STrib: Gophers offense rushes to diversify its attack

Donate To GopherHole


cncmin said:
I wouldn't call Nelson a "dud". I mean, he obvious had some mental issues, but his talent was pretty clear. That the offense is stagnant no matter who is at QB, each with various abilities and varied talents (Gray, Nelson, Shortell, Leidner, Streveler) suggests either that the problem is greater at WR, or the problem is greater with the playcalling.

This is not a reply to you, more a global thought: Are we to really believe that Streveler is such a bad passer that he's only worth 7 pass attempts against a patsy opponent? For real now. You don't get to be a backup QB at any D-1 school - much less in a Power 5 conference - without some ability to play that position, command an offense, and throw a football. The players are better than the ultra-conservative playcalling suggests them to be. Those patsy schools we played in OoC pre-season were moving the ball pretty well, that with lower-recruited players, and against a much better defense. They didn't move the ball by being scared to let their lowly QBs throw the damn ball.

Finally, note that I think lack of high-end talent at the WR positions does play a significant role in this. However, it's a catch-22. If the offense shows that it never wants to pass the ball, then you're not going to be able to recruit premier QBs, and you're not going to be able to recruit premier WRs. And without those premier players, the team will still refuse to pass the ball, and the cycle will be virtually unbreakable.
Click to expand...

Just a thought. Not saying it's accurate, but worth a mention. When out recruiting, I can imagine a strong selling point to a premier QB is as follows: "young man, we're starving for a premier QB to come in and play rather quickly and allow us to open up our offense big time. We did it at Northern Illinois with a couple guys who ultimately made it to the NFL from that MAC school. Imagine what we could accomplish with you! We clearly know how to do it, we're just waiting for a QB like you and you'll compete right away for the starting job. Can't promise you the job now, but you'll have a good shot immediately unless you want to redshirt". We just need to find a kid willing to see the "light".
 

This is the question for me: I remember the Northern Illinois team that came to MN a few years ago - with Kill as Coach and Limegrover as OC, and ran over the Gophers with a fun-looking offense that mixed the run, the QB run and an effective passing game.

So, the question - dd Kill and Limegrover change their offensive philosophy after coming to MN - or are they running the offense they feel they have to run with the current level of talent? I suspect (and hope) that the second answer is closer to the truth.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
This is the question for me: I remember the Northern Illinois team that came to MN a few years ago - with Kill as Coach and Limegrover as OC, and ran over the Gophers with a fun-looking offense that mixed the run, the QB run and an effective passing game.

So, the question - dd Kill and Limegrover change their offensive philosophy after coming to MN - or are they running the offense they feel they have to run with the current level of talent? I suspect (and hope) that the second answer is closer to the truth.
Click to expand...

I think it's the same offense. I just think Harnish ran it better than Leidner does. Leidner is a really big guy and his footwork clearly isn't as smooth as Harnish's was at NIU.
 


General response to this whole thread: We passed twice on the opening drive. Our receivers dropped both good throws. Maybe executing when we do make those kinds of play calls earlier in the game would have helped too. Limegrover can't say that really as he doesn't want to throw players under the bus but if receivers are just going to drop balls, I don't blame him for not throwing more in the first half.
 

year of the gopher said:
General response to this whole thread: We passed twice on the opening drive. Our receivers dropped both good throws. Maybe executing when we do make those kinds of play calls earlier in the game would have helped too. Limegrover can't say that really as he doesn't want to throw players under the bus but if receivers are just going to drop balls, I don't blame him for not throwing more in the first half.
Click to expand...

Receivers drop balls. It happens to pros, and it happens more to college kids. Abandoning the pass game doesn't do anyone any favors. It doesn't help a receivers confidence, a quarterbacks confidence, or the running game.
 

afurry91 said:
Receivers drop balls. It happens to pros, and it happens more to college kids. Abandoning the pass game doesn't do anyone any favors. It doesn't help a receivers confidence, a quarterbacks confidence, or the running game.
Click to expand...

Can you name a game where us abandoning the pass game has cost us the game. Looking over the last 3 1/2 years I don't see one. We don't abandon it, we use it as the coaches see fit.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
Can you name a game where us abandoning the pass game has cost us the game. Looking over the last 3 1/2 years I don't see one. We don't abandon it, we use it as the coaches see fit.
Click to expand...

I don't think I ever claimed that we did abandon the pass game. The post I was responding to was speculating that maybe we didn't pass as much because the first two passes were dropped.

I believe that to be a pretty lame justification if it's true (we don't know if it is or not) as receivers drop passes. Even great receivers drop passes, so it's not wise to expect our average receivers to not drop them. The first two passes shouldn't dictate your game plan for the rest of the half.
 



afurry91 said:
I don't think I ever claimed that we did abandon the pass game. The post I was responding to was speculating that maybe we didn't pass as much because the first two passes were dropped.

I believe that to be a pretty lame justification if it's true (we don't know if it is or not) as receivers drop passes. Even great receivers drop passes, so it's not wise to expect our average receivers to not drop them. The first two passes shouldn't dictate your game plan for the rest of the half.
Click to expand...

I agree. I go back to the number of plays we run. We run 33% fewer plays than some teams because of our slow pace. That magnifies each pass we throw or play we run.

This team is built on the defense and offense needing to help each other. They can't start out with 3 and outs and the defense can't spot the other team 14 points. Some teams can score 50 a game and the defense just comes along for the ride.
 

DoubleAlum said:
Just a thought. Not saying it's accurate, but worth a mention. When out recruiting, I can imagine a strong selling point to a premier QB is as follows: "young man, we're starving for a premier QB to come in and play rather quickly and allow us to open up our offense big time. We did it at Northern Illinois with a couple guys who ultimately made it to the NFL from that MAC school. Imagine what we could accomplish with you! We clearly know how to do it, we're just waiting for a QB like you and you'll compete right away for the starting job. Can't promise you the job now, but you'll have a good shot immediately unless you want to redshirt". We just need to find a kid willing to see the "light".
Click to expand...

I agree that that's the technique that should be employed. I'm just afraid that at some point you have to prove that you're willing to try to use the QB that you have at hand, as well, if you want that premier QB to do more than just brush you off.
 

year of the gopher said:
General response to this whole thread: We passed twice on the opening drive. Our receivers dropped both good throws. Maybe executing when we do make those kinds of play calls earlier in the game would have helped too. Limegrover can't say that really as he doesn't want to throw players under the bus but if receivers are just going to drop balls, I don't blame him for not throwing more in the first half.
Click to expand...

Yes but the plays were there, it was a failure of execution. One dropped ball, another contested drop, and the passing game was abandoned the rest of the half other than really simplistic play patterns. Again, the plays were there early...the power running game certainly wasn't fooling anybody early.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
This is the question for me: I remember the Northern Illinois team that came to MN a few years ago - with Kill as Coach and Limegrover as OC, and ran over the Gophers with a fun-looking offense that mixed the run, the QB run and an effective passing game.

So, the question - dd Kill and Limegrover change their offensive philosophy after coming to MN - or are they running the offense they feel they have to run with the current level of talent? I suspect (and hope) that the second answer is closer to the truth.
Click to expand...

Or they played a gopher team lacking in talent and coaching? That they were able to exploit a terrible team?
 



MaxyJR1 said:
Can you name a game where us abandoning the pass game has cost us the game. Looking over the last 3 1/2 years I don't see one. We don't abandon it, we use it as the coaches see fit.
Click to expand...

In the past two years, IMO...not necessarily saying "abandoned the passing game", more like didn't bother to really try to use it as a basic part of the offensive gameplan:
@Illinois
vs. Iowa
@Michigan
@Michigan State
vs. Wisconsin
vs. Syracuse

In some of those games the Gophers passed a lot late trying to make comebacks...

I should be clearer - it's not just about trying to mix in passing plays. It's about trying to call plays to try to outsmart the defense. The Gophers don't have the athletes to overpower most of the B1G teams we play. But if the coach calls a good game, we can outsmart them. The D and special teams gameplans have clearly paid off; meanwhile, the team wins only despite a plodding power running offense directly designed to move the ball against inferior opponents (and it still doesn't even do that), and rarely with that offenses' help.

What I'd like to see is a better mix of simple passes designed to keep the defense guessing - some screen plays, more bootleg rollouts...those plays tend to have a high level of success for this team. Keep the defense honest so they're not just smashing the inside running game, and not just attacking the QB at full speed on simple/obvious passing plays.
 

with all due respect: you can talk about schemes and play-calling all you want, but in my book it comes down to execution and athletic ability. If you have better athletes, or better execution, you can run a "simple" scheme and win games. I was at a HS FB playoff game last week. The winning team had two drives in the 2nd half that went 15 plays, 73 yards, 7:48 of possession, and 17 plays, 80 yards, 7:21 of possession. During both drives, they basically ran three plays - a dive, a counter, and a QB keeper/option. The other team knew exactly what was coming, but they couldn't stop it because the other team executed better.

and before anyone says it - I know there's a difference between HS and college - but IMHO, fans put too much emphasis on schemes and play-calling, and not enough emphasis on execution. When the Packers were winning under Lombardi, everyone knew the "Packer Sweep" was coming, but the execution was so good that opponents couldn't stop it. (of course, it helped to have Hornung and Taylor in the backfield, and Jerry Kramer at pulling guard.)
 

short ornery norwegian said:
with all due respect: you can talk about schemes and play-calling all you want, but in my book it comes down to execution and athletic ability. If you have better athletes, or better execution, you can run a "simple" scheme and win games. I was at a HS FB playoff game last week. The winning team had two drives in the 2nd half that went 15 plays, 73 yards, 7:48 of possession, and 17 plays, 80 yards, 7:21 of possession. During both drives, they basically ran three plays - a dive, a counter, and a QB keeper/option. The other team knew exactly what was coming, but they couldn't stop it because the other team executed better.

and before anyone says it - I know there's a difference between HS and college - but IMHO, fans put too much emphasis on schemes and play-calling, and not enough emphasis on execution. When the Packers were winning under Lombardi, everyone knew the "Packer Sweep" was coming, but the execution was so good that opponents couldn't stop it. (of course, it helped to have Hornung and Taylor in the backfield, and Jerry Kramer at pulling guard.)
Click to expand...

The flip side of that is that if you are lacking in the athlete or execution department, you need to throw in some wrinkles to try to make up for it.
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
The flip side of that is that if you are lacking in the athlete or execution department, you need to throw in some wrinkles to try to make up for it.
Click to expand...

Yup. We can't/don't "out-athleticism" or overpower the opposing defense. So we actually need to try to out-smart them. And IMO, we don't really try to do that.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom