Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 84
  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spoofin View Post
    Come on. No one said that. It was an example of PJ not playing his best option for other reasons. No one said anything about wanting to get him hurt or these other tangents you are now promoting. Did you forget your argument.

    It also isn’t an anti-PJ take, even tho some see any challenge at all as so. PJ himself said Wins/losses didn’t matter that year so why is it ripping him when someone points out an example of him practicing what he preached?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The assumption some of you are working off of is that Durr wasn't the best option and that is based on how he looked during the one series, my contention is that is way over simplifying things.

    As to the part in bold....I really don't know if there are some that can't understand what Fleck meant or if they are just pretending not to get it. The players and coaches were working hard to win the games each week, Fleck's point was that wins/loses were not what they were using to evaluate the team and where things were at because that was not the most important thing in those first few years.

    Fans get caught up in the record and once a coach has been at a school for a while the team's record will be the driving force behind whether or not that coach keeps his job. But in those first few years the record is not the most important thing to the people within the program. The biggest area that most likely came into play was in not trying to recruit a bunch of JC players to fill holes and not burning redshirts on some players in an all out effort to win an extra game or two.

    For whatever reason though there still seem to be some that think those comments meant they were not trying to win the games. The players and coaches work way to hard to not give it their best effort on gameday.


  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by A_Slab_of_Bacon View Post
    Oh man can we go down the rabbit hole where folks seemed to wonder if he was playing the bet players regarding red shirts and such the first year?

  3. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by A_Slab_of_Bacon View Post
    Why isn't she eating?

  4. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MNVCGUY View Post
    ...I really don't know if there are some that can't understand what Fleck meant
    This tired line. I am grateful there is always someone here to explain what Fleck actually meant - no matter what was said. Either agree or you just donít get it, right?

    Wins/losses donít matter doesnít mean you are trying to lose. No one said it did. It could mean, however, play a kid coming off an ACL that still has a limp for a single series so we donít have to burn the redshirt of a player who gives us a better chance - even if it means that player will get burned right away for a TD - maybe costing us the game - and then spend the rest of the year on the bench. Your arrangement sounds nicer tho, so I must not get it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Consensus Top 25 Class, 4 of final 5, 80% underclassmen, Youngest Team, 2nd Youngest Team, Best Back-To-Back Classes Ever, 9 Scholarship Seniors, HS Teacher, 8-Hour Radius, Major Paycut

  5. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by A_Slab_of_Bacon View Post
    What is that from? Trying to figure out what could lead to that particular scenario....

  6. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zman View Post
    Why isn't she eating?
    Is that a young(er)Richard Pitino?

  7. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MNVCGUY View Post
    The one time when the "best players will play" thing isn't always in full effect is during the first few years of a coaching staff. Some coaches will do whatever they can to win fast, I would say Brohm falls into this category for the way he managed the roster at Purdue. Others will take the longer view and make some short term decisions that might not be in the best interest of winning fast but will hopefully set the team up for more sustained success later. Fleck definitely falls in this category, Kill did as well to a lesser degree.

    As for playing guys like Durr or Annexstad when they were not at 100%, only the coaches can answer that question. If I had to guess, it was probably because they still felt that even in their current state those guys were the best available playable option but I have nothing concrete to base that on other than time around coaches and the game.

    Starting with this year for sure and moving forward I would fully expect them to put their focus on winning now as opposed to looking to the future. They will almost certainly make some mistakes along the way personnel wise but there is no real reason at this point to hold a player back who can help you win now.

    This bleeds into the redshirt discussion that always surfaces at some point in the season. There may very well have been some guys the staff chose to redshirt who could have helped the team the past few seasons. I would not expect that to be the case anymore, if a kid is the best available option at their position I would expect to see them play.
    I agree with most of what you are saying. However, what steps did PJ take that showed he wasn't interested in winning right away?

    This is largely a myth promulgated by the "cupboard was full" crowd. Even though we ended up with 1 player drafted in the last 2 years and some of the worst QB'ing in the history of Gopher football PJ's 1st year.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Windom, MN
    Posts
    7,733

    Default

    Back to the QB's - (the original subject of the thread.)

    Look - on the eye test, Morgan looked more effective than Annexstad when he got to play. BUT - let's remember, we are judging a healthy Morgan against an injured Annexstad. Annexstad really only played about 2 games when he was 100% healthy. Putting aside the question of whether he should have been playing, we are judging a true FR versus a RS FR. Morgan, by definition, has more experience and should be expected to look better than a true FR.

    So - once again - assuming the coaches are playing the 'best' players, or the players who give the team the best chance to win - that means Fleck and Kirk C believed Annexstad was #1 on the depth chart to open the season.

    if they are competing against each other now, Morgan has more (or better) game experience in his favor, but we can't forget that, when the coaches made their choice at the start of 2018, they chose Annexstad.

    So - I do not believe Morgan is the favorite to start. I put it 50-50 right now, and I believe Annexstad could very well be the opening-game starter this fall.

    for me, the biggest question is how much rope do they give the starter? If, let's say, Annexstad starts game #1 but has a bad 1st half, does he play the whole game, or would the coaches put Morgan in? that is going to be one of the most interesting things to watch this fall.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,559
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by short ornery norwegian View Post
    Back to the QB's - (the original subject of the thread.)

    Look - on the eye test, Morgan looked more effective than Annexstad when he got to play. BUT - let's remember, we are judging a healthy Morgan against an injured Annexstad. Annexstad really only played about 2 games when he was 100% healthy. Putting aside the question of whether he should have been playing, we are judging a true FR versus a RS FR. Morgan, by definition, has more experience and should be expected to look better than a true FR.

    So - once again - assuming the coaches are playing the 'best' players, or the players who give the team the best chance to win - that means Fleck and Kirk C believed Annexstad was #1 on the depth chart to open the season.

    if they are competing against each other now, Morgan has more (or better) game experience in his favor, but we can't forget that, when the coaches made their choice at the start of 2018, they chose Annexstad.

    So - I do not believe Morgan is the favorite to start. I put it 50-50 right now, and I believe Annexstad could very well be the opening-game starter this fall.

    for me, the biggest question is how much rope do they give the starter? If, let's say, Annexstad starts game #1 but has a bad 1st half, does he play the whole game, or would the coaches put Morgan in? that is going to be one of the most interesting things to watch this fall.
    I agree with you wholeheartedly on ZA vs. TM. And that is a great question about rope, and one of the hardest parts of having two QB's of similar quality - resisting the temptation to switch. Kill fell for it with Leidner and Nelson. As soon as one struggled - switch to the other. Ended up both had moments but neither wowed. Had no consistency at the position. I'd hate to see something like that. Though I think that might have been part of why he didn't switch sooner than he did last year, which may have also hurt the team.

  10. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by short ornery norwegian View Post
    Back to the QB's - (the original subject of the thread.)

    Look - on the eye test, Morgan looked more effective than Annexstad when he got to play. BUT - let's remember, we are judging a healthy Morgan against an injured Annexstad. Annexstad really only played about 2 games when he was 100% healthy. Putting aside the question of whether he should have been playing, we are judging a true FR versus a RS FR. Morgan, by definition, has more experience and should be expected to look better than a true FR.

    So - once again - assuming the coaches are playing the 'best' players, or the players who give the team the best chance to win - that means Fleck and Kirk C believed Annexstad was #1 on the depth chart to open the season.

    if they are competing against each other now, Morgan has more (or better) game experience in his favor, but we can't forget that, when the coaches made their choice at the start of 2018, they chose Annexstad.

    So - I do not believe Morgan is the favorite to start. I put it 50-50 right now, and I believe Annexstad could very well be the opening-game starter this fall.

    for me, the biggest question is how much rope do they give the starter? If, let's say, Annexstad starts game #1 but has a bad 1st half, does he play the whole game, or would the coaches put Morgan in? that is going to be one of the most interesting things to watch this fall.
    They both looked very good in the two practices and the Spring game. I would put them at where they were at the end of Fall practice last year, or a little ahead of that point, so I expect them to be much better than last season by the opener this year. Excited to see the full playbook opened for whoever is the starter. IMO Annexstad will need a lot more separation this year to be the starter Game 1. He certainly has that potential.

    I do think Fleck will again have a long leash for the starter.

  11. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I agree with most of what you are saying. However, what steps did PJ take that showed he wasn't interested in winning right away?

    This is largely a myth promulgated by the "cupboard was full" crowd. Even though we ended up with 1 player drafted in the last 2 years and some of the worst QB'ing in the history of Gopher football PJ's 1st year.
    I agree with that sentiment. I have been in the camp that felt 2017 was going to be rough no matter who was in charge but I know there are those that believe that team was primed for another great year with Demry Croft at the helm....yep.

    To the other part, really the main thing was not going after a bunch of JUCO guys or transfers in order to try and quickly plug some of the gaping holes in the roster. Another might have been letting Morgan redshirt as opposed to throwing him out there as a true freshman when he wasn't ready and had very little around him.

    The flipside of that is what Brohm did at Purdue where he brought in a ton of JUCO guys and transfers. Now this year they are looking at replacing a big chunk of their offense because of it.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,411
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MNVCGUY View Post
    I agree with that sentiment. I have been in the camp that felt 2017 was going to be rough no matter who was in charge but I know there are those that believe that team was primed for another great year with Demry Croft at the helm....yep.

    To the other part, really the main thing was not going after a bunch of JUCO guys or transfers in order to try and quickly plug some of the gaping holes in the roster. Another might have been letting Morgan redshirt as opposed to throwing him out there as a true freshman when he wasn't ready and had very little around him.

    The flipside of that is what Brohm did at Purdue where he brought in a ton of JUCO guys and transfers. Now this year they are looking at replacing a big chunk of their offense because of it.
    Before I start, I'll say that although I wasn't a fan of how the transition came about, I like coach Fleck and support the program and him as well.

    The bold part of the post is something we will never know for sure. The defense would have most likely been better. I base this assumption on coach Claeys working the magic he did against Washington State. Maybe Croft would have been better running the offense that was in place at that time. We won't know. I thought he was a more elusive runner than Mitch Leidner and his play action/ ball fakes were up there as well. Do I believe that there would have been a drop off? Of course. Mitch was an underated leader and most of the time his experience and pose showed. Again we will never know.

    I think that it is fair to say that coach Fleck felt it was best for the program to not only instill the culture stuff right away, but the offensive and defensive schemes right away. I do like the direction that the program is headed. With a little luck (our program will most likely have to make their own) I think some big things are on the horizon. Whether it is Annexstad or Morgan, I believe that it will happen.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    11,495

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MNVCGUY View Post
    Team Doctor's, training staff, and coaching staff all work really closely together on a daily basis in regards to the players and their status for practices and games.

    He may not have been 100% (few players are after the season starts) but if he was suited up it means the various parties involved felt he was fine to play. It is very likely that he did tweak it right away, that is far more plausible then his injury was just ignored by a large number of people.

    Health is major factor in determining who plays but it is not the only factor. Annexstad was clearly not 100% but still played over a presumably healthy Morgan. What that says to me is that they felt that even with the limited mobility he was a better option than Morgan at the time. Maybe he had a better grasp of the play calls or gameplans, could have been any number of things.

    Same probably applies to Durr. There most likely was a healthier option on the roster at the time but that doesn't necessarily mean there was a better option in the opinion of the coaches.

    They absolutely may have made the wrong decision in the case of Annexstad, Durr or any other player, but these decisions are not taken lightly and they are not made by just one person. In the end, they look at the whole picture and go with what they feel is the best option at the time based on the information they have available.
    So youíll allow sometimes the best players arenít playing, and sometimes the coaches can be wrong. Fine, weíve come full circle to the original statement.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    11,495

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by short ornery norwegian View Post
    Back to the QB's - (the original subject of the thread.)

    Look - on the eye test, Morgan looked more effective than Annexstad when he got to play. BUT - let's remember, we are judging a healthy Morgan against an injured Annexstad. Annexstad really only played about 2 games when he was 100% healthy. Putting aside the question of whether he should have been playing, we are judging a true FR versus a RS FR. Morgan, by definition, has more experience and should be expected to look better than a true FR.

    So - once again - assuming the coaches are playing the 'best' players, or the players who give the team the best chance to win - that means Fleck and Kirk C believed Annexstad was #1 on the depth chart to open the season.

    if they are competing against each other now, Morgan has more (or better) game experience in his favor, but we can't forget that, when the coaches made their choice at the start of 2018, they chose Annexstad.

    So - I do not believe Morgan is the favorite to start. I put it 50-50 right now, and I believe Annexstad could very well be the opening-game starter this fall.

    for me, the biggest question is how much rope do they give the starter? If, let's say, Annexstad starts game #1 but has a bad 1st half, does he play the whole game, or would the coaches put Morgan in? that is going to be one of the most interesting things to watch this fall.
    Neither had played a single snap of college ball to that point. Annexstad played 8 games or so at IMG and his Sophomore year in MN. The experience angle favors TM2 who was a heralded and productive high school QB and he’s proven he can play in the Big Ten. We have no proof of that from ZA5 although he could certainly prove to be as good or better with time.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    11,495

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MNVCGUY View Post
    I agree with that sentiment. I have been in the camp that felt 2017 was going to be rough no matter who was in charge but I know there are those that believe that team was primed for another great year with Demry Croft at the helm....yep.

    To the other part, really the main thing was not going after a bunch of JUCO guys or transfers in order to try and quickly plug some of the gaping holes in the roster. Another might have been letting Morgan redshirt as opposed to throwing him out there as a true freshman when he wasn't ready and had very little around him.

    The flipside of that is what Brohm did at Purdue where he brought in a ton of JUCO guys and transfers. Now this year they are looking at replacing a big chunk of their offense because of it.

    Demry wasn’t great or even good but even Kirk said he had virtually zero receiving options - nobody could get off or get open. Nobody could catch the freaking ball when it did arrive. His protection was as bad or worse as we saw early in the 2018 season. He didn’t have the support of the staff or the HC. All that leads to the worst statistical season since....?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •