Annexstad out indefinitely with foot injury

Donate To GopherHole
PitinoFan said:
Yep, he also said “to provide more depth” to avoid unnecessary QB controversies.

I’m assuming you heard this on KFAN. That’s where I heard it.

He was also asked about the #2, and proceeded to talk about Kramer first and then Clark. Don’t expect one of them to come in Saturday unless absolutely necessary. He explained that he didn’t put one of them in against Nebraska, because he didn’t want to burn one of their allowable 4 games, just in case they’re needed at the end of the year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't think them not coming in for Nebraska doesn't mean they won't come in for Rutgers.

The Nebraska game was only 14-0 at half and didn't get to 34-0 until the end of the third.

Against Rutgers, we have a chance to get that type of lead much sooner in the game. If that is the case, that would allow Kramer have more than just a few possessions of game time. I can see why they wouldn't want to waste one of their games when they only come in for 2 possessions and hand the ball off. But if we are up by that margin much earlier in the game, that would allow them to play several possessions possessions where they could get some actual work in and throw it around several times instead of just handing it off and maybe getting a single attempt like it would have been for Nebraska and Illinois.
 

Fleck confirmed on his radio show w/ Grimm and Rosen that he doesn't want to play the backup QBs in a meaningless situation because he wants to ensure he can preserve their red shirts.

I'm good with this approach but if he Kramer or Clark can play the entire fourth quarter, I think they should.
 

UpAndUnder43 said:
Fleck confirmed on his radio show w/ Grimm and Rosen that he doesn't want to play the backup QBs in a meaningless situation because he wants to ensure he can preserve their red shirts.

I'm good with this approach but if he Kramer or Clark can play the entire fourth quarter, I think they should.
Click to expand...

I'm not good with this approach personally. He's talked in the past about how important it is to get in games if you're going to be counted on that year. If we need Kramer or Clark at some point this season, who cares about their redshirt? We have 4 QBs. We'll have Morgan and Zack back next year. Kramer or Clark could redshirt next year if needed.
One of them should have been given 2 series against Nebraska IMO. And should if we are in a similar situation at Rutgers. Unless game experience in mop up duty is meaningless, and they're just as good coming in cold against Iowa as if they played 5 drives.
 

Section2 said:
I'm not good with this approach personally. He's talked in the past about how important it is to get in games if you're going to be counted on that year. If we need Kramer or Clark at some point this season, who cares about their redshirt? We have 4 QBs. We'll have Morgan and Zack back next year. Kramer or Clark could redshirt next year if needed.
One of them should have been given 2 series against Nebraska IMO. And should if we are in a similar situation at Rutgers. Unless game experience in mop up duty is meaningless, and they're just as good coming in cold against Iowa as if they played 5 drives.
Click to expand...

Momentum, momentum, momentum. Take him out now, and we don't know if he comes back playing better, worse, or the same. He needs to stay in the game. Three off weeks walking into Penn State is not a good thing.

Fleck got his team here. Trust his process. If that means playing one of the others then great, if not, then great, but he's running this show.
 

Section2 said:
I'm not good with this approach personally. He's talked in the past about how important it is to get in games if you're going to be counted on that year. If we need Kramer or Clark at some point this season, who cares about their redshirt? We have 4 QBs. We'll have Morgan and Zack back next year. Kramer or Clark could redshirt next year if needed.
One of them should have been given 2 series against Nebraska IMO. And should if we are in a similar situation at Rutgers. Unless game experience in mop up duty is meaningless, and they're just as good coming in cold against Iowa as if they played 5 drives.
Click to expand...

If we are good enough to have mop up duty on Saturday I would hope he sticks Green back there. Playing Morgan in a rout is stupid.
 


PJ has it exactly right. Section2 has it exactly wrong.
 

Section2 said:
I'm not good with this approach personally. He's talked in the past about how important it is to get in games if you're going to be counted on that year. If we need Kramer or Clark at some point this season, who cares about their redshirt? We have 4 QBs. We'll have Morgan and Zack back next year. Kramer or Clark could redshirt next year if needed.
One of them should have been given 2 series against Nebraska IMO. And should if we are in a similar situation at Rutgers. Unless game experience in mop up duty is meaningless, and they're just as good coming in cold against Iowa as if they played 5 drives.
Click to expand...

To paraphrase Fleck, he said playing against Nebraska was meaningless. Nothing to gain from going in and handing the ball off.

Tomorrow is never given. Transfers, injuries, etc. They will play Kramer or Clark if the opportunity presents itself. As Fleck stated they have 7 guaranteed games left. Kramer or Clark are not going to be any better suited this week vs three weeks down the road if Morgan gets hurt. Morgan should play and if the spot presents itself in the last 4-5 games, play a one of the freshmen.
 

I get the desire to redshirt them both, but if we actually need one of them, it would be good for them to actually have some live reps. Maybe neither of them are close to being ready. Maybe Annexstad is closer to being back then we know, in which case we don’t need to stick a freshman in there and have their first on field experience be a disaster. We have 6-8 games left in theory. You could play both of them 4. There must be more to Fleck’s thinking than just the redshirt rules.
 

tikited said:
If we are good enough to have mop up duty on Saturday I would hope he sticks Green back there. Playing Morgan in a rout is stupid.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Green is more than capable.
 



