Mailbag: Argument For Borges, Montgomery Departure Effect, Emo Business, Don't Play Skyrim Comment Count

Brian

099[1]ArrestedJeffreytambor4[1]

Brian Sipe and Al Borges did not see eye to eye

Quarterback coach?

Quarterback coach?

-BML, Brooklyn

Nope. When Borges arrived someone asked him about having a QB coach, and he said that he wasn't a fan of the setup they had at SDSU, where Brian Sipe was hired as a dedicated QB coach. That relationship was strained, it seems, and Borges now handles all that himself.

My google-fu has failed me in an effort to find this quote, but a couple years back there was a direct statement from Borges that he prefers to work with the QBs himself, alone.

UPDATE: a commenter comes through.

“I’m sure there were times I was driving Brian nuts, because I was being driven nuts. Coaching quarterbacks is more my M.O.”

What is the argument for Borges?

What is the argument for Borges?

Watching bowl games and I'm jealous of Iowa and their dinosaur coaching staff occasionally running up tempo offense.

Al Borges has either had the game pass him by or hasn't trusted his QBs at michigan one bit. They don't/can't run tempo, don't/can't get out of the huddle in time to gather any info on the defensive alignment pre-snap and don't/can't commit to any spread concepts that put playmakers in space and pressure defenders to make one on one plays in space.

Michigan's offense doesn't take advantage of ANY of the benefits of modern college offenses.

Andy
Miami, FL

The argument in his favor is that he does tend to have high YPA offenses when he has decent quarterbacks, and in YPA is generally regarded as the stat most predictive of victory. If you've heard the roundtable on WTKA this year you've heard Craig bring this up weekly, at which point I shoot him down because Michigan's running game is just so so bad this year. Then he brings it up the next week because his pet YPA stat was actually pretty accurate, and we repeat the cycle.

Anyway. In year two at SDSU, Ryan Lindley had a 9.1 YPA, which is near-great. In three years at Michigan:

  • Denard 2011: 8.4
  • Denard 2012: 7.9
  • Devin 2012: 9.7(!)
  • Devin 2013: 8.6

Things at Auburn were great, then increasingly grimmer. Jason Campbell cracked the 10 YPA mark in year one, then Brandon Cox went from 7.6 to 8.1 to 6.6, whereupon Borges got fired in favor of that Franklin spread guy who got fired midseason the next year, leading to Borges's current pathological worldview.

I'm not even sure how much of the Cox degradation I blame on Borges. I saw Cox live and in person in his senior year, and by that time his arm strength had degraded to Russell Bellomy-against-Nebraska levels. Meanwhile Tommy Tuberville's staff was a collection of Just In Charge Of Something For No Reasons that undermined the next guy and got fired as a unit as a result—they were Rodriguez's defensive assistants and Borges was Scott Shafer.

This year's actually-quite-good YPA stat (23rd nationally) is impressive in context. I think you can make a case that with a functional running game, Borges can pilot an effective offense. The program is pretty dinosaur all around, but at least Borges has shown that he is looking for the knockout punch.

Dear Brian,

I've read and heard a lot about our miserable offensive line and how Coach Borges's hands are somewhat tied with such an incapable unit. But it seems to me that the larger problem is the predictability of his play calling. I don't study tape or rewatch games the way our opponents must, but even I feel like I know exactly when he's going to run the ball and when he isn't. The Nebraska players said as much after they completely shut us down. The only game that I can remember saying to myself  "I didn't expect that" with regard to our ground game was against OSU, and in that match-up our O line suddenly looked average/competent against a good Buckeye unit. I feel like Borges is a guy that really believes that as long as everyone "executes", it doesn't matter if the opposing defense has an idea of what's coming. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks again for your hard work.

Mark

When one half of your offense is totally incapable of picking up yard one in most games you do tend to get predictable. Defenses figure out the thing that you are trying to do and shut it down because they aren't worried about the other thing. The Kansas State game was a great example of that: once the Wildcats figured out what Michigan was doing and adapted to stop it there wasn't much else Michigan could execute so they had to keep doing the one thing they could do.

This pattern is familiar from 2008, when Rodriguez would insert various tweaks and folds into his rushing offense that would work great for about a half and then die in a heap. Remember the 2008 Penn State game that was 17-14 at halftime and then ended something like 80-17 Penn State? Same thing: unleash something unexpected that really works (in that case it was MINOR RAGE), then have bupkis when opponent adjusts.

Predictability is a hallmark of crappy offenses, but it's more a symptom than a disease.

The Jerry Montgomery effect?

Hi Brian,

I see a lot of Michigan fans saying they will give the defensive staff a pass for this season's defensive performance because this is the same staff responsible for vast improvements seen in the first year under Brady Hoke. But, this isn't the same staff. We lost Jerry Montgomery to Oklahoma last offseason. Our d-line was definitely disappointing this year. Could you please comment on whether Montgomery leaving was a bigger blow than anticipated? Also, could you please comment on Roy Manning's performance as the linebacker coach?

Thanks and Go Blue!

How disappointing was it, though?

Our impressions are always colored by the most recent thing to happen and those two things were eviscerations by OSU and Kansas State, but the overall picture is less than awful. Michigan finished 35th in raw YPC without an imposing pass rush and without a whole lot of blitzing or load-the-box safety help. Their YPC allowed (3.81) was identical to last year's number, when Montgomery was around.

On an individual level, by the time the Ohio State game rolled around Ondre Pipkins had torn his ACL and Michigan's first choice nose tackle was 285 pound Jibreel Black, which went about as well as you might expect against what was by far the nation's top rushing offense. That is a huge and obvious personnel issue caused by injury—I continue to assume that something was just not right with Quinton Washington because otherwise his deployment makes no goddamn sense at all—and youth.

On an individual level, Michigan got strong upward ticks from everyone on the line:

  • Frank Clark went from hype bust of the offseason to a solid, Tim Jamison-as-senior effort.
  • Willie Henry went from obscure rotation guy to solid starter and potential future star.
  • Black was considerably better than he was as a junior, though completely overmatched because of his size at certain points.
  • Brennen Beyer… actually went backwards a bit, okay. But again this was Michigan's first choice SDE against OSU, a 250-pound dude.

The lack of imposing pass rush is an issue that needs to be addressed, yes. I don't think this season was necessarily that disappointing when you look at the roster at the three interior DL spots (SDE counts as one in my book). There is a gap akin to the interior OL on the roster.

image

Remove injured Pipkins and your non-freshman options at three interior DL spots that really need about six guys to rotate through are Black (285 pounds), Washington (inexplicable lack of PT), Ash (never played meaningful snaps in his life before OSU), and Heitzman (dumped from rotation in favor of 250-pound SAM). All things considered they were doing really well to hold up like they did before the season-ending collapse.

Meanwhile, Oklahoma was 53rd in rushing D, giving up a third of a yard per attempt more than M. I don't think Montgomery was a huge blow.

As for Manning, he's got the outside linebackers, which means SAM and only SAM. Michigan got quality play from first Beyer and then Cam Gordon; Jake Ryan was not as impactful this year but with the injury that's understandable. Tentative thumbs up in year one.

WMNationalChampionshipTipoff2013[1]

It wasn't too long ago that you were ready to cut someone about something something

EMO QUESTION OF THE WEEK OF THE YEAR

Brian,

Is there a point for you at which fanhood of Michigan football is so disappointing because of things besides kids trying their best (e.g., Borges/Hoke insanity, almost everything Dave Brandon) that stop...like, really, at least sort of? As we as a fanbase get to consider your experience of being a fan and weigh it against our own, you shared some, I don't know, despondency or something at times this season, usually in appropriate situations. And in a time in my life when I am thinking of getting ready for my marriage, and getting something resembling a career going, and God help me I'll be a father in a few years...this football stuff just seems like a waste of time when everything besides the kids gets me as worked up as [REDACTED TOPIC OF CHOICE] does.

Honestly, larger than the blog, which I could see continuing in a hundred ways, is there a "this far and no further" point in your tolerance of extraneous bullshit for the sake of the joy or whatever it is that's so incredible when the kids on the field do amazing things?

I mean, after the 2009 Illinois game, I locked myself in a dorm and turned off my phone and didn't talk to anyone until late Sunday. As crazy and immature as that was, nothing about the disappointment of a loss has ever made me feel like I should stop following the team. But now I read about BWW Bowls and Jerryworld II and I'm like...whatever, man.

JV

This is a natural consequence of aging and putting things in your life other than football that poop all over themselves when you would rather they not do that. Eventually, this will be you, wishing you weren't pooping all over yourself while watching Michigan poop all over itself in a hologram.

Scatology!

Anyway. It is an annual rite for person X on message board Y to declare that they just don't have the steam in them any more. I get it. To be blunt, I've been struggling with motivation issues since about midseason and understand anyone who flips the TV off and goes bowling*.

But, again, it is a human tendency to project most recent thing as thing that happens forever. It is not so. It was just last April that I was in the Georgia Dome, panicking about a Ke$ha song (probably, anyway; getting to the point where I can't necessarily discern which pop ingénues is which) because it was the thing going on before the national championship game. If they had played The Final Countdown I literally would have grabbed my buddy and gone AHHHH AHHHH AHHHH until he slapped me.

This season has been particularly enervating because of not only the suckiness of the team but its total unwatchability. As I mentioned in the post-bowl column, the 3-9 outfit was a worse team but they came by their awfulness honestly. Not that these folk didn't, but there is a special pain in rushing for negative yards consecutive weeks. It is transmitted direct to your eyeballs.

When this is not the case, you will discover the terror of your attachment again. Probably.

In your specific case, I've tied my career to this and don't have the option, so I don't know man. I tend to think I might get fed up, but I'm still getting hockey tickets and no one really cares if I go to hockey. Maybe I would just complain about feeling like a sucker and continue acting like a sucker.

*[I finally broke down and played Skyrim. Do not do this. Skyrim is the kind of awful that only reveals itself after you've set 60 hours of your life on fire listening to boring conversations and dully hacking things in the face. Their open world is beautiful and soulless, shiny on the outside but hollow in the center. Bethesda's mechanics are hopelessly broken in every single game they make, and while being able to jump across a continent in Morrowind was charmingly broken, Skyrim's mechanics invite you to a dull, iron-dagger-laden trudge through one moronically designed UI after another.

Wait.

Shit.

I just played the computer version of Michigan's 2013 football season. I DID IT TO MYSELF. AGAIN.]

AAAARGH

Obviously changes need to be made, and probably already have for all I know. I posed this idea to some friends this morning and got intrigued responses but it was ultimately dismissed as unrealistic: Michigan should hire Pat Narduzzi as head coach right now.

He's obviously ready for a move, would clearly help Michigan's defense tremendously (and bring in a new OC who could only be an upgrade), and this would really hurt one of our division rivals who is on the verge of becoming a regular contender. I would say this move would be on par with hiring Bo (who, at the time, was an Ohio State guy, even though he was at Miami). Getting Narduzzi now is no different, except skipping the middle step of him coaching elsewhere first. Has anyone suggested this idea yet, and what do you think from the perspective of is it possible as well as is it a good move?

Anon

IT HAPPENED, JV

IT HAPPENED RIGHT NOW WITH EVERYONE WATCHING

OH GOD

Comments

Yeoman

January 8th, 2014 at 3:05 PM ^

...or his recruits. That 2010 recruiting class is the gift that keeps on giving, and it would have been whether RR was retained or not. I guess the outstanding question is whether he could have gotten it back on track in 2012 or beyond, but there wasn't much evidence for it when he left.

Space Coyote

January 8th, 2014 at 4:28 PM ^

The peaced out once the mounting evidence had them believe that he was going to be fired. 

Also, FWIW: Dee Hart was a 5-star; Fisher was a borderline 3/4 star that leaned towards 4.

Point still stands that being a lame-duck coach certainly didn't help him recruit, for many reasons.

jmdblue

January 8th, 2014 at 12:48 PM ^

was my breaking point with RR as well  (to my knowledge there is no video record of my meltdown in the stands).  It was the single most hapless display I've ever seen except for... never mind.... (political).  We're not seeing that happen now.  My guess is you'll do what many of us have done.  Turn down the intensity for awhile until success makes it safe to get back in the water.. We're 2 years away.

TheNema

January 8th, 2014 at 2:36 PM ^

We're 2 years away

Not only is this old to hear, but when you look at how many quick turnarounds there have been in college football and our conference, it reads like a loser's lament.

This program is running too short on Get Out Of Jail Free cards to ask for that type of patience.  I know the word "unacceptable!" is probably thrown around too much, but losing 9 of 10 to OSU and 5 of 6 to MSU is exactly that.

jmdblue

January 8th, 2014 at 2:48 PM ^

that was a bit deeper than most of us realized.  Especially in terms of depth in the trenches.  The RR era was a failure, we had a one year reprieve (11-2), and now we build.  There have been some quick turnarounds, but did they really stick?  ND last year seemed like a big turnaround, but they're mediocre.  NW seemed good under Fitzgerald.  I don't know.  Some good leadership and a couple good bounces will make a team good for a couple years, but we want to be a juggernaught again.  Like a 1977 juggernaught.  The only way to have this is with steadily great recruiting, coaching and player leadership adn without too many off-field distractions or any violations.  Like everyone I question Borges' coaching, but earlier this year we all planned on the new 10 year war.  I still think there is a good chance Hoke will deliver on this promise.

jmblue

January 8th, 2014 at 3:14 PM ^

I know the word "unacceptable!" is probably thrown around too much, but losing 9 of 10 to OSU and 5 of 6 to MSU is exactly that.
You can't blame the current staff for what happened before it got there. (Not to mention that firing a coach often means restarting the rebuilding process, which likely means more losing.) Hoke's coached three games against each of those schools and is 1-2. Not great, but he has a chance to even the score in 2014. Don't hold 2005-10 against him when he wasn't here.

bronxblue

January 8th, 2014 at 12:49 PM ^

I think the question about Borges was more "would he start being a competent coach to the QBs" instead of hiring another guy.  He needs to focus on that position, or at least provide some general oversight, becauase so far it seems like he treats the position like the other 10 on offense, which is fine for playcalling but horrible for player development.

jmblue

January 8th, 2014 at 3:07 PM ^

Not sure what you're saying here.  Borges is the QB coach.  That he also is a coordinator does not mean that he doesn't have the time to work with the QBs on a daily basis.  Mattison does double-duty himself (DL and DC).  

You can question Borges's effectiveness at the two jobs, but time management isn't really the issue here.  On most staffs, the QB coach is basically a co-OC anyway.

 

bronxblue

January 8th, 2014 at 5:17 PM ^

No, I recognize that he's the official QB coach; he's said that a number of times.  But at the same time, I question how involved he actually is in "coaching" the QB as anything more than another player on the offense.  By comparison, Funk coaches the OL, Jackson coaches the RBs, Ferrigno the TEs, Hecklinski the WRs, etc.  Borges is the OC and the QB coach, but I figure his focus is way more on the prior than the latter, which puts the QB in a tough position because none of them seem to be getting the type of coaching you'd like to see for this complex of an offense.

saveferris

January 8th, 2014 at 12:50 PM ^

I would say this move would be on par with hiring Bo (who, at the time, was an Ohio State guy, even though he was at Miami). Getting Narduzzi now is no different, except skipping the middle step of him coaching elsewhere first.
Actually, it's a lot different. Hiring a hot OC who has zero head coaching experience is a huge risk and a risk that a program of Michigan's stature and resources shouldn't have to take. To say hiring Narduzzi is just as good an idea as hiring Schembechler back in the day is simply not true because Bo's tenure at Miami is an important discriminator.

The FannMan

January 8th, 2014 at 12:59 PM ^

Tony Dungy was in the state a few days ago.  He said he wasn't going to be coaching the Lions, but he never denied that he was going to coach Michigan next year.  That can only mean that Hoke is gone and they are hiring Tony Freakin' Dungy!  Hot Damn!  Let's discuss who his OC will be!

Or, can we all just accept that, despite a 7-6 year, Hoke isn't getting fired?  Can we all agree that there is not going to be a new head coach and we aren't hiring Narduzzi or Gruden or either Harbaugh or anyone else?  Can we stop talking about stuff that isn't real?  If not, then we may as well all go and play Skyrim.

bronxblue

January 8th, 2014 at 1:00 PM ^

Also, are we sure Narduzzi is the mastermind behind the success at MSU, or is that Dantonio?  Mark was the DC at OSU, and while I'm sure Narduzzi is pretty skilled we've not seen him away from MSU to gauge his abilities.

pdgoblue25

January 8th, 2014 at 1:26 PM ^

I just hope UM at least gauged Chudzinski's interest in the job.  It's not an unprecedented move, Cam Cameron is OC at LSU.  I just think the guy is a talented offensive coach.

Erik_in_Dayton

January 8th, 2014 at 1:41 PM ^

I happened to look this up yesterday.  In 2004, Auburn's undefeated team (with Ronnie Brown and Cadillac Williams) ran for 4.3 ypc.  Auburn ran for 4.8 ypc the next year with Kenny Irons running the ball...I don't know if those are Borges's best years or not.  I looked them (or at least 2004) up because it would be hard to argue that he didn't have talent then.

Ron Utah

January 8th, 2014 at 1:50 PM ^

If all you want is YPC, then just read the charts:

One.  Two.  Three.  Four.

Borges has had most of his success in the passing game, with notable exceptions being his first year and then even more his second year at Auburn (of course, the passing attacks were very good in both of those offenses as well).  Actually, his highest YPC was in 2011 with Denard, but I'm not sure how relevant that is to our current offense.

He's a guy that's going to be real happy with a 4.2 YPC, because that usually means he's getting 9 yards/pass.

 

Space Coyote

January 8th, 2014 at 2:40 PM ^

If Michigan averages 4.2 YPC and 9 YPA, and are generally split run-to-pass 50-50 (which is probably at least near the end goal), then Michigan average 6.6 yards per play, which is 14th in the nation.

60-40 run to pass is 6.12 yards per play, which is 34th.

FWIW, if Michigan reverts to median for TFL and sacks, Michigan averages 3.88 ypc (Borges's career average, including the 2013 season as is, is 3.91 YPC, so this doesn't seem completely far fetched). With the same run-to-pass ratio (with sacks reverting to median (55 to 45) and the DG's YPA, Michigan would average almost exactly 6 yards per play, which results in a solid but unspectacular 42nd in the nation (despite still having the 89th best YPC) and assumes the run game and lack of sacks do nothing to improve YPA.

This is why people think that despite losing a great LT and a very good RT, Michigan can improve next year. To drastically improve the statistics, it takes less plays that are simply blown up. That's not even doing any better at your job, it's just doing your job more consistently, which you would at least expect as players mature and gain experience.

maize-blue

January 8th, 2014 at 2:23 PM ^

Thanks for the info.

I was thinking he is more pass oriented than run. I'm just wondering how good our run game can be under Borges. I just feel that he wants to throw & throw and isn't necessarily concerned if there is a great run game or not. I'm just not sure we'll see a pounding run game with Borges as OC. That's not saying the offense won't score or be effective, it just may not be the ground & pound that maybe alot were expecting.

Space Coyote

January 8th, 2014 at 2:27 PM ^

Borges has shown that he run-to-pass ratio will sway depending on his team a bit, but I think Borges would prefer somewhere between 60-40 run-pass split to 50-50 run-pass split, probably leaning towards 50-50. So he certainly won't abandon the run, but I don't think he wants to really rely on one greatly over the other either.

Space Coyote

January 8th, 2014 at 2:56 PM ^

  1. Run game, if only because it's the lowest hanging fruit.

With a more nuanced and what I believe realistic approach (not necessarily in order):

  1.  Feel for when and how to balance his initial gameplan with in-game changes.
  2. Initial gameplans (I think he does a fine job scouting other teams for their weaknesses, but balancing it with his teams strengths) to a degree. To circle back to the first point, at times I agreed with the initial gameplan, but with some initial gameplans (Nebraska) there should be a quicker realization when you're losing a weakness-on-weakness battle.
  3. In-season changes. Though I think in some ways this gets stated as fact (Michigan could have been worse if they went with something and just stuck with it, for all we know), the constant changes seemed like a mistake. I think they should have done something that started the season closer to their end goal and continued to adjust and add within that concept.
  4. Pre-season expectations. This comes back to point 3, but is more directly about the amount he tasked his team with performing with the lack of experience. OSU, for instance, ran a much more diverse running attack and blocking assignments. But OSU had four senior starters with tons of experience and experience at essential positions around them.
  5. More risks for a potential tradeoff of more reward. Basically this is potentially burning downs or worse in an effort to become more explosive. Slants against Nebraska were dangerous the way Nebraska was playing, but running it may twice result in an incompletion only to get a slant-and-go wide open. Things of that nature.

There are other schematic differences and things I would personally do differently, but I don't think those are just reasons for not retaining him. FWIW, I think if the offenses doesn't show very real improvement in many aspects next year, the argument is simply: they aren't improving enough despite real experience and a change is simply required because of everything from performance to "feelings". He loses a lot of excuses next year, and essentially all excuses if he makes it to 2015.

Ron Utah

January 8th, 2014 at 3:25 PM ^

You didn't ask, but here's my take:

  • Teaching.  Whether his schemes are too complex, too multiple, or he just can't get his players to execute, there's no denying that Borges doesn't seem able to be successful with every group of players he has.  This does not appear to be rigidity--Borges has coached both pass-heavy and run-heavy offenses--but rather that AB seems only to get certain players to be able execute his scheme.  This seems particularly true of his offensive lines and the running game in general.  I believe this is probably a personality/teaching style issue, and that a better communicator would be able to get more from players on a consistent basis.   I will also say, having been a coach, that this BY FAR the hardest thing to do as a coach, so I'm not saying Borges is bad at it, but he doesn't appear to be elite.  People who doubt Borges understands technique are ignorant; but it is certainly valid to question his ability to teach technique, and perhaps even to motivate.
  • Tendency.  Borges uses his own tendencies (which he likes to establish) to set-up big plays.  But what happens when his tendencies aren't working?  For a long time in 2013, he stuck with run/pass tendencies on first down and it wasn't successful.  He loosened that up more late in the season, and it helped, to some degree.  What I'm saying is that I believe he can try too hard to set-up big plays.  For example, if he's got throwback screen in his gameplan, he'll run the base play, then run it again, then run play action off of the base play, then run the screen.  He'll do that even if the base play and play action aren't working.  I believe he could go right to the throwback screen, and use the counter to set-up the base play.  I hope that makes sense.

I could go into more detail on specifics, but these are the two areas I find him easiest to question.  I hope I'm wrong about both.

Space Coyote

January 8th, 2014 at 3:55 PM ^

And, to add, I would put that as a potential issue for other coaches on the offensive staff. This staff may be great at teaching some players, and not as good teaching other kids. That can improve with recruiting your guys, so on and so forth, but at the end of the day, you need to be diverse in your ability to coach different types of players. That is the hardest thing to do, like you said, but an important part that I really agree with.

