November 15th, 2013 at 8:01 AM ^

This is precisely the problem.  As much as Mike Valenti likes to say that Michigan is no different on the academic front than MSU, they are.  

It's harder to get a JUCO graduated from Michigan, which then affects APR.  MSU literally has classes in bowling and golf.

Also most JUCO's went that route because they didn't originally qualify for D1.  If you look back, the only times Michigan has taken a JUCO is when he had originally qualified straight out of high school, possibly spent a year or two at a D1 university, but went JUCO for a year so they wouldn't have to sit out.  These types of JUCO players are not very common. 

The Russell Wilson type of players (grad transfer) are also hard to find for Michigan.  It's a great institution, but often behind the pack when it comes to introducing new graduate programs.  It is very hard for a player to find a graduate program to go into at Michigan that their current institution doesn't have.


November 15th, 2013 at 10:45 AM ^

I'm not entirely sure why you think Miller and Bryant are probably starters. Both are mired on the bench, and neither has the ability to replace the departing tackles. The only way they probably start is if a) the coaches think Miller's ability to snap the ball accurately surpasses their love for Glasgow as a blocker and/or b) if two of those interior guys slide out to tackle.

Monocle Smile

November 15th, 2013 at 10:57 AM ^

More like "somewhat likely." Magnuson will hop out to tackle, opening up one guard spot. Now we have Kalis, Bosch, Miller, Bryant, and Glasgow to fill the three interior spots. So now we have at least one, likely two, possibly three RS juniors on the interior.

Competition caveats apply, but I feel like the OL was better (at least in pass pro) near the beginning of the year than now. Maybe I'm wrong.


November 15th, 2013 at 11:08 AM ^

I think pass protection was better earlier in the year, but I think that was partly due to Miller making better line calls than Glasgow...and partly due to the fact that teams figured out they could run twist stunts and kill our OL. I don't have any statistics to back me up on this, but I thought teams were playing fairly straight up in the first few weeks. Then we got hit on some twists against Akron and UConn and other defensive coordinators took note.


November 14th, 2013 at 9:47 PM ^

borges doesnt game plan or attack weaknesses, he just has a handfull of plays that he picks from. Anyone that suggests he use more lays is taken off the pudding list for that week.

Mr. Yost

November 14th, 2013 at 11:08 PM ^

It's funny, 1/2 of this board thinks we have a Tecmo Bowl playbook and the other 1/2 thinks the playbook is too complex for the players to learn.

A lot of people who've never played or coached or been around football.

Regardless, I don't think that's the point...and I think most would agree with me. It's the plays that are called, not the playbook itself.

I for one think Borges is a BRILLIANT play designer. He's a mad scientist when it comes to play design, IMO. Loved the "Fritz" package, loved some of the Denard-Devin stuff late last year. Love that rocket screen we run to Gallon or the PA "pop" pass to Funchess in the slot.

The problem to me isn't the playbook. I like the flexibility of being able to spread you out and run the ball from under center. I like the play action and the read-option in the playbook.

We're truly multiple.

The problem...the play CALLING. He's the worst play CALLER in college football. He's got plays to chose from, but he doesn't pick the right one. He also has no idea how to pick the plays that limit our weaknesses. He ALSO is far too obsessed with setting up the big play rather than moving the ball down the field and getting first downs. We'd rather call 6 runs for 0 yards and get a 60 yard play than get 6 10-yard plays. 

Odds are that the 60 yard play isn't always going to work, of the 10 yard plays could pop for a big gain...and if it doesn't as least you're moving down the field.

Borges calls plays like a pick-up first downs, start on your goal line and you get x amount of plays to score a touchdown.

Stanford is FAR better than us, but look at how they call plays. It's like the end zone doesn't even exist. They just want the first down. Eventually that end zone shows up and they score.

I've said this before...Borges should be in charge of designing plays. Hecklinski should be in charge of calling them. At least until changes are made.


November 15th, 2013 at 1:51 AM ^

I'm done with Borges. I can't imagine looking at the Akron game and the UCONN game and deciding that we should continue with the "transition" process. Sure, you can write the first one off as not playing hard enough but two in a row? The PSU game should have broken the last straw. At that point you scrap whatever you were trying to implement and do what works. If you say you're goal is a big ten championship then act like it. I can't believe this group of coaches thought that coming into the season the power run game would be effective. I'm sorry but that lack of preparation deserves to be punished and he should no longer be coaching here upon completion of this season.


November 15th, 2013 at 9:53 AM ^

Saying "Borges is the worst play caller in the country" implies that you know as much about the other 122-ish play callers in the country as you do about Borges. Which you probably don't.

I'm not a huge fan of Borges's play calls, but I also wasn't a huge fan of Rodriguez's play calls, Mike DeBord's, etc. When it comes down to it, most teams' fans don't like the plays that are called because most plays don't work well enough to win championships.

Mr. Yost

November 15th, 2013 at 2:57 PM ^

You are correct in griping about playcalling...however, when it's simple x's and o's or doing things to limit your weaknesses, that's a whole new plateau of failure.

Let's be honest, 99% of bloggers don't know shit about what they're talking about 98% of the time. (Again exaggeration to keep the convo "light"). However, when bloggers could seriously "outcall" Borges it's sad. They don't get paid almost a million a year, I can tell you that much.

And I'm not talking coaching up or developing players. Simply calling a play based on what you have and what you see.

On another note...since you have more football knowledge than most. Why do you think it is that we don't go to a controlled no huddle to allow us more time to make adjustments at the line based on what the defense is showing us? Not Oregon, not Baylor, not Texas A&M. Just line up and either run the play, put the pressure on the defense to disguise their coverage for the entire play clock, or check to a better play based on what you see.

It seems simple but there has to be a reason we're not doing this other than "We're Michigan and we huddle."

We take forever to get the play in, then we take forever to get lined up correctly, then we leave ourselves with no time to adjust. Why not just skip the first two steps?


November 15th, 2013 at 7:49 PM ^

I honestly have no idea why Hoke won't go to more of a hurry-up offense. He has talked about time of possession and keeping his defense off the field, but that's an old-fashioned view of football. Personally, I would love to see Michigan run the no-huddle more often, but that just doesn't appear to be in the cards right now.

I've seen too many examples of Gardner not getting the play called in enough time and then having to burn a timeout, take a delay of game, etc. It's frustrating.


November 15th, 2013 at 8:03 PM ^

And I suspect it's coachspeak to avoid talking about the real reason, whatever it is.

Hoke and Borges were running plenty of no huddle together their last year at SDSU; I wish those picture pages of their bowl game were still up because what you see in the first frame each time is the team at the LOS with the play clock barely started. And it was successful.

I don't buy the argument that he suddenly caught the "time of possession" bug when he came to Michigan. I don't buy "we're Michigan fergodsakes" either. Something else made them decide not to do it here.


November 14th, 2013 at 9:24 PM ^

Probably would be a better idea if we recruited JUCO TEs that could block.  Second the notion below that this would have been a better idea going into this year.  We likely have enough OL to field a decent squad next year, assuming quality coaching.