You gotta think one of their redshirts being burned this year is inconsequential. Have them redshirt next year.
 

I would like to see Green in there at the end of some games if we have a more than comfortable lead. Going into a game for a few series to hand the ball off isn’t going to give any real game time experience. They would need a quarter+ of play to get anything meaningful out of it.
 

As I said in another thread - there are 6 games left in the regular season, plus a bowl game - and maybe even a conference championship game. that's 8 games left in the season.

Play Kramer in 4 games, play Clark in 4 games. Red-shirts preserved.

This is starting to bug me. College FB gets a rule that coaches claim to love, where a player can appear in 4 games and still red-shirt.

And now, coaches (not just Fleck) are saying that they don't want to play the young guys 'because they might need them later in the season.'

IMHO, every player on the team who is physically able to play should appear in 4 games in some role. at the very least. let them get out on the field and say they played in an actual game.
 

GopherJake said:
PJ has it exactly right. Section2 has it exactly wrong.
Click to expand...

P.J. on the radio today never said they wouldn’t put them in if they were up big early in the game.

All he said is he doesn’t want to play them in a meaningless situation. He was specifically referring to Morgan’s helmet coming off and needing to come out for a single play. That was what he meant by “meaningless.” I don’t think he would consider getting several possessions, an entire quarter or two of more than just handing the ball off, to be meaningless.

And barring a CFP appearance, we only have 7, 8 at most, games left on the schedule so we could rotate between Kramer and Clark to preserve each’s RS, similar time what we are doing with Willis and Gordon at LB.

If I was a betting man, I would say that one of the true freshman (very likely Kramer), does play this weekend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



short ornery norwegian said:
As I said in another thread - there are 6 games left in the regular season, plus a bowl game - and maybe even a conference championship game. that's 8 games left in the season.

Play Kramer in 4 games, play Clark in 4 games. Red-shirts preserved.

This is starting to bug me. College FB gets a rule that coaches claim to love, where a player can appear in 4 games and still red-shirt.

And now, coaches (not just Fleck) are saying that they don't want to play the young guys 'because they might need them later in the season.'

IMHO, every player on the team who is physically able to play should appear in 4 games in some role. at the very least. let them get out on the field and say they played in an actual game.
Click to expand...

Play them at what position? When?
Other than Rutgers, we’re likely to need Tanner all game against the rest of our schedule.
Unless he gets hurt. In which case it would be nice for the backup to have seen action.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

IIRC Tanner has run the ball at least once when he should have been sleeping on the bench the last few games. Injury risk. And, IIRC he came in to throw a deep shot to CAB which potentially could have ended in a sack and injury.

If he ends up getting hurt in garbage time this place will rightfully erupt.

It’s pretty confusing why he’s refusing to give live reps to the backups on the big stage. It absolutely doesn’t have to amount to handoffs only. If nothing else it keeps them more interested and motivated. I keep coming back to the idea he doesnt want someone to transfer (too soon). Change my mind.
 

GopherJake said:
PJ has it exactly right. Section2 has it exactly wrong.
Click to expand...

I lean towards what S2 is saying. One of the two needs some game experience now in case they are needed later. I’d hate to be in the middle of the PSU game that’s close and Tanner gets hurt and can’t play the whole second half. You want to have one of the FR come in having not played a down in that situation and lead the team to victory? Chances are slim we’d be able to pull out a victory in that situation that get reduced even more if they haven’t had any live reps prior to that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


I like the idea of preserving eligibility but what's the point when Tanner is only a sophmore and Zach is waiting in the wings? Not to mention you continue to recruit QBs every year, and we have PJ's highest ranked QB coming in with the Class of 2020.

I like that PJ is looking out for these kids but the fact is that Clark and/or Kramer will most likely transfer to seek playing time. I think it would be great to get some real time reps with the offense for these guys if we ever have to play without Tanner.
 

JZsportswhiz said:
I like the idea of preserving eligibility but what's the point when Tanner is only a sophmore and Zach is waiting in the wings? Not to mention you continue to recruit QBs every year, and we have PJ's highest ranked QB coming in with the Class of 2020.

I like that PJ is looking out for these kids but the fact is that Clark and/or Kramer will most likely transfer to seek playing time. I think it would be great to get some real time reps with the offense for these guys if we ever have to play without Tanner.
Click to expand...

No QBs this year. He’s a 2021. And just broke a collar bone. Things can change in a flash. Though I agree I’d rather not see tanner in games late. Just asking for something to happem
 

There’s probably more to the story. They might not be ready for live reps, other than just handing the ball off to kill clock. Reports from camp weren’t very encouraging. Morgan didn’t get any snaps his first year. I assume he wasn’t ready either, since PJ made us suffer through Rhoda and Croft. If it comes down to it, they might just throw Green out there to finish the game off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GFBfan said:
I lean towards what S2 is saying. One of the two needs some game experience now in case they are needed later. I’d hate to be in the middle of the PSU game that’s close and Tanner gets hurt and can’t play the whole second half. You want to have one of the FR come in having not played a down in that situation and lead the team to victory? Chances are slim we’d be able to pull out a victory in that situation that get reduced even more if they haven’t had any live reps prior to that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't really buy that line of thinking. We have at least 7 games left, I would rather hold those 4 games for each guy in case we really need them as opposed to burning one of their games for a couple of meaningless series in garbage time.
 

MNVCGUY said:
I don't really buy that line of thinking. We have at least 7 games left, I would rather hold those 4 games for each guy in case we really need them as opposed to burning one of their games for a couple of meaningless series in garbage time.
Click to expand...

If we really need them for multiple, 4+ games the special season’s probably flushed regardless. I would rather let Green play walrus ball for a half than see TM get hurt playing in meaningless series. Even more than that I’d rather see the #2 get meaningful game time vs an unfamiliar opponent on a big stage. Most likely they are both going to be buried on the depth chart going forward.
 

UpAndUnder43 said:
Fleck confirmed on his radio show w/ Grimm and Rosen that he doesn't want to play the backup QBs in a meaningless situation because he wants to ensure he can preserve their red shirts.

I'm good with this approach but if he Kramer or Clark can play the entire fourth quarter, I think they should.
Click to expand...

They can play four games under the new red shirt rule. Kramer should play if the Gopher get a real lead (which may not be as easy as we think as Rutgers will put it all together for at least one game).
 

PitinoFan said:
There’s probably more to the story. They might not be ready for live reps, other than just handing the ball off to kill clock. Reports from camp weren’t very encouraging. Morgan didn’t get any snaps his first year. I assume he wasn’t ready either, since PJ made us suffer through Rhoda and Croft. If it comes down to it, they might just throw Green out there to finish the game off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Tanner didn’t have the new 4 game redshirt rule, like there is now. He absolutely would have played had that been in place.
How are either of the two FR going to be ready if they don’t get any game reps? I’m not talking play a series just to turn and hand off. I’m saying if we get up big on Rutgers in the first half, then one or both of them should play in the second half so they can run the full offense. They need some game experience before being thrown in cold in a crucial game later if Morgan were to be hurt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GFBfan said:
Tanner didn’t have the new 4 game redshirt rule, like there is now. He absolutely would have played had that been in place.
How are either of the two FR going to be ready if they don’t get any game reps? I’m not talking play a series just to turn and hand off. I’m saying if we get up big on Rutgers in the first half, then one or both of them should play in the second half so they can run the full offense. They need some game experience before being thrown in cold in a crucial game later if Morgan were to be hurt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If we do to Rutgers what we should be able to do to Rutgers my guess would be that at least one of them sees some fairly significant playing time in this game. But I am also good with them not having played at all to this point.

We probably could have used Green a little more to take some potential hits off Morgan in the games where things were well in hand. That said, we have had enough nail bitters to this point so I can understand the coaches wanting to stick with Morgan as opposed to putting someone under center that might be prone to making the big mistakes that can blow up on you in a hurry (I know Morgan isn't immune to that either but he is going to be safer then a true freshman).
 

At the Current pace, Morgan will be the starting QB for two more years. You should red-shirt as many of the guys as possible. Spacing them out is smart. Our starting QB is top tier in the country statistically and will only get better.

Next year:
Morgan JR
Annexstad RSSo
Kramer RS Fr
Clark RS Fr.
 

GFBfan said:
Tanner didn’t have the new 4 game redshirt rule, like there is now. He absolutely would have played had that been in place.
How are either of the two FR going to be ready if they don’t get any game reps? I’m not talking play a series just to turn and hand off. I’m saying if we get up big on Rutgers in the first half, then one or both of them should play in the second half so they can run the full offense. They need some game experience before being thrown in cold in a crucial game later if Morgan were to be hurt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This x1000


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

MNVCGUY said:
I don't really buy that line of thinking. We have at least 7 games left, I would rather hold those 4 games for each guy in case we really need them as opposed to burning one of their games for a couple of meaningless series in garbage time.
Click to expand...

This. +1,000. What 'experience' are they really gaining from a 10-15 garbage time snaps against Rutgers, assuming that game even gets to that point?
 

MaxyJR1 said:
At the Current pace, Morgan will be the starting QB for two more years. You should red-shirt as many of the guys as possible. Spacing them out is smart. Our starting QB is top tier in the country statistically and will only get better.

Next year:
Morgan JR
Annexstad RSSo
Kramer RS Fr
Clark RS Fr.
Click to expand...
Fyi Morgan will be a redshirt junior next year but your point about spacing them out stands.

Sent from my phone using Tapatalk
 

e.bigelow said:
This. +1,000. What 'experience' are they really gaining from a 10-15 garbage time snaps against Rutgers, assuming that game even gets to that point?
Click to expand...
I don't think it hurts to get experience in a real game situation with a crowd, etc. Look how bad Morgan looked when he first played last year. The more experience the better.

Sent from my phone using Tapatalk
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom