Borges flexibility gets him less rope?
During the 2008 season, when things were horrible like WHOA on offense, some people asserted that Rodriguez should be running a Carr-style under-center set until he recruited the players he needed to run his Spread & Shred. This was shot down because, as it was put over and over, "He'd have no idea how to run it", and it would make it difficult to recruit for the offense he wanted, "We'll be running the offense you like... in two years." People accepted this and were unhappy whenever the O faltered, which was often, but accepted it as necessary to bring the team into the future. It's not really the offensive stumbles which got everyone upset anyway. It was the worsening defense and uncompetitive losses. When we won, it was good, but when we lost, we REALLY lost.
When Borges was hired, people had hope because he had run spread style offenses before. He might be able to make what he's got work better than Rodriguez did. And you know what, he is. Talent deficit or no, Borges isn't trying to make Stephen Threet run. But it doesn't always work. Sometimes, in spending a while trying to integrate what he wants to do, Borges gets away from doing what the offense is best at. People get upset. "Run out of the shotgun full time! More Zone Read! MOAR BUBBLE SCREENS!"
My question is, is it merely the fact that Borges has done these things before that's earned him less understanding for WHY he is not doing these things? Has his more varied experience shortened his rope? I think it has, and I don't think that's fair.
Borges has a plan for the Michigan offense. A place he wants to get it to. Just because he has experience with the Spread doesn't mean he should be expected to run it while Denard is here. It would make recruiting worse, and it would be unfair to the fans and the players when we suddenly had to go through an offensive transition in year three rather than year one. Give Borges the same rope as you gave Rodriguez on offense in the first couple of years. When he runs plays that don't really seem to fit the offense, don't say "Why not the other play?" Not the other play because that's not where he's taking Michigan, and it would hurt us later if he did.
He has an obligation to install the BEST package for him andthe players he will recruit right away, rather tahn preserve a momentary flash in the pan. At least our losses have been competetive.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:30 AM ^
We are 7-2, we have a junior QB who is playing his first year in a new system, and we still have 3 games left. Our losses were both on the road to the team that leads our division and to an experienced Iowa team that plays well at home. Before this season started, most of the predictions I saw on this board said somewhere around 8-4 as a good year. How about we see how we do against Illinois, Nebraska, and OSU before we toss the new offesnive coordinator under the bus? Do you think that a lot of the points we scored last year against Iowa might have been because they got a big lead and started playing a deep cover 2? And, seeing how Gardner has played this year, a really good point was made above when it was noted that Tate made a lot of those points last year and is no longer around.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:40 AM ^
His play calls were despicable. Why give up a chance of winning two games because of terrible play calls.mediocrity is unacceptable. Take that shit to Sparty land. We have better recruiting than MSU and are not performing like it. He needs to call plays that suit his players best abilities. He did the exact issue in multiple games. We are lucky we don't have 4 loses with this moron. I like Hoke, but am scared to death Borges will bring him down.
November 10th, 2011 at 11:17 AM ^
PurpleStuff killed it above, but to answer your post:
Expectations change when you see what is occurring during a season.
Many people thought our defense would be better this year, but I'm guessing zero people assumed it would be at the level it's at right now.
Many people thought Notre Dame would be a game in the loss column, but we somehow pulled out a miracle and won it.
And with the Big Ten being a mess of teams all in the 8-1 to 6-3 range, we were right in the thick of a divisional title race till we lost to Iowa. Now we need a miracle to earn that title.
I'm with you, I think we can win out. But when you look at how the MSU and Iowa games transpired, it's extremely tough knowing that had the coaches had a more established gameplan - see any of Purplestuff's posts in this thread - we should be 8-1 and possibly 9-0 with that horrible streak against MSU off the team's back.
I know some people are overreacting and calling for Borges head, but they are in the minority. Most people are just frustrated that we aren't taking advantage of this down year in the Big Ten and when you look at our losses, a lot of that falls on our OC. It won't matter in a few years, but right now it's a big deal.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:35 AM ^
You kind of argued against your own thesis. You pretty much said RR looked stupid for running his offense in 2008 because he didn't have the players. And now it seems like you are wanting Borges to do the same. Borges is in a similar, but opposite, situation as RR was except Borges seems to have a much deeper and more diverse playbook. Borges has done a good job of installing some elements of Prostyle but about as much as you want him to with the personnel he possesses. Generally speaking, Borges is doing what is going to get the most production/wins for the team, and that is utilizing the strengths we have (Denard). I have no problem with what Borges has installed. I think the majority of the fan base would agree. I mean, how many of us were crying "PLEASE NO TAKE AWAY DENARD!!!"
November 10th, 2011 at 9:35 AM ^
The only thing Borges needs to do is realize and admit that Denard cannot throw the deep ball! He couldn't do it last year and he can't do it this year, the best deep ball he threw was in the 2010 spring game to Roy Roundtree on a post route and hasn't thrown it since. He has a strong arm but can't hit a guy in stride on a deep pass, every time he throws it I cringe.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:40 AM ^
Yea but we can't just go away from the throw or else defenses will load up 7 or 8 in the box ala MSU. Iowa, who runs cover 2 99% of the time showed us a decent amount of 1deep bringing an extra guy down. We HAVE to be able to throw in order to utilize Denard's legs.
November 10th, 2011 at 10:44 AM ^
That's what the freakin' bubble screen is for: makes it dangerous to put 8 guys in the box. But we refuse to run it.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:42 AM ^
November 10th, 2011 at 9:35 AM ^
November 10th, 2011 at 9:42 AM ^
Tried to give away two other wins. We are lucky to only have two loses. Take off the rosey glasses. Borges sucks at play calling.
November 10th, 2011 at 11:53 AM ^
it's not.
7-5 is not a good season for a team that was 7-5 last year and returned 18-20 guys depending on how you want to look at it. Especially since the schedule this year is considerably weaker.
What a waste of Hoke/Mattison and staff's work on the defense 7-5 would be.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:47 AM ^
you are basically comparing the potential of our offenses when being lead by Denard versus Threet/Sheridan, which grossly undermines whatever point you are trying to make.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:50 AM ^
It doesn't work for either offense or defense in this case. Far far fewer plays are being run this year compared to last year. The yardage numbers and points are bound to go down a little bit just because of that. Michigan has gone from something like top 15 plays per game to bottom 15 plays run per game, it's a pretty massive shift.
The offense against Iowa also left at least 7 points on the field (missed extra point, essentially 2 red zone turnovers) and could have fairly easily had as many as 15 more points. They really aren't that far behind last years offense and I think most people are overreacting. The offense is probably going to regress a little due to the transition, but it's not like Denard never ran the ball, it's not like Denard was never in shotgun, but that's how people are acting.
November 10th, 2011 at 12:05 PM ^
there were definitely points left on the table at iowa and part of the reason was the play calling inside the 10 yd line at the end of each half. borges really doesn't do much to help denard be successful. i mean, no denard run at the end of the game? i don't buy borges' explanantion that iowa stacked a LB on the outside to prevent a denard run. well, counter it! put a TE in motion to block that guy or use the RB to do so.
also, the O started churning in the 4Q once the shotgun was exclusively used. i know, shocking! the last possession would have probably been moot had he ran that offense more throughout the game.
then he also made denard look silly on the 4th and 1 at msu. it's one thing to call that play if denard is completing 70%. but he wasn't. and it was in a tornado.
beating a dead horse - bubble screens.
this is what is frustrating. we are oh so close to being 9-0 if borges would have given denard a better chance of success.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:58 AM ^
We shouldn't be comparing RR to Borges. We should be comparing Magee to Borges. Yes, RR had a huge part in everything offense, but we should really compare just offense to just offense. RR's defense or special teams shouldn't factor into a comparison between offenses.
The expectations with Borges are much higher in year one. They really should be.
November 10th, 2011 at 10:00 AM ^
Borges is doing what any coach inheriting a QB like Denard would do: maximizing his strengths within his offense.
As for "more rope," or "less rope," true fans should always support the coaching staff for at least five years. The only exception is when an assistant is promoted and turns out to be utterly overwhelmed and/or incompetent, or is caught offering illegal benefits to players.
The current staff is getting the kind of support that RR should have gotten, and that really any staff deserves. There is a contingent of whiners and complainers who piss their pants after every loss, but it works out that most of them did exactly the same thing from day one of RR's tenure.
Ultimately, anything that Borges can to do turn his offense into a hybrid prototype is great for Michigan, no matter how much "rope" is involved.
November 10th, 2011 at 10:12 AM ^
November 10th, 2011 at 10:43 AM ^
I think a lot of the heat Borges is getting on this has more to do with residual arguments of "was the offense good last year" and "should RR have gotten another year" than Borges actually trying to do his job and win games. I think every time we lose there will be a contingent of posters saying "I told you so" and hating on Borges use of Denard. Not that it is baseless criticism, I just think its exaggerated b/c of the past year. Thats all I'm saying.
November 10th, 2011 at 10:54 AM ^
I think you're right. We're really talking about RR again. I'd rather let Borges just do his job. But I know there are a lot of hard feelings about the past, and that's probably why this thread has become such a hot topic. In light of that, it's probably better to step out of the conversation.
November 11th, 2011 at 11:12 AM ^
Is failing us. Terrible play calls! Did you watch the Iowa game? I doubt you did. He has single handily cost us 2 losses and tried to give away two more.
November 10th, 2011 at 3:12 PM ^
Should have lost 4, but we're lucky. Borges can not call plays. He will bring down Hoke a'la Gerg did for RichRod.
November 10th, 2011 at 10:13 AM ^
Is not our coach and will bring down Hoke at this pace. We are extremely lucky that we are bowl eligible. You do remember the games don't you? You are an msu fan if you appreciate play calling that is just unimaginable. Wait, msu has a better record with worse recruits. F!
November 10th, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^
Why RR should have gotten another year. Fire the whole defensive staff after the tOSU game pay for some better assitants, and viola! We would be looking at a team that is 9-0 easy. Because I'm sure in trash tornado we would throw the ball 41 times. Borges is a great offensive mind, but until Morris arrives and can prove he can play expect 8-4 or 7-5.
November 10th, 2011 at 11:55 AM ^
Money wasn't the only factor, what DC in his right mind would come to Michigan for one make it or break it year with a young defense that just finished 110th in the nation?
Also, would you trust RR to make another hire on defense? He made multiple bad ones
November 10th, 2011 at 10:17 AM ^
Why not win a game you should and could win? That's all that I'm asking when it comes to this team. Eight wins is great for the coaching staff in their first year but ten is very reachable. RUN DENARD.
November 10th, 2011 at 10:42 AM ^
When I looked at this team at the end of 2010 I was expecting a 10-2 or 9-3 season. For all practical purposes it returned everyone. The offensive failures were due to inexperience not scheme. Furthermore, the schedule was much easier. Replace UCONN with SDSU, replace Wisc with Minehaha, and PSU with NW. Anyone remember Henne as a 2nd year QB? He was pretty inconsistant.
Instead we are stuck exactly where we were last year. There is no team that we can say we have beaten because R^2 is gone. The responsibility is soley on Borges. For whatever reason every week our offense seems to be a motely colllection of gimick plays. Even Jim Tressel realized that he was better off putting Troy Smith in the shotgun. And yet Beanie Wells seemed to get his carries.
If there was nothing, I could accept working with building the scheme now and living for another day. Yet we have an exceptional talent that is completely being misused. I do not believe R^2 would want to run his QB 25 times a game. If you look at WV, Steve Slaton got the majority of the snaps and thus the reason for the big push to recruit Dee Brown.
I do not want to wait three more years and listen to excuses that Borges does not have the players he needs to succeed. A coach coordinator should be able to succeed with what he has. The 2014 season, Borges is going to have to figure out how to run his offense with 4th and 5th year players recruited by R^2's staff. Next year we will still have no power back, no fullback, and no blocking TE's. We graduate all of our capable linemen next year. The offense is going to absolutely have to carry the team as the defense will take a major step back.
So are we going to have to listen to three years of excuses because Borges does not have the players he needs? Maybe that is the reason why he got run out of the SEC and was stuck in the mountain west.
November 10th, 2011 at 10:46 AM ^
Do we stop Iowa on the 4th and 1 with RR as the head coach? honest question? I get the whole offensive argument, but anyone telling me we'd win 10 games this year with last year's defense or anything close doesn't know shit.
Also:
"I do not want to wait three more years and listen to excuses that Borges does not have the players he needs to succeed. A coach coordinator should be able to succeed with what he has. "
So 2008...
November 10th, 2011 at 10:57 AM ^
Well Said. Its easy to sit there and say we RR would have fired GERG and someone better would have come in and everything would have been perfect. Playing good defense is more than just bringing in a new coordinator. Its a mentality that RR just didnt get or didnt care to stress. The defensive struggle is just as much RR's failure as Greg Robinson. Thats part of being a head coach. Maybe UM would have put up more points against MSU and Iowa running RR's offense but its safe to assume they would have given up more as well.
November 10th, 2011 at 11:02 AM ^
Please read Three and Out and find the part where RR stresses a defensive mentality of weakness and loafing.
November 10th, 2011 at 11:08 AM ^
Not that I agree with what the poster above said, but is that really what the 3&O book has come to? Not only are we going to use it as the gospel truth and assume every detail is accurate, but now we're going to assume anything not in the book never happened or can't be true?
November 10th, 2011 at 11:17 AM ^
And it saves them from formatting actual arguments by just saying "read the book".
November 10th, 2011 at 11:19 AM ^
I can read where its said he stressed it or I can look at 08-10 being the worse 3 defensive years in the history of UM. Go ahead an say it was the talent. I say its coaching. Lack of fundamentals, technique, effort and toughness. Those are qualities less talented players can still be tought.
I cant honestly believe people are still crying for a 4th year for RR. Worst record over a 3 year span, worst defense, terrible special teams, worst bowl game loss ever, NCAA sanctions, sideline rants.
November 10th, 2011 at 2:02 PM ^
November 10th, 2011 at 3:27 PM ^
Sorry I got so used to RR tenure setting so many worst records I just got carried away.
I also mentioned fundamentals, technique, effort. Did you miss that? Its not that they lost 6 games its how they lost them.
Thanks again for the correction. Next time I'll be sure to say RR was the worst in the last 40 years.
November 10th, 2011 at 3:10 PM ^
This is about Borges, who sucks at play calling. The team is wayyyyyy better now than last year. Without Borges we are easily undefeated and other games would not have been so close. He will be the demise of Hoke, sadly.
November 10th, 2011 at 11:00 AM ^
Look, I don't think we should get out the pitchforks just yet. But the reality is, this team had a very good chance to be 9-0 right now, and the biggest reason we're not is inconsistent offensive play. This isn't '08 where the potential spread is 3-6 wins - this is a year where we could be first place in the division if we had beaten MSU. The blame will naturally fall on Borges because the defense has improved greatly while the offense has seemingly regressed (or at least stagnated). The players are almost all the same as last year (but now more experienced) so the variable is coaching and playcalling. The offense has showed a repeated ability to be successful running "spread-lite" and yet we don't use it consistently. And it's not like we're running all pro-set either.
What's frustrating is that Borges has showed a willingness to run plays that suit the offense, plays that seem to give us the best chance to score and win. But then he goes away from them. I'd probably be more understanding if he was running a consistent west coast or pro style system that we just struggled with. But unless the Gardner gimmicks are a long term plan for the offense, much of the playcalling just seems grab bag. Play-action from sets we don't run from. Tunnel screens instead of bubbles when the box is loaded up. Gardner arm-punts in the middle of otherwise successful drives. 20 Toussaint runs against Purdue but only 2 against MSU. I'm sure Borges has (or at least thinks he has) a good plan in place. But man, it's incomprehensible from the outside.
November 10th, 2011 at 11:09 AM ^
Whenever people say that Borges has run "the spread offense" before because he has used shotgun, I chuckle. This is like saying that Paul Johnson runs the under center offense just like Lloyd Carr. All spreads are not made the same, and all coaches are not equally effective in coaching other schemes. There is a reason that Rich Rod and Chip Kelly get paid the big bucks to install and run their offenses; otherwise, teams would just hire any random kid who has played NCAA and knows what he is doing and would save themselves a lot of money.
November 10th, 2011 at 11:28 AM ^
You just described my dream growing up.