Complaining about the O has replaced...

[hungry]

complaining about the D

Who would've thought that they would patch up the D so fast, that now we're blaming losses on the O.

 

[b311j]

Is Borges slowly becoming Debord?

 

[wolverine304]

B311j. Way to jack my picture... lol

 

[packersfantheo]

UM_Cheesehead304. Way to jack my picture... lol

 

[hungry]

I was wondering if Borges was becoming Greg Robinson...Boy! I hope not!

 

[lostleader]

I was wondering if Borges was becoming Greg Robinson...Boy! I hope not!

OUCH....Horrible comparison.(I Hope)

 

[b311j]

B311j. Way to jack my picture... lol

Well crap. Didnt think I had seen it here.

 

[Michchamp]

I'll take Borges becoming DeBord. 52-11... 4-1 Bowl Record.

D E B O R D . . . .

 

[b311j]

I'll take Borges becoming DeBord. 52-11... 4-1 Bowl Record.

D E B O R D . . . .

Stop yourself ABCDChamp

 

[wolverine304]

UM_Cheesehead304. Way to jack my picture... lol

Lol. Your rodgers one was awesome

 

[bamf16]

I was wondering if Borges was becoming Greg Robinson...Boy! I hope not!

Well, what they have in common...

Both took talented guys and moved them to situations where their chances of success were severely hampered (Roh to DE in a 3 man front incredibly undersized, Denard turned into a pocket passer without first consistently opening things up with his legs.)

Both fucked up strategic elements of the systems, in that a 3-3-5 relies on elaborate and consistent blitzes which GR had never had to do, and Denard's success always seems to be set up by his running ability, and Borges has been hesitant the last couple weeks to use it.

Greg Robinson's fucks up didn't seem to really cost us a chance at a conference championship like Borges' fuck ups have done to us this year. But Borges' fuck ups haven't embarrassed the entire program with statistical records and his fuck ups haven't reached GR's in my eye test.

Finally, both worked for head coaches who've been asleep at the wheel at times. No way in hell RR should have had his defense rely so heavily on the 3-3-5 with the personnel he had and the defensive strategy of Cover 2 and not blitzing. No way in hell Hoke should be without a headset as much as he is, and as clueless as he's been as to what his OC is thinking; no way in hell his offense should be relying more on Denard's arm than his legs.

Borges isnt' as bad as Robinson...yet.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Who knows if the Devin Gardner "experiment" didn't end up costing M both the MSU and the Iowa games?

I don't know how that kid was so highly rated as a High School QB - hopefully things will change when the DRob era is over, but nothing I've seen so far indicates he has what it takes to make it at this level - I don't know; maybe he just isn't able to react to the speed of the game here...

 

[Michchamp]

GRob didn't choose to run the 3-3-5, RR did.

GRob probably wasn't a very good DC, but having a dumbass HC didn't help.

Borges has done well with what he has. Certainly even good OCs make a couple bad calls over the course of a season. Even good OCs lose some games. I don't think some of the complaints about him are very reasonable, and statistically, the offense has been pretty good.

I'd expect people that used talent as a excuse for RR's problems on the field for the past three years to be more understanding of the situation Borges has found himself in.

 

[wolverine304]

GRob didn't choose to run the 3-3-5, RR did.

GRob probably wasn't a very good DC, but having a dumbass HC didn't help.

Borges has done well with what he has. Certainly even good OCs make a couple bad calls over the course of a season. Even good OCs lose some games. I don't think some of the complaints about him are very reasonable, and statistically, the offense has been pretty good.

I'd expect people that used talent as a excuse for RR's problems on the field for the past three years to be more understanding of the situation Borges has found himself in.

i agree. hes not exactly coaching a typical qb of his. oline isnt a pro style oline either.

 

[bamf16]

GRob didn't choose to run the 3-3-5, RR did.

GRob probably wasn't a very good DC, but having a dumbass HC didn't help.

Borges has done well with what he has. Certainly even good OCs make a couple bad calls over the course of a season. Even good OCs lose some games. I don't think some of the complaints about him are very reasonable, and statistically, the offense has been pretty good.

I'd expect people that used talent as a excuse for RR's problems on the field for the past three years to be more understanding of the situation Borges has found himself in.

You're right. There is a big difference between GR and Borges I should have mentioned, in that GR was forced into the debacle of the blitzless 3-3-5 while Borges hasn't been forced into this type of offense seemingly nearly as much. Does that then make his mistakes/shortcomings worse? GR ran an offense he didn't know with guys unsuited for it. Borges is running an offense he does know with guys unsuited for it. Probably not a debate anyone's going to rush into, but a question that exists nonetheless.

"Well" can mean different things to different people. A team winning 10 games has done "well" to some people. But when it loses to teams it should have defeated, the context of "well" changes. (See Lloyd Carr's final 5 to 7 seasons.)

Had LSU lost to Alabama last week, then beat Western Kentucky today, they are a one loss team that's doing "well." But what if they lose to WKU today? They're still a 1 loss team that's done "well." But I think the two situations are more than slightly different.

Citing good stats over the course of a season is convenient when trying to make yourself feel better about losses that could/should have been wins but with a couple different plays, right? Isn't that what RR supporters did last year as they defended him by saying his team "scored a lot of points" though most of them against bad defenses? (I don't want to rehash all this RR shit the rest of the weekend because it's water under the bridge, but you brought him up.)

If we're not going to blame Borges exclusively for the periodic misuse of Denard's skills the past month then can we blame Hoke? (I even put significant blame on Denard. There were times he could and should have run be he chose not to. He's also thrown passes he shouldn't have to defenders he shouldn't have!) Who gets how much blame for one of the best running QBs in NCAA history running less and less as the offense seemingly struggles more and more?

To your final point, how much of an offensive issue was lack of talent/experience the last 20 games or so? There are holes, but every team has holes/weaknesses. Didn't RR get roasted for his comment about another "year in the system" in his most recent interview?

Borges did well the first several games in using Denard in the way he was used last year while still doing what he ultimately wants the offense to do. Lately, he's moved away from what's working too much IMO, and he's still not yet into GR territory.

 

[bamf16]

TinselWolverine[/color]]Who knows if the Devin Gardner "experiment" didn't end up costing M both the MSU and the Iowa games?

I don't know how that kid was so highly rated as a High School QB - hopefully things will change when the DRob era is over, but nothing I've seen so far indicates he has what it takes to make it at this level - I don't know; maybe he just isn't able to react to the speed of the game here...

QB "star" ratings may be the most difficult, since the adjustment is so tough. Hell, Braxton Miller was one of the highest ranked recruits, and he's struggled at times to complete a short pass (though he is only a freshman.) Devin has yet to have a full week of practice as a starter, then play a whole game as a starter, so I'm willing to reserve judgement until he is given that chance.

But there has been more than sufficient evidence to support your skepticism! His play at MSU and at Iowa in those series he ran were pretty disappointing.

 

[Michchamp]

yes, I agree with everything you have to say.

Now... Let's Go Blue!

 

[bdtay71]

complaining about the D

Who would've thought that they would patch up the D so fast, that now we're blaming losses on the O.

The D is much improved but I think the fact that we don't score or give the ball back in under 2 minutes every time we touch it plays a large role in both the diminished Offensive numbers and the improved Defense.

 

[hungry]

complaining about the D

Who would've thought that they would patch up the D so fast, that now we're blaming losses on the O.

The D is much improved but I think the fact that we don't score or give the ball back in under 2 minutes every time we touch it plays a large role in both the diminished Offensive numbers and the improved Defense.

agreed

 

[wolverine304]

You guys make it seem like teams went on long drives before they scored. They would just as quick as we would, only more often. The defense is a ton better. I don't think its because our offense has a slower tempo