Sid: Fleck said Tanner Morgan’s starting spot at quarterback is far from guaranteed.

BleedGopher

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

• Gophers football coach P.J. Fleck, who attended the Kentucky Derby with his wife this weekend, said Tanner Morgan’s starting spot at quarterback is far from guaranteed. “There is always competition,” he said. “Absolutely. Every position we have has competition, including the quarterback position. We look forward to watching how that whole competition comes together.”

http://www.startribune.com/vikings-...pectations-excitement-are-sky-high/509488582/

Go Gophers!!
 

If Morgan builds on his freshman season I can see him turning into a Colt McCoy type player: quick release, middling arm, quick twitch/decisive, scrambler. He seems to have plenty of zip and accuracy for good YAC by the receiver on short to intermediate when he has time, nice touch when called for, gun when called for. Both guys had issues with backpedaling and floating throws at times.
 

That's PJs standard line about spots, nobody has a guaranteed spot every day they expect people to compete.

That of course doesn't mean that PJ & Co haven't already made up 99% of their mind about any given spot.
 

That's PJs standard line about spots, nobody has a guaranteed spot every day they expect people to compete.

That of course doesn't mean that PJ & Co haven't already made up 99% of their mind about any given spot.

Think you could post this about any coaching staff in pretty much any sport where there is not a massive chunk of guaranteed money involved.

At the pro level there are some players that don't really have to worry about competition but outside of those select few you have to compete and fight for your job daily across all levels. There are always politics and exceptions but in general coaches are going to play the guys that give the team the best chance to win because their personal livelihood is dependent on the team winning games.

I would bet pretty much every college football coach across the country right now has a pretty good idea what their starting lineups are going to look like in the fall. But at the same time I am also sure that they leave open the possibility that someone steps up and wins a job away from the expected starter.

Morgan and Annexstad are really interesting because their skill sets are very similar so it may truly be a tossup as to which one of them gets the nod in the fall. I am sure the staff has a feeling on how it is going to go but a strong summer and fall camp by one of them could easily change things. Great problem to have.
 

A little birdie told Shooter the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


Think you could post this about any coaching staff in pretty much any sport where there is not a massive chunk of guaranteed money involved.

At the pro level there are some players that don't really have to worry about competition but outside of those select few you have to compete and fight for your job daily across all levels. There are always politics and exceptions but in general coaches are going to play the guys that give the team the best chance to win because their personal livelihood is dependent on the team winning games.

I would bet pretty much every college football coach across the country right now has a pretty good idea what their starting lineups are going to look like in the fall. But at the same time I am also sure that they leave open the possibility that someone steps up and wins a job away from the expected starter.

Morgan and Annexstad are really interesting because their skill sets are very similar so it may truly be a tossup as to which one of them gets the nod in the fall. I am sure the staff has a feeling on how it is going to go but a strong summer and fall camp by one of them could easily change things. Great problem to have.

Agreed. I think every coach says says that to some extent, it's just how it works.

How likely it is someone takes the spot ... a coach isn't going to tell us and to some extent they don't know.
 

I think it's more than coach speak in this instance though
 

Think you could post this about any coaching staff in pretty much any sport where there is not a massive chunk of guaranteed money involved.

At the pro level there are some players that don't really have to worry about competition but outside of those select few you have to compete and fight for your job daily across all levels. There are always politics and exceptions but in general coaches are going to play the guys that give the team the best chance to win because their personal livelihood is dependent on the team winning games.

I would bet pretty much every college football coach across the country right now has a pretty good idea what their starting lineups are going to look like in the fall. But at the same time I am also sure that they leave open the possibility that someone steps up and wins a job away from the expected starter.

Morgan and Annexstad are really interesting because their skill sets are very similar so it may truly be a tossup as to which one of them gets the nod in the fall. I am sure the staff has a feeling on how it is going to go but a strong summer and fall camp by one of them could easily change things. Great problem to have.

I think everyone just assumes Morgan will get it because he was QB at the end of the season when the team turned around. But Annexstad did something to earn the job last year, and the fact much of his time was while he was hobbled, I don't think he can be counted out.
 

Think you could post this about any coaching staff in pretty much any sport where there is not a massive chunk of guaranteed money involved.

At the pro level there are some players that don't really have to worry about competition but outside of those select few you have to compete and fight for your job daily across all levels. There are always politics and exceptions but in general coaches are going to play the guys that give the team the best chance to win because their personal livelihood is dependent on the team winning games.

I would bet pretty much every college football coach across the country right now has a pretty good idea what their starting lineups are going to look like in the fall. But at the same time I am also sure that they leave open the possibility that someone steps up and wins a job away from the expected starter.

Morgan and Annexstad are really interesting because their skill sets are very similar so it may truly be a tossup as to which one of them gets the nod in the fall. I am sure the staff has a feeling on how it is going to go but a strong summer and fall camp by one of them could easily change things. Great problem to have.

That is the truth. If you don't play those who give you the best chance to win you'd be committing the equivalent of professional suicide. PJ nearly did that with Robb Smith last year but his survival skills kicked in.
 



That is the truth. If you don't play those who give you the best chance to win you'd be committing the equivalent of professional suicide. PJ nearly did that with Robb Smith last year but his survival skills kicked in.

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?

popcorn_seinfeld.gif
 

The answer is no both in 2017 and 18. ^

I’m sure it’s obvious to PJ in hindsight.
 

That is the truth. If you don't play those who give you the best chance to win you'd be committing the equivalent of professional suicide. PJ nearly did that with Robb Smith last year but his survival skills kicked in.

Yeah, once a coach gets beyond those first few years they are coaching for their lives at that point. That is why it always cracks me up when fans go crazy with the assumption that there is all this hidden talent on the bench just waiting for the coach to stop being stubborn and put them in the game.

I will rarely question personnel decisions because the coaches spend hours working with and watching the players and make their decision based on the best available information. Fans see little glimpses here and there and make instant assumptions about the talent of a player.

If player A is starting over player B there is almost always a really good reason for why the coach made that decision.
 

Yeah, once a coach gets beyond those first few years they are coaching for their lives at that point. That is why it always cracks me up when fans go crazy with the assumption that there is all this hidden talent on the bench just waiting for the coach to stop being stubborn and put them in the game.

I will rarely question personnel decisions because the coaches spend hours working with and watching the players and make their decision based on the best available information. Fans see little glimpses here and there and make instant assumptions about the talent of a player.

If player A is starting over player B there is almost always a really good reason for why the coach made that decision.

What was the reason for playing Durr when he was clearly handicapped as a defensive back? One series never to be seen again. There was nobody else?

What was the reason for playing Zach when he was clearly struggling and mostly ineffective? And, Morgan was better than him even when healthy.

Other issues to be raised could be not bringing in experienced help for thin positions, the QB recruiting debacle 2018.

I don’t think I’m alone in thinking PJ probably more than other coaches probably has a set of psychological characteristics that fit his culture and has his favorites because of it. Nothing wrong with that and he’s got to do it his way. If it bears fruit the next few years we’ll all be singing his praises.
 



What was the reason for playing Durr when he was clearly handicapped as a defensive back? One series never to be seen again. There was nobody else?

What was the reason for playing Zach when he was clearly struggling and mostly ineffective? And, Morgan was better than him even when healthy.

Other issues to be raised could be not bringing in experienced help for thin positions, the QB recruiting debacle 2018.

I don’t think I’m alone in thinking PJ probably more than other coaches probably has a set of psychological characteristics that fit his culture and has his favorites because of it. Nothing wrong with that and he’s got to do it his way. If it bears fruit the next few years we’ll all be singing his praises.

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.
 

Guys play all the time that aren’t 100%. There a difference between playing hurt and being unable to play effectively due to injury and that line was crossed. For example, I have overuse inflammatory issues in my feet, elbows, shoulders that flare from time to time. I can still perform close to 100% if I choose to but I know I’ll pay for it later and further push away a pain free workout.

It’s hard for me to understand how we didn’t have anyone, even a walk on, that could run and cut and play a series at Purdue. Similarly, there certainly isn’t much difference between the QBs and I’d argue TM was better last year but he kept him in there until he literally couldn’t play. I don’t agree with that. Maybe you do and your support of the coach is so strong you’ll rationalize it but I can’t. He wasn’t throwing games but he wasn’t playing to win IMO.
 

Agree that Tanner was the better qb last year, even with both healthy. Also agree that PJ stuck with injured Zach way too long last year. Not only was he ineffective but I think there was a chance he could have gotten injured further due to his lack of mobility. Zach must really have some intangibles that PJ loves that we're not seeing on the field.

But I also agree with PJ that it should be an open competition.
 

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.

CD16 couldn’t even run without a limp on the series in discussion. Playing him had nothing to do with thinking he was the best option. I was a better option at that time.

Let’s also not forget that PJ himself, more than once, said he didn’t care about wins and losses that first year. One can agree or disagree with the philosophy, but playing the players that gave him the best chance to win was not his priority that year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

It’s hard for me to understand how we didn’t have anyone, even a walk on, that could run and cut and play a series at Purdue. Similarly, there certainly isn’t much difference between the QBs and I’d argue TM was better last year but he kept him in there until he literally couldn’t play. I don’t agree with that. Maybe you do and your support of the coach is so strong you’ll rationalize it but I can’t. He wasn’t throwing games but he wasn’t playing to win IMO.

You have always been hung up on that series against Purdue with Durr. What none of us know is what was really going on at the time, all we know is what was on the TV screen. Things are moving a million miles an hour for the coaches and players during the game. They very well may not have had any idea how hurt he was, especially if he wasn't saying anything about it and continued to play. They don't have the benefit of just focusing in on one player on a play by play basis the way a fan can while watching the game in HD or even at the stadium. They are studying the other teams offense and personnel groupings to make sure they get the right defense called all in the space of a few seconds.

Maybe there was some malicious intent to try and get him hurt worse by playing him but I find that really hard to believe. Same goes for the QB situation. I would agree that from the outside looking in it feels like they stuck with Annexstad for longer then they should have. But the decision on who to start on a game by game basis isn't just some fly by night decision. There are position coaches and coordinators involved. There is practice and film study and game plan prep. For whatever reason, through all that they felt it was better to stick with Annexstad, I have no clue what specific factors they based that decision on but I feel very confident and saying it wasn't just Fleck sitting on a throne somewhere dictating that Annexstad plays no matter what even if they have to amputate a leg.....

The bottom line is that the decision making process for the coaching staff (any coaching staff, not just Fleck's) is going to be different during those first few years when they have some extra job security and are not worried about getting the axe for losing.

Fleck was very up front about the fact that wins/loses were not going to drive his decisions early on, other things would be factored in as well. That said, I don't believe for one second they would intentionally try to get a player hurt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about how the staff should do things but we should be careful about assuming we know the full story based on the limited amount of information we have available.
 
Last edited:

You have always been hung up on that series against Purdue with Durr. What none of us know is what was really going on at the time, all we know is what was on the TV screen. Things are moving a million miles an hour for the coaches and players during the game. They very well may not have had any idea how hurt he was, especially if he wasn't saying anything about it and continued to play. They don't have the benefit of just focusing in on one player on a play by play basis the way a fan can while watching the game in HD or even at the stadium. They are studying the other teams offense and personnel groupings to make sure they get the right defense called all in the space of a few seconds.

What are you talking about? CD16 was coming off of an ACL injury. He hadn’t been playing. Your above scenario makes zero sense unless things happen too fast at practice to notice as well and they hadn’t been filming it in months either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

What are you talking about? CD16 was coming off of an ACL injury. He hadn’t been playing. Your above scenario makes zero sense unless things happen too fast at practice to notice as well and they hadn’t been filming it in months either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Two other problems with that poor attempt to defend the coaches (by MNVCGUY) on playing Coney in that game:
There was pregame warm up time in which position coaches work directly with their group. Things are not moving very fast at that point for the coaches and it would be very easy to see if a player was not moving well, giving the coach of that group plenty of time to come up with alternate plans as to who should go into the game.
During the game, yes things happen fast, but there are multiple and I would even go so far as to say double digit number of coaches/grad asst/trainers that are used to help with the defense. Some of those people are focused on the other teams offense to make sure the right personnel groupings are on the field prior to the snap, but once that is taken care of all of those coaches have specific things to watch for on each play. Someone is definitely watching each and every player during a play and if they notice a player not performing well or limping they sure as hell would be pointing it out to the DC and HC to see if a different player is needed in that spot.
 

What are you talking about? CD16 was coming off of an ACL injury. He hadn’t been playing. Your above scenario makes zero sense unless things happen too fast at practice to notice as well and they hadn’t been filming it in months either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I will freely admit that I have not obsessed about this series the way some have or studied every possible detail of it. All I can go off of is how it usually works and what common sense would seem to dictate and that would be that if Durr was out there it was because, right or wrong, at the time the staff felt he was the best available option.

The fact that Durr suited up for the game means the training staff cleared him to play. Or I guess we can assume if you guys want that the training staff felt he was unable to go and Fleck showed complete disregard for them and suited up a player who was not cleared and played him anyway because well he is obviously just that evil.

Again, I have no idea how Durr looked in practice leading up to the game but he must have been able to do enough to fool the trainers and coaches into thinking he was physically able to play in the game.
 

I will freely admit that I have not obsessed about this series the way some have or studied every possible detail of it. All I can go off of is how it usually works and what common sense would seem to dictate and that would be that if Durr was out there it was because, right or wrong, at the time the staff felt he was the best available option.

The fact that Durr suited up for the game means the training staff cleared him to play. Or I guess we can assume if you guys want that the training staff felt he was unable to go and Fleck showed complete disregard for them and suited up a player who was not cleared and played him anyway because well he is obviously just that evil.

Again, I have no idea how Durr looked in practice leading up to the game but he must have been able to do enough to fool the trainers and coaches into thinking he was physically able to play in the game.

Hey, when you're on a crusade to reveal to the world the true character of P.J. Fleck, you disregard common sense.
 

Two other problems with that poor attempt to defend the coaches (by MNVCGUY) on playing Coney in that game:
There was pregame warm up time in which position coaches work directly with their group. Things are not moving very fast at that point for the coaches and it would be very easy to see if a player was not moving well, giving the coach of that group plenty of time to come up with alternate plans as to who should go into the game.
During the game, yes things happen fast, but there are multiple and I would even go so far as to say double digit number of coaches/grad asst/trainers that are used to help with the defense. Some of those people are focused on the other teams offense to make sure the right personnel groupings are on the field prior to the snap, but once that is taken care of all of those coaches have specific things to watch for on each play. Someone is definitely watching each and every player during a play and if they notice a player not performing well or limping they sure as hell would be pointing it out to the DC and HC to see if a different player is needed in that spot.

Were you watching Durr in pregame warmups? How did he look, was he hobbling all over the place barely able to stand? How many snaps did Durr play in the game? I honestly have no clue, I just know a handful of you are bent out of shape about the one series.

In regards to that series, how fast was Purdue's offense moving, were they huddling each play or going with a fast no huddle, how many timeouts did we have left, why didn't Durr just go down if he was so hurt he couldn't play at all?.....there are tons of factors in play.

In the end they may have made the wrong call in playing him (as I mentioned early I have not obsessed about this the way some of you have) but it isn't as simple as some of you are trying to make it out to be.
 

In summary, excellence is in the details and sometimes that isn’t the focus in some organizations. PJ and his staff are really good at some things, maybe they aren’t fantastic at everything.

This argument came about because someone once again said if a player is out there he must be the absolute best option. I gave two examples where that clearly wasn’t true. There have been others under other regimes. It isn’t just a PJ staff issue. I think there is inertia, favoritism, and wishful thinking involved. These are human beings, after all.
 

Who makes the decision which player will be on the field? There must be a consensus during the week between the position coaches and the coordinators. That is followed by a meeting with the head coach and the coordinators. Rotations are discussed and certain players are inserted for the different offensive and defensive schemes. Agreed?

During the course of the game the players are inserted as the game plan dictates unless there are injuries or the game plan has gone to hell (thank you Robb Smith). At that point it's the determination of the coordinators and/or position coaches who plays. Perhaps the exception is quarterback. So if a player is out there who shouldn't be playing (in your opinion) then point the finger at the right culprit.
 

It’s possible Durr tweaked his knee on the first play/cut, I’ll allow. But, reports that summer were Durr was not running well, coming off ACL surgery. It’s hard to swallow he got to 100% in a month and coincidentally tweaked it on the first series back. Stranger things have happened, yes.
 

Staff is the HC’s responsibility. PJ owns the Smith hire, but he’s done well elsewhere with some position coaches, eg Simon and Callahan and others seem to have their guys playing at a high level.

PJ is doing good things, just responding to a specific point someone made.
 
Last edited:

I will freely admit that I have not obsessed about this series the way some have or studied every possible detail of it. All I can go off of is how it usually works and what common sense would seem to dictate and that would be that if Durr was out there it was because, right or wrong, at the time the staff felt he was the best available option.

The fact that Durr suited up for the game means the training staff cleared him to play. <b>Or I guess we can assume if you guys want that the training staff felt he was unable to go and Fleck showed complete disregard for them and suited up a player who was not cleared and played him anyway because well he is obviously just that evil.</b>

Again, I have no idea how Durr looked in practice leading up to the game but he must have been able to do enough to fool the trainers and coaches into thinking he was physically able to play in the game.

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
 

It’s possible Durr tweaked his knee on the first play/cut, I’ll allow. But, reports that summer were Durr was not running well, coming off ACL surgery. It’s hard to swallow he got to 100% in a month and coincidentally tweaked it on the first series back. Stranger things have happened, yes.

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.
 

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.

Fair enough. I don't think this is that different than what spoof, myself, and PE are saying.

Sent from my phone using Tapatalk
 




Top Bottom