11 for 20 is 55% completion percentage. Not garbage, but hardly jaw dropping.• Anyone who thinks ZA should have been replaced based on his first-half performance is a knucklehead. He was 9-for-20 for 135 yards. Give him the two drops by Johnson and he's over 150 yards passing at the half. BTN had a graphic at the start of the game, pointing out that since 2000, only seven B1G freshman QBs have passed for more than 1,100 yards. ZA is one of them. Anyone calling for him to be benched is likely named Morgan.
Regardless, the defense absolutely failed the team on those two big runs for Neb's first two TDs in the first half. Maybe it shouldn't have been the DB's tackle to make ... but it was, and the DB whiffed. Badly. Poor, poor tackling. Equals long TD runs. Same thing in Maryland.The first touchdown is cover 3 (3 deep...corners and FS have deep 1/3). Durr doesn't have contain on cover 3!
It would be the DE or OLB depending on the call. It appears it'd be the DE based on his location (outside shoulder of OT) and the OLB's agrressiveness sucking inside on the ride.
True, Durr missed the tackle, but he for sure doesn't have contain.
WordRegardless, the defense absolutely failed the team on those two big runs for Neb's first two TDs in the first half. Maybe it shouldn't have been the DB's tackle to make ... but it was, and the DB whiffed. Badly. Poor, poor tackling. Equals long TD runs. Same thing in Maryland.
He was injured very early in the Miami game, struggled through most of that, and was literally playing on one good leg at Maryland. It was a disaster. He hasn’t been 100% since. He had green grass numerous times vs Neb and was too slow to take advantage. It’s a major liability.In this thread, several have made the case that ZA shouldn't play for health reasons. They may be right. I don't know. A person would have to be at practice every day and talk to the medical staff to know for sure.
But ... I do know that several posters wanted him dumped earlier in the season, and health had nothing to do with it. That's why I wrote the "perception and projection" post.
I fully expect Morgan to start Friday and most likely at Illinois. His game performance gives the staff a level of comfort for Zack to have the time to more fully recover.People are not saying bench Annexstad because he's no good. They're saying he can't play up to his potential because he's injured, and they would rather see a healthy QB over an injured QB - especially if the healthy QB gives the team another offensive option as a running threat.
Nobody is knocking Annexstad's ability or toughness. but when you're hurt, you're hurt. at least give him a week off to rest and heal up.
if you're arguing that it's better to play an injured player over a healthy player, then that injured player had better be a LOT better than the healthy player. I don't think that's the case.
You may be right. Thing is, I'm always afraid of absolutes. So I base my assumptions on what it appears the players are trying to do. Regardless of the coverage called, everybody has a role in run support. Durr hesitates on the periphery before getting sucked inside.They are in cover 3. Never, ever, ever will a CB have primary contain (the first one to turn a play in) cover 3. (In some cases, they may become a football player and make a tackle on a sweep for no gain while in cover 3, but that's not by design.) He will have secodary contain (contain when primary contain doesn't do his job and the ball is to the CB....what happened on the first TD) in cover 3.
Yes, cover 2 could be called or cover 6 in which cases a CB can and will have primary contain, but that is not the call on the first play.
I'm wrong; I just looked at the location of Durr (top CB) and Huff (FS) and assumed it was cover 3 b/c the other option based on their location is man free (cover 1 which imo is ludicrous!!!!!! (I should've known better after we got toasted in cover 2 inside the 25 last week...against trips no less!!! However, after looking at the play more closely and the dead give away bottom corner it is in fact cover 1 man free! DE has contain and everyone is rallying for secondary contain. I'll upload pics soon. I'll lay this on scheme. It's hard to know what they saw prior to the game on film; however, I would not want to play man against tight doubles. It screams run and try to get a ball carrier isolated on the secondary, or crossing and pick routes to free somebody up for pass.You may be right. Thing is, I'm always afraid of absolutes. So I base my assumptions on what it appears the players are trying to do. Regardless of the coverage called, everybody has a role in run support. Durr hesitates on the periphery before getting sucked inside.
OTOH, if you're right, Martin's performance on the play is probably even more egregious.
Poor scheme on this play and poor execution by many, which leads to the long TD run. With it being man Durr has to honor the inside move of the WR/TE as it could be a crossing route. Once he recognizes run, he's too far inside to get up the field and slow the RB down. He also doesn't take a good angle to the ball carrier. The DE doesn't hold his ground and force the RB inside to a waiting LB and once RB sees the DE start movement inside he made a good cut to outside to outrun everyone.View attachment 5817View attachment 5818View attachment 5819
photo 1 shows you who everyone has (the FS is free to help and ILBs would have the TB
photo 2 shows why KM21 was so quick to go inside (that's where his read/man takes him) the bottom corner is starting to turn his back to the ball with his man, and the SS is beginning to widen with his man
photo 3 bottom corner is clearly in man (back to ball); SS is still widening and will start to press; KM21 is aggressively chasing his circled man, and Durr is closing on his man.
DE should have had contain....everyone else should have secondary if needed, but ILBs and possibly the FS (depending on what they're coached and down and distance) should be there way quicker than anybody else. ILBs got caught up in wash and Free followed the QB.
Yep. That's why I said there should be an auto check out of this call vs. this formation just as the offense has automatics vs. certain d alignments.Poor scheme on this play and poor execution by many, which leads to the long TD run. With it being man Durr has to honor the inside move of the WR/TE as it could be a crossing route. Once he recognizes run, he's too far inside to get up the field and slow the RB down. He also doesn't take a good angle to the ball carrier. The DE doesn't hold his ground and force the RB inside to a waiting LB and once RB sees the DE start movement inside he made a good cut to outside to outrun everyone.
That’s a pretty big assumption. The RB would have had positive yards on those plays, just not long TD runs. It’s possible it would have been 28-0 because the drives took longer, still resulted in TDs and we would not have had time to score at the end of the half.If Durr makes the two plays I mentioned, it's likely 14-7 or 14-8 at the half.
Yards and TDs are as much a factor of attempts as they are skill. AW8 threw way more passes then other Gopher QBs and so he has more yards. To say him having the most yards makes him the best would be like saying having the most INTs makes him the worst. I’m not here to knock AW8, just to ask for context on the arbitrary stat you used to support ZA5. I hope ZA5 resumes his starting role when healthy.So if Adam Weber isn't the Gophers' all-time top QB, who is? Cuz he has 3,500 more yards than the No. 2 guy, and 17 more TDs.
Few stats provide perfect measure. In this case, the point is simply that he's doing something few have achieved at his age.
I did not get that sense from what he said.I didn't bother to read through this whole thread, but in Fleck's press conference, did it sound like he was saying, forget it, we're not going to try and protect these guys on defense anymore. We're going to play our defense and what happens, happens. It seemed to me he was saying that. That we're going to do what we know and play defense how we would if we had the personnel we want. In other words, stop trying to overthink, over scheme things, and just let the guys play and develop. I kind of hope that's the case.
But on the play we've been discussing, it actually wasn't a spread formation. It was the opposite, a bunch formation. I guess it depends on what you mean by "spread". If you're just using that term to mean a lot of WR type guys on the field, then yes they were running a spread offense.Rockford, thank you for the informational and thoughtful post. Notes on a play-by-play basis? Wow! You're doing your homework, and we're all more accurately informed for it. It's odd that sometimes we need someone to tell us what it is we really saw, but that's the case in football. Thank you. It's subject matter like this that make this board worth reading.
For the record, I did NOT see the Nebraska game at all - first game I missed (I had an obligation). That said, my general impression is that when offenses spread us out and test our gap discipline and solo play-making abilities on an individual-by-individual basis, we fail because there are some limitations we are trying to hide. But when an offense spreads everything out, a defense usually can't hide much. So it's not that it's all bad. It's that there are a few weaknesses. That's the game of football: it's better to have no weaknesses than to be brilliantly strong in a number of facets but have a couple of visible weaknesses. Your weaknesses will usually negate the potency of your strengths - even if they're brilliant.
True, but my purpose in breaking down the tape is to both measure the performance of particular players (Faalele and Andries) and to get some idea of what's going wrong elsewhere (and occasionally get a glimpse of something going right). I'm not trying to make excuses for the team, coach or any players, just trying to get a closer look at what's happening.Breaking down games by play is fun, but a breakdown like this is really dependent on the perspective of the person watching. Every game in the history of football can be looked at through the lens of "if this happens or that tackle is made" then the score would be this. But the truth is that it can be done from the other side just as easily. I am sure there is a guy on the Nebraska board who broke down the film and said if so and so doesn't drop this pass or this guy makes a tackle then we actually win 65-8, and you know depending which plays you pick they could be right too.
Ditto. I actually DVRd the game as well and wasn't even going to watch it until I started reading this thread. I'm through the first half right now and don't feel nearly as bad as I expected. The result was obviously hugely disappointing -- especially in a game I thought we could win -- but I saw some flashes of really good play on both sides of the ball. Unfortunately, those were surrounded by 1 or 2 really bad plays (usually made by 1 or 2 players) that completely changed the game. On O, a really bad drop, a big penalty, a missed block. On D, some missed tackles and a DE that gets sucked inside twice (and his backup does the same thing once).Remember, I missed this game live, and started reviewing it knowing little more than was posted here. I was expecting an unmitigated disaster. I didn't feel that way after watching it.