It's Time For a Change

Donate To GopherHole

Keep the coaches if...

1) They recognize they are in a revolutionary position where the status quo has already been challenged by poor performance.
2) They have legitimate talent on the team that can perform better given the right attitude and performance.
3) They quit acting like they have to preserve the status quo to satisfy their legitimacy.

Once they realize the situation does not conform to their "mental model" that isn't working, they they will be able to fix the offense. I trust Jerry Kill has the capacity to right the ship. My only evidence is how he conducts training for his coaches year in and year out. They bring in other coaches who have demonstrated success to talk football coaching. There is something that they have learned that will need to utilize and instill into the team this week. A week is an incredibly short period of time to create new attitude. The team will have to show it has flexibility and resilience and so should we fans. We need to be a bit resilient.

Yet, if little improvement is made, the conversation will definitely have a revolutionary tone and who knows where that will take the conversation.
 


O-line and play calling seem to be lacking a little bit... Comes down to one person trying to do two full time jobs, pick one and focus on it.
 



WorkingMyTailOff said:
276c4ad9b92ed7d906ef1b9f931b5765.jpg

Opening drive after big pass from Leidner to Carter and then the next play Woz and Campion ole their guys for a big sack.
Click to expand...

Here's what I see: Kent St. saw on film that Wozniak was a weak blocker, perhaps especially next to Campion, who's a bit banged up. They had this blitz drawn up to specifically use against the Wozniak/Campion. They slant to occupy the RG-C-LG, leaving Pirsig alone. That isolates Woz, a 6-10 TE, in pass protection against Nate Holley, their best defensive player, and isolates Campion against a quick safety, who is able to get around him with a speed move.

So, it boils down to a few things, I guess. One is injuries: Woz would likely be 3rd/4th string if all TE were healthy. Campion still seems a bit hobbled, and would have trouble keeping up with a speed rush from a safety.

It's also a microcosm of how poor a coordinator Limegrover is. How many times have we heard that a defense "showed us new looks" to throw our offense off. I'm guessing this is one of those "new looks" from Kent St. They likely didn't show a lot of double safety blitzes on film. But we showed a lot on film that would suggest to any d-coordinator that a double safety blitz would work. So they added the new wrinkle, and we stuck with the same game plan as always, and it resulted in a sack.

Leidner is 8 yards in the backfield--because our primary passing plays constitute downfield patterns. We keep a TE and a RB to help with pass protection (note Smith is at LOS--likely stayed to pick up middle blitz/chip a rusher before going out for dump off route). That leaves 8 Gophers at or behind the LOS on a pass play, with Kent St only rushing 5. And people complain that Leidner can't make quick reads. It's because he's got 3 available receivers, covered by 6 players in pass pro for Kent St.

Limegrover is clueless. I can't think of any other o-coordinator who so thoroughly neglects to provide check down routes for a QB. Dump off over the middle would go for a nice gain on this play. We never run any nice combo patterns. No rubs/pick plays to get space for a receiver. And we never run a screen, so teams are confident in blitzing us. Limegrover's response is to increase protection--not exploit open areas of the field with quick routes/screens. The result? Stacked boxes. Lots of blitzes. The o-line can't pick them up. And Leidner looks like a dope because none of his 3 available receivers are ever open. And we rarely run any plays to make a defense think twice. Limegrover is inept. His game plans aren't only vanilla--they're clueless. Who runs 3-receiver pass plays? Really, watch any other team, and tell me who so consistently runs 3-receiver pass plays.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
The mystery to me is why the Gopher offense - with the same Head Coach and offensive coordinator, looks so much different than the offense the same staff ran at Northern Illinois. at No Illinois, they mixed up the run and the pass, they used two different QB's who had different styles, and they were very successful.

So why aren't they doing the same things at MN?
Options:
Northern Illinois had better players/athletes on offense?
Kill and Limegrover can't remember what they did at Northern Illinois?
They're doing it on purpose to run up web traffic?
Limegrover can't coach at the lighter weight, and he needs to start binge eating to get fat again.
OR - the option nobody wants to believe - the coaches are doing what they believe they have to with the current personnel.

I've never met a coach who deliberately tried to lose, or deliberately kept better players on the bench while using inferior players on the field. College coaching is all about winning. You win, you get more money and/or a better job. You lose, you get less money, and/or a worse job - or no job at all.

I know a lot of you are big on schemes and play-calling. I still maintain it's all about execution, and the Gophers just aren't executing.
Click to expand...

I've had the same thoughts on why is the offense so much different than it was at Northern Illinois. It doesn't make sense. Were their skill position players that much better? How after 5 years have they not been able to recruit better players on offense at a Big Ten school compared to a MAC school?
 

E
short ornery norwegian said:
The mystery to me is why the Gopher offense - with the same Head Coach and offensive coordinator, looks so much different than the offense the same staff ran at Northern Illinois. at No Illinois, they mixed up the run and the pass, they used two different QB's who had different styles, and they were very successful.

So why aren't they doing the same things at MN?
Options:
Northern Illinois had better players/athletes on offense?
Kill and Limegrover can't remember what they did at Northern Illinois?
They're doing it on purpose to run up web traffic?
Limegrover can't coach at the lighter weight, and he needs to start binge eating to get fat again.
OR - the option nobody wants to believe - the coaches are doing what they believe they have to with the current personnel.

I've never met a coach who deliberately tried to lose, or deliberately kept better players on the bench while using inferior players on the field. College coaching is all about winning. You win, you get more money and/or a better job. You lose, you get less money, and/or a worse job - or no job at all.

I know a lot of you are big on schemes and play-calling. I still maintain it's all about execution, and the Gophers just aren't executing.
Click to expand...

I normally agree with your posts, you're among the most levelheaded people here, but I don't think it is all execution. For example, I don't think running 80% of the time on first down is necessarily constructive or smart. We get behind on downs fat too often. For reference, Stanford and Wisconsin are at about 65%. Yesterday, if Mitch can't run the option because he's nicked up, put in Streveler. He can run much better. He can hit passes. His much ballyhooed passing vs SJSU wasn't any worse than we've seen from Mitch. He had a few bad throws that game, the rest were miscommunications or drops.

I understand going into the shell in the 4th quarter, but I don't agree with it. It sends a terrible message to your team. You aren't any good. This was Kent State, not Ohio State. We can't move the ball on KSU?

Coaches absolutely can be as stubborn and prideful as the rest of us. Some moreso.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
I've had the same thoughts on why is the offense so much different than it was at Northern Illinois. It doesn't make sense. Were their skill position players that much better? How after 5 years have they not been able to recruit better players on offense at a Big Ten school compared to a MAC school?
Click to expand...

Let's explore this further as I had this same debate in my head between 3-4 last night when I couldn't sleep.

First - let's assume that other than QB we have more talent. NIU had a BCS Bowl team and some outliners, but overall/through their tenure I think that is a fair assumption. If you disagree - just play along for a while.

Second - unless they are literally losing their memory, let's assume the coaches remember what worked at NIU and remember how to be creative. Again, I think that is a fair assumption. Considering we have seen them creative here in the past only supports that.

So, why are they calling it so vanilla - because if we buy the 2 points above, it is deliberate.
1. OL play is so bad
2. ML play is so bad
3. Don't want to show their hand before B1G

Let me say that I rolled my eyes at the prospect of #3 every time I read it before last night, but maybe? I think they were very creative on the KJ TD yesterday - I suspect they didn't want to put that play on tape against Kent State, but had to. I bet they wanted to save that for a critical play against someone else.

Could it be #3? More likely a combo of 1/2?
 



SonOfTheVarsity said:
Here's what I see: Kent St. saw on film that Wozniak was a weak blocker, perhaps especially next to Campion, who's a bit banged up. They had this blitz drawn up to specifically use against the Wozniak/Campion. They slant to occupy the RG-C-LG, leaving Pirsig alone. That isolates Woz, a 6-10 TE, in pass protection against Nate Holley, their best defensive player, and isolates Campion against a quick safety, who is able to get around him with a speed move.

So, it boils down to a few things, I guess. One is injuries: Woz would likely be 3rd/4th string if all TE were healthy. Campion still seems a bit hobbled, and would have trouble keeping up with a speed rush from a safety.

It's also a microcosm of how poor a coordinator Limegrover is. How many times have we heard that a defense "showed us new looks" to throw our offense off. I'm guessing this is one of those "new looks" from Kent St. They likely didn't show a lot of double safety blitzes on film. But we showed a lot on film that would suggest to any d-coordinator that a double safety blitz would work. So they added the new wrinkle, and we stuck with the same game plan as always, and it resulted in a sack.

Leidner is 8 yards in the backfield--because our primary passing plays constitute downfield patterns. We keep a TE and a RB to help with pass protection (note Smith is at LOS--likely stayed to pick up middle blitz/chip a rusher before going out for dump off route). That leaves 8 Gophers at or behind the LOS on a pass play, with Kent St only rushing 5. And people complain that Leidner can't make quick reads. It's because he's got 3 available receivers, covered by 6 players in pass pro for Kent St.

Limegrover is clueless. I can't think of any other o-coordinator who so thoroughly neglects to provide check down routes for a QB. Dump off over the middle would go for a nice gain on this play. We never run any nice combo patterns. No rubs/pick plays to get space for a receiver. And we never run a screen, so teams are confident in blitzing us. Limegrover's response is to increase protection--not exploit open areas of the field with quick routes/screens. The result? Stacked boxes. Lots of blitzes. The o-line can't pick them up. And Leidner looks like a dope because none of his 3 available receivers are ever open. And we rarely run any plays to make a defense think twice. Limegrover is inept. His game plans aren't only vanilla--they're clueless. Who runs 3-receiver pass plays? Really, watch any other team, and tell me who so consistently runs 3-receiver pass plays.
Click to expand...
Thank you for breaking it down a lot more and I see your point. It makes a lot of sense. So it seems like the OC is trying to run the same scheme as last year, but with a much less effective OL and without Fruechte, Maxx, and Cobb. In your opinion, do we have the talent to go to a 4 or 5 wr set and 3 step drop style of offense (assuming they have been practicing some variation of this a little bit)? This would hide our deficiencies on OL, but it would require quick/accurate passing and some mobility at QB.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Today's offense will not win the Gophers another game this year. How could it get worse?
Click to expand...

Out offensive line is awful and is over matched on almost every play. Why is that the QB's problem?
 

highwayman said:
Out offensive line is awful and is over matched on almost every play. Why is that the QB's problem?
Click to expand...

Yet as I've said before this is a veteran offense of line that only lost 1 player off of last year's line.

WorkingMyTailOff said:
. In your opinion, do we have the talent to go to a 4 or 5 wr set and 3 step drop style of offense (assuming they have been practicing some variation of this a little bit)? This would hide our deficiencies on OL, but it would require quick/accurate passing and some mobility at QB.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Leidner is no longer mobile and his weakness is short, accurate passing. A QB who can do this would be more successful and help alleviate some of our OL issues.
 

highwayman said:
Out offensive line is awful and is over matched on almost every play. Why is that the QB's problem?
Click to expand...
I don't think it is Highway Man. Anyone who blames this all on Leidner isn't paying close attention.
But maybe since our O line cannot do what it did last year they have to spread the field as the previous poster suggested?
 



Spoofin said:
Let's explore this further as I had this same debate in my head between 3-4 last night when I couldn't sleep.

First - let's assume that other than QB we have more talent. NIU had a BCS Bowl team and some outliners, but overall/through their tenure I think that is a fair assumption. If you disagree - just play along for a while.

Second - unless they are literally losing their memory, let's assume the coaches remember what worked at NIU and remember how to be creative. Again, I think that is a fair assumption. Considering we have seen them creative here in the past only supports that.

So, why are they calling it so vanilla - because if we buy the 2 points above, it is deliberate.
1. OL play is so bad
2. ML play is so bad
3. Don't want to show their hand before B1G

Let me say that I rolled my eyes at the prospect of #3 every time I read it before last night, but maybe? I think they were very creative on the KJ TD yesterday - I suspect they didn't want to put that play on tape against Kent State, but had to. I bet they wanted to save that for a critical play against someone else.

Could it be #3? More likely a combo of 1/2?
Click to expand...

I believe the play calling yesterday especially the running game was by design based on personal in the OLine not that they didn't want to show their hand before B1G starts.

The coaches knew the Kent St offense was over matched against the Gophers D. Not many if any runs outside the tackles. Pretty safe throws after the 2 ints and everything was a safe run call to just get out of the game with a win.

The issue for me was the OLine not being able to get much push in the run game with what were basically straight ahead run plays. Even with the injuries the OLine should've been able to dominate Kent St's DLine straight up man to man.
 

scools12 said:
I believe the play calling yesterday especially the running game was by design based on personal in the OLine not that they didn't want to show their hand before B1G starts.

The coaches knew the Kent St offense was over matched against the Gophers D. Not many if any runs outside the tackles. Pretty safe throws after the 2 ints and everything was a safe run call to just get out of the game with a win.

The issue for me was the OLine not being able to get much push in the run game with what were basically straight ahead run plays. Even with the injuries the OLine should've been able to dominate Kent St's DLine straight up man to man.
Click to expand...

Really?!? We scored 10-points in the first half and the coaches said to themselves, we don't need to worry about scoring anymore and will just protect a four point lead with our D. I don't think so.
 

MNGoldenGophers1 said:
Really?!? We scored 10-points in the first half and the coaches said to themselves, we don't need to worry about scoring anymore and will just protect a four point lead with our D. I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Yes really.

Never said they didn't need to or try not to score. Imagine they thought they could handle Kent St up front so straight ahead running plays. Safe plays to protect to protect the ball and field position. Kent St wasn't going to drive the field on the defense.
 

MNGoldenGophers1 said:
Really?!? We scored 10-points in the first half and the coaches said to themselves, we don't need to worry about scoring anymore and will just protect a four point lead with our D. I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Sounds crazy, but it would explain the RUTM calls over and over. I'm not saying it makes sense or even that it happened, but it is more plausible than Kill/Limey have forgotten how coach.
 

WorkingMyTailOff said:
Thank you for breaking it down a lot more and I see your point. It makes a lot of sense. So it seems like the OC is trying to run the same scheme as last year, but with a much less effective OL and without Fruechte, Maxx, and Cobb. In your opinion, do we have the talent to go to a 4 or 5 wr set and 3 step drop style of offense (assuming they have been practicing some variation of this a little bit)? This would hide our deficiencies on OL, but it would require quick/accurate passing and some mobility at QB.
Click to expand...

To answer your question: No, I don't think we have the personnel to do a more spread-based offense. But that doesn't mean we can't incorporate a lot more versatility into our passing game. As noted throughout Limegrover's tenure, we don't employ screen passes, which is baffling. In a general sense, Kill/Limegrover seem to consider 1st down passing to be a chance at a big gain, rather than an opportunity to keep a defense honest. All of our receivers run deeper routes that are challenging throws and take a while to develop. A quick WR drag route would have worked nicely against this blitz. As would Woz chipping the blitzer, then running a short route. Maybe both routes would have only gotten 3 yards, but better than a drive-killing sack. But Kill/Limegrover don't seem to want to throw primarily for shorter gains.

Let's say our base offense is A, and little wrinkles are B. So, for us, base offense A is mostly running up the middle (and generally read option, though we haven't seen much this year.) And offense B is the addition of jet sweeps, bootlegs, play action passing, etc. Limegrover develops his entire gameplan around using A to set up B. So we waste a lot of downs "establishing" A, and then, BAM, we hit you with B on an important down. We saw that a bit yesterday. Leidner had a slick 3rd down bootleg for a 20 yard gain (negated due to holding). KJ's touchdown was a nicely designed play which caught Kent St. off guard. So, we RUTM 75 percent on 1st downs, and then Limegrover figures we'll catch you napping on a deep play action pass on a first down, and all those meager first down gains were worth it for one pass. He doesn't seem to put more thought into it than that.

The problem is that our play action plays are fairly easy to stop using the same defense as you use to stop the run, because we only have 3 guys out on long-developing patterns. The other problem is that Limegrover doesn't seem to think to use B to set up A. We will wait all game for the right chance to use that bootleg, and it did get us a 20 yard gain. But, if we had a bootleg be a regular part of our offense (or jet sweep, or short passes, etc.), we'd better be able to get good gains using our base plays, because the defense can't sit on them as much. Was a horrible running game really worth an important 3rd down gain on a bootleg? It seems to be to Kill/Limegrover, and that's the main problem with our offense.
 

scools12 said:
Yes really.

Never said the didn't try to score. Imagine they thought they could handle Kent St up front so straight ahead running plays. Safe plays to protect to protect the ball and field position. Kent St wasn't going to drive the field on the defense.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but another fumble, interception or miscue on special teams and we may lose the game. I don't buy this protect the lead argument. Our offense was only slightly better than theirs and that may be a stretch because of the strength of our D which thankfully I agree was stellar. Bottom line, they couldn't trust Liedner to throw deep and despite our desperate efforts to move the ball and score, it didn't happen after getting 10. We weren't hiding anything except the fact our offense can't execute much except to run marginally between the tackles. Hope like hell I'm wrong but we'll find out soon enough.
 

SonOfTheVarsity said:
To answer your question: No, I don't think we have the personnel to do a more spread-based offense. But that doesn't mean we can't incorporate a lot more versatility into our passing game. As noted throughout Limegrover's tenure, we don't employ screen passes, which is baffling. In a general sense, Kill/Limegrover seem to consider 1st down passing to be a chance at a big gain, rather than an opportunity to keep a defense honest. All of our receivers run deeper routes that are challenging throws and take a while to develop. A quick WR drag route would have worked nicely against this blitz. As would Woz chipping the blitzer, then running a short route. Maybe both routes would have only gotten 3 yards, but better than a drive-killing sack. But Kill/Limegrover don't seem to want to throw primarily for shorter gains.

Let's say our base offense is A, and little wrinkles are B. So, for us, base offense A is mostly running up the middle (and generally read option, though we haven't seen much this year.) And offense B is the addition of jet sweeps, bootlegs, play action passing, etc. Limegrover develops his entire gameplan around using A to set up B. So we waste a lot of downs "establishing" A, and then, BAM, we hit you with B on an important down. We saw that a bit yesterday. Leidner had a slick 3rd down bootleg for a 20 yard gain (negated due to holding). KJ's touchdown was a nicely designed play which caught Kent St. off guard. So, we RUTM 75 percent on 1st downs, and then Limegrover figures we'll catch you napping on a deep play action pass on a first down, and all those meager first down gains were worth it for one pass. He doesn't seem to put more thought into it than that.

The problem is that our play action plays are fairly easy to stop using the same defense as you use to stop the run, because we only have 3 guys out on long-developing patterns. The other problem is that Limegrover doesn't seem to think to use B to set up A. We will wait all game for the right chance to use that bootleg, and it did get us a 20 yard gain. But, if we had a bootleg be a regular part of our offense (or jet sweep, or short passes, etc.), we'd better be able to get good gains using our base plays, because the defense can't sit on them as much. Was a horrible running game really worth an important 3rd down gain on a bootleg? It seems to be to Kill/Limegrover, and that's the main problem with our offense.
Click to expand...

You may not like me, but I like you.
 

Spoofin said:
Sounds crazy, but it would explain the RUTM calls over and over. I'm not saying it makes sense or even that it happened, but it is more plausible than Kill/Limey have forgotten how coach.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with what you say. I think the coaches have a very bad situation in that Liedner is our best option at qb and that is extremely limiting what we can do. I won't get into the O-line, tight end, etc. issues that contribute to Liedners lacks of success but I think he is the biggest issue on that side of the ball. No, I don't think we should start Streveler although I wish they would put him in more often to change things up a bit. No, I don't think they should burn Croft's redshirt unless injuries require it. I think the coaches talked him up hoping he'd develop the confidence to play well. Well, I don't see that happening (yet). What I hope is that a light comes on and Mitch steps up his game big time because we don't apparently have any better options.
 

SonOfTheVarsity said:
To answer your question: No, I don't think we have the personnel to do a more spread-based offense. But that doesn't mean we can't incorporate a lot more versatility into our passing game. As noted throughout Limegrover's tenure, we don't employ screen passes, which is baffling. In a general sense, Kill/Limegrover seem to consider 1st down passing to be a chance at a big gain, rather than an opportunity to keep a defense honest. All of our receivers run deeper routes that are challenging throws and take a while to develop. A quick WR drag route would have worked nicely against this blitz. As would Woz chipping the blitzer, then running a short route. Maybe both routes would have only gotten 3 yards, but better than a drive-killing sack. But Kill/Limegrover don't seem to want to throw primarily for shorter gains.

Let's say our base offense is A, and little wrinkles are B. So, for us, base offense A is mostly running up the middle (and generally read option, though we haven't seen much this year.) And offense B is the addition of jet sweeps, bootlegs, play action passing, etc. Limegrover develops his entire gameplan around using A to set up B. So we waste a lot of downs "establishing" A, and then, BAM, we hit you with B on an important down. We saw that a bit yesterday. Leidner had a slick 3rd down bootleg for a 20 yard gain (negated due to holding). KJ's touchdown was a nicely designed play which caught Kent St. off guard. So, we RUTM 75 percent on 1st downs, and then Limegrover figures we'll catch you napping on a deep play action pass on a first down, and all those meager first down gains were worth it for one pass. He doesn't seem to put more thought into it than that.

The problem is that our play action plays are fairly easy to stop using the same defense as you use to stop the run, because we only have 3 guys out on long-developing patterns. The other problem is that Limegrover doesn't seem to think to use B to set up A. We will wait all game for the right chance to use that bootleg, and it did get us a 20 yard gain. But, if we had a bootleg be a regular part of our offense (or jet sweep, or short passes, etc.), we'd better be able to get good gains using our base plays, because the defense can't sit on them as much. Was a horrible running game really worth an important 3rd down gain on a bootleg? It seems to be to Kill/Limegrover, and that's the main problem with our offense.
Click to expand...
That makes sense and if they are going to introduce a new QB for a series or two (Perra or Croft), it would be nice to see a scheme that plays to their strength (not sure what that is yet).
 

Run plays require more extension of the ligaments and compression at the knee joint as you are moving that heavy and fighting mass in front of you. Look at all the knee injuries. Run, run, run has its costs. 5 years of that and it will cause massive injuries along the line. Conservative play will ultimately bite you in the backside. Why has nearly everyone gone to the pass mentality? Part of it is the shear fun. It also may just reduce long term injury rates. PURE SPECULATION ON MY PART.
 

RolGnav said:
No one is saying to clean house and fire Kill or whatever... But the coaches better wake up and fix it, which I'm sure they will... for a while. That's how it's always been. Every year we have these offensive issues then the offense gets opened up and we go on a nice offensive streak, then it goes back to lame and predictable again. Then we lose a Bowl Game.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how they can put together a nice offensive gameplan every once in a while (about 2x per year), and the rest of the time the gameplan is, simply, offensive. There is no learning, no learning curve, just a conservative, anti-turnover, let-the-defense-win-the-game attitude. Unfortunately, the defense can't always win the game. It would be much easier if we had an offense as well.
 

Dean S said:
Run plays require more extension of the ligaments and compression at the knee joint as you are moving that heavy and fighting mass in front of you. Look at all the knee injuries. Run, run, run has its costs. 5 years of that and it will cause massive injuries along the line. Conservative play will ultimately bite you in the backside. Why has nearly everyone gone to the pass mentality? Part of it is the shear fun. It also may just reduce long term injury rates. PURE SPECULATION ON MY PART.
Click to expand...

You're either on something or onto something.
 

Gophers remind me of 2012 Michigan State team that went 7-6 (with bowl win). Championship type defense kept them in every game, but offense was nonexistent largely because of very limited QB.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
I've had the same thoughts on why is the offense so much different than it was at Northern Illinois. It doesn't make sense. Were their skill position players that much better? How after 5 years have they not been able to recruit better players on offense at a Big Ten school compared to a MAC school?
Click to expand...

Not saying your views are correct, but if it was true one reason might be facilities. I've not been on either campus, but have been told NIU has the best in the MAC, while Minnesota's would not be middle of the pack, let alone comparable to any in the B1G.
 

Question/thought about why we aren't seeing the jet sweep type stuff: Generally, the jet sweep requires the line to block a bit longer in order for the play to develop correct? Maybe the coaches don't think we are holding our blocks long enough for a successful jet sweep?
 

SonOfTheVarsity said:
To answer your question: No, I don't think we have the personnel to do a more spread-based offense. But that doesn't mean we can't incorporate a lot more versatility into our passing game. As noted throughout Limegrover's tenure, we don't employ screen passes, which is baffling. In a general sense, Kill/Limegrover seem to consider 1st down passing to be a chance at a big gain, rather than an opportunity to keep a defense honest. All of our receivers run deeper routes that are challenging throws and take a while to develop. A quick WR drag route would have worked nicely against this blitz. As would Woz chipping the blitzer, then running a short route. Maybe both routes would have only gotten 3 yards, but better than a drive-killing sack. But Kill/Limegrover don't seem to want to throw primarily for shorter gains.

Let's say our base offense is A, and little wrinkles are B. So, for us, base offense A is mostly running up the middle (and generally read option, though we haven't seen much this year.) And offense B is the addition of jet sweeps, bootlegs, play action passing, etc. Limegrover develops his entire gameplan around using A to set up B. So we waste a lot of downs "establishing" A, and then, BAM, we hit you with B on an important down. We saw that a bit yesterday. Leidner had a slick 3rd down bootleg for a 20 yard gain (negated due to holding). KJ's touchdown was a nicely designed play which caught Kent St. off guard. So, we RUTM 75 percent on 1st downs, and then Limegrover figures we'll catch you napping on a deep play action pass on a first down, and all those meager first down gains were worth it for one pass. He doesn't seem to put more thought into it than that.

The problem is that our play action plays are fairly easy to stop using the same defense as you use to stop the run, because we only have 3 guys out on long-developing patterns. The other problem is that Limegrover doesn't seem to think to use B to set up A. We will wait all game for the right chance to use that bootleg, and it did get us a 20 yard gain. But, if we had a bootleg be a regular part of our offense (or jet sweep, or short passes, etc.), we'd better be able to get good gains using our base plays, because the defense can't sit on them as much. Was a horrible running game really worth an important 3rd down gain on a bootleg? It seems to be to Kill/Limegrover, and that's the main problem with our offense.
Click to expand...

Very good posts overall. However, we do occasionally run screens. There were multiple screens in the CSU game.
 

SonOfTheVarsity said:
To answer your question: No, I don't think we have the personnel to do a more spread-based offense. But that doesn't mean we can't incorporate a lot more versatility into our passing game. As noted throughout Limegrover's tenure, we don't employ screen passes, which is baffling. In a general sense, Kill/Limegrover seem to consider 1st down passing to be a chance at a big gain, rather than an opportunity to keep a defense honest. All of our receivers run deeper routes that are challenging throws and take a while to develop. A quick WR drag route would have worked nicely against this blitz. As would Woz chipping the blitzer, then running a short route. Maybe both routes would have only gotten 3 yards, but better than a drive-killing sack. But Kill/Limegrover don't seem to want to throw primarily for shorter gains.

Let's say our base offense is A, and little wrinkles are B. So, for us, base offense A is mostly running up the middle (and generally read option, though we haven't seen much this year.) And offense B is the addition of jet sweeps, bootlegs, play action passing, etc. Limegrover develops his entire gameplan around using A to set up B. So we waste a lot of downs "establishing" A, and then, BAM, we hit you with B on an important down. We saw that a bit yesterday. Leidner had a slick 3rd down bootleg for a 20 yard gain (negated due to holding). KJ's touchdown was a nicely designed play which caught Kent St. off guard. So, we RUTM 75 percent on 1st downs, and then Limegrover figures we'll catch you napping on a deep play action pass on a first down, and all those meager first down gains were worth it for one pass. He doesn't seem to put more thought into it than that.

The problem is that our play action plays are fairly easy to stop using the same defense as you use to stop the run, because we only have 3 guys out on long-developing patterns. The other problem is that Limegrover doesn't seem to think to use B to set up A. We will wait all game for the right chance to use that bootleg, and it did get us a 20 yard gain. But, if we had a bootleg be a regular part of our offense (or jet sweep, or short passes, etc.), we'd better be able to get good gains using our base plays, because the defense can't sit on them as much. Was a horrible running game really worth an important 3rd down gain on a bootleg? It seems to be to Kill/Limegrover, and that's the main problem with our offense.
Click to expand...

Post of the day!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom