Tonights Game

SPCPrice21

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
258
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Can some really knowledgable gopherholer give me the details of tonights game please. Both positives and negitives would be appreciated! I saw the box score. Running game killed it tonight. But thats about the extent I know. From the box score I noticed Weber didn't look to hot. Was that mostly his fault? O-line? WR? I just don't want to go through bits and peices of each thread. It would take to long. Again I appreciate it. Oh and how did our defense look? Did the LBs fill in nicely for Lee, Nate, and Simoni?
 

Gopher Bandanna Guy

Irascible Skeptic
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,806
Reaction score
0
Points
36
I'll quick hit on the major points, I'm sure others can fill in more. I'll have a 'What we learned' post on my blog this weekend, and I'm sure there will be good stuff on FBT and The Daily Gopher soon too.

Positives:
-The O-line and running backs came out in the 1st quarter and punched MTSU right in the mouth on the opening drive.
-Duane Bennett showed great burst and second effort all game
-Because of Brewster/Horton sticking with the run, the Gophers dominated TOP and wore down the MTSU defense in the 4th (they couldn't stop us with 9-men in the box.

Negatives:
-Adam Weber (for most of the game) was inaccurate, staring down WRs, and largely ineffective on 3rd downs. He did string a couple nice passes together in the 3rd to get us down the field for the tying FG
-Receiver routes didn't look all that crisp
-Ellestad missed twice from outside 40 yards (he had the distance but both kicks were slightly off to the left.
-The defense appeared on their heels in the 2nd quarter and to open the 3rd.
-The front 4 didn't generate much pressure on Kilgore.
 

Tee09

Equine Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
176
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Didn't have to throw much. Weber was not good, not terrible. Lot of drops, some of which had to do with less than stellar ball placement. Defense was fast but missed A TON of tackles, turning 2 yard losses into 5 yard gains for MTSU. Ellestad hooked 2 easy FG attempts, but the gophers ran well enough and controlled the clock so it didn't matter.

O-line was alright in run blocking, less so in pass blocking, although MTSU blitzed a lot. Bennett ran TOUGH; if he had home run speed he'd have taken a couple to the house in the first half. Good to see Hoese able to get the short yards/punch it in when we needed it. Hope his dad's doing OK.
 

Monty519

Active member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
4,208
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Weber started out VERY bad, missing some easy throws, getting sacked a couple times. There was a play when Bennett picked up the blitz, but Weber reacted as those the blocker was coming through, so he's still a little schizophrenic in the pocket. 2nd half though, he did warm up and make some nice throws. Obviously didn't throw it a whole lot, since we ran it 66 times, but yeah, tale of two halves with Weber.

Defense was solid in the 1st quarter, but when MTSU got some confidence, they got a little frazzled out there I think and allowed the two TDs in the 2nd quarter. They were on the field so little though, it's hard to get a full read on them. Tackling was the main issue I took from this game, they gotta tackle better, no question about it.

Ellstad missed a couple kicks, which probably gave MTSU some life, especially after we were rolling, up 14-0 and then he missed that FG. Just pushed both of them wide left from the left hash mark. Plenty of leg in them though.

Overall, the team came in with a clear gameplan to pound the rock, not make mistakes, and not allow MTSU's offense on the field much. They accomplished that and came up with a decent road win over a solid team.
 

Gopher Bandanna Guy

Irascible Skeptic
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,806
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Yes, it shouldn't be forgot that Hoese was the MAN tonight. 3 TD plunges, and a couple 4th down conversions too, if I recall. Nice to have a FB who can get you that last year consistently.
 

SPCPrice21

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
258
Reaction score
0
Points
16
How did they do in the Redzone? If Ellestad miss two easy kicks we must have been stuffed fairly close then?
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
109
Reaction score
2
Points
18
i'm definitely not knowledgeable, but here's my take:

yes, the running game was nice. i think kirkwood has a bright future. i thought eskridge hit the holes very hard. bennet had some great runs. i'm so happy for hoese tonight, and wish his family the best.
no, weber didn't look so hot. however, i think there is potential/chemistry with lair. & he did make a couple nice throws on 3rd down.
what stood out to me about the d is bad tackling & not a lot of pressure on qb.
 

