STrib: Redshirt rule gift now gets tricky for P.J. Fleck

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,567
Reaction score
15,642
Points
113
per Randy:

When the NCAA revamped its redshirt rules for college football — allowing players to participate in up to four games without using a year of eligibility — coaches turned cartwheels. They suddenly were armed with increased roster flexibility and went about devising plans to use it.

For Gophers coach P.J. Fleck, now comes the challenging part. Fleck has a 3-1 team that's relying heavily on true freshmen, and he has played 16 of them, including eight who have played in all four games. Appearing in one more game will mean a year of eligibility used for those eight, and Fleck will have to mix and match how to use those freshmen who've played three or fewer games.

With that in mind, here's where the Gophers' true freshmen stand through one-fourth of the season:

Played all four games

• Zack Annexstad (QB), Rashod Bateman (WR) and Bryce Williams (RB): These three will remain key parts of the offense. Annexstad is the team's undisputed starter who was solid in nonconference but faced heavy pressure in the loss at Maryland. Bateman is second on the team with 20 catches, while Williams leads the team with 283 rushing yards and had the No. 1 role for most of two games. With Rodney Smith out for the year, Williams will get plenty of work.

• Terell Smith, CB: He's been a standout from the start. He leads the team with four pass breakups and ranks third with 22 tackles.

• Jordan Howden and Benny Sapp III, DBs: With Antoine Winfield Jr. lost for the season because of a foot injury, Howden, a walk-on, becomes key at safety. Sapp has played mainly special teams, but the speedster from Eden Prairie also will be needed.

• Thomas Rush, LB: Special teams performer and backup to Thomas Barber at middle linebacker. He'll keep playing.

• Max Janes, TE: Walk-on has played as a backup and likely will continue in that role.

Played two or three games

• Mariano Sori-Marin (three games) and Braelen Oliver (two), LBs: Like Rush, these two add depth at linebacker, with Sori-Marin behind Kamal Martin and Oliver behind Barber. They're strong candidates to keep playing.

• Jamaal Teague, DT (two): Adds depth and could be used sparingly to keep a year of eligibility.

Played one game

• Curtis Dunlap Jr., OG, and Daniel Faalele, OT: Fleck is high on the massive linemen from IMG Academy. They played in the opener, but don't be surprised if they play only three more games and redshirt. Fleck is fond of saying, "Never sacrifice what you want now for what you really want in the future." He'd like to see these big guys on the team as fifth-year seniors.

• Josh Aune, DB: He played the opener but hasn't since. Aune could be a redshirt target, but Winfield's injury complicates that.

• Brevyn Spann-Ford, TE: Played in the opener but hasn't since.

• Mayan Ahanotu, DL: Likely a player for four games and then a redshirt.

Redshirt wild card

• Shannon Brooks, RB: Brooks, a senior who has more than 2,500 all-purpose yards, is working his way back from a torn ACL. Fleck said Brooks will play in four games this season, and only four so he can preserve a final year of eligibility in 2019.

http://www.startribune.com/redshirt-rule-gift-now-gets-tricky-for-p-j-fleck-and-gophers/494523701/

Skol Vikes!!
 

I was thinking about this a little while ago.

What do you think of the idea of playing guys like Dunlop and Faalele in the games against Iowa, tOSU and wisconsin not only so they can't see better competition and how they stack up, but to give the line more rotations and hopefully a fresher line at the end of the game?

I have no idea on how they will be used, just typing out loud.
 

I was thinking about this a little while ago.

What do you think of the idea of playing guys like Dunlop and Faalele in the games against Iowa, tOSU and wisconsin not only so they can't see better competition and how they stack up, but to give the line more rotations and hopefully a fresher line at the end of the game?

I have no idea on how they will be used, just typing out loud.

It would be great to have that depth for the bigger games. It would be nice to get their feet wet against Illinois for example before taking on a bigger challenge.

I think it gets tricky for PJ if Namdi passes CAB on the depth chart next year for example. Will he be able to keep experienced players from taking advantage of the rule and transfer out if they are unhappy with the playing time? What impact will it have on getting depth where it needs to be?
 

I was thinking about this a little while ago.

What do you think of the idea of playing guys like Dunlop and Faalele in the games against Iowa, tOSU and wisconsin not only so they can't see better competition and how they stack up, but to give the line more rotations and hopefully a fresher line at the end of the game?

I have no idea on how they will be used, just typing out loud.

I know they need to play at some point and the experience would be good for them however I would be hesitant to be throwing out true freshmen linemen against the likes of Ohio State and such. If they are truly ready then go for it. However I’d hate to see them get overwhelmed and have a loss of confidence in what should be a learning year. At this point I’d like to see them get snaps where they can succeed.

Just my thoughts when it comes to playing true freshmen...
 

I was thinking about this a little while ago.

What do you think of the idea of playing guys like Dunlop and Faalele in the games against Iowa, tOSU and wisconsin not only so they can't see better competition and how they stack up, but to give the line more rotations and hopefully a fresher line at the end of the game?

I have no idea on how they will be used, just typing out loud.

I mostly agree with G7NTB0 and paulser21. I'd rather see them get playing time against a weaker B1G opponent and prove they can handle that before throwing them to the wolves against any mentioned above. Dickson also. What I'd love to see is the three of them get some reps against NE or IN (assuming nothing changes between then and now and both are truly "weaker B1G opponents"), show they belong, then rotate them in against say NW and maybe WI.

I'd have no problem if all three used their four games during the regular season. I've said it before, I'll say it again - this year GETTING to a Bowl is the goal. After that, then getting to a BETTER Bowl and WINNING the Bowl can be the goal. I don't think we need to save eligibility for guys to play in a Bowl that may not happen.

Obviously all of the above is assuming the staff feels they can meaningfully contribute. If not, then keep them out.
 


I'm looking ahead but haven't seen the answer anywhere. Do bowl games count in the four?

My personal thoughts with Faalele, Dunlop, Aune, Brooks, etc is to play them the last four games and just start the transition to 2019.
 

OL play is different than all other positions on the field. They have to work together and know that the guy next to them is on the same page when it comes to blocking assignments. I don't think it's a good move to put some guys out there just to see what they can do at those positions as that is going to cause the entire line to struggle as they adjust to working with different people next to them. Unless they have been working as a unit for a considerable length of time at practice and if that is the case then why aren't they seeing the field now. This whole idea of holding them out so that we can have them around in 4 or 5 years just doesn't make any sense to me, especially considering the new redshirt rules. They may not be here in 4 or 5 years as they might transfer, try to turn pro early, or have an injury that ends their career. As we have seen with many OL here in the past few years, that has been the case - minus the turning pro part.
Skill position guys and defensive players are a different story. You can put them in a game to find out what they have without doing harm to the entire offensive or defensive unit. I still don't think having a kid redshirt who can help the team win games in the current year is a good idea.
 
Last edited:

I don't think this is as difficult as people think. Minnesota plays everyone except for the old guys for now. Shannon stays on the sidelines until the end of the year. Otherwise, it's not like Minnesota can sub these freshman out. They don't have the depth to do that even if they wanted to. I think the tricky decision is next year when they recover Winfield and Smith. Then hopefully you put a couple of these guys on redshirt. The trick is getting them to accept a year of weight room development after they played an entire season.

They're losing the opportunity to get bigger and stronger now, so they need that catch-up time, but they're not going to want to hear that.
 

OL play is different than all other positions on the field. They have to work together and know that the guy next to them is on the same page when it comes to blocking assignments. I don't think it's a good move to put some guys out there just to see what they can do at those positions as that is going to cause the entire line to struggle as they adjust to working with different people next to them. Unless they have been working as a unit for a considerable length of time at practice and if that is the case then why aren't they seeing the field now. This whole idea of holding them out so that we can have them around in 4 or 5 years just doesn't make any sense to me, especially considering the new redshirt rules. They may not be here in 4 or 5 years as they might transfer, try to turn pro early, or have an injury that ends their career. As we have seen with many OL here in the past few years, that has been the case - minus the turning pro part.
Skill position guys and defensive players are a different story. You can put them in a game to find out what they have without doing harm to the entire offensive or defensive unit. I still don't think having a kid redshirt who can help the team win games in the current year is a good idea.

I agree 100%. People might simply not grasp, but the blocking assignments for OL can be very complex. And then you throw on that each assignment has a different technique that has to be mastered, and usually these are techniques they either weren't taught or just didn't have to use in high school (usually these guys were just massively bigger than the other kids and could just maul them).

Granted, IMG is simply different. So Dunlap and Faalele could have a "head start" on that stuff, compared to other high school OL.
 



I don't think that it gets tricky...it's a new tool that he didn't have, but needs will always dictate how he handles the red shirt opportunities.
 

Was Shannon’s injury an ACL? I hadn’t seen that anywhere else.
 


Ultimately, Fleck and the coaches have to weigh the benefits of playing FR now versus preserving a year of eligibility.

My personal feeling - play the best players. If one of the FR is truly and clearly better than one of the current players, then put them in the lineup. If not, then let the FR get 4 games of spot duty/experience with the 2nd unit when games are decided. If they're not good enough to start - or play a major role now, I don't think you want to just insert them into the lineup, whether it's a rivalry game or not.

But again, I am firmly in the camp of play the best players. IF - for example, FR 'X' is clearly the best player at his position, but the coach is holding him out as part of some long-range plan to have a better lineup 2 or 3 years from now, I don't buy that. There are no guarantees. All you have for sure is today.

Brooks - once the medical staff says he's cleared to play, he should definitely play in 4 games - if for no other reason than to evaluate his play and see if he can stay healthy.
 




The tricky part is, do you play them in 3 and a bowl or 4 with no bowl.

If you need them to play 4 to get to a bowl, do you blow a year by playing them in a bowl when you really don't have to?
 

The tricky part is, do you play them in 3 and a bowl or 4 with no bowl.

If you need them to play 4 to get to a bowl, do you blow a year by playing them in a bowl when you really don't have to?

That would be a nice problem to have! I would absolutely play them to get to the bowl. Getting to a bowl (at 6 wins) should still be the goal this year. Don't know if winning the bowl matters as much, but would be nice.

But speaking realistically ... with Wisc as the last game and, sad to say, likely a loss, what you're talking about would be playing the second to last game as the 4th game to get win #6. Then do you play them again at Wisc, or not?
 

Ultimately, Fleck and the coaches have to weigh the benefits of playing FR now versus preserving a year of eligibility.

My personal feeling - play the best players. If one of the FR is truly and clearly better than one of the current players, then put them in the lineup. If not, then let the FR get 4 games of spot duty/experience with the 2nd unit when games are decided. If they're not good enough to start - or play a major role now, I don't think you want to just insert them into the lineup, whether it's a rivalry game or not.

But again, I am firmly in the camp of play the best players. IF - for example, FR 'X' is clearly the best player at his position, but the coach is holding him out as part of some long-range plan to have a better lineup 2 or 3 years from now, I don't buy that. There are no guarantees. All you have for sure is today.

Brooks - once the medical staff says he's cleared to play, he should definitely play in 4 games - if for no other reason than to evaluate his play and see if he can stay healthy.

This year I do think he is playing who his staff thinks are their best players, thus his constant "we're young" drumbeat. Brooks becomes one of those as soon as he is cleared.
 




Top Bottom