Offense Next Year - Run/Pass Splits

[FanSinceTheFifties]

Really like the kid coming in from New Hampshire, but no question I have my concerns about our offensive coordinating as well as the Fleck effect on the offense. Same story.

I'd hope for a 50/50 pass to rush split next year but that seems unrealistic.

Curious others thoughts.

70 rush. 30 pass. Learn to confidently convert on 3rd and one. Take more 4th down chances. Run a trick play each game. Pass frequently to TE.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

Murray - I get what you are saying.

I think this is what many of us are saying in return:

you can have success while throwing the ball 38% of the time IF the QB completes a high % of passes and produces explosive plays downfield.

but if the QB is not completing a high % of passes or producing explosive plays downfield, then it MAY be necessary to attempt more passes IF you want a balanced offense between rushing and passing production.

because even a less-efficient passing game still produces more yards than a typical running game.

Fleck is probably never going to be a 50/50 guy. but given the choice, I would rather see the offense in the range of 42/58 or 43/57.

(not to be confused with 54/40 or fight.......)

 

[RememberMurray]

Murray - I get what you are saying.

I think this is what many of us are saying in return:

you can have success while throwing the ball 38% of the time IF the QB completes a high % of passes and produces explosive plays downfield.

but if the QB is not completing a high % of passes or producing explosive plays downfield, then it MAY be necessary to attempt more passes IF you want a balanced offense between rushing and passing production.

because even a less-efficient passing game still produces more yards than a typical running game.

Fleck is probably never going to be a 50/50 guy. but given the choice, I would rather see the offense in the range of 42/58 or 43/57.

(not to be confused with 54/40 or fight.......)

A QB who throws the ball accurately is more likely to produce occasional explosive plays, because the receiver catches the ball in stride.

And you don't need a ton of athletic ability to throw the ball accurately. Tanner Morgan certainly did not have a cannon for an arm. But he hit his receivers, they got first downs and kept drives alive. The Gophers controlled the ball and the clock. The defense has a chance to rest and re-group. The formula worked. It's in the record, SON.

The Gophers won 11, 9 and 9 games in Morgan's tenure. This, despite the fact that he was a 3-star recruit who was simply able to get the job done. And the Gophers accomplished those records without throwing the ball frequently. Despite all the hue and cry about needing to throw more often, we all saw it happen. 11, 9 and 9 wins.

We do not need to throw the ball more frequently in order to win. Recent history has shown us it's a fact.

 

[Gopherchase]

A QB who throws the ball accurately is more likely to produce occasional explosive plays, because the receiver catches the ball in stride.

And you don't need a ton of athletic ability to throw the ball accurately. Tanner Morgan certainly did not have a cannon for an arm. But he hit his receivers, they got first downs and kept drives alive. The Gophers controlled the ball and the clock. The defense has a chance to rest and re-group. The formula worked. It's in the record, SON.

The Gophers won 11, 9 and 9 games in Morgan's tenure. This, despite the fact that he was a 3-star recruit who was simply able to get the job done. And the Gophers accomplished those records without throwing the ball frequently. Despite all the hue and cry about needing to throw more often, we all saw it happen. 11, 9 and 9 wins.

We do not need to throw the ball more frequently in order to win. Recent history has shown us it's a fact.

‘19 was great You keep spitting out nine wins, nine wins, nine wins those seasons were very average. Super easy schedule we played OK.

 

[Some guy]

In

Murray - I get what you are saying.

I think this is what many of us are saying in return:

you can have success while throwing the ball 38% of the time IF the QB completes a high % of passes and produces explosive plays downfield.

but if the QB is not completing a high % of passes or producing explosive plays downfield, then it MAY be necessary to attempt more passes IF you want a balanced offense between rushing and passing production.

because even a less-efficient passing game still produces more yards than a typical running game.

Fleck is probably never going to be a 50/50 guy. but given the choice, I would rather see the offense in the range of 42/58 or 43/57.

(not to be confused with 54/40 or fight.......)

And this is interesting analysis because logic would say the worse you are at passing the less you should do it. But here you are saying the worse you are the more you should do it. IF you want balance that is.

I think balance for the sake of balance is dumb. Balance for the sake of winning is good.

 

[Some guy]

‘19 was great You keep spitting out nine wins, nine wins, nine wins those seasons were very average. Super easy schedule we played OK.

I think his whole point is that if you’re going to be extremely disappointed with 9 wins you may want to find a new team. It has happened 5 times since college football expanded from 10 games to 11 in 1971. 3 of them are in the last 5 seasons.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

In
And this is interesting analysis because logic would say the worse you are at passing the less you should do it. But here you are saying the worse you are the more you should do it. IF you want balance that is.

I think balance for the sake of balance is dumb. Balance for the sake of winning is good.

as was spelled out in an earlier post:

running the ball this season resulted in an average gain of just over 4 yards per attempt.

passing the ball resulted in an average gain of just under 6 yards per attempt.

the last I checked, 6 yards is more than 4 yards.

If it's 3rd and 5, would you rather gain 4 yards or 6 yards?

Look - the passing game this year was inconsistent and often ineffective. IF you can improve the passing game to be more consistent and effective, then the average gain per attempt goes up.

I am not saying "if you're bad at something, keep doing it." I AM saying, if you're bad at something, you need to find a way to become better at it by changes in personnel or scheme.

far too often, the Gopher coaches seem to take the attitude that, well, we don't throw the ball well, so let's just not throw the ball. ignoring a problem doesn't fix the problem.

 

[TwistingMyMelon]

In
And this is interesting analysis because logic would say the worse you are at passing the less you should do it. But here you are saying the worse you are the more you should do it. IF you want balance that is.

I think balance for the sake of balance is dumb. Balance for the sake of winning is good.

Figures that you would interpret SON's words in the least charitable manner. I don't know him but he's never seemed like an idiot to me.

His central theme was that passing, on the whole, produces more overall yards than rushing. Hard to argue with that on average. If you have better quarterbacks and receivers, you should be completing more passes and therefore need fewer pass attempts to accumulate a given number of yards. If you don't have as high of a completion rate, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't pass at all but you need more passes (and downs) to go the same distance. Simple math.

 

[TwistingMyMelon]

I am not saying "if you're bad at something, keep doing it."

Of course, you didn't. It was an idiotic (and possibly trollish) interpretation of your words.

 

[Some guy]

as was spelled out in an earlier post:

running the ball this season resulted in an average gain of just over 4 yards per attempt.

passing the ball resulted in an average gain of just under 6 yards per attempt.

the last I checked, 6 yards is more than 4 yards.

If it's 3rd and 5, would you rather gain 4 yards or 6 yards?

Look - the passing game this year was inconsistent and often ineffective. IF you can improve the passing game to be more consistent and effective, then the average gain per attempt goes up.

I am not saying "if you're bad at something, keep doing it." I AM saying, if you're bad at something, you need to find a way to become better at it by changes in personnel or scheme.

far too often, the Gopher coaches seem to take the attitude that, well, we don't throw the ball well, so let's just not throw the ball. ignoring a problem doesn't fix the problem.

Some important factors beyond average

Median, variance, etc


If you’re bad at something you don’t have to become better at it, you can minimize how much you need it

 

[Some guy]

Of course, you didn't. It was an idiotic (and possibly trollish) interpretation of your words.

I like you omitting part of what I said while at the same time accusing me of misquoting

 

[TwistingMyMelon]

I like you omitting part of what I said while at the same time accusing me of misquoting

I didn't accuse you of "misquoting" since you didn't quote anything. I accused you of misinterpreting (which you did). Do you not know the difference between the two words?

 

[Some guy]

I didn't accuse you of "misquoting" since you didn't quote anything. I accused you of misinterpreting (which you did). Do you not know the difference between the two words?

He said to achieve balance you need to pass more if you’re worse at passing




This is literally what he said

but if the QB is not completing a high % of passes or producing explosive plays downfield, then it MAY be necessary to attempt more passes IF you want a balanced offense between rushing and passing production.



Did I misinterpret that? What was he saying?






Then I said trying to achieve balance for the sake of balance is dumb. If you’re bad at passing you should try to avoid making it necessary to pass. If we threw the ball 5 more times per game AK wasn’t going to become a good QB by the end of the year.



As he never really stated if he wanted balance I wasn’t commenting on his position on the issue, just his analysis. I thought his analysis really supports the idea that balance for the sake of balance is dumb.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Really like the kid coming in from New Hampshire, but no question I have my concerns about our offensive coordinating as well as the Fleck effect on the offense. Same story.

I'd hope for a 50/50 pass to rush split next year but that seems unrealistic.

Curious others thoughts.

Going to be same offense with hopefully a more a more accurate passer.

 

[skiumah1]

Going to be same offense with hopefully a more a more accurate passer.

I don't disagree with you but don't love it. Big lack of creativity.

This is a concern for me.

 

[Gopherchase]

I think his whole point is that if you’re going to be extremely disappointed with 9 wins you may want to find a new team. It has happened 5 times since college football expanded from 10 games to 11 in 1971. 3 of them are in the last 5 seasons.

Perhaps, but I think he uses it to say the numbers point to PJ being the best coach we have had since the 60s. I think an average Mason team wins nine games those two years. 19 was great with an asterisk he had a bunch of NFL players he inherited. I think the next couple of years will be very telling. I’m encouraged by recruiting I think PJ has done better than most think …I’m very discouraged with his game planning and game coaching and staff and think that will be a lot to overcome.

 

[Word]

I don't disagree with you but don't love it. Big lack of creativity.

This is a concern for me.

The bowl game had some new twists. Hopefully with a QB that can be trusted they will open up more plays.

 

[Dakota2]

Murray - I get what you are saying.

I think this is what many of us are saying in return:

you can have success while throwing the ball 38% of the time IF the QB completes a high % of passes and produces explosive plays downfield.

but if the QB is not completing a high % of passes or producing explosive plays downfield, then it MAY be necessary to attempt more passes IF you want a balanced offense between rushing and passing production.

because even a less-efficient passing game still produces more yards than a typical running game.

Fleck is probably never going to be a 50/50 guy. but given the choice, I would rather see the offense in the range of 42/58 or 43/57.

(not to be confused with 54/40 or fight.......)

Balanced offense is not about stats at the end of the game comparing productivity. Balanced offense is about keeping the defense off balance and unsure.

 

[Dakota2]

‘19 was great You keep spitting out nine wins, nine wins, nine wins those seasons were very average. Super easy schedule we played OK.

And lost a couple games each year that were winnable.

 

[Some guy]

Perhaps, but I think he uses it to say the numbers point to PJ being the best coach we have had since the 60s. I think an average Mason team wins nine games those two years. 19 was great with an asterisk he had a bunch of NFL players he inherited. I think the next couple of years will be very telling. I’m encouraged by recruiting I think PJ has done better than most think …I’m very discouraged with his game planning and game coaching and staff and think that will be a lot to overcome.

An average Mason team played 4 non conference games. After moving from an 11 to a 12 game schedule Mason played easier schedules than Kill/Claeys/fleck faced.
And they managed to win 9 games twice in 10 years. The average Mason team was 6.4-5.7 playing against 8 power 5 opponents in most of those years.

Masons best two teams:
1999 - the team was 0-1 against the top 3 in the conference.
2003 - the team was 0-3 against the top 5 in the conference.


You can go ahead and think the average Mason team would have back to back 9 win seasons in 2021 and 2022, but there is nothing in reality that supports that claim.

 

[Gopherchase]

An average Mason team played 4 non conference games. After moving from an 11 to a 12 game schedule Mason played easier schedules than Kill/Claeys/fleck faced.
And they managed to win 9 games twice in 10 years. The average Mason team was 6.4-5.7 playing against 8 power 5 opponents in most of those years.

Masons best two teams:
1999 - the team was 0-1 against the top 3 in the conference.
2003 - the team was 0-3 against the top 5 in the conference.


You can go ahead and think the average Mason team would have back to back 9 win seasons in 2021 and 2022, but there is nothing in reality that supports that claim.

The Big Ten schedules for the 9 win seasons for Fleck were pathetically easy. — A good chunk of these west teams the past couple of years really sucked.

 

[Some guy]

The Big Ten schedules for the 9 win seasons for Fleck were pathetically easy. — A good chunk of these west teams the past couple of years really sucked.

You have every right to think the average Mason team would’ve won 9 games against that schedule. There is just zero evidence to support that claim.

I never claimed it was a difficult schedule. You’re the one who made a claim.

 

[Gopherchase]

The Big Ten schedules for the 9 win seasons for Fleck were pathetically easy. — A good chunk of these west teams the past couple of years really sucked.

You’re kind of making my point originally I was complaining about Murray using pure math to allege that Fleck is the best coach we have had since the 60s. He caught lightning in a bottle in 19 with a lot NFL players he didn’t recruit and I think potentially those 9 win seasons were a mirage. We’ll find out.

 

[SHGopher]

I think potentially those 9 win seasons were a mirage. We’ll find out.

Incompatible statement.




9 wins actual cannot equal mirage.





They had one down year. Like Iowa coach Kirk Ferentz had in 2000, 2006 and 2012.





Fleck has done a good job up to this season and earned another round of multiple years. This year sucked for various understandable and dumfounding reasons.

Next year is a veteran QB running the offense.