I'm sticking with 5-7 or 6-6

Dano564

Fleck Superfan
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
10,135
Reaction score
2,906
Points
113
Fun game to attend tonight, but not the blowout win many of us were hoping for.

We really looked inexperienced and shallow with the o-line. Running game didn't look anything like last year despite having two great backs.
The QB's looked better than I expected, but both looked inconsistent and both need work. Neither seems to be a 8-9 win QB.

I like the WR's. I think it's good this coaching staff is going to work hard on the passing game. Seems like in years to come that should help us.

I think this game really puts into focus how much of a change, and how inexperienced this team is and how much development has to take place.
 

I understand RTB but "Brick by Brick" still seems to be more applicable.

Tonight we needed both bricks and masonry.
 


My prediction hasn't changed. This outcome really didn't shock me, nor am I disappointed or disgusted. The team will get better. This is not the program's apex that we saw tonight. No reason to panic.
 

History repeats itself. The idiotic predictions that this team would be as good as or better than last year should be thrown in the trash where they belong. Fleck only won a game his first year at WMU for a reason. New coaches stink their first years on a new job at a mid to low level program school for a reason.
 


History repeats itself. The idiotic predictions that this team would be as good as or better than last year should be thrown in the trash where they belong. Fleck only won a game his first year at WMU for a reason. New coaches stink their first years on a new job at a mid to low level program school for a reason.

Not even remotely true.
 

6-6

vs. Buffalo W

at Oregon State L

vs. Middle Tennessee W

vs. Maryland W

at Purdue W

vs. Michigan State W

vs. Illinois (Homecoming) W

at Iowa L

at Michigan L

vs. Nebraska L

at Northwestern L

vs. Wisconsin L
 





I don't necessarily agree with him, but he said mid to lower program....Michigan is/was and always will be an "elite" program.

Fair, I'll dig deeper for the fun of it but keep it somewhat recent.

Pat Narduzzi took over a 6-7 Pitt team from Paul Chryst and went 8-5.

Fuentes took over a 7-6 VaTech and went 10-4.

And in perhaps a somewhat similar situation to what we have here at Minnesota, Dana Holgorsen took over a 9-4 WVU team from Bill Stewart because the AD thought Stewart was under performing to expectations couldn't win WVU a national title and went 10-3.

In all 3 of those situations the cupboard wasn't bare. This just creates the whole "After 9-4 last year how could the cupboard be bare for PJ" discussion

What I accomplished with this post? Rambling to ramble I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Exactly. I'm a big Fleck fan. I think he'll do well here. But changing schemes and new coaches at non-helmet schools usually means a step back the first year to implement the new system.
 

It's really hard to draw too many conclusions after one game. Fact is we are 1-0, and don't really know if our level of play/effectiveness last night is going to be typical or if we had a bad/sluggish night (hopefully the game didn't represent an unusually great effort). Maybe Buffalo fired their best bullet for year? So many variables, and I always try to tell my buddies after the first game that you need to give the team a chance to improve.

The running game was a bit concerning, and the overall play of the secondary actually has me more worried about MTSU than OSU now. One thing Fleck HAS accomplished immediately is that we already have a more potent passing game than we did at any point in the Kill/Claeys era.

Last two thoughts: I think Croft should be the starter (just seems more dynamic) and I'm giving Carpenter a pass on the short FG he missed. It looked like the snap was a little high, and it kind of through off his timing.
 

About the only conclusion which can be drawn from this game is that GopherHolers who predicted 9 or 10 wins were either far too optimistic or they had a different agenda in mind than the large majority of Gopher fans who like their new coach and who aren't motivated by a desire for Kaler and Coyle to look like failures.
 



History repeats itself. The idiotic predictions that this team would be as good as or better than last year should be thrown in the trash where they belong. Fleck only won a game his first year at WMU for a reason. New coaches stink their first years on a new job at a mid to low level program school for a reason.

This is a weird post. You seem to be disagreeing with yourself.

No one can possibly expect Fleck to come close to repeating last year's success because the first it's hard for coaches who take over mid to low level programs. Weird.
 


Agree. See Harbaugh's first year at Michigan for a recent example (10-3) after taking over for Hoke (5-7).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's the only example I can think of where a coach has done well his first year.
AND IT'S MICHIGAN.

Michigan and us. Two different programs if you haven't watched college football for the last 40-50 years.
 

Fair, I'll dig deeper for the fun of it but keep it somewhat recent.

Pat Narduzzi took over a 6-7 Pitt team from Paul Chryst and went 8-5.

Fuentes took over a 7-6 VaTech and went 10-4.

And in perhaps a somewhat similar situation to what we have here at Minnesota, Dana Holgorsen took over a 9-4 WVU team from Bill Stewart because the AD thought Stewart was under performing to expectations couldn't win WVU a national title and went 10-3.

In all 3 of those situations the cupboard wasn't bare. This just creates the whole "After 9-4 last year how could the cupboard be bare for PJ" discussion

What I accomplished with this post? Rambling to ramble I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which ones had starting QB's returning?
 

About the only conclusion that can be made after this game is the GopherHolers who predicted 9 or 10 wins were either far too optimistic or they had a different agenda in mind than the large majority of Gopher fans who like their new coach and who aren't motivated by a desire for Kaler and Coyle to look like failures.

There are a lot of conclusions that can be jumped to after last nights game. You hand picked one of them that fits your agenda.

Others that are possible:

The team was too amped up last night, and didn't play to their capability. Now they have a game under their belt, they'll calm down and play better next week.
The team thought they could win 9 games by showing up and found it it wasn't true and will be much more focused going forward
The coaching staff new that they could do almost nothing and win after the start of the second half, and stayed conservative because they could.
We were 3 plays away from scoring 3 more touchdowns, and just didn't make those plays last night, but will next week.

All possible conclusions, none more or less likely than the "only one" you feel is correct. None of which have anything to do with an agenda. Mark Coyle is a monumental failure at this point, regardless of what PJ Fleck does. Maybe he'll recover. Maybe he won't. But he will forever be the man that hired PJ Fleck. We'll see how that pans out in 3 years (or so I'm told by people who think hiring a better coach means you should have no expectations for success until 3 years from now).

There is nothing wrong with thinking we can win 9 games this year. There is also nothing wrong if we don't do just that. Raise your sights a little bit. Expect more, hope for more, and don't throw in the towel and say we suck after one game. Which we won.

Come on. We're 1-0*
 

Fair, I'll dig deeper for the fun of it but keep it somewhat recent.

Pat Narduzzi took over a 6-7 Pitt team from Paul Chryst and went 8-5.

Fuentes took over a 7-6 VaTech and went 10-4.

And in perhaps a somewhat similar situation to what we have here at Minnesota, Dana Holgorsen took over a 9-4 WVU team from Bill Stewart because the AD thought Stewart was under performing to expectations couldn't win WVU a national title and went 10-3.

In all 3 of those situations the cupboard wasn't bare. This just creates the whole "After 9-4 last year how could the cupboard be bare for PJ" discussion

What I accomplished with this post? Rambling to ramble I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. There are many examples. It's pretty close to 50/50 whether they do better or worse. I think there's been at least 2 threads on just this topic...in the off-season of course.
 

Exactly. I'm a big Fleck fan. I think he'll do well here. But changing schemes and new coaches at non-helmet schools usually means a step back the first year to implement the new system.

Large qualifiers compared to your OP.
 

After really letting the totality of this first game sink in, the one main concern I have is our offensive line. They just didn't open many holes for our backs against a poor team. I thought the two QBs performed OK, given their lack of experience and probable first-game jitters. Was anyone expecting the line to be that bad? I know we are thin for depth, but has it been suggested that we have sub-par talent up front? Could it also be inexperience (missing assignments, etc), or are these guys plain and simple not strong enough, not athletic enough, etc.?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I thought the offense last night was BRUTAL considering how bad the opponent was. But I always have to remind myself that these early season games are always very hard to read. I will stick to 7-8 wins. We will know a lot more about this team after the next game.

Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
 

Sticking with my 8 win prediction.
We didn't show much on offense.
We will improve. As most coaches say, biggest improvement happens between game 1 and 2.

Those of you who are still trying to tamp down expectations or the ability of this team should find a new team to "cheer" for.
 

That's the only example I can think of where a coach has done well his first year.
AND IT'S MICHIGAN.

Michigan and us. Two different programs if you haven't watched college football for the last 40-50 years.

It's closer to 50/50. Sumlin matched and Herman far surpassed the preceding HCs at Houston. Sumlin did it at A&M. MD just did it. Purdue has had four HC since 1991 and three have had better records their first year than their predecessors. Pitt was mentioned. Arizona. Arizona State.
 


Pretty confident that the Coaching Staff will adapt and improve on last night's performance.

Also think that if they won last night by 60 points, the people predicting a lousy season would stay with that.

They gotta thank Fleck and Company for making it easier for them to do it. ;)
 

6-6

vs. Buffalo W

at Oregon State L

vs. Middle Tennessee W

vs. Maryland W

at Purdue W

vs. Michigan State W

vs. Illinois (Homecoming) W

at Iowa L

at Michigan L

vs. Nebraska L

at Northwestern L

vs. Wisconsin L

If they lose to Oregon State that would be embarrassing, and a total fail by this staff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

What a bunch of ridiculous excuses people are giving to Fleck and staff to have a poor year. It's their first year, so what. He didn't inherit a losing program like many new coaches do. He inherited a program that had been improving each year.

It was the first game, a lot of things didn't go well. Yet, I would expect staff to get things on right track.

That said, I still find the stupid RTB embarrassing. Makes us fit right in with our MAC opponent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I'd be fine if Fleck goes 1-11 this year, as long as we win a Big Ten West title in the next 4-5 years.

I'll take it.
 

6-6

vs. Buffalo W

at Oregon State L

vs. Middle Tennessee W

vs. Maryland W

at Purdue W

vs. Michigan State W

vs. Illinois (Homecoming) W

at Iowa L

at Michigan L

vs. Nebraska L

at Northwestern L

vs. Wisconsin L


I think we lose one of (MD, Purdue, MSU, and Ill) thus 5-7.
Or maybe we beat Oregon St and lose a second one of the group of four above.
I'll be happy if we go 6-6 and get a Bowl Game.

Not many first year head coaches with first year starting QB's go to bowl games!
 




Top Bottom