Leave our OC alone UNM

Submitted by winterblue75 on September 27th, 2011 at 2:33 PM
@TomDienhart Tom Dienhart
Some early names I hear for New Mexico: Bob Bostad; Sonny Dykes; Mike Leach; Noel Mazzone; Jim McElwain; Ed Warinner; Al Borges.
Cut it out dude



September 27th, 2011 at 4:03 PM ^

When you're 55 and taking your first head coaching job (especially if you've had the success as an o-coordinator that Borges has had), I'm guessing you wouldn't want to be starting on the bottom rung of the ladder.  In Borges situation if you wanted to give head coaching a try, I'm guessing you probably wouldn't look any lower than a mid level team in one of the better BCS conferences.


September 27th, 2011 at 2:41 PM ^

and I guarantee he's had HC opportunities before... if that's what he wanted, he'd have done it by now, so not concerned there.  Plus he's in a good situation with a head coach who doesn't seem to micro manage his coordinators.  OC at Michigan > HC at UNM.


September 27th, 2011 at 2:49 PM ^

he will have to go to Tucson.  There are no saguaro cactus here at 7,000 feet.  UNM should really think twice before going for another offensive coordinator from the Big Ten.


September 27th, 2011 at 2:52 PM ^

At first I thought you were talking about the University of Northern Michigan making fun of Al Borges. My mistake....

And I doubt he'll leave, this guy's probably just throwing names out


September 27th, 2011 at 3:23 PM ^

He goes there. Not to beat a dead horse and I haven't said anything about Al on here ever but his play calling is simply pathetic. This offense has taken more of a step back then I thought. Get mad at me all you want but if you do you must not know football very well.


September 27th, 2011 at 3:33 PM ^

We are in the first year of a new coach after getting rid of one of the best offensive minds in the game. A step back was expected even though we're still a top ten rushing team nationally.

Also - wait until we play the good defenses in our league. Remember how we did against them last year? Give it a full season before you bitch about our step back.

EDIT: I love how you ended your argument. "Disagree with me if you want, but if you do you're obviously stupid."


September 27th, 2011 at 5:42 PM ^

You made two statements about Al Borges.
1. His play calling is pathetic.
2. We took more of a step back then (sic) you thought.

That is stating the obvious? The first is a vague, unsupported, purely opinion statement. The second is merely you comparing his performance to your own expectations. Neither of those are obvious.


September 28th, 2011 at 1:36 AM ^

Have been blinded. The support for my first statement is in the tape. You ever heard the saying the big eye in the sky don't lie. My 4th grade football coach used to say that all the time. Have you watched the game film at all? I have, I have watched every game about 5 times each. I have watched certain plays and drives several more times than that. I'm a football junkie I can't help it. My opinion of his playcalling, the offense's rhythm, the timing, the adjustments, is that at this point they are pathetic. Now I could go into detail about each of those things and the importance of all of those things but i don't really have time to do that and I know you know that already. Besides I'm just some Joe who thinks they know football. The second point can't even remember.


September 28th, 2011 at 6:32 AM ^

You're way off base here.

(1) Maybe you're a spread zealot and all that jazz, but to assume that a new OC under a new regime will try to call games by running a scheme based on what he does not know. . . is nucking futs.

(2) If you can't see how this is shaking out, despite watching each game a gazillion times, I hope you don't end up in the coaching profession. Stick to X-Box. Borges is doing a pretty damn admirable job accomodating parts of a system that will be totally erased/replaced in a few years to take advantage of the unique talents of a 4.3 speed QB, while still attempting to add in bits from what he knows and does well. This latest presser really gives you all that you need to know. QB's have struggled under Al in their first year, with marked improvement in year 2.

(3) Denard is airmailing the shit out of his receivers right now. comfort or no comfort, he's flat out missing open receivers routinely...

and yet...

(4) He's still leading the nation in rushing per game. Borges has been smart enough to maybe go against his instinct to cut down on the carries. He very much realizes that Denard=Offense right now. If we can get away with throwing the ball under 20 times a game until some pass game kinks can get ironed out, I'm all for it. As long as we're able to get production (200+ yards) on the ground from Denard and Fitz/Vince, I'm OK with what's happening.

(5) Brian has mentioned on this blog that the offense has a "grab-bag" feel to it. While this is true, Al and his players are still developing a chemistry and offensive identity. That doesn't just appear out of nowhere. Again, I cite the latest presser: Borges notes that they just have to continue to try things out, and if they don't work, they keep working on it the next week. It's hard to place blame on the playcalling when there are blatant execution issues between Denard and the receivers. Poor throws and blatant drops are going to make the O look pretty bad. I think Borges has said all the right things, and there's absolutely no way to pass judgement on his ability.

(6) While I'm not a fan (obv) of running a 5'6 back out of an I-form, I think things such as the new option addition and QB lead oh noes are clear examples of progress and Al tinkering with the game plan to meet his players half way. At the very least, you have to like that he's not routinely and stubbornly running arrogant plays that have no chance. This is a "feel it out" phase of Michigan football. We will be better.

(7)We are lucky to come out of this CC with such seasoned, smart coordinators. Relax, and watch things improve. We're going to get beat at some point, but honestly, I could see anywhere from a low end of 8 to a high of 11 wins this year (including a bowl).

Blue in Yarmouth

September 27th, 2011 at 3:24 PM ^

and think he will be successful here over time. However, if we could get an OC who has proven he can run a spread offense similar to the one we had previously as a replacement I'd be lying if I said I'd be too upset. 

Again, nothing against Al, I think he will be successful in the long run, but if we were running a more spread type offense with the shorter passing game I think this team could win the B1G this year. Hell, they have a chance as it is with no passing game to speak of at all.

oriental andrew

September 27th, 2011 at 3:45 PM ^

I think Borges has at the very least met expectations so far.  He's shown the ability to be able to adapt in-game to what's working.  Obviously, against the tomato cans (no offense, directional Michigan schools), he'd want to try to run his own plays to see what works and what doesn't.  That he had the spread-type plays in his back pocket and trotted them out to take advantage of Denard's strengths and compensate for his struggles in the passing game tell me he knows what he's doing. 

You have to chalk up the early-season difficulties with the pro style offense to the newness of it all to those kids, Denard especially. 

I'd give Borges a solid B+ or A- so far.

Stephen Hawking

September 27th, 2011 at 3:42 PM ^

I was getting ready to pick apart UNM's fan base for lack of creativity.

But now I'm worried that my custom Al Borges t-shirt with the word gorgeous beneath it may not be in style for long...