Monty519

Active member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
4,208
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Oh, and on the defense, I think we'll benefit a ton from the returns of Kim Royston and Kyle Theret. Safety play was a little iffy, from the limited body of work we saw, and they could use some experienced guys on the back end. That may help kind of stabilize that side of the ball some.
 

Monty519

Active member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
4,208
Reaction score
0
Points
36
How did they do in the Redzone? If Ellestad miss two easy kicks we must have been stuffed fairly close then?
I wouldn't call them "easy", they were 40 yarders or so if I recall correctly. They are kicks he can make though, and should have probably made. Like I said, just pushed them a little left.

Red zone work wasn't the best, but they punched in three TDs. They got bailed out a couple times with pass interference calls on MTSU that could have ended drives. There's definitely still work to be done in that dept.
 

MBAGuy

Needs something to cheer about
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Here's a post from someone over on the MTSU board that sums up my feelings perfectly:

5. Its funny that our backup QB is better than Minnesota's #1. I would hate to see that team with a good QB.
 

Schnoodler

Ice Cream Abuser
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
6,994
Reaction score
0
Points
36
I believe we executed our game plan just as we wanted. Outside of a couple of missed FG's it's a damn good game by the Gophs.

The Oline looked good in the running game. We typically went right and utilized Wills who looked great. On Pass protection we didn't look too good. Weber was consistently getting pressure on the blind side. Olson was getting exploited a bit and Weber had little time in the 2nd Q, we seemed to correct that a bit in the second half.

Weber looked shaky in the few times we asked him to pass in the first half, but he had almost no time as I stated. No balls in the dirt. The second half he did well and converted some very nice 3rd d's.

The story of the O was the running game and TOP. Bennett looked great. He had great second and third efforts and made most of his yards after contact. He looked really good. Eskridge looked stronger actually running through a few tackles. Kirkwood looks like the real deal. His technique is solid through the line and is a great downhill runner, he loses form and technique in the second level, but that'll come with experience as the game slows down for him.

Recievers?? Not so much. But they didn't have many ops with only 17 attempts. Lair looked good though, and we utilized gray as promised.

The D?? that's tough to decipher. We were obviously playing off recievers which tells me Cosgrove still doesn't have faith in QB pressure. And we didn't see much, although more than last year. The middle was a wall, and there were great glimpses of athleticism. We didn't really seem to dominate our game plan though. But i guess you have to excuse them a little as the game plan was for a different skill set in Dasher. But I'd be a little alarmed at the lack of pressure, and a little pleased at the line dominance. We should also remember that Theret and Royston did not play which meant we had to rely a little heavy on youth in the secondary.
 

Tully55

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
65
Points
48
biggest positives I can think of 0 turnovers and very few penalties
 

SPCPrice21

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
258
Reaction score
0
Points
16
I wouldn't call them "easy", they were 40 yarders or so if I recall correctly. They are kicks he can make though, and should have probably made. Like I said, just pushed them a little left.

Red zone work wasn't the best, but they punched in three TDs. They got bailed out a couple times with pass interference calls on MTSU that could have ended drives. There's definitely still work to be done in that dept.
whoops. i thought when i read your post you put easy.. lol my fault..
 

Tully55

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
65
Points
48
more positives Colton Iverson had some nice moves to the basket and Mbawke was an animal out there tonight
 

Shielder

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
428
Reaction score
0
Points
16
The penalties were down compared to last year ...
 

scools12

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
4,645
Reaction score
585
Points
113
QB is not a quality B10 QB

O-Line did what they should against a phsyically overmatched defense

Defense certainly a work in progress. Gave up 8 yards per play but did come up with a big stop on a 3rd down running play in the 4th quarter. Probably will get better with more game experience but if the offense didn't control the ball so much in the 2nd half I don't believe at this point the defense is good enough to win a game without the ball control offense.
 

gophermartin

Active member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
2,133
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Nice improvement from last year. I think.

Stat line of the night for me....with the game tied. The O took the game on their backs and dominated.

9 Minutes!! Wow.

03:09 MINN Hoese, Jon 1 yd run (Ellestad, Eric kick)
16 plays, 77 yards, TOP 9:17

I wonder how different people would feel if we would have walked it in at the end when we had the ball on their 4...instead of running out the clock. Should have been 31-17.
 

Winona Gopher

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
440
Reaction score
1
Points
18
I'll quick hit on the major points, I'm sure others can fill in more. I'll have a 'What we learned' post on my blog this weekend, and I'm sure there will be good stuff on FBT and The Daily Gopher soon too.

Positives:
-The O-line and running backs came out in the 1st quarter and punched MTSU right in the mouth on the opening drive.
-Duane Bennett showed great burst and second effort all game
-Because of Brewster/Horton sticking with the run, the Gophers dominated TOP and wore down the MTSU defense in the 4th (they couldn't stop us with 9-men in the box.

Negatives:
-Adam Weber (for most of the game) was inaccurate, staring down WRs, and largely ineffective on 3rd downs. He did string a couple nice passes together in the 3rd to get us down the field for the tying FG
-Receiver routes didn't look all that crisp
-Ellestad missed twice from outside 40 yards (he had the distance but both kicks were slightly off to the left.
-The defense appeared on their heels in the 2nd quarter and to open the 3rd.
-The front 4 didn't generate much pressure on Kilgore.
I am just going to focus on 1 negative here and thats the last 1, its tough to get pressure on a team when all of their dropbacks are 3 or 5 steps.

otherwise i think this sums it up pretty well
 

Unregistered User

Wild animal with a keyboard
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
11,599
Reaction score
74
Points
48
Rallis was friggin' everywhere the first couple of the MTSU drives. I lost track of him after that looking at other things. Olson got blown by a few times.

I had more confidence in the D, but the inexperience showed. Nice halftime adjustments by Cosgrove once again. That unit would really benefit from Royston and Theret getting back in there.
 

Winona Gopher

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
440
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Rallis was friggin' everywhere the first couple of the MTSU drives. I lost track of him after that looking at other things. Olson got blown by a few times.

I had more confidence in the D, but the inexperience showed. Nice halftime adjustments by Cosgrove once again. That unit would really benefit from Royston and Theret getting back in there.
Olson got blown by once or twice i think in the game, but still not bad for a freshman. Also I agree that with Royston and Theret the gopher defense will be much better as the safeties that didnt play well when they scored the 14 points in 5 minutes.
 

Unregistered User

Wild animal with a keyboard
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
11,599
Reaction score
74
Points
48
Olson got blown by once or twice i think in the game, but still not bad for a freshman.
One or twice or a few times, I don't care. The kid needed to see a real game, and he did well. No one had a perfect game, and he acquitted himself quite well.

More positives than negatives. Moving forward, and that's what we're looking for...right?
 

Schnoodler

Ice Cream Abuser
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
6,994
Reaction score
0
Points
36
I think we've seen from Brewster where a starter mysteriously get's suspended for unknown team rules when there's a perfect opportunity for the heir apparent to get the right kind of game day experience. I don't think all the practice in the world can replace game day experience. It was great the Olson was able to play an entire game, I have a feeling he starts next week too and then mysteriously Alford wins his job back just in time for USC.
 

The 12th Man

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
913
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Positives:
- Running Game. Did exactly what we all wanted to see. Good blocking, good running. No breakway speed, but nice to have a good rotation of runners. Bennett played hard and Kirkwood looks like a tough runner with some potential.
- Defensive adjustments. We shut them down in the second half, pure and simple. Think about the MTSU "drive" to open the 3rd. It was one long run, where we had a guy in the hole to make the tackle at the LOS. He missed, and they got a long run. We were all hoping to see the coaches coach well, and I think we saw it on both sides of the ball.
- Weber's 2nd half. He started to get into a little rhythm and made some throws. I'm not chalking this up as a good, or even acceptable, performance by him, but it was good to see him settle in. He will be the starter against SD, and hopefully he will continue to improve.
- Lack of penalties. The penalties they got all seemed to come at bad times (is there a good time to get a penalty?), but they were few in number.
- Improvement in the areas where we wanted to see improvement: run game, coaching adjustments, penalties

Negatives:
- Pass protection. It improved a bit over the course of the game, but they need to get out of their stances a bit quicker on the drop back passes.
- Weber's first half. Terrible. The run game will only continue to work if Weber is able to keep the defense honest. Those play action passes MUST be hit. The difference between our offense and Iowa's offense right now, in most respects, is Stanzi vs. Weber.
- Kicking. As someone else wrote, those are game-losing misses. The game has a much different feel if he hits those kicks.
- 2nd quarter. The spread offense is meant to get a defense on its heels, and that happened in the 2nd quarter. Still, we gave up only 17 points to a pretty dynamic offense and made good adjustments.
- Pass rush. Again, I think this is almost entirely a function of who the opponent is. That offense is designed for the QB to make quick reads and not get sacked. Still, something to keep an eye on in the future.

Overall, pretty well-executed game in my opinion. Good opener. I am worried about the QB play right now. With what they are asking him to do, he and he alone could be the difference between a good season and a bad one.
 

Honyocker

Gophers-In Good or Bad Times
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
1,127
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Weber

I have no confidence in Adam Weber, but if the running game is consistently much better and the OL gives him great protection....well, we have a shot to do some damage. Any pressure on Adam and he starts to crumble. He has almost no pocket awareness or feel for where the pocket is moving. He can't throw the dart into the receiver window and his accuracy comes and goes. On top of that he is not a leader kind of guy. The hope for this team is great protection and a grinding running game. Weber will be servicable in that situation. That is a shocking statement to make about a four year redshirt starter, but that is where we are with this team.
 

gopher1more

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
721
Reaction score
8
Points
18
Honeyocker,

I would beg to differ about the leadership qualities of AW. Unless you are on the team and on the field I do not think you can judge his leadership skills. there is a reason he has been elected as a captain by his teammates THREE times. Adam will be fine and so will the team.
 

Bisker82

Death From Above
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
517
Reaction score
4
Points
18
A couple of notes from my perspective;

The good
1. Weber is much better throwing down field than to the flats or short screens. He had somw nice throws to stretch the field & rebounded from a rough start.
2. Gray had some nice receptions and YAC.
3. Running game looked very goood. Bennett maybe rushed the holes running in to his own blockers but overall did an excellent job. Nice to see him 100% again.

4. Kirkwood is going to be a beast; definitely needs to get a significant amount of carries.
5. Speed!!
6. No turnovers.


The bad
1. Tackling; they have to do a better job of wrapping up.
2. Dropped passes; McKnight did not have the best game but I expect him to rebound & be a main target.

3. Missed field goals; enough said.
4. Lack of intensity after they got ahead 14-0. It definitely seemed like there was a letdown going in to half time (they did bounce back though). Maybe they were having to adjust from all of the heat & humidity.;)

5. The announcers!! WTF, was Dave Lee there feeding them information?
 

Tee09

Equine Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
176
Reaction score
0
Points
16
5. The announcers!! WTF, was Dave Lee there feeding them information?
We definitely got the B team last night. Even the camera guy got fooled multiple times on play action and the shot of the MTSU FG didn't get the goal posts completely in the frame.

I blame Brewster, Maturi, and probably Kessel; it's year 4, and they should have made sure we get better broadcast teams!!1!
 

Go Gophers Rah

Section 238 Row 21
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
2,353
Reaction score
55
Points
48
My #1 Negative was the place kicking.

I know 40 yarders are not gimme's, but Ellestad has never hit one from 40 or more yards. Had he hit one of those, I think MTSU would not have had that rally.

I'm affraid that misses from Ellestad or us making bad decisions due to a lack of confidence in Ellestad will lose us at least 1 game this year.
 

MadtownGopher

Active member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
9,738
Reaction score
0
Points
36
I agree with all of the positives mentioned so far. I'd also like to add that our return game looked pretty solid, in fact, I think the return game will be one of our best assets this year. Giving our offense shorter fields to play on will really help their confidence.
 
Top Bottom