al either do it right at the beginning or he should've installed it alongside the scheme he was operating.

Now were 2 years behind with a roster that's full of Fr and So. If you can say with a straight face the right decision was made then that's on you. Were literally a play here or a play there from 4-7, 3-8.

All I truly want is a coach that allows his offensive coordinator to be modern. You can run any offense and still be physical.


November 26th, 2013 at 10:07 PM ^

You can't have your cake and eat it too

You can't have your cake and eat it too

You can't have your cake and eat it too

You can't have your cake and eat it too

You can't have your cake and eat it too

You can't have your cake and eat it too

You can't have your cake and eat it too

You can't have your cake and eat it too

You can't have your cake and eat it too

You can't have your cake and eat it too

You can't have your cake and eat it too

You can't have your cake and eat it too



November 26th, 2013 at 11:49 PM ^

that you can eat the cake, or have it, but you can't do both, because if you've eaten the cake it's gone (or rather, it's in your belly). So it might make more sense to say, "You can't have eaten your cake and have it." FWIW, that's also what the omniscient Wikipedia pronounces:'t_have_your_cake_and_eat_it

Space Coyote

November 26th, 2013 at 11:19 PM ^

In the offense that Borges wanted to run, which was a pro-style base with some spread option and pistol option concepts mixed in to take advantage of some of the strengths of DG. DG has the arm strength to make all the throws, when he has time he has the mechanics to be accurate, and when he had time last year he showed some ability to make proper reads (and some progression should be expected). Other, mitigating factors, such as a poor OL, losing confidence, and becoming gun-shy, have lead to this talk of DG not being a fit for this offense.

Space Coyote

November 27th, 2013 at 12:00 AM ^

Or it could be the things I stated much more so and he's actually improved in many ways technically. But that rehashed debate is so much fun that I'd hate to have that much fun again. Plus, I'm not sure I can take the fun of people refusing to see the other POV of what might be happening.

I can't even post on this site with people trying to debate this stuff. I defend Gardner and his ability to run either system, and get snark. I get snark everywhere I go on these boards, and it's just so much fun.

Space Coyote

November 27th, 2013 at 12:23 AM ^

Borges wanted to run an offense that had a pro-style base that mixed in spread concepts (like inverted veer and some zone read) along with some pistol offense to take advantage of DG's strengths. It didn't work. So they continued to simplify the offense to the point where it is today, which is extremely simplified.


November 27th, 2013 at 12:51 AM ^

Can I pick your brain? You are A B. Many feel that it wouldn't matter who calls the plays. Our interior line is young and is a failure so our O is doomed to fail. So if you are AB, wouldn't you spend time with funk coaching up these guys? Weakest link theory. Maybe he does. I just don't see a lot of improvement with these guys. And its frustrating. I just have my doubts thinking all these guys are uncoachable.

Space Coyote

November 27th, 2013 at 1:21 AM ^

If I'm Borges:

The OL has it's own coach for a reason (they also have a GA for that matter), adding Borges to the mix at a position he is likely less qualified to teach wouldn't help the matter. So in practice, no, if I were him I wouldn't spend more time with the OL. I would focus on my position group because there isn't enough time or enough coaches or a good reason (too many cooks in the kitchen) for me to be with the .

Now out of practice, yes, I would be spending a lot of time with Funk going over what I would want done, what needs to be done, etc. to make sure we were on the same page and to try to figure out who is developing and how and at what, etc. Ultimately, I can decide if we switch line-ups to the best available or roll with what we have in hopes of continuity, but if we are going with best available, Funk is picking the 5 because he's the one that spends the most time with them and has the closest and most thorough knowledge of the situation.

G. Gulo of the Dale

November 27th, 2013 at 11:43 AM ^

No, seriously.  I've been reading this blog for a few years, and many of the contributions lately are making the threads almost unbearable.  It's not that the opinions expressed are simply "wrong," which would be fine.  Rather, they show a total lack of awareness of the history of some of the posters, a lack of awareness regarding the players and coaches, and a striking lack of self-awareness.  It's come to the point that if certain posters appear frequently in a particular thread--one's that are simpy being overtly mean-spirited and toxic, and often doing so in a way that tries to accuse other very reasonable posters of being dishonest, snarky, or mere "apoligists"--I simply stop reading and leave the site.  It's ridiculous that Space Coyote is being accused by others of trolling and picking fights when he adds more substantive content to the discussion than almost any other poster, and he does so in a civil manner.  It's analogous to (but more unreasonable than) the flak that Magnus would take--which was more understandable, although to my mind completely undeserved.  Maybe things seemed better before when comments were negged, collapsed, and grayed-out.  Anyway, the fact that many in this thread have come to the conclusion that Al Borges might actually be trying really hard to win, even if his unit is almost unequivocally failing, is promising.  Here's hoping a Michigan win on Saturday lessens these "Jacobean" antics--without erasing from memory the many shortcomings from the season.


November 27th, 2013 at 9:20 AM ^

That's just the MGoFaithful replicating their fearless leader. This has always be a very snarky blog. Lately, it's made it nearly impossible to "debate" with anyone when they think being snarky is a valid response.

I mean, I've been snarky too. But holy hell I never remember it being THIS awful.