Didn't Fleck say that -

Donate To GopherHole
R

Rog

Active member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
1
Points
38
He said that we would see better results in the 3rd and beyond years. Why? Usually a starting team is made up of Jrs and Srs - why aren't we now? Fleck was left with two poor recruiting classes. (some individual exceptions of course) Fleck's recruits will be Jrs starting next year. You can see that this year. Most starters (not all) are freshman or Sophs with no red shirt years. ITS TOUGH TO BE PATIENT, BUT THATS WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. At my age that is tough to do, but that's what I have to do.
 

Rog said:
He said that we would see better results in the 3rd and beyond years. Why? Usually a starting team is made up of Jrs and Srs - why aren't we now? Fleck was left with two poor recruiting classes. (some individual exceptions of course) Fleck's recruits will be Jrs starting next year. You can see that this year. Most starters (not all) are freshman or Sophs with no red shirt years. ITS TOUGH TO BE PATIENT, BUT THATS WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. At my age that is tough to do, but that's what I have to do.
Click to expand...

So.....is that next year (year 2 in PJ lingo) or the year after, '20 (year 3 in PJ lingo)?
 

Most starters on defense are upper classman!
 
Last edited:

Rog said:
He said that we would see better results in the 3rd and beyond years. Why? Usually a starting team is made up of Jrs and Srs - why aren't we now? Fleck was left with two poor recruiting classes. (some individual exceptions of course) Fleck's recruits will be Jrs starting next year. You can see that this year. Most starters (not all) are freshman or Sophs with no red shirt years. ITS TOUGH TO BE PATIENT, BUT THATS WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. At my age that is tough to do, but that's what I have to do.
Click to expand...

15 starters are RS So, Jr, or Sr.
 

Rog said:
You can see that this year. Most starters (not all) are freshman or Sophs with no red shirt years.
Click to expand...

Last week, four starters on offense were R-So. or older along with nine starters on defense, at least according to the depth chart released before the game, or more than half of our 22 starters (excluding special teams).
 


PMWinSTP said:
15 starters are RS So, Jr, or Sr.
Click to expand...

I count 14 and those are guys that were not recruited to play Fleck's offensive and defensive system. Then you add in a couple walk-ons and a bunch of Freshmen and you have issues. Add to that your best 3-4 players (Experience) are not on the field due to injuries. 13 starters never had a red-shirt year.
 

Gopher07 said:
Last week, four starters on offense were R-So. or older along with nine starters on defense, at least according to the depth chart released before the game, or more than half of our 22 starters (excluding special teams).
Click to expand...

The defense started ONE Fr. (Smith); the offensive depth chart was more accurate as it indeed had 4 RSoph or older.

That's a total of 8/22 Fr/RFr. on O and D (1 on D and 7 on O). 16 RSophs or older

click on participation tab for startershttps://gophersports.com/boxscore.aspx?id=2025&path=football
 


Who is going to manage the games for Fleck?

Can we please put a motor on the helmets.
 



gopherveteran said:
Who is going to manage the games for Fleck?

Can we please put a motor on the helmets.
Click to expand...

What do we mean by manage the game?

I don't see a problem with managing the game as much as I see an OC trying to really put the offense in position to be successful. That is why they have burned TO's on offense. The OC is managing every play to the fullest and sometimes they've had to burn TO's. It's frustrating but I think part of a young offense. If it doesn't improve then it becomes a HC problem.
 

OddStack said:
The defense started ONE Fr. (Smith); the offensive depth chart was more accurate as it indeed had 4 RSoph or older.

That's a total of 8/22 Fr/RFr. on O and D (1 on D and 7 on O). 16 RSophs or older

click on participation tab for startershttps://gophersports.com/boxscore.aspx?id=2025&path=football
Click to expand...

Are Sophomores no longer underclassmen? I still assume they are regardless of redshirting or not. That means it's an even 50/50 split between underclassmen and upperclassmen starters. 7 Freshman starting is way too many.

Howden (true freshman walk on) played the majority of the game at S, and Renner (former walk on) played a lot at DT, a position he's not built for but has to play out of necessity. Coughlin is still playing out of position out of necessity as well.
 

I think experience ... counts.

But I think it is also a mix of talent. So any X number of Y type really doesn't say much all by itself. Not that it always doesn't mean much, but hard to know from just that statement.
 
Last edited:

MaxyJR1 said:
What do we mean by manage the game?

I don't see a problem with managing the game as much as I see an OC trying to really put the offense in position to be successful. That is why they have burned TO's on offense. The OC is managing every play to the fullest and sometimes they've had to burn TO's. It's frustrating but I think part of a young offense. If it doesn't improve then it becomes a HC problem.
Click to expand...

Push the "win game" button.

No idea why PJ doesn't do that....
 



MaxyJR1 said:
I count 14 and those are guys that were not recruited to play Fleck's offensive and defensive system. Then you add in a couple walk-ons and a bunch of Freshmen and you have issues. Add to that your best 3-4 players (Experience) are not on the field due to injuries. 13 starters never had a red-shirt year.
Click to expand...

Yep off by one...see post #7.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Are Sophomores no longer underclassmen? I still assume they are regardless of redshirting or not. That means it's an even 50/50 split between underclassmen and upperclassmen starters. 7 Freshman starting is way too many.
Click to expand...

This is true but it's not what OP stated.

Rog said:
Most starters (not all) are freshman or Sophs with no red shirt years.
Click to expand...
 

So, upper class men starting but not good! Under class men really good but not as good as the upper class men that are not good but are starting. Or....cant sacrifice the future for the now? SMH
 

Has age replaced Talent Rankings as the leading indicator of success?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
Has age replaced Talent Rankings as the leading indicator of success?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think so...until it isn't...or maybe it's the newest definition of "competitive"?
 

Well we can have the 30th thread debating how young we really are, but even if we accept that this team is in fact exceptionally young, I am not sure it explains some of the efforts we have seen in Big10 play.
 

WoodburyTim said:
Well we can have the 30th thread debating how young we really are, but even if we accept that this team is in fact exceptionally young, I am not sure it explains some of the efforts we have seen in Big10 play.
Click to expand...

I'm ok with the offense having growing pains - they are young and will agree that that was the Kill/Claeys weakness when it comes to talent.

On defense, with our experience (even with injuries), they should be doing better than they are. It seems our linebackers have regressed the most.
 

WoodburyTim said:
Well we can have the 30th thread debating how young we really are, but even if we accept that this team is in fact exceptionally young, I am not sure it explains some of the efforts we have seen in Big10 play.
Click to expand...

Would we know it if we did see an explanation that did explain some of the efforts we have seen in Big10 play?
 

Spoofin said:
Has age replaced Talent Rankings as the leading indicator of success?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yep. Imagine how many yards and points Nebraska could have put up if it hadn't been crippled by youth and inexperience at quarterback.
 

Spoofin said:
Has age replaced Talent Rankings as the leading indicator of success?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

USA TODAY Sports examined the relationship between returning starters and won-loss record from the 2010 season through 2014, with the 32 public schools in FBS with the largest football budgets as the sample set. Budget data compiled by USA TODAY Sports was based on the 2013-14 school year.


Strength of schedule and relative competition, expected W-L records and injuries were not factored. Information about the numbers of returning players and positions at which they played were drawn from Phil Steele's preseason college football prospectus. KPI Sports also helped dissect the data.

The key findings, on average:

— Teams without a returning starter at quarterback see their win totals fall from 7.6 per 12 games to 7.1, a difference of a half a game.

— Teams with a returning starter at quarterback see their win totals per 12 games rise from 7.7 to 7.9, an increase of 0.2.

— An ideal total number of returning players is 15. At that point, on average, teams win 0.8 or more games per 12 games than they did the previous season. Teams in the data set with at least 15 returning players won less than 60% of their games the season before, on average.

— Returning players on defense are slightly more important than returning offensive players, outside of the quarterback position. Teams that return at least seven defensive players, on average, see their win total increase by at least half a game. To see that kind of improvement solely based on the number of offensive returners, a team needs to return nine or more (0.5).


Another interesting link from 2009-2013 which doesn't address your question at atll:
https://deadspin.com/chart-which-ncaa-football-teams-outplay-their-recruit-1640831522
 

Just because starters are upper classmen doesn't mean they are good. Plenty of bad players are forced to start for various reasons.
 

Another article on experience:

https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2015/9/4/9254347/a-better-way-to-measure-returning-experience

An excerpt
"You need a seasoned secondary
Here are the correlations between different types of defensive data and change in Def. S&P+. Since I'm now using an adjusted point total for offensive and defensive ratings, one would expect a negative correlation -- % of returning ___ goes up, adjusted scoring averages go down.

Again, if I'd made wagers beforehand, I'd have bet on linebacker correlations being low. Everything I've read from others, and everything I've noticed myself, suggests that linebackers are a little bit less hard to replace than others. Or, the range between great linebackers and just fine linebackers is smaller than in other units.

This suggests that experience in the front seven isn't as big a deal as it is in the back of the defense. It is pretty remarkable that the correlations between returning DBs are almost as strong as those for the defense as a whole. I didn't see that coming.


And, for 2014, at least, the data suggested that the ability to get hands on passes was more valuable -- or at least, less replaceable -- then getting hands on the quarterback. I didn't see that coming either."


So it matches what we've seen. O-line is surprisingly easy to replace with new players.
Also, linebackers are easily replaceable where secondary is not.

QB and secondary experience with returning starters is most important.
 



Bohl left NDSU after a 15-0 season in 2013 with 25 seniors on the roster and arguably their best senior class in history. He left the program and took 7 of the 10 assistant coaches with him, and he went after a few of the guys he was recruiting after he left.

Klieman (DC) took over as HC after rejecting an offer to join Bohl less than 60 days prior to signing day and expectations down for the following season, although not by anything that Klieman said. He had to hire an entire coaching staff for the 2014 season from the outside. His year zero? . . . he fell back to 15-1 with a lot of young players in key roles and a QB that had not started a game previously. Think about that.

OK, its not the B1G, but I don't buy into some of Flecks rhetoric about young players and 5 year plans. He took over after a 9 win season! If he tore it down, some of his results were self inflicted. Tearing the team back to the level he did was likely a big mistake in hind sight. He should have played on the momentum from the previous season.

At some point, he needs to be held accountable to perform. The keys for Fleck to be successful are positive culture, players holding other players accountable, and coaching on the field.
 

WoodburyTim said:
Well we can have the 30th thread debating how young we really are, but even if we accept that this team is in fact exceptionally young, I am not sure it explains some of the efforts we have seen in Big10 play.
Click to expand...

Feels like the 100th thread though.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom