Borges spread to pro transition
OC Al Borges talked today in his interview about his last transition from a spread offense to a pro-style. Borges was hired in 2009.
| Year | Total Offense | Scoring Offense |
| 2006 | 108 (269.50) | 113 (14.17) |
| 2007 | 73 (376.58) | 76 (25.08) |
| 2008 | 99 (312.42) | 104 (19.25) |
| 2009 | 86 (341.92) | 85 (23.33) |
| 2010 | 16 (456.7) | 19 (35) |
I do not know what type of spread was run before Borges got there, or anything about the personnel he inherited, other than they were not the prolific offense we potentially have. Borges ran a very good offense last year in year two of his tenure after seeing improvement over the previous OC's numbers.
Edit- I originally posted that Borges was hired in 2008, and while this was technically true, he was hired after the season was over. I'll leave the shadow copy link here. Thanks to artds for pointing this out.
January 20th, 2011 at 1:40 PM ^
I think this is pretty promising. He took a pretty bad offense and turned them into top 20, and he didn't inherit the raw talent that we already have. With our players and the fact that it should be easier to recruit high quality players at Michigan over SDSU, I think our offense is going to be pretty solid for a while
January 20th, 2011 at 2:37 PM ^
were on SDSU's schedule this year plus an FCS school. Take the numbers with a grain of salt. We played 7 of the top 30 including our bowl. Hard to compare apples to oranges.
January 20th, 2011 at 2:43 PM ^
Did you look at the schedule the previous year? Won't it end up that they played crappy defensive teams the previous year when their offense was bad?
with all the variables not controlled in college football these statistical arguments really don't show anything if you can't find a baseline and get everyone to agree to it.
January 27th, 2011 at 10:30 PM ^
BTW I used to live in Seattle in the Bellevue area of Newport Hill. Where are you living out there?
January 27th, 2011 at 10:28 PM ^
Ok so if this is the case then I'm confused about this hire. Why would Hoke, having recently been hired in his dream job, bring an OC that doesn't seem to be able to get the job done very well. I love the Mattison hire a lot but this is a head scratcher. Why risk it and go with this guy who has been languishing around the NCAA with no appsrent real success in his resume?
January 20th, 2011 at 1:41 PM ^
I know we have way more offensive talent than San Diego State, but it shows that he struggled intially, but did great when he got his offense settled in. Hopefully we're the exception,
#anti-rebuilding
January 20th, 2011 at 1:59 PM ^
If we give him enough time to settle in, of course.
January 20th, 2011 at 1:48 PM ^
who was so well-suited to RichRod's offense, and on such good terms with the coach, and worked so hard for a year-and-a-half to assimilate that offense, and who still hit a sophomore slump in putting it into effect. . .
. . .has any of those things happen this time around. I have my doubts but will hope for the best.
January 20th, 2011 at 3:43 PM ^
I wonder how Denard will throw in an offense that isn't based on the zone read. In RichRod's offense, Denard accumulated most of his yards on short screens, and hit receivers who were wide open after defenses overplayed the run.
I'm curious to see if Borges can create similar situations for Denard, or alternatively, how Denard will fare against defenses that arent looking to defend his running abilitys.
January 20th, 2011 at 6:13 PM ^
January 20th, 2011 at 7:52 PM ^
the few times last year he went up under center?
January 20th, 2011 at 1:49 PM ^
very happy with the offensive talent that he is inheriting. Thank god he's smart enough to realize the tools he has and will mold his system to them. I am expecting a lot of good things from this team next year.
January 20th, 2011 at 1:51 PM ^
My expectation is that we probably won't be a top 10 offense next year, but we'll go up about 50-60 spots in total defense ranking, which hopefully will balance out any kinks in the offense the team goes through.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:11 PM ^
hope.
January 20th, 2011 at 1:55 PM ^
Borges first coached SDSU during the 2009 season, not 2008, so there was no dropoff during his tenure, just improvement.
January 20th, 2011 at 1:57 PM ^
You're correct, my mistake. He was hired in December 2008, not before the season.
January 20th, 2011 at 2:38 PM ^
NP. Thx for posting the stats. I think this bodes well for us.
January 20th, 2011 at 2:44 PM ^
Agreed, though I'd feel better if he came from a bigger school, just so there would be a bunch of resources to go back and look at what came before in depth.
I mean, if someone were looking to hire a Michigan coach/coordinator, MGoBlog would be ridiculously helpful for predicting success. I doubt that SDSU has anything comperable (not that any other school does either, of course).
January 20th, 2011 at 1:57 PM ^
And maybe...JUST MAYBE....we'll have some semblance of a kicker. We might be able to pick up some 3's here and there if we can't get the 6. Help out the offense a little. Maybe Gibbons or Broekhuizen will suddenly come alive. Or if we get Wile...
January 20th, 2011 at 2:02 PM ^
yes - this would be huge for the offences state of mind. Knowing that they don't have to get a TD every time they get the ball will be a big plus.
January 20th, 2011 at 2:46 PM ^
You saw it in every big game this year. The offense came out early with confidence and scored. Then our D would let the opponent quickly match us. It would become clear early on that there was no margin for error, our offense was going to have to score on almost every series.
The offense then started to press a little bit and make mistakes and even panic a little. We seldom had our vaunted offense playing with confidence in big games by the time we got to the second half. They started to get a little desperate and because they were young started making elementary mistakes like illegal procedures, dropped balls, missed reads.
An offense with more experience and that does not feel it has to score 7 on every drive will be a refreshing change coming up in the next couple of years.
January 20th, 2011 at 7:56 PM ^
watching Arkansas get back into the game in the Sugar Bowl reinforced a huge problem this year with the offense. Mallett couldn't get them in the endzone but they kicked a couple of field goals and it helped them get back in the game once they figured how to cross the goal line.
January 20th, 2011 at 2:01 PM ^
Given that Borges came to SDSU in 2009 with Hoke (he did not coach in 2008) the reversal of form is much more impressive with significant improvement in the first year.
Oops - I see artds just scooped me
January 20th, 2011 at 2:14 PM ^
I fixed the post. Dumbass mistake of just looking at 2008 instead of the month as well. My bad.
January 20th, 2011 at 2:29 PM ^
January 20th, 2011 at 2:31 PM ^
I FIXED THE POST DUMBASS!!!!!!!
That would be so mean.
January 20th, 2011 at 2:37 PM ^
try and draw a parallel between Borges taking a bad team, recruiting good players, turning them into a bowl team, and then conclude Michigan has more talent so he will do better at Michigan. You have to take into consideration that talent level is relative to the conference you are playing against. Winning with good players in the Mountain West does not translate to winning at Michigan with Michigan's current roster in the Big Ten. It seems RR came on those same assumptions, and found out he was woefully mistaken.
January 20th, 2011 at 2:41 PM ^
Well I wasn't really trying to conclude anything. Just taking a look at the last transition he went through. You're right that RR was hired on those assumptions and didn't work out, but if I was trying to make a point, it would probably be that Borges has gone from a "spread" offense to a "pro" set while improving the team immediately.
Also, I would think that generally, the more specific a job is the more that past results can indicate future success.
January 20th, 2011 at 4:04 PM ^
RR also tried to do this with no real defense to speak of. With Hoke/Mattison working on the D and the the depth problem there I think we're potetially going to be a threat on both sides of the ball. Many returning starters next year who will be improved and a ST coach who can hopefully turn our kicking game around. Dont see any reason why they couldnt succeed.
January 20th, 2011 at 2:44 PM ^
I'm confident that the guy has been around enough offenses with different styles. He won't push Denard into too much of a pro-passer and he'll know the strengths of the offense. If he really does have full control over the offense, I can't see why he wouldn't game plan to get Denard out on roll outs.
January 20th, 2011 at 2:47 PM ^
to be inconsistent and a little off-balance in this first year. There is a lot of raw talent but it is kind of square peg-round hole right now. However, I do expect far fewer turnovers, increased time of possession, and more of an attempt to put the defense in a good position to succeed as opposed to the "score quick and awesomely" offensive philosophy that we have seen in the last couple of years. This past year we were hoping for 50-47 victories, I expect close to the opposite this year. I expect the defense to be much improved statistically if only due to one of the primary offensive goals to be to keep the defense off the field and to put them in a position to be aggressive when the are on the field. In other words, I think Michigan's offense and the entire team for that matter will be involved in a lot of football "chess matches" for at least this first year.
January 20th, 2011 at 2:49 PM ^
what we will need to be successful is a real running game, especially one that can keep moving the ball inside the red zone.
January 20th, 2011 at 4:17 PM ^
about the whole square peg round hole thing. But i agree and am glad you pointed out the TOP I think that has been overlooked on alot of these posts and it will be very advantagous for our defense. Dont really think the offense will suffer tremendously though Denard may not be Andrew Luck but he is a better than average passer, I realize alot of his success comes from defenses loading the box to stop him from running. AB made it clear in his interview they were going to try to develop his passing game and if the running game improves(it will) he can set the same stage with p/a. Dont sell them short just yet.
January 20th, 2011 at 4:02 PM ^
As long as he does it slowly, I'm fine with it. If he tries to go straight into the west coast, (which he probably won't) we should have a smooth transition. We have potential at running back, and electrifying quarterback, a good offensive line, and a great group of recievers. I wouldn't worry too much.
January 20th, 2011 at 7:35 PM ^
If I was Stonum or Hemingway, I'd be very happy... they should both crack 700 yards recieving at least this year