Desmond: Borges third highest paid coordinator (assume refer to OC)

Submitted by iawolve on November 17th, 2013 at 10:21 AM
Reading this in the Detroit News this morning and was a bit surprised. Is Borges really the third highest paid OC in the country? If we are willing to compensate at that level, regardless of who has the position, that dude better have a playbook for any situation or set of talent. This has me a bit conflicted when I see us paying the money since we obviously felt Borges had the potential to be a top three coordinator. I then wonder if we know what you need in a top tier OC because I then have less confidence in hiring any replacement. Not sure your views on the subject beyond there is a likely consensus that we are not getting our money's worth for whatever reason. “We understand the glaring issues you have, but when you’re the third-highest paid coordinator in the country, you’re paid to figure it out, and you’re paid to figure it out against teams like the Northwesterns, even against a Nebraska, who they lost to last week,” Howard said Saturday morning on GameDay. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131116/SPORTS0201/311160051

Comments

gustave ferbert

November 17th, 2013 at 10:25 AM ^

he was taking less money so that he could compensate his staff better.  Which seemed revolutionary.  I knew Mattison was being paid well, but when you put Borges compensation in that perspective, he is clearly being overpaid. 

marmot

November 17th, 2013 at 10:30 AM ^

I really wish I didn't know this. His offense is more glaring than RR's defenses. If Hoke doesn't fire him at season's end, he'll be on the hot seat all of next season.

Yeoman

November 17th, 2013 at 11:13 AM ^

Offensive FEI rankings under Borges/Hoke:

  • 2011: 9
  • 2012: 25
  • 2013; 57

Defensive FEI rankings under Rodriguez:

  • 2008: 44
  • 2009: 60
  • 2010: 109

That's 109th out of 120, adjusted for tempo and strength of schedule etc. Right between #108 1-10 Akron and #110 and winless San Jose State.

bronxblue

November 17th, 2013 at 12:32 PM ^

As a slight counter, those defensive squads never had the talent that Borges inherited from RR.  I mean, Denard Robinson was basically coming off an All-American season as a sophomore, and only now are we seeing the recruiting issues on offense that plagued RR when he showed up.  I will say that the offense is holistically better than those defenses, but to say that we shouldn't see a change because the offense is not the worst in the history of UM football (like those defenses were) is foolish.

jmblue

November 17th, 2013 at 12:50 PM ^

We definitely should not be content with an offense that has scored one TD in regulation in three games, but still . . . nothing compares to the debacle that was the 2010 defense.  That was largely the same group of players that ranked in the top 20 nationally a season later, and yet it was an absolute sieve.  It's painful to think that we pretty much wasted the first three seasons of one of our best defensive tackles in school history (Mike Martin).  It's mind-boggling in retrospect that a front seven that included Martin, Van Bergen, Mouton and Demens, among others, was totally run over all season.  

robpollard

November 17th, 2013 at 10:59 PM ^

I'm not sure how it handles overtime (it says it "filters" certain drives, like clock kills), but my strong guess is we're now in the 60s. Hopefully we do better against Iowa.

And while all that is interesting, it almost doesn't matter, as things can change greatly with in one season. UM's offense was awesome against CMU, ND and Indiana -- but after watching UM's "offense" these past three games, it seems like those earlier games existed in a bizzaro-land universe, even though they were this season.

 

marmot

November 17th, 2013 at 1:49 PM ^

Wrong. I said "more glaring." Where did I say better or worse? Quit putting words in people's mouths and then jumping to assumptions about how much Michigan football different posters watch.

It doesn't really matter anyway. The fact that they're comparable means we have a shitty offense.

jmblue

November 17th, 2013 at 12:13 PM ^

I really wish I didn't know this.

If you want him out (it sounds like you do), you should be encouraged by this. It shows that we're willing to pay top dollar for our coordinators. The flip side of that is increased accountability. If we were paying him chump change, he'd probably be safer.

JTrain

November 17th, 2013 at 10:34 AM ^

Seems like to me we did a little better job yesterday of getting rid of the ball more quickly. The oline play looked spotty for the most part but did seem to have flashes of improved play. However, we got lucky that northwesterns db's dropped 4 or 5 gimme int's.

I am not sure if you can fault al borgess for all of out offensive woe's. Some of the linemans weeknesses have to be blamed on coaching but I'm guessing it's more on funk. Either way, borgess is here to stay for at least another year. It'll be interesting to see how the development of our oline next year affects play calling and the following year how speight or Morris under changes things again.

I feel like we are at the bottom of our development and our ceiling can be really high. The question is, how do we knock a team like Ohio off the top of the mountain. Hopefully Mattison has the answer.

jmblue

November 17th, 2013 at 12:26 PM ^

Yeah, I thought the gameplan was solid - better than the Nebraska one.  Actually, most of the time I think Borges's gameplans have been decent.  Where he's struggled has been more in the area of in-game adjustments.  We'll show some promise early on but then when the opposing D adjusts, he struggles to counterpunch.  

That, and short-yardage playcalling.  Ugh.  It's time to try some PA passing on 3rd and short.

 

 

JTrain

November 17th, 2013 at 12:51 PM ^

I agree. He's been a bit stubborn on trying to run the ball when it's not even remotely close to working.

Really surprised as bad as the line is playing that Desmond is being so outspoken about the coaching. Or maybe it's because he knows from inside sources that the coaching is the problem. Hard to say without having some sort of inside knowledge. Most experts say it's EXTREMELY difficult to come in and play oline as a true or redshirt freshem. So...who do we blame this on? Coaching? Maybe youth? Probably both.

jmblue

November 17th, 2013 at 1:04 PM ^

It's definitely curious that Desmond is so outspoken.  That's not normal behavior from him or really any ex-Michigan guy (especially now that the head coach is again from "the family").  There may be something at play here.

 

JilesDauz

November 17th, 2013 at 6:05 PM ^

I feel like people do not understand that there is more than 1 level of bad. There's the level of bad where you only get 139 yards against a decent run defense (Not against a crappy team like Northwestern though). That level of bad can maybe be explained by youth and inexperience.

 

Then there's the level of bad where you get -21 yards against one of the worst run defenses in the country... and -48 yards against ANYONE. That level of bad can not be explained by youth. We do not have the youngest line yet teams with younger lines manage to not take that big a dump on the field. The level of ineptitude we have seen is not explainable just by the line, at all.

It is an indictment on Borges inability to function as an OC who doesn't tip the defense to the play call. 

 

-21 yards and -48 yards. -21 yards and -48 yards. And only 139 yards against a 0-6 (B1G) Northwestern team. Youth does not exonerate that paltry perfomance. There is a bigger issue here. Not to mention having your main back go 27 for 27 against Penn State who isn't exactly a powerhouse right now. 

Yeoman

November 17th, 2013 at 10:36 AM ^

There's hundreds of people here that could do the job better for free and I'm sure they'd have no trouble convincing Hoke and Brandon of that fact if they could ever get an interview.