Ron Utah

January 8th, 2014 at 3:08 PM ^

Borges' running attacks can be extremely hard on a defense.  There are few things that crush a defense's spirit like a team that can consistently get four yards/carry on basic running plays.  In fact, Borges has said he wants backs that run people over, rather then trying to scheme plays that go around a corner or safety.

While I don't think he'll every coach a pro-style running game that averages 6 YPC, churning out over 2,000 yards on the ground in a season can demoralize defenses and open the big passing plays Borges loves.

Yeoman

January 8th, 2014 at 5:17 PM ^

I've sometimes wondered if Hoke would have preferred a pounding ground game, something more like Stanford's, if that guy were available. i've been torn between two thoughts--the talk about a power running game was largely for show, to emphasize the change in program drection from RR's spread, and Borges's big-play oriented WCO is really Hoke's preference, or he really wants that power game but felt Borges was the best available when he got to SDSU and would make the transition easier at Michigan.

Yeoman

January 8th, 2014 at 5:21 PM ^

I've sometimes wondered if Hoke would have preferred a pounding ground game, something more like Stanford's, if that guy were available. i've been torn between two thoughts--the talk about a power running game was largely for show, to emphasize the change in program drection from RR's spread, and Borges's big-play oriented WCO is really Hoke's preference, or he really wants that power game but felt Borges was the best available when he got to SDSU and would make the transition easier at Michigan.

Yeoman

January 8th, 2014 at 2:03 PM ^

It's a bit of a red herring because YPA correlates with success much better than YPC, but here you go.

  • 1995 Oregon, 3.56
  • 1996 UCLA, 3.65
  • 1997 UCLA, 4.02
  • 1998 UCLA, 4.47
  • 1999 UCLA, 2.92
  • 2000 UCLA, 2.62
  • 2001 California, 3.48
  • 2002 Indiana, 3.31
  • 2003 Indiana, 3.40
  • 2004 Auburn, 4.50
  • 2005 Auburn, 4.85
  • 2006 Auburn, 4.36
  • 2007 Auburn, 3.83
  • 2009 SDSU, 2.96
  • 2010 SDSU, 4.96
  • 2011 Michigan, 5.33
  • 2012 Michigan, 4.87
  • 2013 Michigan, 3.44

I'm not sure if there's much sense to be made of that list. The one thing that jumped out at me was that even in the running game the quarterback seemed to matter as much or more than the running backs. 1998 UCLA had Deshaun Foster (timeshare with Jermaine Lewis) and Cade McNown, 1999 and 2000 UCLA had Deshaun Foster and Cory Paus. You'd think a full-time, older Foster would be an upgrade, but the running game was much worse those last two years.

 

JimBobTressel

January 8th, 2014 at 1:33 PM ^

Obviously changes need to be made, and probably already have for all I know. I posed this idea to some friends this morning and got intrigued responses but it was ultimately dismissed as unrealistic: Michigan should hire Bill Belicheck as offensive coordinator right now.

He's obviously ready for a move, would clearly help Michigan's offense tremendously (and bring in NFL players with remaining eligibility, which can only be an upgrade), and this would really hurt the rest of the NCAA, which only has college talent.

I would say this move would be on par with hiring Jesus (who, at the time, was a Notre Dame grad). Getting Belicheck is no different, except we're taking him from the Patriots, but we all know being even a janitor in Schembechler hall is more prestigious then competing in 5 super bowls.

MGlobules

January 8th, 2014 at 1:36 PM ^

sweet and cuddly like Mattison, nor does he have the raw beef-chewing Ravens rep. And I know that I'm a sucker for someone with a bit of a vocabulary (one reason I still can't warm much to Hoke). But with the caveat that I wish like hell that the spread and RR had succeeded here, I still think he's a pretty sharp OC. 

And I will remain convinced to my dying day that the simplest explanation for this year's early debacles is

a) that the long-term plan was to run

b) that they convinced themselves they WOULD be able to run based on spring ball and game-planned accordingly (this was the time!) and 

critically

c) that against low-level teams like UConn they couldn't believe their eyes and remained sure that, soon soon, they WOULD be able to run, @#$%^&*!!! 

It all sucked to high heaven in (as Brian says) the most boring way, but--in truth--Gardner might have become a pile of broken odds and ends even sooner if we had started out with him on the Denard plan. If you can't run, in truth, you ain't shit. 

jmblue

January 8th, 2014 at 3:19 PM ^

You forgot d) - they panicked and kept trying different gimmicks and OL combinations instead of sticking with one script and giving it time.  Our OL was awful, but constantly switching guys around is almost never the way to improve.  Linemen need time to work together and get their assignments down.  It only takes one crappy lineman to screw up your run game, and when you're constantly changing guys around and giving them new assignments, you're increasing the chances of having someone screw up.

 

 

 

westwardwolverine

January 8th, 2014 at 3:43 PM ^

I was going to post this below, but since its here...:

Isn't d) a HUGE knock on the coaching staff (Hoke-Borges-Funk)? 

1. Why were Miller and Kalis considered starters from the beginning instead of Magnuson? Magnuson has easily looked like the best of the interior linemen (outside of Glasgow) and yet he didn't start the year. Its hindsight, but did he really perform that much worse than the rest prior to the season? He seemed like an afterthought after all the Braden and Kalis hype, yet he turned out to be the most consistent of the young recruits. 

2. Was a line of Lewan-Kalis-Glasgow-Schofield-Magnuson ever considered? You shore up your interior, put Mags at his natural position and lose the smallish Miller at center. We've had so many posts display that interior experience is extremely important, yet Schofield was outside from start to finish. Speaking of this site....

3. Lots of people on this site (mainly the most ardent Borges supporters) have said what you said above: lines need time to gel together. So why is it that our coaches seemed to be the only ones who disagreed with this sentiment? Why were they flipping guys in and out, making sure there was no cohesion? 

4. Tackle-Over. Terrible. 

I understand that almost all of this is hindsight...but its just baffling to look at what the staff thought was a good idea prior to the season and compare that with the end results. It makes me question how well they can actually evaluate the talent on hand. 

Space Coyote

January 8th, 2014 at 4:13 PM ^

1. I'm guessing Miller and Kalis were considered starters at the beginning of the season because they formed the best unit at the time. Maybe the mental aspect of the game clicked suddenly for Magnuson. Maybe it was the inability of the interior players that forced the staff to try any and all people - even out of their natural position - on the interior, and Magnuson proved better in season. What I don't think is that they would think "Magnuson didn't perform much worse to start the season, so we should start him out of position over guys that have been performing better."

2. I don't know if it was ever considered, and I don't like keeping Schofield opposite of Lewan as much as sticking him right next to him, but that's just my belief and something that I thought the staff should try. But I don't know, maybe they had other issues on the edge that made moving an OT inside a poor choice. Part of the reason they started the season as a zone stretch team is because they thought that could deemphasize the interior while focusing at the strength. Tackle-Over (speaking of point 4) was an effort to essentially move Schofield into a guard position the way defenses tend to align to unbalanced formations. I think there is fair question why they didn't try this, but it works even more against....

3. Letting the OL gel. I've answered this before, and yes, in an optimal world you want your OL to gel. But if your OL isn't gelling, if it isn't getting better, and it seems there are other options on the bench that are performing better, you have to weigh the positives and negatives of switching lineups. I'm almost certain if Michigan stuck with the initial OL and they continued to under-perform, people would have been arguing about letting the OL gel while not even giving other players on the bench an opportunity to prove their worth. Maybe letting the initial OL gel would have been the best move. I personally think they made the move they had to after the UConn game, but they should have stopped there if they could (though, finding out about Kalis's injury doesn't help that argument either).

4. Didn't turn out well, but there was reason for it. The backside of the OL still didn't perform well enough to keep defenses honest though and it was pretty much thrown in the dumpster after that.

The thing that has to be remembered is that you can use hindsight to say something didn't work, but you can't use it to say it worked worse than the alternative when you don't know how the alternative would have worked. I think there are fair points here to question the coaching staff, especially with the way things turned out, and I don't believe the staff is above questioning. I do think they deserve some amount of leeway because of the significant amount of extra information they have, but how much with the performance that resulted is in question, obviously. 

InterM

January 8th, 2014 at 1:47 PM ^

the tension between questions one and two (and their answers)?  In response to Q2, Brian tells us that the argument in favor of Borges is "that he does tend to have high YPA offenses when he has decent quarterbacks,"  and he cites Ryan Lindley's 9.1 YPA as an example.  But in response to Q1, we're reminded that Borges had a QB coach at SDSU (coaching the aforementioned Ryan Lindley) but he doesn't have one at Michigan because "[c]oaching quarterbacks is more [his] M.O."  Then, returning to Q2, we see that the YPA for Michigan QBs decreases with each year that Borges coaches them.  Beyond the assumption that Borges, without the magic of Denard, can somehow develop the "functional running game" that he needs for an "effective offense," doesn't the case for Borges also rely on an ability to coach QBs that he also hasn't demonstrated at Michigan?

Ron Utah

January 8th, 2014 at 1:58 PM ^

You sir, are a magician.  You managed to take a very reasoned, balanced post and twist it into a FIRE BORGES! argument.

You really think it helped Lindley to have two guys arguing about how he should play the position?  Obviously, Borges had the ultimate say, and Hoke approved because he brought Borges with him and left Sipe behind.

Next, Brian points out Cox's dropping YPA and relates it directly to a kid dealing with a degenerative muscle disease who was in declining health.

Then you bring-up ridiculously good YPA numbers as an argument against Borges, who just guided Gardner to the second-highest passing yardage total in Michigan history WITHOUT AN OFFENSIVE LINE.  And there is only 1.5 years of data for both of those QBs.

I get it...you hate Borges, and there are some good reasons for that.  But you're reaching on these arguments.  Try to let your brain accept valid information without turning all of it into an argument for what you believe is true.

InterM

January 8th, 2014 at 2:45 PM ^

Meanwhile, in contrast to my supposed "hate" for Borges, the points I was making were quite simple and didn't depend particularly on YPA numbers (especially those of Cox, who I didn't even mention):

(1)  If Borges is going to claim that he's more effective without a QB coach, his work so far with Michigan's QBs -- over three years, a decent amount of time for reasonable evaluation -- doesn't bear that out.  And if it doesn't help a QB to "have two guys arguing about how he should play the position," maybe the OC should back off and let the QB coach do the job he was hired to do?

(2) Brian's best defense of Borges rests explicitly on the assumption that he can develop a "functional running game," which he has failed to do at Michigan in the absence of Denard.

I just thought the juxtaposition of questions about a QB coach and about the best possible case for Borges was interesting and exposed a possible contradiction in the defense of Borges.  Perhaps you are the "magician" if you can construe my comment as a "FIRE BORGES!" rant.

Yeoman

January 8th, 2014 at 3:01 PM ^

YPA over Borges's career. I haven't been able to find season stats for Tony Hilde at Boise, or Darren Del'Andre or John Charles at Portland. I know Charles once threw for 592 yards and 8 touchdowns in a game and didn't even play the fourth quarter, so I suspect the numbers there were pretty good.

  • 1995 Tony Graziani, 6.1
  • 1996 Cade McNown, 7.2
  • 1997 Cade McNown, 10.0
  • 1998 Cade McNown, 9.7
  • 1999 Cory Paus, 6.8
  • 2000 Cory Paus, 8.9
  • 2001 Kyle Boller, 6.4
  • 2002 Gibran Hamdan, 7.2
  • 2003 Matt Lovecchio, 6.1
  • 2004 Jason Campbell, 10.0
  • 2005 Brandon Cox, 7.6
  • 2006 Brandon Cox, 8.1
  • 2007 Brandon Cox, 6.6
  • 2009 Ryan Lindley, 7.0
  • 2010 Ryan Lindley, 9.1
  • 2011 Denard Robinson, 8.4
  • 2012 Denard Robinson 7.9 / Devin Gardner 9.7
  • 2013 Devin Gardner 8.6

There are some spectacular numbers on there, though the first year with a new QB was sometimes rough, especially if he was new to the system (Borges first year at the school, or the QB was a freshman like Paus).

That of course is in direct contradiction to the claim that every Borges QB regresses under his tutelage. McNown, huge improvement. Paus, huge improvement. Lindley, huge improvement. IIRC, Borges was the position coach for McNown and Paus but not for Lindley.

Cox is obviously a special case.

will

January 8th, 2014 at 2:12 PM ^

The game is old enough I think a pseudo-spoiler is acceptable. If you have not played but plan to, stop reading this comment. Really, stop.    ...   When you have played for enough hours that a double elder dragon attack doesn't present a problem, the final fight is disappointing.

TheNema

January 8th, 2014 at 2:55 PM ^

Instead of questioning whether Borges need a QB coach, why don't we keep him as the QB coach, giving him the title of passing game coordinator where he can still design all those plays, and get someone in here who can do what seems to be Al's big weakness - calling plays on game day.

It would be expensive but that money from seat cushion charges has to go somewhere, right?

west2

January 8th, 2014 at 6:42 PM ^

replacing Jerry Montgomery? I don't believe he was replaced was he?  Hoke and Mattison handled Dline coaching didn't they?  I know that the statistical analysis doesnt indicate a dropofff after Montgomery's departure, however I would think that a coach dedicated to imiproving technique for DL would be critical particularly in younger players.  Also, I know that the stats may not reflect it but the Oklahoma Dline was very impressive against Alabama recording 7 sacks for the game and more or less exposing AJ Mcarron on passing downs.   Also, I understand Borges had differences with Sipe at SDSU and thats never good but again I would think that a QB coach devoted to developing a key player's skills would be important.  Gardner is experienced however he essentially is a first year starter.  What do sparty and bucky have in this department?  It would seem to me that the additions of these 2 position coaches would be the minimum changes that we will see likely announced after national signing day.  What say you?