Badger players surprised by Gophers' bland offense on Saturday; expected more passing

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,574
Reaction score
15,645
Points
113
per the Montrose Press:

Croft attempted only nine passes against the Badgers, completing three for 40 yards. Not even a 17-0 halftime deficit brought the Gophers out of their shell; they attempted 24 runs and five passes in the second half.

Did the Badgers think Minnesota would throw the ball more?

“I wouldn’t if I was them,” UW senior cornerback Derrick Tindal said. “I definitely thought we were going to get tested more, especially when it was third-and-11 and they were running read-options and stuff. I was kind of getting mad but, hey, we got the ‘W’ and I’m happy with that.”

One of the most peculiar playcalling moments came late in the first half, when Minnesota had the ball in UW territory after a long run and a pass interference penalty. The Gophers had plenty of time to take a few shots at the end zone and perhaps take a significant chunk out of UW’s 17-point lead; instead, they ran the ball and Fleck let the clock run down to 3 seconds and called a timeout to attempt a field goal.

It missed.

“We thought they would open it up a lot more,” UW senior safety Joe Ferguson said. “We thought we’d see a bunch of trick plays and a lot more passes, maybe down the field, especially later in the game, and we didn’t get that. But it just goes to show you’ve got to prepare and be ready to adjust for anything. We did a good job today.”

http://www.montrosepress.com/nation...cle_93025073-67fd-5f97-bbbc-4f91524dbcaf.html

Go Gophers!!
 

Why would we pass the ball once we were down 2 scores? No point in trying after that I guess.
 

per the Montrose Press:

Croft attempted only nine passes against the Badgers, completing three for 40 yards. Not even a 17-0 halftime deficit brought the Gophers out of their shell; they attempted 24 runs and five passes in the second half.

Did the Badgers think Minnesota would throw the ball more?

“I wouldn’t if I was them,” UW senior cornerback Derrick Tindal said. “I definitely thought we were going to get tested more, especially when it was third-and-11 and they were running read-options and stuff. I was kind of getting mad but, hey, we got the ‘W’ and I’m happy with that.”

One of the most peculiar playcalling moments came late in the first half, when Minnesota had the ball in UW territory after a long run and a pass interference penalty. The Gophers had plenty of time to take a few shots at the end zone and perhaps take a significant chunk out of UW’s 17-point lead; instead, they ran the ball and Fleck let the clock run down to 3 seconds and called a timeout to attempt a field goal.

It missed.

“We thought they would open it up a lot more,” UW senior safety Joe Ferguson said. “We thought we’d see a bunch of trick plays and a lot more passes, maybe down the field, especially later in the game, and we didn’t get that. But it just goes to show you’ve got to prepare and be ready to adjust for anything. We did a good job today.”

http://www.montrosepress.com/nation...cle_93025073-67fd-5f97-bbbc-4f91524dbcaf.html

Go Gophers!!

Thats what you do when your not playing to win. Have some guts and try something different and mix it up. If anything it looks like you're trying. Trying to prevent a 50-0 blowout. Good thing Chryst took it easy on them.
 

The play calling was all about shortening the game.

Keep the margin of loss under 40 instead of >40 points.
 



Probably because they wanted to feast on Demry. That or they didn't even bother to watch film on this offense. Both very possible
 

The offense never opened up or even tried. We just accepted defeat. Going for field goals late in the game!
 

I've been through a lot of bad games but Saturday's was the one that burns me the most. As a paying customer, I expect the team to at least TRY and get the win every game. To obviously not even attempt to make a game of it? Inexcusable. First time ever I feel like I'm owed a refund.
 

Badger players surprised by Gophers' bland offense on Saturday; expected more passing

Us too.
 



The play calling was all about shortening the game.

Keep the margin of loss under 40 instead of >40 points.

I believe some of this had to be true.The D kept the team in the game most of the 1st half, then a series of offensive failures put the game out of reach including 1) Smith's long kick return nullified then followed by a Croft sack/incompletion/punt, 2) missed field goal, 3) punt in the 1st drive 2nd half after more sacks and incompletions, 4) then a WI score to make it 24-0. After this, I gotta believe PJ was playing to save face for some seniors and fans and keep the loss within 30 or so versus 50 or 60. Let's face it, more passing for Croft this year meant more incompletions, more dropped balls, more interceptions...and complete domination by the opponent.
 

Rhoda should have played the second half. Senior and a better passer. Just let the guys have fun.
 


If I remember correctly Fleck even admitted this was to keep the score within reason. Not sure what difference it makes other than cosmetic 31-0 or 63-0 but that is the way he went with it.

Have to give credit to the defense. They play hard all game and did all they could considering the effort they were given from the offense.
 




Come on, now. Philip Howard and Mark Williams had some snaps under their belt before last weekend.

