Required reading

Donate To GopherHole

No offense, but I skimmed the top, what can you possibly offer that we haven't heard/read already?
 

Wheaton said:
No offense, but I skimmed the top, what can you possibly offer that we haven't heard/read already?
Click to expand...

I think it a better view of the coaching philosophy going into the game than anything that I've read here, or in the Press/Patch or Strib.

MV knows his stuff. I want to provide the link, rather than the text to drive more clicks to his site. He deserves the clicks.
 

Unregistered User said:
MV's blog today should be read by everyone.
Click to expand...

Nope, because MN fans KNOW that when a team runs up the middle and fails to break big runs, they should always run outside or throw it. Nothing comes from pounding the ball inside.

Also, conservative gameplans are ALWAYS going to backfire, unless you win, then you won in spite of the gameplan. Remember Denny Green in the 98' NFC championship game! Come on!

Throw the ball with 45 seconds left, try to score(unless you are playing NW at home in 2008, then take a knee)

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

BTW if the guy in the Ohio State hat that was constantly chanting Fire Brewster! and Bench Weber! still wants to sell me his tickets for 1$ the rest of the year(as he yelled out while leaving in the 3rd quarter) I'll take them. You'll probably want the OSU ones though, huh?
 

Ole said:
Also, conservative gameplans are ALWAYS going to backfire, unless you win, then you won in spite of the gameplan. Remember Denny Green in the 98' NFC championship game! Come on!
Click to expand...

Last drive of regulation, Cunningham threw bomb to Moss. Incomplete. Threw again on 2nd down. Incomplete. Took a knee on 3rd down.

Ole said:
Throw the ball with 45 seconds left, try to score(unless you are playing NW at home in 2008, then take a knee)
Click to expand...

Back to 1998, if Denny had handed the ball off right before halftime instead of throwing it, Cunningham wouldn't have been stripped and Atlanta wouldn't have scored to make it 20-14 at the half. Vikes take 20-7 lead into half and probably win the game.
 


My problem with MV's idea is that the running game wasn't going anywhere. We averaged 2.2 yards per carry. Our longest carry of the day was 15 yards. Eskridge, who had the most carries, averaged 2.4 ypc. Kirkwood averaged 4.0 ypc on 10 carries, and the only reason it was that high was because his 15-yarder (otherwise he averaged 3.0). We weren't moving the ball on the ground, at all (83 rushing yards, total). And USC was stacking 8-9 in the box on first and second down, and we consistently ran right into the heart of the defense on first and second down for short gains.

I understand that you might want to keep the defense of the field and control the clock (by the way, we lost the TOP battle). But at some point, if you can't run the ball, you have to try to go to the pass. Especially if the other team is stacking the box. I don't mean you have to spread it out and commit exclusively to the pass. But you have to call some play-actions or first down passes to try to catch them with 9 in the box, or at least to keep them honest. We didn't. We kept running. We kept getting stopped. Yeah, we were in it going into the fourth. But that doesn't excuse playing so one-dimensionally that the entire stadium knew that every first down would be a run up the middle. I thought it showed that we were too stubborn and too timid to really give it the necessary shot to win.
 

Always try to score. In fact, this a different brewster strategy cuz it used to be go for broke and you could always see him coachin for the win. I loved that about his coaching style.
I suppose you can do that when the leash is long. SD loss was a coach killer and makes Maturi's adjustment of brews contract a saavy move.
 

I didn't have a problem with the game plan itself. However, I did have a problem with the play calling. USC was able to dial-up the pressure towards the end of the game because everyone in the stadium knew the Gophs were going to run-run-pass at that point. I have no problem with them sticking to the ground game, but there is nothing wrong with passing on first or second down either. I just wish they would have mixed it up better.
 

You guys are nuts.

The gameplan was pretty good. And they had the confidence and guts to stick with it--which is the only way it works to begin with!
 



Studwell55 said:
You guys are nuts.

The gameplan was pretty good. And they had the confidence and guts to stick with it--which is the only way it works to begin with!
Click to expand...

+1

The single receiver sets were bugging me through the first quarter and a half, but gradually we started to chip away and maintain some drives with two and three yards; I gradually started to get it - and I thought it was working. I do wish we could have been in more 3rd and 4s/3s instead of 3rd and 6/7 all of the time, however.

At the end of the day, they just had way too many good athletes, particularly at receiver, running back, and in the defensive backfield. Do a lineup of our D Backs and their D-Backs and tell me which one you'd take? We all appreciate how hard Ryan Collado plays, and even Theret, but having guys of that size going up against the USC athletes (whether covering them or trying to tackle them) will eventually catch up to you and it did on Saturday.

Other than when Kirkwood ran over their safety (who still made the tackle), I can't think of a time when their D-backs came up and didn't knock our guy backwords - quite the opposite with our defense, and that would include our linebackers as well.
 

IF they had stuck to the gameplan, then we would be talking about a 32-14 loss right now.
 

TCF=UnitedWeStand said:
The single receiver sets were bugging me through the first quarter and a half, but gradually we started to chip away and maintain some drives with two and three yards
Click to expand...

Ditto this. My brother and I were looking at each other like "WTF?" early in the game when they'd come out in those 1960's OSU formations with just a flanker. That said, it worked enough to give us the lead deep into the 3rd quarter. We were trying to wear them down, pick up yardage a little at a time, and not expecting our inexperienced WR's to make plays on their extremely active secondary.

Anyway, the real irony of all this is that you've got "fans" in here complaining about the gameplan when all I've heard over the past 3 years is THIS IS THE BIG TEN! POUND THE ROCK! WHY DON'T THEY RUN IT MORE?! POUND IT LIKE WISCONSIN! Well, as soon as they do that for an afternoon, all I hear is WHY DO THEY KEEP RUNNING IT UP THE MIDDLE?! WHY AREN'T THEY PASSING MORE?! Man alive, it's enough to drive a guy crazy.
 

MGGopher said:
Anyway, the real irony of all this is that you've got "fans" in here complaining about the gameplan when all I've heard over the past 3 years is THIS IS THE BIG TEN! POUND THE ROCK! WHY DON'T THEY RUN IT MORE?! POUND IT LIKE WISCONSIN! Well, as soon as they do that for an afternoon, all I hear is WHY DO THEY KEEP RUNNING IT UP THE MIDDLE?! WHY AREN'T THEY PASSING MORE?! Man alive, it's enough to drive a guy crazy.
Click to expand...

I'd love for them to pound it like Wisconsin. Wisconsin averages more than 2.2 yards per carry. I can't agree that a ball control gameplan was effective when we rushed for 83 yards at 2 yards a clip and lost the TOP battle. Sorry.
 



I especially love the first commentor's comment:

'I am always amassed at the number of fans who do not understand what the offensive team is trying to do in a football game. Many seem to think the purpose of the O should be to score as many points as they can. It is not. Every part of the team and every player and every play should be part of trying to win the game. Nothing more nor less. We kept trying to run the ball so our D would spend less time on the field. We tried to run the ball so we would not turn it over as much as a lot of passing would have.

To be blunt, for the first time since Brewster became the coach, I like what the O is trying to do. They are trying now to help the team to win the game."

You can't win them all.. And what I mean by that is.. As an offensive unit, you will not score on every play. Nor will you get a first down on every play. The goal is to keep the ball out of the other teams' hands and put it, eventually, in the end zone.
 

Running the ball does more than pound the rock. It takes time off the clock. Think about this for just about 35 seconds, a run any run even a 2 yard run and the clock keeps running. Now think about this, an incomplete pass takes 5-6 seconds? More than rushing yards, it was a tempo strategy, an attempt to take the air out of the game. And the game seemed to turn on 3 or 4 big plays. We made one. They made 2 or 3. To equate 2.2 yards as a failed strategy is short sighted. The results of the running game were short of what it takes to win, but it was the correct way to do it.
 


As the TV announcer questioned, why do you try to run with 9 defenders in the box. My frustration is that you need a balanced offense to keep the defense honest. The Gophers were a mostly pass spread team in the first two years under Brewster and now are an all run team until they are too far behind and then have to pass team. Wouldn't it make sense to mix it up and take advantage of what the defense gives you. I'm not sure we have the horses to win a smash mouth football game against elite football programs like USC and the upper tier Big 10 teams. I guess we'll find out as the year progresses.
 

In conclusion

Pounding the rock was a good strategy against a team who can air it out. Some of us would have like to see a few more passes on 1st or 2nd down as we were very predictable.

One other note, running the ball even for no gain, causes the defensive line to do something besides pin their ears back and go for the qb every play. Even if it causes a "slight" hesitation on the next pass it may have been worth it.
 

SMU GOPHS FAN said:
I didn't have a problem with the game plan itself. However, I did have a problem with the play calling. USC was able to dial-up the pressure towards the end of the game because everyone in the stadium knew the Gophs were going to run-run-pass at that point. I have no problem with them sticking to the ground game, but there is nothing wrong with passing on first or second down either. I just wish they would have mixed it up better.
Click to expand...

Ditto to that. Very frustrating to watch the same thing over and over again-with little success. Did we throw more than once on 2nd down?
 

husker70 said:
Running the ball does more than pound the rock. It takes time off the clock. Think about this for just about 35 seconds, a run any run even a 2 yard run and the clock keeps running. Now think about this, an incomplete pass takes 5-6 seconds? More than rushing yards, it was a tempo strategy, an attempt to take the air out of the game. And the game seemed to turn on 3 or 4 big plays. We made one. They made 2 or 3. To equate 2.2 yards as a failed strategy is short sighted. The results of the running game were short of what it takes to win, but it was the correct way to do it.
Click to expand...

You know what REALLY runs time off the clock? Getting first downs. Long sustained drives. Long sustained drives that end in POINTS. Not just simply run/run/pass/punt. You do understand, right, that South Dakota had far inferior athletes and kicked our ass. Did they run it up the f$#!@ng middle 40+ times? Or did they run gut/run gut/pass incomplete/punt? I think not!!

Perhaps Boise State, with their far inferior athletes, goes into bowl games with the run gut/run gut/pass incomplete/punt mindset just so they don't lose by 30+? I mean, that's Peterson's strategy on how to take down the big dogs, right? I think not!!

I really don't get some of you people. So bullheaded, so blindly supportive.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom