Borges Gripes

Submitted by Ziff72 on October 20th, 2012 at 11:12 PM

I'm relieved we won but this game just angered the hell out of me.   Bitching about the OC is so cliche, but these seem so obvious.   Can anyone disagree with the following?

 

1.  2 years ago Roundtree made a living off a play born off the sheer terror of our qb's legs.   MSU had all 11 guys in the screen on several occasions.   Why can't we try a play that had guys open for 15 yards?   One time just try it please.   I. Lewis was begging to get burned today.  They were swarming Denard.  I didn't see any reverses, or counter action to take advantage of that fact.  

2. We have a throwback screen that works like a charm.   We ran it today for an easy 20 yards.   Are we saying they never gave us a similar defensive look that we couldn't try it again?   When a play is that open you have to try it again or put a wrinkle or variation and burn their adjustment,  to never come back to it when we are struggling is mind boggling.  Same for the screen play that the MSU guy made a great play on.   We had 3 blockers and a ton of space run it again.

3.  Get Funchess involved.  WTF?  We have a weapon and we just let him waste away on the sidelines.  He's a match up problem.  Get him involved.   

4.  Maybe this is on Denard but we have to get a quick screen audible installed asap.  Did you see that play at midfiled when they blitzed 2 db's off the edge and we just ran right into it? Just toss it to the edge.  Indiana made MSU pay with bubble screens all half before they adjusted.  We couldn't explore that at all as they A gapped blitzed all game?

This gameplan was very infuriating.  

Denard/Borges Cuisine was like a rice cake with no water today.    Pretty bland and hard to swallow. 

 

Comments

CLord

October 21st, 2012 at 2:09 AM ^

Disagree.  MSU called a good game.  Maxwell completed one bomb, but missed on several.  I have to agree with the original poster that, playing at home, with our senior QB, to have that kind of offensive output on  day we should have steamrolled, was indeed frustrating.  If anything, this game once again proved that Narduzzi > Borges.  Relieved as hell that we won this game?  Absolutely, but you can thank the defense for that.  Queasy about our offense's performance akin to how I felt after the VT game?  Yes.

bjk

October 20th, 2012 at 11:18 PM ^

"Gripes ABOUT Borges." Some folks will click through thinking Borges was griping about something. This way it is more hits, but you don't want to get them this way.

FreddieMercuryHayes

October 20th, 2012 at 11:18 PM ^

I agree to a certain extent.  It's very frustrating at some points that Borges isn't seemingly adjusting.  But in his defense, this is not the offense he's an expert in.  Perhaps he's sticking more with what he knows.  And honestly, if the D is going to play at the level they currently are consistantly, then the team can lean on them.  Borges stuck decently to the game plan, and we rolled up over 300 yards on a top-10 national D.  And we won.  Hopefully we'll see more offensive adjustments, audibles, checks, and such when Borges' offense gets fully rolled out with his players in the next few years.

I Like Burgers

October 21st, 2012 at 2:29 PM ^

Saying he's not an expert in this offense is a copout.  If random people online are able to point out things that you should *maybe* try during a game, then you're not doing your job as an OC.  This is year #2 with Denard.  By now, we should have more than two passing plays in our offense.  The hail mary bomb and the line of scrimmage pass are seemingly all we have.

Now you can blame some of that on "trust with Denard", but the guy is a senior and RichRod trusted him with more passes during his first two seasons.  So, if you can't trust a senior QB and can't come up with some plays that he can execute, then what are you doing as an OC?  I think this whole idea of "wait until he gets guys that run his system" is wearing pretty thin.  He's shown little success in using the weapons that he has in his 18 games or so as an OC, so what makes people think that's going to change when Shane Morris gets here?  And if Borges doesn't trust a senior QB, is he really going to trust a freshman?

Brown Bear

October 20th, 2012 at 11:20 PM ^

Borges wasn't perfect but let's be honest, Denard wasn't exactly on today. He made a lot of the play calls look bad due to bad reads and poor throws. Lets also not forget that staee has a pretty stout defense and played well. We won't face another defense that strong until our bowl game.

funkywolve

October 20th, 2012 at 11:37 PM ^

A couple throws that stick out to me are 1) the lob to Funchess in the endzone.  Great call - split your 6'4" tighte end out so a db is covering him.   Denard just underthrew the ball. 2) I think it was the throw to Gallon (?) in the endzone.  Gallon was open but the throw was behind him - whether Gallon should have sat in that spot I don't know.  Both of those had touchdown written all over them.

Brown Bear

October 20th, 2012 at 11:41 PM ^

There was the pass to Gardner that he dropped/broken up that was underthrown, the Roundtree miscommunication on a corner route in endzone when he was wide open. It's easy to blame Borges but if a few of those plays are made this game is completely different.

Logan88

October 21st, 2012 at 11:59 AM ^

Gardner is in his first year of playing WR in organized football. Denard has been a QB since high school. I'm willing to cut Gardner a little more slack for not performing up to BCS level WR standards than I am Denard missing throws to wide open players.

Devin had beaten his guy badly and was open for an easy TD but Denard underthrew that pass so badly that Devin had to turn around, stop and wait for the pass to (eventually) get there. In the meantime, he knows that the DB who he beat and possibly a safety are on the way ready to lay the hurt.

Fault allocation on that play: 75% Denard / 20% Devin / 5% Cruel and Uncaring Universe

Blazefire

October 21st, 2012 at 12:03 AM ^

I can't be the only one thrilled that we finally have a player to do this with. It's been so long. I loved it. That call was no hesitation. They didn't try to disguise it as anything else. It was just, "Here, we're doing what you think we're doing. Try to stop it." A better throw, and it would've worked, too.

Muttley

October 21st, 2012 at 1:21 AM ^

so Denard threw it to the opening.  I don't have a problem with that.  It didn't get picked off.  A better decision would have been to lob the ball over the linebacker that was threatening the bullet passing lane, but that's a bang-bang reaction.

Indiana Blue

October 21st, 2012 at 11:57 AM ^

1st half and 2nd half until msu scored:

    1st down  -   11 runs & 2 passes  

    2nd down   -  7 runs & 4 passes

    3rd down  -  2 runs & 7 passes

1st and 2nd down 75% rushing plays .... and here is first down run yardage in the first half:  0, 0, 3, -3, 4, 38, -6, 4  not like we shouldn't have mixed things up a little bit?

Go Blue!

I Like Burgers

October 21st, 2012 at 2:36 PM ^

 

With the talent that we have on offense, we should be able to score a TD regardless of the opponent.  We have a senior QB who is breaking records left and right, and a junior RB that ran for 1000 yds last season.  We should really be expecting more out of the offense than FGs.  Even against a good defense.  If we play Oregon in the Rose Bowl and give up 30+ points on defense, are we really going to say "oh, they're a great offense" so that's OK.  Doubt it.

snarling wolverine

October 21st, 2012 at 4:34 PM ^

I agree that we should expect to score TDs on everyone.  But when Denard misses a wide-open Roundtree in the endzone, Gardner drops a 40-yard pass that hits both hands, and then Denard throws behind a wide-open Gallon in the endzone . . . why is that all the fault of the OC?

I love Denard to pieces, and will miss him terribly, but let's face it, he's an inconsistent passer. He can throw a 20-yard strike to Dileo in tight coverage on one hand and then overthrow his tailback on a screen.  It seems like we never know what we're going to get when he drops back to pass.

Purkinje

October 20th, 2012 at 11:21 PM ^

Clock management and Offense-In-General were pretty horrible today, minus game-winning drive. I don't understand why the offense chokes out against good defenses. It seems like the gameplan when going against a competant D is to run straight at it and get stuffed again and again.

Purkinje

October 20th, 2012 at 11:52 PM ^

I know we're playing stellar defenses, and that's why it's so frustrating to watch us run straight at the line again and again. I'm no coach or coordinator, but it seems like running at the outside or doing some short passes would produce vastly better results than trying to find a hole in a wall of jerseys.

KBLOW

October 20th, 2012 at 11:22 PM ^

We won, right? 

 Denard played well enough to get that win, but don't forget that he might be missing reads/check downs/etc as opposed to Borges just not putting in the correct play.

GoBlueGladstone

October 20th, 2012 at 11:23 PM ^

...I get it. But wtf? 18 zone reads in a row against a defense that is built to read it is no way to gameplan. When it was effective was when the mix included first down passing plays or misdirection runs. And that was not often. "Eventually Denard is going to get loose" works against many a team, but not Spartina. 

Maybe the plan was to play it safe since the D was hanging tough and then explode later but that was hard on the eyes. Still, WIN!

blue_kate

October 20th, 2012 at 11:24 PM ^

Frankly, say whatever you want to say about Borges, but we managed to get it done. In my mind, that's ultimately all that matters. Could/should this game have been 24/10, 35/10, 38-10? Sure. Yes. Who cares. An ugly win is a win, take it and move on to the next. Borges is not great against MSU. At least this one is in the correct column. Go blue.