When it comes to Football, are we a Service Academy?

Rescooter

Section 243
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
318
Points
83
Through 10 games, nationally, we're 14th in Rushing and 118th in Passing.

Don't get me wrong, I love the 7-3 record, but it would be nice to see a little more balance.

Our last 3 games total: 701 Rushing, 307 Passing - we're 3-0 in those games. Is this what we can expect for the rest of the year?
 

Through 10 games, nationally, we're 14th in Rushing and 118th in Passing.

Don't get me wrong, I love the 7-3 record, but it would be nice to see a little more balance.

Our last 3 games total: 701 Rushing, 307 Passing - we're 3-0 in those games. Is this what we can expect for the rest of the year?

Yes. Assuming the receivers keep dropping passes that could have gained major yards.
 



2020: 61.8% run
2021: 70% run
2022: 67.5% run

Fleck made a point in the pressers leading up to the season about how we were going to be more balanced this year. I mean, I guess we are slightly more balanced than 2021, but that's not saying much.

The BSF drops lately have been concerning. That seems to be a recent trend. IMO, the only way they should be passing to MBS is on a go route 20+ yards down the field. I'm done with him dropping easy passes. At least when you throw deep to him, when he does catch it, it results in a big gainer.

I said it in another thread, and I'll say it again- look at the run % the last two years and now go try and get high-end WR recruits. 17 year old WR prospects don't want to sign up to be run blockers. They need to go out of their way to be better balanced.
 


6 of our 7 wins have been blowouts. Those games are going to skew heavily towards the run game because Fleck isn't going to throw the ball in games where we are firmly in control and don't need to. Some fans don't like that but it is the way he does things and it isn't going to change.

So you have to look at the close games and loses to get a better feel for the actual run/pass ratio. For 2022 that means Purdue, PSU, Illinois and Nebraska. In those 4 games we ran 234 plays (141 run and 93 pass). That works out to 60% run.

Found this interesting site. Shows that we run a lot but we are not a service academy. And if you look a few spots down the list you will see the Michigan is not too far away from where we are in terms of run percentage.

 

Each team has an identity. This year's team, as its identity has developed, has come to rely on the run game, which is to say it relies on Mo--who is a one-man wrecking crew. By emphasizing the run game so heavily, we have in effect chosen not to develop this year's passing game. PJ says that you have to fail to succeed--implying lots of chances are given to aid in development. But we don't give our passing game many failures before shutting it down, because we might end up giving away games that Mo can win almost single-handedly.

We are winning games in 2022 with a dominant run game, so long as we play teams (1) that our defense can stuff and (2) that our OL, over the course of the game, can eventually dominate. Other key to our wins this year is minimizing turnovers, which is easier to do in the run game. This conservative formula can work against Wisconsin. And it might work against Iowa if we (1) eliminate turnovers (big "if," against a ball hawking defense) and (2) somehow win the field position (punter's) game. Our current conservative run-game oriented offense might also be more suited to the weather we will face against Iowa and Wisconsin, too.

So, as much as I yearn for a more balanced offense, we probably finish the year fighting with one arm tied behind our back--but with the other arm being one that is brutally strong and resilient. That appears to be the formula for this year, based on personnel, PJ's risk aversion in winnable games AND our ability to win fighting with only one arm.

Long run, the 65%+ run model is a poor strategy for recruiting quality WRs and QBs to a Power 5 team. It is a poor strategy for building a team that can rally back from big deficits (anybody watch Buffalo v. Vikings yesterday?). It is a poor strategy for bringing new fans into the stadium. And it is ass-backwards in a game whose rules are designed to favor the passing game. PJ obviously knows all this. So, we are not going to play service academy football every year. But, assuming Mo remains an iron man, that is probably how we finish off this year. Too late in the season, with only bad-weather trophy games remaining, to shift emphasis to a purposely under-developed passing game unless Athan makes a huge step forward and our WRs begin catching all catchable balls. So, we probably try the passing game early in each trophy game to see if it is "there," and to perhaps help us build up a lead. But we could abandon it soon for a number of reasons.
 
Last edited:

Well, I don't mean to be a downer, but I think it's likely the Gophers are even more run-oriented in the next two games, especially against Iowa's opportunistic defense and with a young QB as our likely starter.

Going forward into next season, we'll see what happens. Mo will be gone. Kaliakmanis has a different skillset than Morgan, one that might point toward an expanded passing game.

Then agin, Fleck loves TresselBall.
 

If the OP basically is that "I wish we had a more effective passing offense" then I would wholeheartedly agree. More balance would be nice. At the same time, if it implies that we should be throwing it more... I would have to disagree. You use the best assets you have at your disposal to defeat the opponent on the other side of the line. For us, that has been Mo running behind what can be a road grader type of offensive line. If you are getting five yards a crack by running it (see the NW game), you keep doing it. And then you do it some more. And then you do it some more. I think the most disheartening thing to any opponent is when you run the ball over and over again and they are powerless to stop it. Question will be... if Iowa this week (or WI later) stuffs that effectively, do we have enough of a passing game to get by. We'll see.
 



If the OP basically is that "I wish we had a more effective passing offense" then I would wholeheartedly agree. More balance would be nice. At the same time, if it implies that we should be throwing it more... I would have to disagree. You use the best assets you have at your disposal to defeat the opponent on the other side of the line. For us, that has been Mo running behind what can be a road grader type of offensive line. If you are getting five yards a crack by running it (see the NW game), you keep doing it. And then you do it some more. And then you do it some more. I think the most disheartening thing to any opponent is when you run the ball over and over again and they are powerless to stop it. Question will be... if Iowa this week (or WI later) stuffs that effectively, do we have enough of a passing game to get by. We'll see.

Well said.

Let's look at our three losses...

Purdue: They shut down our run game, but Mo didn't play. Morgan threw for 257 yards. But this game is the outlier, because we beat ourselves.

Illinois: We ran for 142 yards, and threw for 38. Illinois didn't beat us by loading the box and stopping the run; they beat us by throttling our pass game and rolling up 472 yards against our defense.

Penn State: Kaliakmanis started and played the entire game. We had a very balanced attack: 175 yards passing, 165 yards rushing. Penn State didn't beat us by stacking the box and stopping the run; they beat us by rolling up 475 yards against our defense.

No one has stuffed our running attack when Mo has played, no matter how they stacked the box. The issue is that the teams that have beaten us have either taken away our passing game and/or steamrolled our usually stout defense, or both.

Side note: Turnovers... 3 INTs against Illinois (2 by Kaliakmanis, 1 by Morgan). 1 INT against Penn State, by Kaliakmanis. Against Purdue, Morgan threw 3 INTS, one of which was a drop by our receiver and should have been a Gopher TD rather than a turnover.

We had ZERO lost fumbles in those three losses. So all of our turnovers in our three losses were on INTs.
 

Minnesota: 461 rushing attempts, 221 passing attempts

Michigan: 447 rushing attempts, 259 passing attempts

-----

Minnesota has 1.4 more rushing attempts per game than Michigan. Michigan has 3.8 more passing attempts per game than Minnesota.
 

I
Each team has an identity. This year's team, as its identity has developed, has come to rely on the run game, which is to say it relies on Mo--who is a one-man wrecking crew. By emphasizing the run game so heavily, we have in effect chosen not to develop this year's passing game. PJ says that you have to fail to succeed--implying lots of chances are given to aid in development. But we don't give our passing game many failures before shutting it down, because we might end up giving away games that Mo can win almost single-handedly.

We are winning games in 2022 with a dominant run game, so long as we play teams (1) that our defense can stuff and (2) that our OL, over the course of the game, can eventually dominate. Other key to our wins this year minimizing turnovers, which is easier to do in the run game. This conservative formula can work against Wisconsin. And it might work against Iowa if we (1) eliminate turnovers (big "if," against a ball hawking defense) and (2) somehow win the field position (punter's) game. Our current conservative run-game oriented offense might also be more suited to the weather we will face against Iowa and Wisconsin, too.

So, as much as I yearn for a more balanced offense, we probably finish the year fighting with one arm tied behind our back--but with the other arm being one that is brutally strong and resilient. That appears to be the formula for this year, based on personnel, PJ's risk aversion in winnable games AND our ability to win fighting with only one arm.

Long run, the 65%+ run model is a poor strategy for recruiting quality WRs and QBs to a Power 5 team. It is a poor strategy for building a team that can rally back from big deficits (anybody watch Buffalo v. Vikings yesterday?). It is a poor strategy for bringing new fans into the stadium. And it is ass-backwards in a game whose rules are designed to favor the passing game. PJ obviously knows all this. So, we are not going to play service academy football every year. But, assuming Mo remains an iron man, that is probably how we finish off this year. Too late in the season, with only bad-weather trophy games remaining, to shift emphasis to a purposely under-developed passing game unless Athan makes a huge step forward and our WRs begin catching all catchable balls. So, we probably try the passing game early in each trophy game to see if it is "there," and to perhaps help us build up a lead. But we could abandon it soon for a number of reasons.
I nominate this for Post of the Year. Insightful, well reasoned, literally nothing to disagree with.
 

6 of our 7 wins have been blowouts. Those games are going to skew heavily towards the run game because Fleck isn't going to throw the ball in games where we are firmly in control and don't need to. Some fans don't like that but it is the way he does things and it isn't going to change.

So you have to look at the close games and loses to get a better feel for the actual run/pass ratio. For 2022 that means Purdue, PSU, Illinois and Nebraska. In those 4 games we ran 234 plays (141 run and 93 pass). That works out to 60% run.

Found this interesting site. Shows that we run a lot but we are not a service academy. And if you look a few spots down the list you will see the Michigan is not too far away from where we are in terms of run percentage.

Being behind on the scoreboard does have an impact on that 60%.
 




We are not good enough to rely on just the run v Iowa and WI.
The comeback to that is our receivers don't catch well enough to beat Iowa and Wisconsin passing the ball.

PJ expect the ball to be caught when it is within the area of the receiver.
MBS and BSF have had too many drops for our team to be a reliable passing game.

Daniel Jackson is the only reliable receiver we have right now who seems to be able to catch a cold football. That's not enough to move away from a running game that works with a QB who can pickup a 15 yard first down here and there.
 

We are not good enough to rely on just the run v Iowa and WI.
They will have to make some plays in the passing game no doubt. But the fact remains, if Mo isn't able to run the ball effectively, we will lose.

The key is making enough plays that you can extend drives and not turning the ball over. I doubt you see PJ open it up much until we are in plus territory though.
 


We are not good enough to rely on just the run v Iowa and WI.

What we are 'not good enough' at is passing and catching. Thankfully, we are very good at running the ball,
 
Last edited:

6 of our 7 wins have been blowouts. Those games are going to skew heavily towards the run game because Fleck isn't going to throw the ball in games where we are firmly in control and don't need to. Some fans don't like that but it is the way he does things and it isn't going to change.

So you have to look at the close games and loses to get a better feel for the actual run/pass ratio. For 2022 that means Purdue, PSU, Illinois and Nebraska. In those 4 games we ran 234 plays (141 run and 93 pass). That works out to 60% run.

Found this interesting site. Shows that we run a lot but we are not a service academy. And if you look a few spots down the list you will see the Michigan is not too far away from where we are in terms of run percentage.

I'm surprised to see Ole Miss so high on that list.
 

I think I've posted this before. If you go back to Fleck's first teams at Western Michigan, they were much closer to 50/50 run and pass.

OK - looked it up again. Fleck at WMU

year - avg # pass -avg # runs
2013 --- 37 -- 32 -- 54% pass - 46% run
2014---- 29 -- 39 -- 43% pass - 57% run
2015 --- 31 -- 41 -- 43% pass - 57% run
2016 --- 27 -- 45 -- 38% pass - 62% run

So - what changed? scheme - personnel - or coaching philosophy?
 

I think I've posted this before. If you go back to Fleck's first teams at Western Michigan, they were much closer to 50/50 run and pass.

OK - looked it up again. Fleck at WMU

year - avg # pass -avg # runs
2013 --- 37 -- 32 -- 54% pass - 46% run
2014---- 29 -- 39 -- 43% pass - 57% run
2015 --- 31 -- 41 -- 43% pass - 57% run
2016 --- 27 -- 45 -- 38% pass - 62% run

So - what changed? scheme - personnel - or coaching philosophy?
He had the most talent in the MAC so he had a 2 dimensional offense.
 

I think I've posted this before. If you go back to Fleck's first teams at Western Michigan, they were much closer to 50/50 run and pass.

OK - looked it up again. Fleck at WMU

year - avg # pass -avg # runs
2013 --- 37 -- 32 -- 54% pass - 46% run
2014---- 29 -- 39 -- 43% pass - 57% run
2015 --- 31 -- 41 -- 43% pass - 57% run
2016 --- 27 -- 45 -- 38% pass - 62% run

So - what changed? scheme - personnel - or coaching philosophy?

69% run in 2017 (no competent QB and few receivers)
60% run in 2018 (passing game developing but playing from behind in several games)
63% run in 2019 (talented receivers, talented RBs, mixed with the philosophy of draining the clock when ahead).

Regarding your ending question, I think it's a mix of personnel and philosophy. MN has fielded a good O-line for several years now (a position group which Upper Midwest teams can recruit and develop well) which gives a leg up to the running game. Combine that with the philosophy of ball control (which also helps a defense without great depth) and sometimes marginal passing game talent, and you get a run-heavy team. I'm hoping AK can develop into a very good QB and his potential also helps recruit talented wide receivers.
 

We are doing this against 8 power 5 teams whether you want to call 5 of them crappy or not
 

Service Academies to me immediately means Triple Option. I don’t think any other FBS programs do that at this point?
 


I think I've posted this before. If you go back to Fleck's first teams at Western Michigan, they were much closer to 50/50 run and pass.

OK - looked it up again. Fleck at WMU

year - avg # pass -avg # runs
2013 --- 37 -- 32 -- 54% pass - 46% run
2014---- 29 -- 39 -- 43% pass - 57% run
2015 --- 31 -- 41 -- 43% pass - 57% run
2016 --- 27 -- 45 -- 38% pass - 62% run

So - what changed? scheme - personnel - or coaching philosophy?

2016, the year they were the most run-heavy (62% run) was their best season by far.

13-1. Gave a solid Wisconsin team all they could handle in the Cotton Bowl. Finished the year #18 in the Coaches Poll, #15 in the AP.
 




Top Bottom