They did, but the drops the last two games were as bad as I’ve ever seen. Howard had several. Hard to call creative plays when you have WRs who can’t get open or catch the ball.
 

How are you going to pass when no one could catch a ball?

This! To the rest, You honestly think that if our receivers were catching 80% plus of the passes up to that point of the game (and ‘em, Croft was on target on all) that the coaches wouldn’t have passed more?
 

How you gonna run on a bad hamstring? And this is the same team that ran what, a dozen wildcat plays while getting positive yardage on 2 of them? Ran many Option plays when the QB, Rhoda or Croft, showed no intention at keeping it. A staff that called numerous running plays between the guards without much if any success yet ignored taking any shots outside of the tackles.

Right or wrong, successful or not, whether a play would actually work seemed to be pretty irrelevant once the Big Ten season started.

So yeah, if the Coaching Staff decide they wanted to throw the ball, arguments of whether it would have worked or not are laughable at best. They just don't apply.
 

I saw most of the season but missed the MSU game and couple 2nd halves of blowouts. Did the Gophers even attempt any type of "trick" play this season? Even once?

I get that protection is required to execute things like this, that fans ask for too much of this, etc...but not one all season by my count is not good.
 

How you gonna run on a bad hamstring? And this is the same team that ran what, a dozen wildcat plays while getting positive yardage on 2 of them? Ran many Option plays when the QB, Rhoda or Croft, showed no intention at keeping it. A staff that called numerous running plays between the guards without much if any success yet ignored taking any shots outside of the tackles.

Right or wrong, successful or not, whether a play would actually work seemed to be pretty irrelevant once the Big Ten season started.

So yeah, if the Coaching Staff decide they wanted to throw the ball, arguments of whether it would have worked or not are laughable at best. They just don't apply.

Yup and once it was 24-0, why not try to sling it a bit? Losing 31-0 is not a moral victory.
 

In our last three losses the scores averaged roughly 34-3 and we passed an average of 10.5 times. I don't care if we have trouble passing -- we had trouble rushing, too. We also had trouble tackling against Michigan and Northwestern in particular. Should we have stopped trying at that, too?

It's one thing to build a game plan around running the ball because you have trouble throwing. But when you see your team down 17-0, then 24-0, and your offense isn't moving the ball, the times comes when you need to start taking some risks. And, yes, that might mean you lose by more.

Or, I guess you can say your goal is to lose by a little as possible and stop trying. That's a loser's mentality.
 

It's pretty hard to have any success or fun if the coach doesn't believe in you. "Failure is growth. It's how we learn" But you drop a pass you can't play..."We are starting these guys, tired of watching people drop passes" Oh, and I'm so frustrated we are not going to throw at all because I don't trust any of you to block, pass or catch. That's PJ's Farmers Alliance. Say one thing, do the opposite. Circle back, say you're sorry, it's my fault.
 

I've been through a lot of bad games but Saturday's was the one that burns me the most. As a paying customer, I expect the team to at least TRY and get the win every game. To obviously not even attempt to make a game of it? Inexcusable. First time ever I feel like I'm owed a refund.

Playing for the long field goal into the wind at the end of the half made my spirit leave my body. All this excuse making about shortening the game: if that's really what they were doing, they were just trying to make the final score less embarrassing rather than actually try to win. At the end of the day, getting shut out for the second straight game is embarrassing enough.
 

In our last three losses the scores averaged roughly 34-3 and we passed an average of 10.5 times. I don't care if we have trouble passing -- we had trouble rushing, too. We also had trouble tackling against Michigan and Northwestern in particular. Should we have stopped trying at that, too?

And, yes, that might mean you lose by more.
.

First paragraph - There is higher risk with passing the ball. The end of Your second paragraph is hilarious. First of all the Gophers took a huge risk going for it on 4th down with 1 to go on their own 38 - did you forget about that? Second, throwing rainbows 40 yards (which is what Croft does) is a good way to turn the ball over and lose by 60. Then you’d have a reason to complain, not this nonsense.
 

Playing for the long field goal into the wind at the end of the half made my spirit leave my body. All this excuse making about shortening the game: if that's really what they were doing, they were just trying to make the final score less embarrassing rather than actually try to win. At the end of the day, getting shut out for the second straight game is embarrassing enough.

I said this in the game thread but there was absolutely a higher chance of Croft getting sacked than completing a ten yard pass to gain a first down.
 

First paragraph - There is higher risk with passing the ball. The end of Your second paragraph is hilarious. First of all the Gophers took a huge risk going for it on 4th down with 1 to go on their own 38 - did you forget about that? Second, throwing rainbows 40 yards (which is what Croft does) is a good way to turn the ball over and lose by 60. Then you’d have a reason to complain, not this nonsense.
I hope we have a few more passing options in the playbook besides 40 yard rainbows. I also remember punting a few times in enemy territory in those games. Nevertheless, we disagree, and that won't change.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 




Top Bottom