P.J. Fleck explains Gophers' cautious, run-heavy play-calling from 31-0 victory over Rutgers

I don't think anyone can dispute that our passing game needs to improve. But I strongly disagree that we should have been working on it during the Rutgers game when we didn't have to. The team badly needed a win and the gameplan of being run heavy with a short passing game was working so there was zero reason to change it up or try something different.
I don't think anyone is suggesting throw it 50 times or anything. But did we have a single pass go past 10 yards in the air on Saturday? They were giving us a lot of man coverage with little or no help over the top, but didn't ever try to take advantage of it.
 

I don't think anyone is suggesting throw it 50 times or anything. But did we have a single pass go past 10 yards in the air on Saturday? They were giving us a lot of man coverage with little or no help over the top, but didn't ever try to take advantage of it.
I wonder if this is just Kirk's saying where he says he doesn't call a play if he doesn't think they can make that play (show it in practice).

I think we as fans think of every play with the same odds of success. Meanwhile coaches see things that make them think otherwise.

Jackson's recieving looked mostly successful on crossing routes I think.
 


I agree with the sentence, but the problem is that the game plan will never work against good competition. When you can't pass the ball for sh*t and you are playing inferior competition, most people would find that a good time to work on your passing game. Or, at a bare minimum, give a different RB some carries. If we need Mo to be back there for 30+ touches to beat Rutgers then PJ has failed at recruiting RB depth.

What?
 

Gameplan is different every week but one thing that doesn't change is when Fleck gets a lead he is very good at making it really hard for the other team to have any chance of coming back. He does that by controlling the clock, running the ball and being efficient with the passing game.

6 of our 14 completions led to first downs that extended drives. 4 of our passing attempts were dropped including one by BSF that probably would have been a TD. We threw 21 passes in the game, it isn't like we never put the ball in the air against them.
Yes, we started with a normal offense and threw for several first downs.

However, after being up 14-0, we throw for a total of 10 more times in the game and those throws resulted in 1 first down. Of those 10 throws, 6 of them were on 3rd and 7 or more.

So using your standard, our passing game was putrid after going into a shell.
 



+1000 but according to some of our armchair QBs we should have been throwing downfield and taking risks because yeah, that makes sense.
It was an ugly game to watch, just like the first 3 wins of the season. In the end, Fleck and the Gophers absolutely had to have this game - if they don't beat Rutgers their season is done. The most important thing to Fleck was to get ahead then slam the door shut and get the W.

Being a long time fan, I will take this strategy over say a Mason - led team winning by 28 points with several spectacular offensive plays then having a late defensive meltdown and losing the game. The same goes for Nebraska -- just get the W and I do not care if it is boring or ugly or if it takes 10 plays just to get to get to the 50 yard line. We need this one!!
 

I wonder if this is just Kirk's saying where he says he doesn't call a play if he doesn't think they can make that play (show it in practice).

I think we as fans think of every play with the same odds of success. Meanwhile coaches see things that make them think otherwise.

Jackson's recieving looked mostly successful on crossing routes I think.
I think it is the second one way more than the first one. The farther the throw the more risk that something will go wrong. Protection has to hold up longer, throw has to travel a longer distance on target, the potential for bad outcomes goes up by a lot.

So in a game we had in hand they opt to keep the throws safer in order to avoid something happening that would potentially give Rutgers an opportunity to get back into the game.
 





+1

The goal against Rutgers should have been to beat Rutgers. If we try a similar gameplan against any one of our next four opponents, it doesn't work, and we don't adjust in game, that will be a problem worth complaining about.

I agree with your basic theme but my guess is that we probably won't see anything radically different against Northwestern and maybe even Nebraska.
 


Yep....like a lot of teams we are built to play from the front and struggle to come from behind.
Id like to see us try to be built for both.

And in order for that to happen, it has to be a goal.
 



Lack of deep passing game is a serious and legitimate concern. We miss CAB more than I ever realized we would IMO. I'm more upset about our inability to throw the ball, not the fact that we didn't throw more, if that makes sense.
I totally agree with this. I think most people here are frustrated by the team's inability to pass effectively -- especially down the field for explosive plays. I guess the difference in opinion is what (if anything) should be done about it. I personally think it's a lack of talent at WR, so it's on the coaches to get creative AS NEEDED to get people open in space and manufacture those plays. I don't think throwing unnecessarily in must-win B1G games is the time for that. I also don't think changing QBs will help. Others disagree on one or both of those points. Doesn't make anyone stupid or less of a fan. We're all frustrated over here.
 

The fact that you were playing a good defense and one that was good against the run and you told your RB that he was going to get close to 40 reps, tells me that you don't have a passing attack that you trust at all. Something needs to change.

It was 14-0 going to the 4thQ and Rutgers had a bunch of open WR's that could have made the game completely different. Iowa and Wisconsin will kill us with this thought process.

It can't be the plan every week.
Were they good against the run though? 4.8 YPC isn't very good. And was there defense good? They gave up 31 points. Just because they were good against the run in other games doesn't mean the strategy was wrong. The final score was 31-0.
 

I don't think anyone can dispute that our passing game needs to improve. But I strongly disagree that we should have been working on it during the Rutgers game when we didn't have to. The team badly needed a win and the gameplan of being run heavy with a short passing game was working so there was zero reason to change it up or try something different.
Didn’t need to be Mo.
I remember him getting his 23rd carry in the second half of a sure victory against MSU.
 

Didn’t need to be Mo.
I remember him getting his 23rd carry in the second half of a sure victory against MSU.
I wonder if Illinois fans stress as much about Chase Brown's carries as ours do about Mo's? Brown has gone over 30 carries 3 times and 40 carries once.....the horror.

As for that MSU game, we ran the all 48 times and our All-American got 22 of the carries.
 

I totally agree with this. I think most people here are frustrated by the team's inability to pass effectively -- especially down the field for explosive plays. I guess the difference in opinion is what (if anything) should be done about it. I personally think it's a lack of talent at WR, so it's on the coaches to get creative AS NEEDED to get people open in space and manufacture those plays. I don't think throwing unnecessarily in must-win B1G games is the time for that. I also don't think changing QBs will help. Others disagree on one or both of those points. Doesn't make anyone stupid or less of a fan. We're all frustrated over here.
What good WR is going to sign here when he looks at the stats and sees we run the ball so often.
PJ got rid of the O coordinator at the end of last year why? Our passing game certainly hasn't taken a step forward this season with the change.
 

So should we just not look at the Illinois or Purdue games? It didn't work then.

The goal against Rutgers was to win the game and we came out and opened it up in the first two drives and scored two TDs. Then we went into a shell and got ourselves into a nail biter until the 4th.

We won against Rutgers in spite of going into the shell not because of it.
Our plan against Illinois and Purdue was awful. It didn't work against those teams, and we couldn't figure it out. If we can run a weak team like Rutgers to death, I'm all for it. You need to consider your opponent for your gameplan. We had a good plan to beat Rutgers. The fact that that same plan would not have worked against other teams doesn't make me regret using it against Rutgers.
 


Our plan against Illinois and Purdue was awful. It didn't work against those teams, and we couldn't figure it out. If we can run a weak team like Rutgers to death, I'm all for it. You need to consider your opponent for your gameplan. We had a good plan to beat Rutgers. The fact that that same plan would not have worked against other teams doesn't make me regret using it against Rutgers.
Purdue game had far more to do with execution than it did the plan itself. That game was there for the taking but we just kept shooting ourselves in the foot over and over again with unforced errors.
 

I am baffled as to why it is necessary to "explain" anything at all.

It was a 31-0 victory.

Our first shutout of a B1G opponent since 2004.

To say that the game plan was extremely effective is an understatement.
Completely agree with the effective game plan. However, he should have gone for 2 at the end. LOL
 


I wonder if Illinois fans stress as much about Chase Brown's carries as ours do about Mo's? Brown has gone over 30 carries 3 times and 40 carries once.....the horror.

As for that MSU game, we ran the all 48 times and our All-American got 22 of the carries.
Is Brown coming off an Achilles injury? Is his health and ability to play the sole possibility for Illinois to win games?
 

Per Randy:

The scoreboard read Gophers 31, Rutgers 0. The time of possession favored Minnesota by a 2-1 margin, 40:02 to 19:58. And the Gophers ran 84 offensive plays to the Scarlet Knights' 45.

Yet late Saturday afternoon, some fans and Gophers observers were left less-than-completely fulfilled with the second shutout victory of the season. Their concern: Where was the passing game?


Indeed, the Gophers ran the ball 53 times and passed it only 21, with quarterback Tanner Morgan completing 14 of those throws for 122 yards with no touchdowns or interceptions. Their longest gain through the air was 21 yards to tight end Brevyn Spann-Ford.

On Monday, coach P.J. Fleck explained his team's strategy against Rutgers. To paraphrase singer Billy Idol, "In the 1:30 p.m. hour, they cried Mo, Mo, Mo.''

"We talked to Mohamed [Ibrahim] and that he might have to be ready to carry the ball 35-40 times, and he did exactly that within a few numbers,'' Fleck said of his star running back, who ran 36 times for 159 yards and three touchdowns. "We knew it would be that type of game.''


Go Gophers!!

What specifically made it “that type of game?”
 

What good WR is going to sign here when he looks at the stats and sees we run the ball so often.
PJ got rid of the O coordinator at the end of last year why? Our passing game certainly hasn't taken a step forward this season with the change.
I hear ya; my counter would be "we don't have the passing game because we don't have a receiver like YOU here. One that can get off the ball & make plays. You can be our next Bateman/Johnson."

I'm encouraged that Daniel Jackson can be a good short to mid-range guy.....but I think there's a reason why we're not "beating this coverage downfield 1-on-1," that so many of us want or wished was happening. I agree that it's still worth a shot or three per game, merely for the threat & to keep some of these defenses from breathing down the OL's neck. It will have to be, especially vs Iowa & Wisconsin. But against Rutgers, I see why the risk wasn't worth the reward. And that stuff isn't going to magically start happening simply by working on it in a game.
 

Some Gopher fans will always be upset that Fleck is... Fleck.

P.J. Fleck is — like Jim Harbaugh, Kirk Ferentz, Barry Alvarez, Jim Tressel, Bret Bielema — a coach who believes in smash mouth, run-first, control the clock football.
People are very glad we stomped Rutgers. And they recognize that PJ is one hell of a coach, a coach who creates good players and good citizens. (By the way, I believe Bret Bielema uses the passing game in a complimentary fashion to his run game—for all four quarters. He isn’t just smash mouth. Re-watch our most recent game with Illinois.)

Anyway, I don’t think the mild upset you comment on is about the Rutgers game per se. It is about the larger picture. PJ’s preference for the run is so overwhelmingly strong that it might be the principal factor impeding the development of a decent, reliable passing game. His mantra seems to be “why pass when we can win by running?” But he would never say “why run when we can win by passing?”

A decent passing game requires timing, coordination and communication in tough game conditions. It has to be developed each year as personnel changes. If you run a grossly unbalanced offense, you develop your run game during the course of the season while simultaneously “undeveloping” your passing game. This approach works great against teams that can’t stop your run game (and you’ll be a bowl team most years), but it often has you hitting a brick wall when your play better teams that won’t be beaten by your run game alone …teams that force you to rely on your neglected, undeveloped passing game to win.

So, to me, the folks who see Rutgers as a missed opportunity to develop needed passing game experience and confidence under game conditions are looking at the larger picture. They see the success of the passing game in the first few series against Rutgers and think that this would have been a good game to work on further development of our pass game, to work on patterns, timing, coordination, screens, taking a few deep shots, etc. To help get our passing game ready for the run stopping defenses we will face in some upcoming games.

PJ’s desire to hyper-develop our run game during the season at the expense of developing a complimentary passing game—leaving us with one extremely powerful arm and another withered one—will win us a lot of games against lesser teams. But it also consigns us to great frustration against teams that can successfully defense our run game, forcing us to dust off and rely on our purposely neglected and undeveloped passing game. And it creates a feedback loop that makes it harder and harder for PJ to recruit decent WRs. Why would a top receiver play for a coach who has so little respect for the complimentary offensive benefits of the passing game?

So, to me, it isn’t about the Rutgers game. Not at all. It is about how little PJ cares about taking clear opportunities to develop our passing game as a co-equal element of our offense. In the modern age of football, where rules favor the passing game, PJ’s desire to avoid the passing game whenever possible limits the Gophers’ upside potential (and perhaps their ability to overcome 10 point deficits). “Use it or lose it” is a real thing.
 
Last edited:

Is Brown coming off an Achilles injury? Is his health and ability to play the sole possibility for Illinois to win games?
No and probably as Brown is a massive part of that offense, very similar to Mo.

As for the Achilles injury, Mo is clearly recovered from that so it is a non-factor. Some will stress about the ankle injury....sure didn't seem to be limiting Mo's effectiveness against Rutgers. Guessing he does very little in practice during the week in order to get as much rest as possible leading up to gameday.

Fleck said in one of his press conferences that Mo had like 92 yards after contact against Rutgers. We saw first hand against Purdue that our other RBs really struggled to gain yardage after contact. So the coaches stuck with Mo until the game was fully out of reach at 21-0.
 

So, to me, the folks who see Rutgers as a missed opportunity to develop needed passing game experience and confidence under game conditions are looking at the larger picture. They see the success of the passing game in the first few series against Rutgers and think that this would have been a good game to work on further development of our pass game, to work on patterns, timing, coordination, screens, taking a few deep shots, etc. To help get our passing game ready for the run stopping defenses we will face in some upcoming games.
I hear what you're saying, but I think it's a lot easier said than done. I remember once when Mason was asked why he doesn't throw more screen passes, his reply was to the effect "we don't run it well in practice; if we can't run it in practice, we're not going to try it in a game."

I think it's a lot easier said than done to just be able to start developing the things we struggle on in a game, especially a Big Ten one.

I agree with other posters; passing game was working early in the game; went away with it & went into a shell. But maybe if Rutgers provided more of a threat, the shell wouldn't have been the plan?
 

There's a weird dynamic where folks seem to feel that more passing will somehow mean we take advantage of the opposing team playing a run focused defense.

As if that's not already happening .... all year long ... and still the results on passing have not been amazing and running going really well.

What is it then? 3 more passes a game will open it up?
 




Top Bottom