STrib: Limegrover explains why Gophers ran so much between the tackles

Donate To GopherHole
oleboy41 said:
So you don't agree that the OL has to identify the correct people to block? Yea the play is designed to work against multiple fronts but that is because there are numerous checks/adjustments the OL makes depending upon where the D front actually is and how they're aligned. My point is that having guys in new positions and next to guys they're not used to can make that difficult from guys potentially making the wrong reads, wrong calls, wrong adjustments, wrong steps, or just flat getting beat. The tackle may pass a guy to the guard but the guard may be doubling with the C or any number of things can go wrong. That's why every coach preaches continuity on the OL more than any other position
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about. Oline calls arent that difficult. If you believe that the oline was confused and not prepared than our coaching staff is failing them. This is checkers not chess
 

This why would he dissect information and say everything that is wrong.

MrC said:
Why in the world would anyone expect an offessive coordinator to give complete, accurate information in an interview until after the season is over?
Click to expand...

Believe it or not coaches do not always give a complete picture of what occurred in the game. Sometimes there is to much information available as is. What do you want him to say that Kent State used a lot of Jet stunts that confused our O-line and their tackles overpowered us on two gaps to shut down our backs because that is pretty much what happened. They already said the older guys and more experienced players recognized it and adjusted and the younger less experienced players struggled with it, what more of an explanation do you need.
The play calling implemented was to go shell, limit mistakes, potential injury's and turnovers it is simple as that.
I doubt anyone was happy with the ways things were going.
You could tell the whole second half they decided let the awesome punter maintain field position and let the defense win the game at least I thought that the whole second half. Not an excuse but probably what was needed to get through the game.

Not all games will play out like that and Limegrover certainly will adjust the looks and calls we are seeing from the defensive front, or all of the above for that matter. When we have five healthy bodies that get to play more than a half of snaps together things will start to get better. Same for the running backs if one is not getting it done others will be given an opportunity. The guy is not dumb and not the doof he is made out to be here some times.
 

oleboy41 said:
So you don't agree that the OL has to identify the correct people to block? Yea the play is designed to work against multiple fronts but that is because there are numerous checks/adjustments the OL makes depending upon where the D front actually is and how they're aligned. My point is that having guys in new positions and next to guys they're not used to can make that difficult from guys potentially making the wrong reads, wrong calls, wrong adjustments, wrong steps, or just flat getting beat. The tackle may pass a guy to the guard but the guard may be doubling with the C or any number of things can go wrong. That's why every coach preaches continuity on the OL more than any other position
Click to expand...

I agree for the most part. I just don't think the defense running a certain front will ever dictate that you have to run a certain blocking scheme. There's no reason why the offense would be able to execute a dive and not a sweep (just an example) - either way it's just a matter of identifying your assignment and executing. It's not inherently harder or do one play versus another, or at least it shouldn't be. The fact that a defense is running a front you haven't seen should not slow you down very much - if it does there's a serious lack of understanding by the player or a poorly designed scheme.
 

Golden_Sloth said:
I agree for the most part. I just don't think the defense running a certain front will ever dictate that you have to run a certain blocking scheme. There's no reason why the offense would be able to execute a dive and not a sweep (just an example) - either way it's just a matter of identifying your assignment and executing. It's not inherently harder or do one play versus another, or at least it shouldn't be. The fact that a defense is running a front you haven't seen should not slow you down very much - if it does there's a serious lack of understanding by the player or a poorly designed scheme.
Click to expand...

That's not really true though. If it was there would be no point in DC's designing defenses. Why do you think our D has had issues with up the gut runs? Defenses can certainly roll out certain fronts specifically designed to take some things away. Yea if you block perfectly you can still succeed at times but defenses can definitely try to make it hard for you to run sweeps as you say. But running those plays still requires the OL to work in tandem to get things correctly blocked. For instance if a DE is lined up wider than anticipated it may lead to a single block instead of a double there or instead of the G punching and reaching to the next level he may just go there immediately. The whole zone blocking concept was in part created to better account for different fronts with certain built in rules but it still requires the OL to execute those rules and if one guy messes up it throws the entire thing off. And when guys are inexperienced, playing in new spots or injured it makes it a lot harder to have all 5 guys (plus the TE/FB/HBs who happen to be beat up and inexperienced too) on the same page for 60-80 plays
 

lakesgopher said:
I have no idea what you are talking about. Oline calls arent that difficult. If you believe that the oline was confused and not prepared than our coaching staff is failing them. This is checkers not chess
Click to expand...

So every coach that preaches OL continuity is just blowing smoke? No this isn't rocket science but its not madden either. Guys on the OL don't always know who they're blocking until they get to the line then have to adjust pre and post snap depending on the D's movement.
 



oleboy41 said:
So every coach that preaches OL continuity is just blowing smoke? No this isn't rocket science but its not madden either. Guys on the OL don't always know who they're blocking until they get to the line then have to adjust pre and post snap depending on the D's movement.
Click to expand...

Never said a thing about oline continuity, that's all u! In college our oline had maybe 6 oline calls. It's not like there are dozens of random checks.

If we can't find a guy to block on belly or trap we need to fire everybody. No one is watching our offense and thinking "wow, this is a confusing system."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


lakesgopher said:
Never said a thing about oline continuity, that's all u! In college our oline had maybe 6 oline calls. It's not like there are dozens of random checks.

If we can't find a guy to block on belly or trap we need to fire everybody. No one is watching our offense and thinking "wow, this is a confusing system."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

mind me asking when you wen to college?
 




oleboy41 said:
That's not really true though. If it was there would be no point in DC's designing defenses. Why do you think our D has had issues with up the gut runs? Defenses can certainly roll out certain fronts specifically designed to take some things away. Yea if you block perfectly you can still succeed at times but defenses can definitely try to make it hard for you to run sweeps as you say. But running those plays still requires the OL to work in tandem to get things correctly blocked. For instance if a DE is lined up wider than anticipated it may lead to a single block instead of a double there or instead of the G punching and reaching to the next level he may just go there immediately. The whole zone blocking concept was in part created to better account for different fronts with certain built in rules but it still requires the OL to execute those rules and if one guy messes up it throws the entire thing off. And when guys are inexperienced, playing in new spots or injured it makes it a lot harder to have all 5 guys (plus the TE/FB/HBs who happen to be beat up and inexperienced too) on the same page for 60-80 plays
Click to expand...

There's a difference between the defense trying to take certain things away and the formations dictating what you can run on offense though, that's all I'm saying. There's just no way a situation should ever come up where the OC says "oh, haven't seen them in this formation before! Guess we have to eliminate 4/5th of our play book." Every play accounts for every defensive player - it doesn't matter if the MLB is lined up 3 yards deep, 5 yards deep, or standing over the guard - he is still accounted for in every play. If the OL can't consistently id who to block, and can only run certain plays, they have a shockingly poor understanding of the offense.

More likely they aren't able to execute and Limegrover didn't want to risk negative plays or turnovers. If he and the offense really was taken aback by Kent State's defensive formations - to the point that the players didn't know who they were supposed to be blocking - then we have to have the most complicated offense in D1 football or the dumbest players.
 

The reason the team ran so much between the tackles was due to the fact Limey was eating cotton candy non-stop in the booth and all the pages of his playbook became stuck together. All he could see was the first page. He's off his diet I heard.
 

DoubleAlum said:
The reason the team ran so much between the tackles was due to the fact Limey was eating cotton candy non-stop in the booth and all the pages of his playbook became stuck together. All he could see was the first page. He's off his diet I heard.
Click to expand...

If I had that job, I would accidentally eat my fingers.
 



Golden_Sloth said:
There's a difference between the defense trying to take certain things away and the formations dictating what you can run on offense though, that's all I'm saying. There's just no way a situation should ever come up where the OC says "oh, haven't seen them in this formation before! Guess we have to eliminate 4/5th of our play book." Every play accounts for every defensive player - it doesn't matter if the MLB is lined up 3 yards deep, 5 yards deep, or standing over the guard - he is still accounted for in every play. If the OL can't consistently id who to block, and can only run certain plays, they have a shockingly poor understanding of the offense.

More likely they aren't able to execute and Limegrover didn't want to risk negative plays or turnovers. If he and the offense really was taken aback by Kent State's defensive formations - to the point that the players didn't know who they were supposed to be blocking - then we have to have the most complicated offense in D1 football or the dumbest players.
Click to expand...

The defense can definitely take something away by alignment. That's why QBs have this thing called audibles. Its to get them out of play calls that they can tell in their pre-snap reads aren't there due almost exclusively to the alignment of the defense.
 

STPGopher said:
Relax: Things will improve starting with Ohio University.

BTW Lookie at who is at #3:http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/22
Click to expand...

It is interesting to note that Kent State is the third lowest in yards per game. Also Minnesota is number 25, Ohio is number 40, Colorado State is 42 and TCU is number 47. Several Big Ten teams are also are very low when it comes to yards per game allowed#.

P.S. # Ohio State is number 5, Northwestern is 6, Michigan is 7, Iowa is 16, Illinois is 20, and Wisconsin is 28. No wonder they are hiding their offense until the start of the Big Ten season.
 

There was a post or story somewhere (can't remember where I saw it), where Kill was quoted as saying they talked to the players at Monday's practice, and several players reportedly told Kill they were confused about their assignments on certain plays - especially on plays where the players had to make calls or choices at the line of scrimmage based on what the defense was doing.

found it: Kill said some players described being too tense and unsure on the field. The coaches have simplified some schemes to make sure the inexperienced players, filling in for injured veterans, aren’t overwhelmed. Some players have decisions to make each play at the line of scrimmage, based on what the defense does. Kent State threw some curve balls at the offense, and the Gophers’ younger players had trouble making adjustments.

So, this is apparently coming right from the players - they are the ones saying they're not sure what to do at the line of scrimmage.
 

Just run the jet sweep, don'tcha ya know and all will be well in Gopher land. The Jet sweep will even cure all ills like wearing Badger gear at Gopher games, even Goldy and the dance-line need to run the Jet sweep. I even wan't to see the do the "Gopher guy" running the Jet Sweep!
 

MrC said:
If I had that job, I would accidentally eat my fingers.
Click to expand...

If I was calling those plays I'd gnaw them off on purpose.

I keed, I keed.
 

lakesgopher said:
I have no idea what you are talking about. Oline calls arent that difficult. If you believe that the oline was confused and not prepared than our coaching staff is failing them. This is checkers not chess
Click to expand...

Your username looks familiar. Are you the guy that I had to explain option football to?
 




everybody knows my name said:
Alright, I'm a pretty smart guy, and I just did a Pollyanna check and it came up negative. So here I go.

I was sitting in the open end zone with my little boy on Saturday, and while the doofuses around us were carping about the Gophers' conservative playcalling in the 4th quarter, I explained to my son that because of some injuries among our line and our tight ends, and in light of Leidner's two INTs, the coach had decided to play it safe and trust the defense to hold KSU in check. I told him it was disappointing, but probably the smart move.

Now here's Limegrover saying basically the exact same thing, and all you geniuses can't seem to grasp it.

Quitcherbitchin. If you don't like the view from the bandwagon, there's plenty of room on the sidewalk.
Click to expand...

Actually, for the Minnesota Gophers, there isn't, that sidewalk has been full for a long time; it's the stadium that's had plenty of room. Again, all we need is to start dropping games in which mediocre teams are blowing out the same opponent, lose to teams that we should beat simply because we can't do anything on offense other than run it up the gut to hopefully score at least one offensive touchdown in a game, and all of those fans go back to the sidewalk, apathy sets in, and the program disappears from conscious thought in Minnesota. Again. You and some of we other diehard fans will still support that downtrodden program; but face it, you/we/the program need other fans, too.
 

lakesgopher said:
sadly no, would love to hear your explanation though...im sure its hilarious
Click to expand...

Was it the spread offense? The stupidity you are writing in this thread reminds me of an idiot trying to say all spread football is the same.
 

monk10 said:
Was it the spread offense? The stupidity you are writing in this thread reminds me of an idiot trying to say all spread football is the same.
Click to expand...

lol explain the football to me...im sure you have a lot of experience
 

All hogwash by Limegrover. I was buying into his boring offense, but this month exposed him. They should just fire the whole group on the O side like G. Patterson did at TCU and start over.

I'd suggest hiring the Memphis O Co-ordinator or maybe even the old Tony Peterson/ Gordy show team because this group cannot move the ball worth a crap.

The fallacy of Limegrover was developing O line talent and having great depth. Well that all went to the bottom of the porta potty this year. Our O line cannot move anyone, and guys like F. Bush and other vet players are apparently not worthy of extensive playing time over hobbled starters. All the BS amounted to about 5 and 1/2 good O line guys.

The Memphis team tonight showed great innovation and did not let the "great" D line play of some other team dictate anything they did on offense.

Kill is a survivor so if things do not turn around he will clean house on the offensive side after the season. Kill is not going to allow a top 10 defense to be wasted this year either, so the next two weeks will be very interesting.
 

oak_street1981 said:
All hogwash by Limegrover. I was buying into his boring offense, but this month exposed him. They should just fire the whole group on the O side like G. Patterson did at TCU and start over.

I'd suggest hiring the Memphis O Co-ordinator or maybe even the old Tony Peterson/ Gordy show team because this group cannot move the ball worth a crap.

The fallacy of Limegrover was developing O line talent and having great depth. Well that all went to the bottom of the porta potty this year. Our O line cannot move anyone, and guys like F. Bush and other vet players are apparently not worthy of extensive playing time over hobbled starters. All the BS amounted to about 5 and 1/2 good O line guys.

The Memphis team tonight showed great innovation and did not let the "great" D line play of some other team dictate anything they did on offense.

Kill is a survivor so if things do not turn around he will clean house on the offensive side after the season. Kill is not going to allow a top 10 defense to be wasted this year either, so the next two weeks will be very interesting.
Click to expand...
This is why the zone blocking scheme worked at the U, we didn't have to try and out compete Iowa, Wisconsin and others for power run scheme lineman. This program needs to find a unique identity on the offensive side of the ball, a return to a smaller more agile offensive line like we had under Mason would be preferable in my opinion.
 

oleboy41 said:
The defense can definitely take something away by alignment. That's why QBs have this thing called audibles. Its to get them out of play calls that they can tell in their pre-snap reads aren't there due almost exclusively to the alignment of the defense.
Click to expand...

I get that. But there should never be a situation where you can only run the ball up the middle due to a defensive alignment. When you audible out of a play it's because you don't think you're in a good position to execute - not because you don't know what you're supposed to do. If what Kill said about players being confused was really such a problem that they could only run a handful of plays, Limegrover should be fired because it is inexcusable to have your guys that ill prepared.

But I really don't think that's the case. I think they didn't trust the offense to run anything that didn't absolutely minimize the risk of a turnover, and they don't want to say that in a press conference because essentially they're saying they don't trust their offense to not lose them the game. It wouldn't have mattered if Kent State ran a base 4-3 all game that they've played against their whole lives - they still would have run up the middle to burn clock and minimize turnover risk.
 

goldengophers said:
This is why the zone blocking scheme worked at the U, we didn't have to try and out compete Iowa, Wisconsin and others for power run scheme lineman. This program needs to find a unique identity on the offensive side of the ball, a return to a smaller more agile offensive line like we had under Mason would be preferable in my opinion.
Click to expand...

It was unique and you get into an argument about theory. A lot of Mason "blocking" was really cut blocking. It was a fun debate back in the day around the effectiveness of it. Teams like Penn State at the time had athletic D-linemen that wouldn't be cut as easily and we would get bottled up fast. That turned into a long discussion around how bad our passing game was.
 

I've seen many posts on this thread discounting the concern about game planning/play calling by focusing on this one game. Most of the posters who have expressed concern have observed this "issue" for 4 years and understand that the scheme and play calling have not put the players in a position to succeed. Offensively, we have been out-coached far too often and fans have a right to be concerned.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom