Online Now 613

Wolverine247 Board

The place for discussion on the Michigan Wolverines

On this Board 364
Record: 2671 (1/26/2013)

Online now 600
Record: 7264 (3/12/2012)

Reply

Part of it is on Hoke.

  • The talent argument is nothing but utter horsesh1t. The Michigan talent was not utilized, therefore we will never know just whether we did have the talent needed to win the game. Gardner was taken out of rythm the entire third quarter to sacrifice a zero yard gain up the middle by Denard. When you have coaching this bad no amount of talent can make a difference. Foolish coaching can neutralize a talent advantage in a heartbeat as we often saw during the Carr era. I know what I saw out there on Saturday and I'm pissed. We weren't stuffed on offense due to a lack of talent. We were stuffed because the coaching staff elected to call the plays the OSU defense could and would most likely stop. If they found a play that worked and made it 2nd and one then they found a few more plays that didn't. Michigan deserves way better than this. It's been many years since we've been relevant unless you consider 3 or 4 losses every year by a team who recruits top ten yearly relevant. It's too bad Greg Mattison couldn't be our head coach. He did as good of a job as he possibly could considering the offense was three and out the entire 2nd half. Giving up just 6 points to the Ohio offense on little rest made it an amazing feat. I will guarantee the defensive side of the ball has a lower star ranking than the offensive side does and yet the defense did a fine job stopping the most potent part of the Ohio State team. Our failure to score just one touchdown with all the talent we do have is mind boggling. No bubble screens to DR, or screens in general and nothing with both of them out there. Some coaches play to win. Borgess flat out played to lose. I don't want to see another year with this idiot out there on our sideline. I saw enough of that over the Carr years. It doesn't matter who or what we recruit when idiot decsions like that are being made from the sideline.

    blue in ohio

  • blue in ohio said...

    The talent argument is nothing but utter horsesh1t. The Michigan talent was not utilized, therefore we will never know just whether we did have the talent needed to win the game. Gardner was taken out of rythm the entire third quarter to sacrifice a zero yard gain up the middle by Denard. When you have coaching this bad no amount of talent can make a difference. Foolish coaching can neutralize a talent advantage in a heartbeat as we often saw during the Carr era. I know what I saw out there on Saturday and I'm pissed. We weren't stuffed on offense due to a lack of talent. We were stuffed because the coaching staff elected to call the plays the OSU defense could and would most likely stop. If they found a play that worked and made it 2nd and one then they found a few more plays that didn't. Michigan deserves way better than this. It's been many years since we've been relevant unless you consider 3 or 4 losses every year by a team who recruits top ten yearly relevant. It's too bad Greg Mattison couldn't be our head coach. He did as good of a job as he possibly could considering the offense was three and out the entire 2nd half. Giving up just 6 points to the Ohio offense on little rest made it an amazing feat. I will guarantee the defensive side of the ball has a lower star ranking than the offensive side does and yet the defense did a fine job stopping the most potent part of the Ohio State team. Our failure to score just one touchdown with all the talent we do have is mind boggling. No bubble screens to DR, or screens in general and nothing with both of them out there. Some coaches play to win. Borgess flat out played to lose. I don't want to see another year with this idiot out there on our sideline. I saw enough of that over the Carr years. It doesn't matter who or what we recruit when idiot decsions like that are being made from the sideline.

    clap......simply open up the playbook. On the short yardage plays, why not roll DG out for a run pass option that hes scored most of his touchdown on. Absolutely unacceptable.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Awink2

  • If things like what happened in the 2nd half happen again next year, I will be very dissapointed.

    I think next year we have somewhat of an easier schedule. At least notre dame, nebraska, and ohio are at home. We must protect the big house. 2nd longest home winning streak in the country right now and we as fans need to help keep it that way!

    UMWolverines ●

  • The D didn't allow Meijer's pretty boy Braxton to run anywhere. Don't let hard evidence get in the way

    signature image signature image signature image

    sircharles11

  • sircharles11 said...

    The D didn't allow Meijer's pretty boy Braxton to run anywhere. Don't let hard evidence get in the way

    I was actually quite impressed with our defense. With the positions that the offense was putting them in for the entire second half, the fact that they only gave up 6 points is incredible.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI ●

  • UMWolverines said...

    If things like what happened in the 2nd half happen again next year, I will be very dissapointed.

    I think next year we have somewhat of an easier schedule. At least notre dame, nebraska, and ohio are at home. We must protect the big house. 2nd longest home winning streak in the country right now and we as fans need to help keep it that way!

    Although our schedule will be easier next year, our offense will probably regress, but the defense will improve. What that all adds up to in the end is yet to be seen.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Awink2

  • CMXI said...

    I was actually quite impressed with our defense. With the positions that the offense was putting them in for the entire second half, the fact that they only gave up 6 points is incredible.

    Agreed, and we had an average DL and secondary....average at best. Our D next year is going to have to force alot of turnovers, short drives with 3 and outs, and give our offense many chances to score points, because it may be tougher next year to get those points

    signature image signature image signature image

    Awink2

  • I just have a very simple question concerning Al Borges: what does he have against the bubble screen?

    We could have used that to rack up huge chunks of yardage against Ohio in the 2nd half...

    signature image

    Frank C ●

  • Frank C said...

    I just have a very simple question concerning Al Borges: what does he have against the bubble screen?

    We could have used that to rack up huge chunks of yardage against Ohio in the 2nd half...

    I think Borges main problem is he looks at his playbook more than he sees the game. I think he has drawn up some great plays. Most times what is drawn up and how a play is supposed to go does not always happen. To me Borges does not see the game. Does not watch the opposing defenses and understand how the opposing defense is playing and their tendencies. Without this understanding it makes it very difficult for him to call plays that will get us yardage or TD's.

    So, to answer the question, Borges has nothing against bubble screens. He just doesn't see the obvious unless it fits into his playbook.

    pappy121

  • pappy121 said...

    I think Borges main problem is he looks at his playbook more than he sees the game. I think he has drawn up some great plays. Most times what is drawn up and how a play is supposed to go does not always happen. To me Borges does not see the game. Does not watch the opposing defenses and understand how the opposing defense is playing and their tendencies. Without this understanding it makes it very difficult for him to call plays that will get us yardage or TD's.

    So, to answer the question, Borges has nothing against bubble screens. He just doesn't see the obvious unless it fits into his playbook.

    And to couple with that, he is terrible at in-game adjustments.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Awink2

  • Awink2 said...

    clap......simply open up the playbook. On the short yardage plays, why not roll DG out for a run pass option that hes scored most of his touchdown on. Absolutely unacceptable.

    That's what I kept saying during the game, get Gardner on the edge w/ a run-pass option and you're going to gain 3 yards much more often than not.

    thevictor_11

  • Actually going back...wasn't the OSU game plan LESS IMAGINATIVE than, say, the plan against Minnesota or Iowa? Or is my memory going?

    www.neoavatara.com/blog

    neoavatara ●

  • neoavatara said...

    Actually going back...wasn't the OSU game plan LESS IMAGINATIVE than, say, the plan against Minnesota or Iowa? Or is my memory going?

    I agree wit that, Iowa was IMO the best called game of the year for Borges. Denard should of been on the field for every play, rb, receiver, or qb against OSU. He makes the defense pay attention and cheat a little to make sure he doesn't get loose.

    The throw back screen to Smith was a great example of that in the Iowa game.

    Amazinglyblue78

  • Awink2 said...

    And to couple with that, he is terrible at in-game adjustments.

    Compare him with Mattison who is great at making in-game ajustments. Except that play they ran with Carlos Hyde all game. They couldn't do shit about that.

    UMWolverines ●

  • neoavatara said...

    Actually going back...wasn't the OSU game plan LESS IMAGINATIVE than, say, the plan against Minnesota or Iowa? Or is my memory going?

    It seems like we've only really opened up the playbooks in our blowouts, instead of trying new things in the close games when the old things stop working.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI ●

  • CMXI said...

    It seems like we've only really opened up the playbooks in our blowouts, instead of trying new things in the close games when the old things stop working.

    We just dont have that "mad hatter" mentality on offense unfortunately when we need it

    signature image signature image signature image

    Awink2

  • MrWoodson said...

    Miami(OH), UCF, MSU, UNL, PUR, and PSU all held Hyde to fewer total yards and fewer ypc. Wisky held him to much fewer total yards (87 versus 146) on very slightly higher ypc (5.8 versus 5.6), but I guarantee you if Urbie thought he could have gotten another 60 yards at that rate against Wisky he would have. You struggled to move the ball the entire game against Wisky. You scored 7 offensive points in regulation. Urbie didn't give Hyde more carries because he did not believe it would be effective. Including OT, you had a total of 236 yards against Wisky (139 rushing and 97 passing). Against us, you had a total of 396 yards (207 rushing and 189 passing). Wisky defended you much better than we did and that should not be the case.

    meh... blah

    signature image signature image signature image

    The Holy Trinity... as I see it.

    Duplic8tor

  • blue in ohio said...

    The talent argument is nothing but utter horsesh1t. The Michigan talent was not utilized, therefore we will never know just whether we did have the talent needed to win the game. Gardner was taken out of rythm the entire third quarter to sacrifice a zero yard gain up the middle by Denard. When you have coaching this bad no amount of talent can make a difference. Foolish coaching can neutralize a talent advantage in a heartbeat as we often saw during the Carr era. I know what I saw out there on Saturday and I'm pissed. We weren't stuffed on offense due to a lack of talent. We were stuffed because the coaching staff elected to call the plays the OSU defense could and would most likely stop. If they found a play that worked and made it 2nd and one then they found a few more plays that didn't. Michigan deserves way better than this. It's been many years since we've been relevant unless you consider 3 or 4 losses every year by a team who recruits top ten yearly relevant. It's too bad Greg Mattison couldn't be our head coach. He did as good of a job as he possibly could considering the offense was three and out the entire 2nd half. Giving up just 6 points to the Ohio offense on little rest made it an amazing feat. I will guarantee the defensive side of the ball has a lower star ranking than the offensive side does and yet the defense did a fine job stopping the most potent part of the Ohio State team. Our failure to score just one touchdown with all the talent we do have is mind boggling. No bubble screens to DR, or screens in general and nothing with both of them out there. Some coaches play to win. Borgess flat out played to lose. I don't want to see another year with this idiot out there on our sideline. I saw enough of that over the Carr years. It doesn't matter who or what we recruit when idiot decsions like that are being made from the sideline.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This.

    We used to call this "Tressel Ball". I've posted this elsewhere, but I was shocked the sweeps were picking up 9-10 + yards all the time and UM went away from it. I was glad, but shocked at the same time.

    It was like watching two OC's call a game. One time, aggressive and good play calls. Next, an entirely different offense with different players that didn't work. I don't understand the "up the middle" stuff. It isn't like it ever worked in this game, yet Borges kept going back to it.

    This post was edited by Duplic8tor on 11/27/2012 at 5:34 PM

    signature image signature image signature image

    The Holy Trinity... as I see it.

    Duplic8tor

Michigan
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports