Are we actually back to the O we had four years ago?

Donate To GopherHole
G

Gopherhurrin

Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
290
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Run first, throw over the D when they come up to stop the run. If so, I like it.:)
 

I like it too

I couldn't stand watching Weber in the shotgun on 3rd and 1 from our own 30. Now, if our defense doesn't resemble four years ago, I'm good.
 

It may be true that we're looking to go that route, but I can guarantee this much: we won't run it as well as we did then. And as for those who hated the spread, it's worked pretty well for under-manned Northwestern teams for years. Who wouldn't take a couple New Year's Day bowls (not to mention a BT title) in the last 10 years? I know it's a point of contention with a fanbase that had grown used to consistent 2,000 yard rushing seasons, but I was a fan of the spread during its brief run here, and felt that it was a good direction in which to head.

Bottom line is this though. No matter what Horton does, NOTHING could be worse than last year...just so, so brutal.
 

MGGopher said:
It may be true that we're looking to go that route, but I can guarantee this much: we won't run it as well as we did then. And as for those who hated the spread, it's worked pretty well for under-manned Northwestern teams for years. Who wouldn't take a couple New Year's Day bowls (not to mention a BT title) in the last 10 years? I know it's a point of contention with a fanbase that had grown used to consistent 2,000 yard rushing seasons, but I was a fan of the spread during its brief run here, and felt that it was a good direction in which to head.

Bottom line is this though. No matter what Horton does, NOTHING could be worse than last year...just so, so brutal.
Click to expand...

The spread works if you've got the right personnel, never felt right here. Justin Valentine was a fine fullback, his senior year was wasted due to the spread. I hate Wisconsin just as much as the next guy, but I remember reading a quote from Paul Chryst a couple of years ago saying that if he never had to call a pass play, that would be fine with him. That is Big Ten football. Some call it boring, but winning trumps boredom every time.
 

Pound the rock. And pound it some more. 50 times a game was my credo with Masonball. Coupled with a solid D, that is a good formula. This is not football south of the Mason Dixon Line. Anyone who has paid attention to the best BT teams year in and out know that. Going a different route is a huge mistake.

I give Brewster credit for his current philosophy; play good D and run the ball. I still shake my head over his initial plan and turning away from what the area can easily provide; lots of kids in our backyard who are big and strong. Minnesota and midwest kids provide the heart and soul. Get the legs and arms from somewhere else.
 


This is why I have been so critical with brewster. He broke something which was golden (our running attack) and he replaced it with pointless experimentation which led to nothing except wasted years. Hopefully, smash mouth football is back because I do believe that our D and special teams have some potenial.
 

loki said:
This is why I have been so critical with brewster. He broke something which was golden (our running attack) and he replaced it with pointless experimentation which led to nothing except wasted years. Hopefully, smash mouth football is back because I do believe that our D and special teams have some potenial.
Click to expand...

We never played smashmouth ball. Ask yourself this: If the Mason system was so great, why has nobody copied it? It was a fatally flawed system that worked for destroying marginally talented teams but wasn't built to beat the big boys unless executed to absolute perfection
 

You have your opinion and I have mine and that combo of dives and end arounds was outstanding in my opiion. If we would have had better defenses we would have gone far. The offenses were solid and we lost tons of close games usually because of defense
 

Wow, not meant to be a Mason/Brewster thing but Ole did you watch any Gopher football 99-on with Mason? Our defense couldn't stop anyone, we ran it down the throats of some pretty good teams and kept the defense off the field.

oleboy41 said:
We never played smashmouth ball. Ask yourself this: If the Mason system was so great, why has nobody copied it? It was a fatally flawed system that worked for destroying marginally talented teams but wasn't built to beat the big boys unless executed to absolute perfection
Click to expand...
 



The Mason system was half good. The Offense was fast the defense half-fast!
 

totally different offense. just because we're run first doesn't make them the same.

What is lost in the Mason discussion is that the offense was good because he put all the talent there and left the D with who ever was left. The offense was good the teams were not.

Now we have talent. Let's see what happens. Let's see if that makes us a good team.
 

You have to remember though

that a good share of the time under Mason--vs the good teams--when we really needed a first down the run let us down-times when a critical first down could have won the game for us. It was great against the weaker teams.
 

With Masons offense, the offense had to do it all. You couldn't expect the defense to come up with a stop, so the offense had to gr ind it out. If the offense couldn't do it , you were out of luck. It was a good offense but with the loss of our best backs, it just stopped working so well. As for why other teams haven?t copied it, that's a legitimate question . I Think something like the triple option would be more readily adopted. It is a lot easier to hire someone familiar with the triple option than to find someone familiar with Mason's offense . It does have a reputation for being an offense that can revive a program . Mason's offense just got lost it the shuffle. Sorry if this post is a mess , Iam using a ps3 browser ,andIcan' really see what I am doing.
 



I think you guys have missed something here. The current O philosophy under Cosgrove/Horton, if I understand it correctly, is very different from Mason's O.
A true pro style offense.

Fundamentally, Mason's zone blocking scheme up front is what set his O apart, made it unique. Which carried over to an advantage when playing less talented, but more importantly, unfamiliar opponents. You can see how this would mesh well with Mason's weak as* non-conference schedule. And is supported with his teams annual nose dive in Big Ten play.

But what made the U's O successful under mason, was no doubt a by product of a unique system. But talent was consent. Especially in the backfield. Where nobody was more physical. Damn MB3 was special in maroon and gold.

I like what Brewster is doing with the program. But, imo, he should have protected a rushing identity like that at all cost. It's rare. Not milked long enough.

I'm not stressing though. Everybody loves a throwback. It's just a matter of time. Opportunity knocking.

So, Lamonte or any of the frosh, showing signs of "that special something"? It'd be storybook if Lamonte could remind people how Minny backs run the mother***king ball!
 

MGGopher said:
It may be true that we're looking to go that route, but I can guarantee this much: we won't run it as well as we did then. And as for those who hated the spread, it's worked pretty well for under-manned Northwestern teams for years. Who wouldn't take a couple New Year's Day bowls (not to mention a BT title) in the last 10 years? I know it's a point of contention with a fanbase that had grown used to consistent 2,000 yard rushing seasons, but I was a fan of the spread during its brief run here, and felt that it was a good direction in which to head.

Bottom line is this though. No matter what Horton does, NOTHING could be worse than last year...just so, so brutal.
Click to expand...

I liked the spread too and was dismayed that we didn't give it a chance to work. It's absolutely ridiculous to think that a team has to run a conservative offense or has to run a wide open offense to win. What does have to happen is a team must buy in to a philosophy. This is where I am most down on Brewster, he clearly does not have a philosophy he believes in. He came in talking spread, then wanted changed to the spread with a power run look, then he hired Fisch (after failing to land several guys with spread experience) and allowed him to install a more pro style attack. In year 4, he hired Horton (after another rumored run at spread guy Heupel) who may be installing a vanilla conservative run based offense. I personally wish we were in year 4 of the spread.

To answer the original question, no we are not going back to the offense of 4 years ago. The Oline will be much bigger and will not be on the move and cut blocking. We don't have the type of Olineman that would work in the system that was run four years ago, so I can say with confidence that it won't be that type of system.
 

Doc1001 said:
that a good share of the time under Mason--vs the good teams--when we really needed a first down the run let us down-times when a critical first down could have won the game for us. It was great against the weaker teams.
Click to expand...

The last 6 years Mason lost BT and bowl games when they scored 35, 38, 31, 24 (Michigan), 28 (OSU), 43, 35, 30, 27 (Iowa), 34, 31 (OSU), 28(Iowa), 31, 41 (TT). One can't expect an offense to do much more than that. Imagine what Mason's record would have been IF he was able to field even an average D when we had a wealth of offensive players.

However, I agree Doc that Mason's offense couldn't deliver during some very crucial situation.

The teams that compete very well in the Big Ten have a solid D and a good if not very good running game. There have been a few exceptions but that is the rule.

I would like to see the Gophers average at least 4.0 carry and up their attempts to 43/BT game.
 

nemosgold said:
Wow, not meant to be a Mason/Brewster thing but Ole did you watch any Gopher football 99-on with Mason? Our defense couldn't stop anyone, we ran it down the throats of some pretty good teams and kept the defense off the field.
Click to expand...

I definitely watchedthose teams. They were excellent on O and that's what I was referring to about bein ran to perfection. We had an athletic, fairly accurate QB, decent WRs, 3 NFL RBs, and the perfect OL for that system with experience. That was a finesse running game predicated on cut blocks and movement. It was not a pound the rock, smashmouth, pancake the DL run game like OSU, WI and IA employ. Until the Maroney and Barber years we'd often rack up big yards in the first half against good opponents only to fail to be able to run in the 4th because of a near high school level passing game that defenses didn't respect and because by then the bigger, more talented DLs had adjusted to getting cut blocked and DCs stacked 10 in the box. Remember that the running game was so good because they spent 80% of practice time on it. Also the type of OL needed for that scheme weren't ideal for pass blocking as they were shorter and not nearly as large as most OL. The scheme has built in limitations that a team can't overcome unless they have a ton of talent and execute the scheme perfectly. As good as Masons offense seemed to be it rarely went over .500 in conference play. Now the D had a lot to do with that but still...
 

Pound The Rock

Where have I heard that before? Have we heard that before? I think so. If you are going to run the ball 50 times a game you will control the clock, tempo, and momentum. And with the runs 35-45 you will see 8-15 yard bursts. 45-50 will insure a first down, and run out the clock. This is a philosophy of how to play the game. If you have a defense that provides three and outs, a turn over or four. You might rush for over 50 times. That being said, who can take the lead with the carries. I would argue L. Edwards is a battering type runner in the mould of Tapeh, and dare I say 39. This player must be given the ball 25 times a game. Now, a player who can bust a tackle in relief. A player able to run through weary arm tackles. Maybe Bennett for 10. Hoese 10, and others 5. But do not abandon the run just because Northwestern puts 11 in the box. I was there in the rain. No, if you are a power running team its the same M.O. against MTSU, TOSU, SDSU, or USC.
I don't want to see flea flickers, and pitch back, reverse passes in the first game, in fact I just don't want to see them.

If you truely pound the rock, the corners are up, safeties are up and you have roughly 8-10 shots down the field from good, no make that great play action. And the targets deep down the field are not the usual suspects. Hoese on a fullback divide, Eure to the Post, or Bennett on a circle route, maybe McKnight on a deep post or go. Play action must be on time and a deep shot. It should penalize the defense for committing. It is intended as a home run. Make it count. I have serious doubts about Weber's being able to throw on time. If he does, and makes say 6-10 at 30 or more yards, it will be the necessary weapon to suppliment the power game. And the field, down, and distance will determine these shots. If its second and short, say 2 yards from mid field, The green flag should be up.

This play was in the Mason play book, the problem and you have seen it time and again. The fake, the QB with his back to the play carrying out the fake, he turns, dances, and runs. That is a blown opportunity. The 8 yard gain and the first down are great, but that instant he turned. The reciever was just coming open and he missed seeing it. When he doesn't its Bennett up the sidelines for a TD against Bowling Green, its Hamner up the sidelines against Penn State.


If you read we threw the ball 35 times after we fell behind. It will speak volumes to the comittment to the run. Again we saw this too many times against Purdue and were blown out.

I am committed to the run.
 

A lot of us are saying the same things in this thread...and I think anyone who knows football would agree: running the ball is good. You control the clock, wear down the defense, and keep games close into the 4th quarter. That said, our offense won't resemble those of Mason-led teams. It'll actually be a lot closer to what you'd see at tOSU, to be honest. Lots of straight ahead running (power, trap, lead, etc), but also plenty of zone/read running and plays out of the gun.

Having said all that, let me say this: there's more than one way to skin a cat. No one offensive system is perfect. Any system can produce a championship team, and any fan knowledgeable about football can eloquently argue the merits of their favorite system; those who long for the Mason-style zone running game have done so well in this thread. My preferred system is the spread, and I'll continue to argue that it would've worked here (despite the fact that we no longer run it, nor will we probably bring it back any time soon). In my opinion, a good spread offense accomplishes all the same goals that a "smash-mouth" running game does--and it can be done by teams with less overall talent (size up front and explosive running backs, especially). Plenty of Big Ten teams have proven this over the past decade with the likes of Purdue, NW, and Illinois all winning BT championships with short, controlled passing games and an effective zone running scheme. Want to control the clock? Throw short, easily catchable passes. Want to wear down a defense? Make 300 pound d-linemen rush the passer 40 times a game and then have to run sideline to sideline chasing down bubbles and screen passes. Trust me, a good spread team wears out a defense and runs the ball just as well in the 4th quarter as a power running team does; they just do it in a different way.
 

I remember the bowl game (Sun Bowl) where NU scored 54 (?) points against UCLA and lost. They could not bleed the clock at all.:(
 

A good offense does 2 things:

1)Allows you to score points.

2)Allows you to score points.



To call one offensive type "better" or "Big Ten Football" is just blatantly ignorant. The pound the rock mentality works at Wisconsin right now, but in reality Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Ohio State, Purdue, and even still Minnesota incorporate spread themes into all or part of their offenses. To say one thing is better is just wrong. Offense is about scoring points in whatever way possible. Spread doesn't mean soft. Pro-style doesn't mean pound the rock. West Virginia under Rich Rodriguez was one of the most physical teams in the country. Florida is one of the most physical teams in the country.

The last 10 seasons of national Champions
Oklahoma (spread elements)
Miami (Pro-Style with spread elements)
Ohio State (Pro-Style)
LSU (Pro-Style w/ spread elements)
USC (Pro-Style)
Texas (Pure Spread)
Florida (Pure Spread)
LSU (Spread Elements)
Florida (Pure Spread)
Alabama (Pro-Style)

Since 2000 there have been 16 teams to get a share of the conference title. Of those 16 teams, 10 have at least used the spread as part of their offense.
 

any offense

I think any offense or defense can work if you have consistency from year to year. We can't keep losing offensive coordinators every year and expect greatness. I think wr are more interested in playing in a spread, and rb in the pro style format.
 

In the college game you need to recall that we do not have free agency or the draft. The O should also take into account what the local talent pool favors. In this state we have a lot of large lads, we do not have a ton of speed. Wisconsin has understood this consistently now for many years.
 

Gopherhurrin said:
In the college game you need to recall that we do not have free agency or the draft. The O should also take into account what the local talent pool favors. In this state we have a lot of large lads, we do not have a ton of speed. Wisconsin has understood this consistently now for many years.
Click to expand...

I'd say in addition to just what is local you should look at the types of players you can consistently get. Oregon (who I hate) has been able to run the spread because they've been able to essentially buy a program and attract top athletes from Texas year after year. Its much easier for us to load up on local and semi local OL talent and recruit a good RB every other year than to recruit 2-3 good WRs every year.
 

I am not sure how this team can be compared to some of Mason's better offensive teams. Mason relied on spead. He did not have huge offensive linemen that jammed it up the middle. He had offensive lineman that could move and get to the outside combined with fast backs that used it. I rarely saw Maroney jam it up the middle. Spread the defense out and let him cut back to where the hole opened.
 

Brew wanted to run the spread because he thought he could just come in here and be able to recruit top athletes that would want to flourish in the wide-open offensive system. After all, he was able to get these players when he was with Mack Brown. And he was confident in his recruiting and salesman abilities.

The problems he ran into was when he realized he couldn't get the top athletes he wanted to come here. Also, most of the talent from MN isn't the type of athlete he needed to run a successful spread, and the ones who were good enough that he wanted to recruit wanted to go to a bigger program for a path to the NFL.
 

josh087 said:
Brew wanted to run the spread because he thought he could just come in here and be able to recruit top athletes that would want to flourish in the wide-open offensive system. After all, he was able to get these players when he was with Mack Brown. And he was confident in his recruiting and salesman abilities.

The problems he ran into was when he realized he couldn't get the top athletes he wanted to come here. Also, most of the talent from MN isn't the type of athlete he needed to run a successful spread, and the ones who were good enough that he wanted to recruit wanted to go to a bigger program for a path to the NFL.
Click to expand...

I actually don't think he changed from the spread because of recruiting. From the moment Brew got here he said he wanted to run the ball. I think he had visions of an OSU/Oregon/WVU type spread that was run heavy. However Dunbar didn't want to run the rock and we had smallish, Mason OL not suited for the type of zone blocking scheme he wanted to run. I think Brew felt that he wouldn't be able to run the ball and establish the mindset he wanted from the spread. Remember that when they switched he'd recruited Gray to be his QB, TS, Brandon Green, Broderick Smith, and had Decker. From a talent perspective he had done a good job in getting spread skill position guys. One of the reasons cited for going to the spread was to attract talent and at that point it had been working.
 

If we are talking atheletes. How come Northwestern can run an effective spread. They are no Florida but they are fine on offense? I think part of the reason is the consistency and experience of running it year after year. I do also agree that its hard to recruit a ton of speed here. The power running game is probably a better option.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom