Morgan should run once in a while

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,861
Points
113
Ryan burns is talking about balls thrown, not routes run. Which is a completely different subject.

And, a route doesn’t have to be a straight vertical route to be a “downfield route”


EDIT:
I get it though. You want us to just take more shots on fades and vertical routes and just throw it up more. I was reading what you said differently and talking about something else.
Bolded: you're completely making that up. You have no clue if that's true or not.

For it to be true, it would have to be the case that we were running a lot of vertical routes that were options to throw to (not just decoys, or something like that). I think you're seeing something that isn't there.

He wasn't talking about a literally go route, or a corner or post route. He's talking about throwing the ball in the air 20+ yards, or something like that. Before Purdue, we weren't doing it. I don't believe for a second that the routes were being run often and that we just didn't throw them. Prove me wrong.

"I want" us to do what worked last year. I have no specific preference on routes. Call whatever routes are working that game. If Bateman and CAB are excellent on 50/50 balls ... why not?? BSF is 6'8" or something like that? Throw it up to him.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,796
Reaction score
1,857
Points
113
Bolded: you're completely making that up. You have no clue if that's true or not.

He wasn't talking about a literally go route, or a corner or post route. He's talking about throwing the ball in the air 20+ yards, or something like that.
You literally in your first paragraph say I’m making it up and then in your third paragraph say exactly what I said.


I’m done with this
 

GoGoGopher12

Active member
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
265
Reaction score
33
Points
28
We've seen Tanner take off from the pocket and gain some pretty good yards this season. We've also seen him trip over his own feet a couple of times.
 

BigGopher69

Active member
Joined
Nov 26, 2019
Messages
184
Reaction score
175
Points
43
Tanner is not athletic enough to run the rock, but pulling 1 or 2 inside zones a game is not a bad idea. I just dont wanna see designed runs for the Q
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,861
Points
113
You literally in your first paragraph say I’m making it up and then in your third paragraph say exactly what I said.


I’m done with this
Fake.

So you've been sitting there and tallying up the vertical routes we run that haven't been thrown to??? You can't see those routes on the TV view, and you also don't know if those are decoy routes vs. "live" routes (that are realistically targetable).

That's the only way your statement could've made any sense, and so of course we know you were making that up.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,796
Reaction score
1,857
Points
113
Fake.

So you've been sitting there and tallying up the vertical routes we run that haven't been thrown to??? You can't see those routes on the TV view, and you also don't know if those are decoy routes vs. "live" routes (that are realistically targetable).

That's the only way your statement could've made any sense, and so of course we know you were making that up.
Not counting. Just anecdotally observing.

I assumed when you said i was making it up that you were talking about when I said Ryan burns was counting throws not routes.

I assumed that because you bolded it
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,861
Points
113
Not counting. Just anecdotally observing.

I assumed when you said i was making it up that you were talking about when I said Ryan burns was counting throws not routes.

I assumed that because you bolded it
He was talking about vertical throws, that's the stat. But you also in the same line of reasoning proclaimed that he wasn't talking about the total number of vertical routes. Which isn't a thing to be counted. No one counts that.

I will leave you your opinion on your anecdotal observations. I don't believe it myself. Until the Purdue game. We finally went back to it, and lo and behold it worked.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,796
Reaction score
1,857
Points
113
He was talking about vertical throws, that's the stat. But you also in the same line of reasoning proclaimed that he wasn't talking about the total number of vertical routes. Which isn't a thing to be counted. No one counts that.

I will leave you your opinion on your anecdotal observations. I don't believe it myself. Until the Purdue game. We finally went back to it, and lo and behold it worked.
It is literally why morgan has seemed to be under more pressure this year. We are running longer routes this year that are play action and drop back rather than RPO.
A lot of 5 step rather than RPO

You can go ahead and not believe. I’ll be okay.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,861
Points
113
It is literally why morgan has seemed to be under more pressure this year. We are running longer routes this year that are play action and drop back rather than RPO.
A lot of 5 step rather than RPO

You can go ahead and not believe. I’ll be okay.
Ah. That's your anecdote. All the times Morgan has been coverage sacked this year. Ok, that is actually a fair observation. You should've just said that.

BUT:
Longer (developing) routes aren't necessarily the same thing as vertical routes! 💡
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,796
Reaction score
1,857
Points
113
Ah. That's your anecdote. All the times Morgan has been coverage sacked this year. Ok, that is actually a fair observation. You should've just said that.

BUT:
Longer (developing) routes aren't necessarily the same thing as vertical routes! 💡
Which is why I asked you what routes burns was talking about. We aren’t running vertical go’s, corners, and posts a ton. We are running a lot of deep ins in the 15-25 yard range (anecdotally)

I don’t actually think we are in disagreement. I just think you want me to be wrong for some reason.

I even said in another post...I get it now...you want them to take more shot plays
 

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
10,064
Reaction score
958
Points
113
I would guess we have run plays where Morgan has the option to keep less than 10 times this season as we are blocking the backside end (who would be the “read” guy) on almost every play.

only Sanford could answer the question of exactly how many times we have.


I just say less than 10, because I haven’t noticed a single instance of an intentionally unblocked backside end. I could be totally wrong. Again only Sanford could accurately answer the question.
Agree. It's just not part of the offense Fleck runs. I honestly don't get people continuing to bring this up...Fleck has said he doesn't look for the QB to run (wildcat aside). I also don't think Morgan is well suited to be a running QB.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,861
Points
113
Which is why I asked you what routes burns was talking about. We aren’t running vertical go’s, corners, and posts a ton. We are running a lot of deep ins in the 15-25 yard range (anecdotally)

I don’t actually think we are in disagreement. I just think you want me to be wrong for some reason.

I even said in another post...I get it now...you want them to take more shot plays
I don't know the exact routes that we ran last year (or this year) that resulted in successful throws of 20+ yards through the air. I doubt Burns does either, he was simply noticing that we didn't have the throws -- which I guess you understood but I was confused and focused more on the part where you were claiming authoritatively that we have been running deep routes. Apologies for that.

I still don't think I believe that, before the Purdue game. But not worth fighting it. If the ball isn't thrown, either because Morgan didn't have the time like he did last year (which I can buy, in part), or Morgan's throwing shoulder is hurt (unknown, rumor), or some other factor (Sanford ... my most likely reason) ... they all arrive to the same result.

One simple observation that would point to Sanford as the culprit: why has he been lining up Bateman in the slot so much this year?

Put him on the outside and let it rip. He'll find a way to come down with it.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,796
Reaction score
1,857
Points
113
I don't know the exact routes that we ran last year (or this year) that resulted in successful throws of 20+ yards through the air. I doubt Burns does either, he was simply noticing that we didn't have the throws -- which I guess you understood but I was confused and focused more on the part where you were claiming authoritatively that we have been running deep routes. Apologies for that.

I still don't think I believe that, before the Purdue game. But not worth fighting it. If the ball isn't thrown, either because Morgan didn't have the time like he did last year (which I can buy, in part), or Morgan's throwing shoulder is hurt (unknown, rumor), or some other factor (Sanford ... my most likely reason) ... they all arrive to the same result.

One simple observation that would point to Sanford as the culprit: why has he been lining up Bateman in the slot so much this year?

Put him on the outside and let it rip. He'll find a way to come down with it.
He is lining up Bateman in the slot because it is harder to double someone out of the slot in many instances. It is harder to design coverage to stop and individual if you don’t know where they are going to line up every time.
A lot of teams move their best guy around. Doesn’t make it right or wrong, but that’s the thinking behind it.

As for Morgan not getting the ball out, I don’t think it’s injury or protection. I think Morgan is making more complicated reads of coverage rather than mostly just run pass one man key reads. And he struggled especially against Michigan and Iowa. Because he wasn’t reading well, he was getting the ball out late.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,861
Points
113
He is lining up Bateman in the slot because it is harder to double someone out of the slot in many instances. It is harder to design coverage to stop and individual if you don’t know where they are going to line up every time.
A lot of teams move their best guy around. Doesn’t make it right or wrong, but that’s the thinking behind it.

As for Morgan not getting the ball out, I don’t think it’s injury or protection. I think Morgan is making more complicated reads of coverage rather than mostly just run pass one man key reads. And he struggled especially against Michigan and Iowa. Because he wasn’t reading well, he was getting the ball out late.
We didn't need to move him around last year. Again, it worked last year. Sanford is out-thinking himself, time and time again. My opinion.

Maybe Morgan has never been good at making complex reads, and KC knew this? So gave him lots of time with more blockers and let him sit there and wait for Bateman and/or TJ to get open?
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,796
Reaction score
1,857
Points
113
We didn't need to move him around last year. Again, it worked last year. Sanford is out-thinking himself, time and time again. My opinion.

Maybe Morgan has never been good at making complex reads, and KC knew this? So gave him lots of time with more blockers and let him sit there and wait for Bateman and/or TJ to get open?
We didn’t have to move him around last year because people couldn’t double Him, TJ, and load the box at the same time.
that’s why we had some games where we ran for a ton of yards (they were trying to always have a safety over the top of both) or one wideout had a great game (they doubled one but not the other).


I think Morgan would look at lot better this year with KC. When you have an historically great year and then switch offenses (by more than I anticipated the switch would be) it is natural to take a step back. I wish we ran a more similar offense to what we ran last year because we were good at it. But Fleck hired Sanford and this is what Sanford runs (at least at Notre dame he did...I never watched much Utah state).
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,861
Points
113
We didn’t have to move him around last year because people couldn’t double Him, TJ, and load the box at the same time.
that’s why we had some games where we ran for a ton of yards (they were trying to always have a safety over the top of both) or one wideout had a great game (they doubled one but not the other).


I think Morgan would look at lot better this year with KC. When you have an historically great year and then switch offenses (by more than I anticipated the switch would be) it is natural to take a step back. I wish we ran a more similar offense to what we ran last year because we were good at it. But Fleck hired Sanford and this is what Sanford runs (at least at Notre dame he did...I never watched much Utah state).
Man, it's very hard for me to believe that TJ alone was the sole thing that enabled all of our success.

And that defenses last year couldn't figure out what defenses this year have suddenly realized.


It could be exactly true. I don't have the expertise to claim otherwise. Just seems like a bit much to chew, for my gut feeling.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,796
Reaction score
1,857
Points
113
Man, it's very hard for me to believe that TJ alone was the sole thing that enabled all of our success.

And that defenses last year couldn't figure out what defenses this year have suddenly realized.


It could be exactly true. I don't have the expertise to claim otherwise. Just seems like a bit much to chew, for my gut feeling.
It wasn’t “Tyler Johnson”
It was two wideouts who could both beat 1 on 1 converse 80% of the time with a strong run game.

Autman Bell can beat 1 on 1 coverage Some of the time, but not as much as Johnson.

This year the team scores 20 or more 80% of the time.
Last year they score 20 or more 85% of the time.

It’s not like our offense is terrible.
 

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
10,064
Reaction score
958
Points
113
Man, it's very hard for me to believe that TJ alone was the sole thing that enabled all of our success.

And that defenses last year couldn't figure out what defenses this year have suddenly realized.


It could be exactly true. I don't have the expertise to claim otherwise. Just seems like a bit much to chew, for my gut feeling.
Not hard at all for me (and others) to believe it...saw it with my own eyes.
 

Gophergrandpa

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
453
Reaction score
313
Points
63
Not hard at all for me (and others) to believe it...saw it with my own eyes.
We also rotated three very accomplished RBs last year, keeping all of them fresh and forcing defenses to adjust to changes of pace, as each back ran a little differently. People tend to pooh-pooh this big change in our offensive arsenal and tactics, but it is very different from our approach this year (riding one back into the ground). A bigger difference, I would argue, than losing TJ (while retaining Bateman and CAB and adding 4* Jackson)
 

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
10,064
Reaction score
958
Points
113
We also rotated three very accomplished RBs last year, keeping all of them fresh and forcing defenses to adjust to changes of pace, as each back ran a little differently. People tend to pooh-pooh this big change in our offensive arsenal and tactics, but it is very different from our approach this year (riding one back into the ground). A bigger difference, I would argue, than losing TJ (while retaining Bateman and CAB and adding 4* Jackson)
Well, Gophs are averaging 20 more rush yards per game this year and about 1/2 yard more per carry so I don't think the rushing attack has a negative impact on the passing success.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
15,968
Reaction score
2,788
Points
113
Also, we can’t wait to run a QB bootleg every 5 years, as was the case with Manning.
Indeed.

If it works and the end in like in the video isn't paying attention you're super smart.

If the end isn't completely clueless .... nobody will EVER forget that you took the ball out of your amazing RB and gave it to a guy who doesn't run good and who got obliterated in the backfield.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,861
Points
113
It wasn’t “Tyler Johnson”
It was two wideouts who could both beat 1 on 1 converse 80% of the time with a strong run game.

Autman Bell can beat 1 on 1 coverage Some of the time, but not as much as Johnson.

This year the team scores 20 or more 80% of the time.
Last year they score 20 or more 85% of the time.

It’s not like our offense is terrible.
Thin reasoning, to me. Doesn't mean at all that I'm right, I just don't buy what you're putting out, for how little my gut feeling is worth (probably nothing).

CAB is a great receiver and we've seen that this year, particularly the Purdue game. Should be plenty good enough of a threat to enable what you're claiming as "2 WR + run game = success".


Sure, we've scored points this season. The offense has also gone strangely stagnant at unfortunate times, like the last quarter of the Maryland and Purdue game, and the entire Iowa game. Also wasn't great vs Michigan. Obviously defense hasn't helped most of the year.


So limit it to the Iowa game. At home this year should be an advantage over there last year. Iowa just figured out how to shut us down, but couldn't figure out how to do that last year? No way. Our running game is strong this year too. I think Mo is a better back, with the ball in his hands.

I would bet they had the exact same game plan against us as last year, and our offense has just been so much less effective this year and was not doing much of what worked well for us last year.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,861
Points
113
Not hard at all for me (and others) to believe it...saw it with my own eyes.
So that's your excuse for Sanford? He doesn't have TJ. Otherwise, we'd have put up 40 on Michigan, Iowa, and Purdue this year?

I hope so. Sadly, I just think a lot of people are going to be disappointed and coming right back to this same discussion next year. Really hope I'm wrong. But his history doesn't support it.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,861
Points
113
We also rotated three very accomplished RBs last year, keeping all of them fresh and forcing defenses to adjust to changes of pace, as each back ran a little differently. People tend to pooh-pooh this big change in our offensive arsenal and tactics, but it is very different from our approach this year (riding one back into the ground). A bigger difference, I would argue, than losing TJ (while retaining Bateman and CAB and adding 4* Jackson)
Last year:

Rod - 13 games 228 carries (17.5 per game)
Mo - 10 games 114 carries (11.4 per game)
Brooks - 9 games 73 carries (8.1 per game)


I suppose that qualifies as a rotation, and I agree that Mo is significantly different from Rod. I think Mo was our best back last year. Seemed that the most happened on the ground when he had the ball. But it's impossible to decouple that from not being the "feature back" and being "fresh". Can't discount that.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,796
Reaction score
1,857
Points
113
Thin reasoning, to me. Doesn't mean at all that I'm right, I just don't buy what you're putting out, for how little my gut feeling is worth (probably nothing).

CAB is a great receiver and we've seen that this year, particularly the Purdue game. Should be plenty good enough of a threat to enable what you're claiming as "2 WR + run game = success".


Sure, we've scored points this season. The offense has also gone strangely stagnant at unfortunate times, like the last quarter of the Maryland and Purdue game, and the entire Iowa game. Also wasn't great vs Michigan. Obviously defense hasn't helped most of the year.


So limit it to the Iowa game. At home this year should be an advantage over there last year. Iowa just figured out how to shut us down, but couldn't figure out how to do that last year? No way. Our running game is strong this year too. I think Mo is a better back, with the ball in his hands.

I would bet they had the exact same game plan against us as last year, and our offense has just been so much less effective this year and was not doing much of what worked well for us last year.
Iowa did shut us down last year? Not sure what games you are watching. We scored 19 points. Had less than 75 yards rushing.
Tyler Johnson had 173 receiving. If you take out his 173 we pretty much performed the same.

We were actually much better on the ground in 2020 compared to 2019 against Iowa.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,796
Reaction score
1,857
Points
113
So that's your excuse for Sanford? He doesn't have TJ. Otherwise, we'd have put up 40 on Michigan, Iowa, and Purdue this year?

I hope so. Sadly, I just think a lot of people are going to be disappointed and coming right back to this same discussion next year. Really hope I'm wrong. But his history doesn't support it.
We only put up 19 on Iowa last year. We didn’t play Michigan last year.



You are so bold to predict the gophers don’t match the best season post 1970 next year.
I would bet we don’t match the best seasons post 1970 next year too.



What do you want to do? Do you think Flexk should change OC?
 

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
10,064
Reaction score
958
Points
113
So that's your excuse for Sanford? He doesn't have TJ. Otherwise, we'd have put up 40 on Michigan, Iowa, and Purdue this year?

I hope so. Sadly, I just think a lot of people are going to be disappointed and coming right back to this same discussion next year. Really hope I'm wrong. But his history doesn't support it.
Classic response from you. See post #81. Not making excuses for anyone. The defense is the issue, which you know.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,861
Points
113
Classic response from you. See post #81. Not making excuses for anyone. The defense is the issue, which you know.
The issue for winning, sure. That's probably true every year.

We're just comparing 2019 offense to 2020 offense.
 

Gophergrandpa

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
453
Reaction score
313
Points
63
Well, Gophs are averaging 20 more rush yards per game this year and about 1/2 yard more per carry so I don't think the rushing attack has a negative impact on the passing success.
Yes, we are running about the same number of times per game 2020 vs 2019 (about 44.5 times) and yardage is 20 more per game in 2020. My concern is simply wearing Mo out with no rotation being used. Passing is different. Same number of passes per game (about 25); but 50 fewer passing yards per game. Average completions have dropped from 10.2 to 8.1 yards. Not stretching the field as much? What you have identified is that many fans (like me) are casting about at how to marginally improve the offense to increase likelihood of victory when, in fact, the offense is good enough already to win most games. If the remaining games are played, and our young defense gains experience and confidence, that will greatly (not marginally) increase the likelihood of our winning. But that is probably a 2021 season thing, not 2020.
 
Top Bottom