Hole Poll: What grade would you give the Gophers offense in the Michigan game?

Hole Poll: What grade would you give the Gophers offense in the Michigan game?

  • A

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • B

    Votes: 26 28.0%
  • C

    Votes: 46 49.5%
  • D

    Votes: 16 17.2%
  • F

    Votes: 5 5.4%

  • Total voters
    93

GopherHole Staff

GopherHole Admin
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
4,464
Reaction score
141
Points
63
Hole Poll: What grade would you give the Gophers offense in the Michigan game?
 

USAF

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
2,407
Reaction score
2,128
Points
113
D.

They got pushed around.
 

GopherManiac8

New member
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
12
Reaction score
5
Points
3
D.

They got pushed around.

We probably shoulda scored 35 points on a great Michigan Defense. Got stopped on the GL. Also had a bogus penalty on GL that ended with a field goal. What should've basically amounted to 35 points if things go our way against that team deserves better than a D.
 

GFBfan

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
2,608
Reaction score
201
Points
63
We moved the ball well at times, but didn’t attack downfield enough.
 

USAF

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
2,407
Reaction score
2,128
Points
113
We probably shoulda scored 35 points on a great Michigan Defense. Got stopped on the GL. Also had a bogus penalty on GL that ended with a field goal. What should've basically amounted to 35 points if things go our way against that team deserves better than a D.
Ok, D+
 

USAF

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
2,407
Reaction score
2,128
Points
113
Care to elaborate on why other than "We got pushed around"?
They couldn't block people all night. Morgan looked scared and ordinary, although I don't blame him for looking scared, his Oline got pushed around all night. Unimaginative play calling. Ibrahim looked a step slow. Spann-Ford invisible again. They basically put the game out of reach at the end of the first half, when they needed to score.

They look earned a D, and I'm not the only poster to think so.
 

GopherManiac8

New member
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
12
Reaction score
5
Points
3
They couldn't block people all night. Morgan looked scared and ordinary, although I don't blame him for looking scared, his Oline got pushed around all night. Unimaginative play calling. Ibrahim looked a step slow. Spann-Ford invisible again.

They look earned a D, and I'm not the only poster to think so.

While some of that is true and by the way you are in the minority with your D rating, they were missing plenty of talent on the O-line. Mo had a buck 40 and two TD's. Sorry but I think most people would call that a good day for any RB and it was btw behind those O lineman you are criticizing, who did fairly well considering the circumstance of not being starters in their first game against a ranked team. Bottom line is I have no concern about this offense putting up adequate numbers, against most teams, to win games. I saw some things that I liked and I personally thought they were actually rolling at times and things just didn't go in our favor. So I gave them a B.
 

EG#9

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,613
Reaction score
405
Points
83
I went with a D as well. The two red zone failures. One of the TD's was set up by the blocked punt. When we badly needed to answer near the end of the first half, we couldn't move the ball setting up the fake punt and what felt like the absolute dagger. There was very little explosion to this offense that was (IMHO) the biggest key to last years success. I was hoping Morgan would take a step forward and he hasn't (or rather he didn't tonight). I thought we'd see the emergence of BSF or one of the freshman WR's as a new downfield threat but instead we got...Ko Kieft. We completed 10 passes to WR's all night and 9 of them were to Bateman. I did think the running game looked good especially with missing Dunlap and Faalale. As mentioned by USAF the pass protection was poor including some key missed blitz pickups. I do think things will get better, but I can't give them an average grade (C) when their standard of play was so much higher last season.
 

CentralGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
61
Points
48
I'd call it a B-. They movd the ball well om the ground but passing game needs a little more work.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
7,161
Reaction score
914
Points
113
Michigan’s defense is very good.
Scored some points but left some in table
Gave them a free 7.

couldn’t keep up with Michigan’s offensive scoring rate

Offensive line looked bad at times but Ibrahim had a pretty quiet 150....


I would say mixed bag.
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
53
Reaction score
23
Points
8
I would say the running game was an A, and the passing game was a D. Too much pressure, not enough involvement with anyone outside of the name Bateman and Kieft, and Morgan seeming to lock in on his first choice and not moving on fast enough to other options. Morgan seemed to not have taken a step forward (I realize it's early BUT...) and I also think the OC did not scheme to make it easier for Morgan under heavy pressure. Really the OC didn't seem to try and get any others involved. Not enough down field attempts to loosen things up, but the running still worked, which was strange but I think a reflection on how good Ibrahim is... what a stud! I was disappointed though in the play calling, to be honest. I'm sure things will improve on that account, but I was hoping there would be some good insights into Sanford's style.

I gave the Offense a C and I think that is giving them too much credit. They did move the ball, just not the way I thought they would, even though I did think the running game would be solid, but that is one area (only area for the whole team!) that exceeded my expectations.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
17,698
Reaction score
3,322
Points
113
C overall.

24 points against a very talented defense. And missing two of our best OL, and the start left guard was playing less than 100% the whole game.

Should've scored the TD when we got called for illegal formation. Should've scored the TD when we were on like the 4 with four downs to get it.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
17,698
Reaction score
3,322
Points
113
Also, as someone said in the other thread: is Ko Kieft really supposed to be a major receiving threat for us, this year? I truly mean no offense to him... he's a tank.

We've gotta figure out how to get the ball to some other folks, through the air. Can Mo catch? Check it down to him. Need someone like Dan Jackson open in space. Get him the rock, and let him boogy.

Morgan needs to learn those check-downs and shorter passes, if we're not going to keep the TE and RB in to pass-block on every passing play, like Ciarrocca did last year.
 

Taji34

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Messages
2,310
Reaction score
563
Points
113
Also, as someone said in the other thread: is Ko Kieft really supposed to be a major receiving threat for us, this year? I truly mean no offense to him... he's a tank.

We've gotta figure out how to get the ball to some other folks, through the air. Can Mo catch? Check it down to him. Need someone like Dan Jackson open in space. Get him the rock, and let him boogy.

Morgan needs to learn those check-downs and shorter passes, if we're not going to keep the TE and RB in to pass-block on every passing play, like Ciarrocca did last year.
PJ mentioned in the presser that all the TEs have made great progress in terms of becoming part of the passing game. I don't know how many downs each TE played and of those downs I don't know how many had each TE running a receiving route. That said, I'm sure if someone went back and analyzed you'd see other TEs ran routes and it just happened that they weren't targeted for whatever reason (being covered, Morgan didn't complete all his reads, pocket collapsed too quickly, etc).
 

MGGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
4,041
Reaction score
565
Points
113
I think many people here are grading based on the offense's POTENTIAL or what they expected based on last year vs. what was actually produced on Saturday. Against a team like Michigan, gaining 300+ total yards with a 100+ rusher and 100+ receiver is not a "D" performance. You know how many times last season Michigan surrendered 24+ points and 300+ yards in a game? Three. Wisconsin, OSU, and Alabama. What Minnesota did on Saturday might end up being the 3rd or 4th best offensive performance against UM all season. This loss was very squarely on the defense and ST, although that fumble sack hurt badly at the time.

SO yeah, I voted B, but perhaps B- is more appropriate based on the O's potential. Gotta clean up pass pro and figure out ways to spread the ball around in the passing game while still giving Bateman 3 or 4 big play opportunities per game.
 

gophernut1

Active member
Joined
Nov 28, 2019
Messages
225
Reaction score
177
Points
43
Grade = C -- Some things to be optimistic about (considering competition) and some areas of concern.

What I loved was that we ran the ball on the toughest front 7 we will see all year (possibly equal to WI, but not below).

What I hated was against an inexperienced secondary no other WR's stepped up. Perhaps this was due to the limited amount of time or QB had or perhaps our WR just could not get separation. Either way it scares me going into the rest of the season. I don't think our WR's will do good against tough physical CB's. They need to get this figured out, otherwise they will be destroyed by WI again.
 
Top Bottom