Doogie Tweet: Gophers Might Not Have All Their Regulars UPDATED: Croft won't play Sat

The notion that Croft, or Devers, were suspended for "not fitting in" is absurd. It that were the case either one of them would have gone to the media and been like "He suspended me for not fitting in"

Since that hasn't happened, it leans toward the fact that the players understand and agree with why they are suspended.
 

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 



Now I'm starting to think this is a bit. Are you saying Fleck is more concerned about what fans will say/think over what the players on his own team say/think? If Devers and Croft were really being suspended just because they don't fit in a system and have done nothing at all wrong, it would cause quite a stir with the other players and I think the mutiny within the team would be massive.

Loon maybe?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


Right after he lost the starting job? I doubt it.
My theory is that he knows that people like us are going to watch the games and say things like "Our pass rush sucks, where is Devers?", or if Rhoda has a bad game in the next few weeks, "Why don't we try out Croft again?"
He's just trying to control the narrative, and y'all are going right for it.

SMH
 

Reusse seems to think it is pot related. If he is right and it is marijuana, why all the "personal issues WAY beyond football" and "delicate issue" and "respect privacy" talk? It has to be more than that, right?
 





Reusse seems to think it is pot related. If he is right and it is marijuana, why all the "personal issues WAY beyond football" and "delicate issue" and "respect privacy" talk? It has to be more than that, right?

If all these players are getting suspended for smoking pot then whatever.
Hard to argue against firm evidence though my personal feeling is that it shouldn't be a big deal.
 

The notion that Croft, or Devers, were suspended for "not fitting in" is absurd. It that were the case either one of them would have gone to the media and been like "He suspended me for not fitting in"

Since that hasn't happened, it leans toward the fact that the players understand and agree with why they are suspended.

Your wrong. If they were told something and were told to not go to the media or they will be sent out the door, they would not say anything if their desire is to stay.
 

Your wrong. If they were told something and were told to not go to the media or they will be sent out the door, they would not say anything if their desire is to stay.

I'm not gonna get into how anyone knows if they were or were not told to or not to do something.


I suspect generally as a rule all players know you don't spill the beans on personal issue or internal team stuff to the media... just as a rule and that would apply to events even unrelated to any discipline.
 

Devers and Croft both broke team rules. These are off-the-field issues and in Croft's case, he was a repeat offender. This isn't "one minute late for meeting" stuff either, or them not singing team songs.

I'm not going to repeat what rules were broken because these players deserve a certain amount of privacy. I'm only chiming in because you are toxic. You are throwing Fleck under the bus and implying he suspends players because he doesn't like them or they don't fit the system? Think about how ridiculous that is. Your original comment about Devers:



So in your mind, an NCAA coach would go so far as to SUSPEND a player (i.e., not dress) because they don't fit a defensive scheme? Think. About. How. Crazy. That. Is.

Thank you for being a reasonable voice on this.
 



Side matter.. What do you think the chances are of Green seeing a snap?

Zero unless there is injury or really bad performance issue (and I don't want to even consider that) ?
 

I want to echo WorkingMyTailOff's kudos to BarnBoy. Clarity seems to be a lost art around here.
 

Yes, thank you BarnBoy. I tried to bring some clarity but people didn't believe me - which is fine but I was only trying to squash the crazy Fleck theories being tossed around. Croft failed a drug test. PJ is getting him into rehab.
Lets all please try to respect this process.
 

Reusse seems to think it is pot related. If he is right and it is marijuana, why all the "personal issues WAY beyond football" and "delicate issue" and "respect privacy" talk? It has to be more than that, right?

I think that's Fleck just putting an emphasis on drugs. Maybe it's marijuana and when confronted, it's something else as well. In either case, "respect to privacy" is something that I think the U students need no matter what the issue.

Pro athletes, let's hear the details.
College athletes... let's not ruin their lives. None of them have ample resources to buy their way out of problems yet.


As a fan, I want to hear details of course like many others, but as a Coach and as the University, I think it's important to keep things as quiet as possible, whether a family issue, drugs, conduct, etc.
 

trying to find the middle ground here:

I understand the need for team rules, and I understand that actions have consequences.

But, with Fleck, there seems to be a grey area.

As I understand it, players can be suspended or face other forms of discipline for breaking team rules. that's pretty clean-cut.

But, there seems to be a second layer of consequences based on the team culture, or whether a player is meeting Fleck's standards academically, athletically, socially or spiritually. That is not so clean-cut - at least not to me. Fleck has said that playing time may be affected if a player does not meet his standards in the four areas. That may - or may not - have anything to do with team rules.

Hopefully, all of this has been clearly explained to the players, and they understand the consequences. But, as a fan watching from the outside, it seems a little fuzzy. breaking team rules is clean-cut - you either broke a rule or you didn't. But the culture stuff is subjective - it's based on the coach's evaluation of social or spiritual issues - which are not so black-and-white or clean-cut. Now - to be clear - it's Fleck's program, and he has every right to set standards. I can see, though, why it might be difficult for some players to understand what those standards are, if they are based on subjective observations. It's like the old joke about the guy who got caught cheating on his philosophy test. he peeked at the soul of the person at the next desk.
 

Let's hope that the young man can effectively deal with his problem(s).

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

If it's a failed drug test, wouldn't that be an NCAA rule and not a team rule? Who runs the drug testing and sets those standards? Is Fleck putting him in rehab or is the NCAA for repeat offense?
 

If it's a failed drug test, wouldn't that be an NCAA rule and not a team rule? Who runs the drug testing and sets those standards? Is Fleck putting him in rehab or is the NCAA for repeat offense?

There is nothing preventing a team from administering and enforcing its own tests.
 

If it's a failed drug test, wouldn't that be an NCAA rule and not a team rule? Who runs the drug testing and sets those standards? Is Fleck putting him in rehab or is the NCAA for repeat offense?

If there was a picture or video of him smoking weed (for example) but he never failed a drug test, I don't think it's an NCAA violation. I think the NCAA can only step in if they fail a drug test (of which they are warned well in advance).

Let's hope that the young man can effectively deal with his problem(s).

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I'm not sure the guy has a "problem" after being out in Oregon and Washington last week and seeing the dispensaries every third block (slight exaggeration). They were way more common than fast food restaurants (not an exaggeration). If having a little weed is a problem, there are a LOT of people with a "problem".

There is nothing preventing a team from administering and enforcing its own tests.

I didn't think they could. I thought the NCAA limited the amount and timing of drug tests and that teams couldn't do additional. I'll admit, I'm not 100% positive, but I thought I read that before.
 


Wouldn't surprise me if Fleck is playing hardball a little extra in his first year. Just to make a point to the team about how serious he is about expected behavior.
 


Wouldn't surprise me if Fleck is playing hardball a little extra in his first year. Just to make a point to the team about how serious he is about expected behavior.

When Bud Grant took over the Vikings in 1967, Paul Flatley was the team's best receiver. He played in the 1966 Pro Bowl. Flatley was also one of the team's leaders. During Grant's first training camp Flatley went to him and complained about something. I don't remember what the complaint was but Grant traded him to the Atlanta Falcons within 24 hours. Presumably, there were no more complaints by the players about anything for the rest of the year. And when years later Alan Page challenged Grant's authority he was traded to the Chicago Bears without so much as a goodbye. Football coaches who run their teams in a dictatorial manner have been around since the game was first invented.
 

If it's a failed drug test, wouldn't that be an NCAA rule and not a team rule? Who runs the drug testing and sets those standards? Is Fleck putting him in rehab or is the NCAA for repeat offense?

Individual teams do have different rules for drugs.

Some teams have one strike and you're out while others it depends.
 

When Bud Grant took over the Vikings in 1967 Paul Flatley was the team's best receiver. He played in the 1966 Pro Bowl. Flatley was also one of the team's leaders. During Grant's first training camp Flatley went to him and complained about something. I don't remember what the complaint was but Grant traded him to the Atlanta Falcon's within 24 hours. Presumably, there were no more complaints tby the players about anything for the rest of the year. And when years later Alan Page challenged Grant's authority he was traded to the Chicago Bears without so much as a goodbye. Football coaches who run their teams in a dictatorial manner have been around since the game was first invented.

I wonder what Flatley was complaining about. Grant was much appreciated by his players for his enlightened views about hitting during training camp.
 

Individual teams do have different rules for drugs.

Some teams have one strike and you're out while others it depends.

Coaches have team rules in addition to any rules the school and NCAA have. I know there have been Gopher players during the recent past who have been kicked off the team for violation of "team rules". No other explanation was given and there was no debate in GopherHole about it.
 

When Bud Grant took over the Vikings in 1967, Paul Flatley was the team's best receiver. He played in the 1966 Pro Bowl. Flatley was also one of the team's leaders. During Grant's first training camp Flatley went to him and complained about something. I don't remember what the complaint was but Grant traded him to the Atlanta Falcon's within 24 hours. Presumably, there were no more complaints by the players about anything for the rest of the year. And when years later Alan Page challenged Grant's authority he was traded to the Chicago Bears without so much as a goodbye. Football coaches who run their teams in a dictatorial manner have been around since the game was first invented.

I've never before read one of your posts that didn't include the term "gang bang." Well done!
 




Top Bottom