Another Brilliant Performance by Offensive Visionary Matt Limegrower

Donate To GopherHole
Ogee Oglethorpe said:
Studwell is completely correct. It's quite possible this is the first time in the modern age of tackle football that a BCS conference team called a conservative and vanilla game on the offensive side of the ball against an inferior NC opponent. It was despicable.

I thought both sides of the ball, both Limegrover and Claeys, ran their schemes with the same end result in mind; use our depth to wear down a visiting team that is not nearly as deep and dominate the second half, while at the same time not showing a lot of the playbook.

One thing is for sure, in these first 4 NC games, there are going to be 23-25 guys getting a lot of minutes on defense. Holy sh!t, did they play a lot of guys on defense last night, and it seemed almost every big play for UNLV came against someone fairly down on the 2-deep roster. It's maddening to watch at times, but there's no doubt these guys are setting up for the long haul.
Click to expand...

Good points
 

Ogee Oglethorpe said:
Studwell is completely correct. It's quite possible this is the first time in the modern age of tackle football that a BCS conference team called a conservative and vanilla game on the offensive side of the ball against an inferior NC opponent. It was despicable.

I thought both sides of the ball, both Limegrover and Claeys, ran their schemes with the same end result in mind; use our depth to wear down a visiting team that is not nearly as deep and dominate the second half, while at the same time not showing a lot of the playbook.

One thing is for sure, in these first 4 NC games, there are going to be 23-25 guys getting a lot of minutes on defense. Holy sh!t, did they play a lot of guys on defense last night, and it seemed almost every big play for UNLV came against someone fairly down on the 2-deep roster. It's maddening to watch at times, but there's no doubt these guys are setting up for the long haul.
Click to expand...

Spot on!
 

Studwell is missing the days of run and shoot where you run a lot of motion and chuck the ball around a lot.

Unfortunately it looks like we had a little Remember the Titans moment last night running read option until Studwell got all mad.

I run 6 plays, split veer, like Novocain. Just give it time, always works. -Coach Boone
 

John Galt said:
Nice, I'm not very intelligent. That's real creative.

What I'm asking is who on here claimed that the offense was good tonight? The answer is no one. People on here are excited because the Gophers, a team that has been a dumpster fire and one of the worst college football teams over the last 5 years, just won 51-23. Two years ago they couldn't have beaten St. John's by that much. If that doesn't get you excited and show that the program is improving, it's probably best to move on in life because you will never be satisfied with anything. I've seen plenty of good teams, LSU comes to mind immediately, that have had bad offenses that still won games by large margins due to defense and special teams. For the last time, no one needs to apologize for winning a football game 51-23.
Click to expand...

Sorry, old Off Topic habit crept in there. I still feel the offense made me more scared than giddy. We really, really need Harbison and McDonald in there to help out Nelson.
 

Moving the ball required our quarterback getting his ticket punched 20 times.

That can't go on.

Wishing AJ were on the team.
 


Studwell55 said:
Moving the ball required our quarterback getting his ticket punched 20 times.
Click to expand...

Can't disagree with this. If the playbook needs to be opened up a bit more to keep our QB from taking a bunch of hits running the ball then so be it.
 

My take for the reason we kept running inside is because it wasn't working. There isn't a better place to evaluate than in a real game, and now the team has plenty of film to break down and use to better themselves.
 

5 pages of mostly complaints and little sense;. We are starting to see the team JK told us he wanted to build 3 yrs. agol Hang with this crew, THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING!!! If we win running all dive plays, so be it. If we have to run all but 5 plays and no trick plays, good. But know you have more in your pocket. We are still two yrs. away from a solid big time contender yr in and out, but these guys will get us there.
 

My new book title, "A Win is a Win, except in Minnesota." Because winning without a spectacular offense is not really winning.
 



Studwell55 said:
Moving the ball required our quarterback getting his ticket punched 20 times.

That can't go on.

Wishing AJ were on the team.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure I recall on a number of occasions leading up to the game that you said, "I just hope we win the game".
 

WAGopher said:
My take for the reason we kept running inside is because it wasn't working. There isn't a better place to evaluate than in a real game, and now the team has plenty of film to break down and use to better themselves.
Click to expand...

Agree but I don't think having film to look at is necessarily a reason. These guys believe in doing the basic things. When it's not working, they're---stubborn, bull-headed, determined---enough to keep working at it. When the team gets the basic stuff down, the bells and whistles will be added. Much rather see that approach than panicking and start grabbing at things just to prove you're creative. There are all sorts of things to be concerned about that popped up in the game, but sort of aggravating to check the reaction here and see the bitching. Many expect this program to improve from year to year. I take the same approach with the season. Fully expect us to get better from game to game--not only smoother, but more diversified.
 

atsgopher said:
I'm traveling for work and only caught a portion of the fourth quarter. However, seems to me that the game plan worked just fine.

We weren't playing a Big Ten game. They have no relevance here, nor should the prospect of playing big ten games distract us from doing what beats UNLV.

Who gives a rip about creative. Anything and everything in sports, should be done in the simplest manner possible. But then again, maybe creativity was masked via simplicity.

Frankly, after reading the thread, it appears as if Limegrover was brilliant in his simplicity. In the first half, we wore the other team down. We pounded them, while systematically deploying fresh troops. Then, we returned for the second half, where our investment paid off. UNLV was left with tired athletes ripe for mental mistakes; which they did in abundance, the entire second half. The Gophers, then walked all over them on both special teams and offense while amassing 35 points.

Given what we know about UNLV; they are from a dry heat and thus not conditioned for the climate (yet hopefully fooled by the thermometer). They likely were prepared to play tough for the first half. Perhaps too tough, leaving them vulnerable. Could that be a weakness? Could the creativity reside within the overall strategy? Could the level of conditioning be employed strategically, to increase chances for victory? I know of a local Hockey coach that did just that Circa 1980 vs the best team in the world. Pretty sure it worked too.

Sure one could chuck the ball all day. Chucking the ball can lead to big gains, but it also increases risk. Increasing risk opens the possibility for an upstart team to take advantage of said risk and win. Instead, it appears as if the Gophers chose patience. Methodically wearing them down, decreasing their chances of victory. In the second half they kept their foot on the jugular, until it snapped. I like that, beat em by 28, it's sorta got a nice ring to it.

Or then again, maybe, we just got lucky scoring over 50 points... The last time we were that lucky was 9 seasons ago.
Click to expand...

You imply that creative is a bad thing. NOOOOO. It's a good thing. Did you see Boise State against Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl a few yrs back. WOW. That was effective AND fun. You have to remember this is about winning but also about bringing in fans (which will help us win in the future.) You sit in that stadium and you are bombarded with advertising the entire game. It gets really old. We need something on the field to make up for that moron in the pa booth.
 

Halsey Hall said:
You imply that creative is a bad thing. NOOOOO. It's a good thing. Did you see Boise State against Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl a few yrs back. WOW. That was effective AND fun. You have to remember this is about winning but also about bringing in fans (which will help us win in the future.) You sit in that stadium and you are bombarded with advertising the entire game. It gets really old. We need something on the field to make up for that moron in the pa booth.
Click to expand...

It's a good thing, but you don't want to spend your creative on UNLV if you don't have to. If you can win the game while running only a handful of plays, that's great. However, if the Gophers start using up our creativeness now, future opponents will gameplan for it and reduce its effectiveness.

The Gophers could run a lot out of the Golden-I, rely on a lot of playaction, throw a lot of screens, or run a lot of read-option or regular option. They did all of those things in the game at some point, but even we as fans have no idea if it's just a small piece of the playbook or something we are going to rely on heavily. I expect the play calls for the next 2 weeks will look pretty vanilla as well. San Jose St and Iowa will have to gameplan for all of those schemes though. If you can safely win a game with simple playcalling, that's great.

This also touches on the reason UNLV's receivers had such a large cushion during the first half yesterday. UNLV had a new offensive coordinator, so Tracy Claeys didn't know exactly what to expect from them. Thus, he ran a quarters defense during the first half as Matt over at The Daily Gopher pointed out. After the first half he knew what to expect from their offense and adjusted accordingly.
 



Halsey Hall said:
You imply that creative is a bad thing. NOOOOO. It's a good thing. Did you see Boise State against Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl a few yrs back. WOW. That was effective AND fun. You have to remember this is about winning but also about bringing in fans (which will help us win in the future.) You sit in that stadium and you are bombarded with advertising the entire game. It gets really old. We need something on the field to make up for that moron in the pa booth.
Click to expand...

Too bad those two ST touchdowns and that pick-6 probably didn't do anything to get the fans excited, huh?
 

mattw1067 said:
After the first half he knew what to expect from their offense and adjusted accordingly.
Click to expand...

I have to say this is completely FALSE. UNLV only put up 181 yards in the First Half compared to 238 yards in the 2nd. If anything... they made some mistakes in the 2nd Half that cost them points (3 for the FG & possibly 3-7 for the Int-TD) but they were moving the ball just as effectively in the 2nd Half as they were in the 1st.

I think our Defense played better in the 1st Half barring UNLV being 3/3 on 4th Downs that extended drives but were worn down in the 2nd because they practically were on the field the entire time due to Special Teams & Defensive Scoring...
 

cncmin said:
Hell, why not predict TEN victories after that shellacking? How can anyone beat our mighty Gophers after that impressive performance? Undefeated season, maybe?
Click to expand...

Where the eff are you getting this?

Oh, I get it now, you missed my point.

Congrats on being the hyper emotional, overreacting, passive-aggressive, fire (everyone) and brimstone 'fan'.
 

cncmin said:
We'll see how everyone feels if the same level of play continues into B1G season. I'm betting the giddiness will be tempered more than a little.

By the way, to be fair you probably shouldn't include garbage-time stats. Prior to the Gophers' last garbage-time drive they had been outgained for the game by about 200 yards.
Click to expand...

Genius at statistical inference, are ya! So far, you have yet to show me how a team kicking off so many times needed to generate more offensive and less defensive stats. Those stats are immaterial. Even a crappy team will produce more when given an opportunity. UNLV got 3 more drives because of our takeaways for TDs. Does that not change your perception of the game stats in any way?
 

thailleagle said:
I have to say this is completely FALSE. UNLV only put up 181 yards in the First Half compared to 238 yards in the 2nd. If anything... they made some mistakes in the 2nd Half that cost them points (3 for the FG & possibly 3-7 for the Int-TD) but they were moving the ball just as effectively in the 2nd Half as they were in the 1st.

I think our Defense played better in the 1st Half barring UNLV being 3/3 on 4th Downs that extended drives but were worn down in the 2nd because they practically were on the field the entire time due to Special Teams & Defensive Scoring...
Click to expand...

Actually it ISN'T false. The scheme itself changed. Film will prove that statement correct.

What broke the defense down in the 2nd half was the rotation. We had a LOT of first timers playing. Sure some may have been worn down, but to say the coaches didn't adjust to the dink-and-dunk offense UNLV was running is absurd.
 

Formo said:
Actually it ISN'T false. The scheme itself changed. Film will prove that statement correct.

What broke the defense down in the 2nd half was the rotation. We had a LOT of first timers playing. Sure some may have been worn down, but to say the coaches didn't adjust to the dink-and-dunk offense UNLV was running is absurd.
Click to expand...

I'm watching a replay of the 2nd Half as we speak... I'm not gonna argue that we didn't adjust anything but their gameplan stayed effective throughout & they didn't go away from it so I don't think whatever parts of the scheme we changed did anything drastic to force UNLV to change their gameplan. UNLV still had long drives & a missed FG for a TD & an INT for a TD took the wind out of them but they still moved the ball pretty effectively... I don't think you gain 50-60 more yards in a half by not playing just as effective...
 

thailleagle said:
I'm watching a replay of the 2nd Half as we speak... I'm not gonna argue that we didn't adjust anything but their gameplan stayed effective throughout & they didn't go away from it so I don't think whatever parts of the scheme we changed did anything drastic to force UNLV to change their gameplan. UNLV still had long drives & a missed FG for a TD & an INT for a TD took the wind out of them but they still moved the ball pretty effectively... I don't think you gain 50-60 more yards in a half by not playing just as effective...
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing that the scheme change didn't work. My point was simply that there WAS a scheme change. Of course, they had an advantage in the 2nd half due to all the ST/defensive TDs (eliminating 3 Gopher offensive drives). So there's also that.
 

This is a bizarre thread, I sometimes wonder if some of these people actually watch the games.

(1) Some of you made the argument that Limegrover's offense = run, run, pass, punt. . .

- We had 2 three and outs all game. One of them was when we were buried inside the 5 yard line. We literally had to run the ball to get some room to get out of the back of the endzone. Would you have liked a double reverse from inside the 5? Brilliant!

(2) You want the offense to "open up"?
-What does that even mean? You want more passing?
-We opened it up on first and 10 on our first drive and threw an INT.
-We were running the ball down their throat and Nelson fumbled on 2nd and 1 from the goal.
-Our third drive went pass and then TD run
- - - What is the problem? What could you possibly want more of in terms of playcalling? We are a running team, we should be able to run the football against UNLV.

(3) Comparing our game with Indiana? REally?
-Don't you think MAYBE, just MAYBE Indiana was able to be more explosive in their passing attack because they ran the ball so well? They ran the ball 54 times for 313 yards. In the first quarter (before it got ugly), Indiana had 12 runs to 5 passes. They had 10 first half possessions and they ran the ball on first down 8 times. GASP!!!


The problem with last night's offensive performance had nothing to do with playcalling. It had everything to do with our ability to run the ball well. Indiana was able to run the ball down ISU's throat, we weren't able to run the ball against UNLV very well. It's really not that complicated, this posting is completely bizarre.
 

Formo said:
I'm not disagreeing that the scheme change didn't work. My point was simply that there WAS a scheme change. Of course, they had an advantage in the 2nd half due to all the ST/defensive TDs (eliminating 3 Gopher offensive drives). So there's also that.
Click to expand...

Ok I see now... completely agree...

We had no idea what UNLV was gonna look like with their new OC but we should look better next week because we'll have NMSU on film after tomorrow...
 

thailleagle said:
I have to say this is completely FALSE. UNLV only put up 181 yards in the First Half compared to 238 yards in the 2nd. If anything... they made some mistakes in the 2nd Half that cost them points (3 for the FG & possibly 3-7 for the Int-TD) but they were moving the ball just as effectively in the 2nd Half as they were in the 1st.

I think our Defense played better in the 1st Half barring UNLV being 3/3 on 4th Downs that extended drives but were worn down in the 2nd because they practically were on the field the entire time due to Special Teams & Defensive Scoring...
Click to expand...


Don't you think that was partially do to the gameplan? I was actually perfectly fine with letting them nickel and dime us to death. I think Sherry was much better than they thought he'd be and they thought he'd make some mistakes if we made him throw the ball a lot, and he did. I was much more annoyed with the long runs than the nickel and diming in their passing game. We knew we were up, we knew Sherry is prone to mistakes and we knew they didn't want to kick a FG, to me. . .it makes sense to let them chip away down the field. I think Sherry was more effective at it than they thought he'd be and that'll happen, but it did work.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
This is a bizarre thread, I sometimes wonder if some of these people actually watch the games.

(1) Some of you made the argument that Limegrover's offense = run, run, pass, punt. . .

- We had 2 three and outs all game. One of them was when we were buried inside the 5 yard line. We literally had to run the ball to get some room to get out of the back of the endzone. Would you have liked a double reverse from inside the 5? Brilliant!

(2) You want the offense to "open up"?
-What does that even mean? You want more passing?
-We opened it up on first and 10 on our first drive and threw an INT.
-We were running the ball down their throat and Nelson fumbled on 2nd and 1 from the goal.
-Our third drive went pass and then TD run
- - - What is the problem? What could you possibly want more of in terms of playcalling? We are a running team, we should be able to run the football against UNLV.

(3) Comparing our game with Indiana? REally?
-Don't you think MAYBE, just MAYBE Indiana was able to be more explosive in their passing attack because they ran the ball so well? They ran the ball 54 times for 313 yards. In the first quarter (before it got ugly), Indiana had 12 runs to 5 passes. They had 10 first half possessions and they ran the ball on first down 8 times. GASP!!!


The problem with last night's offensive performance had nothing to do with playcalling. It had everything to do with our ability to run the ball well. Indiana was able to run the ball down ISU's throat, we weren't able to run the ball against UNLV very well. It's really not that complicated, this posting is completely bizarre.
Click to expand...

+1
 

thailleagle said:
Ok I see now... completely agree...

We had no idea what UNLV was gonna look like with their new OC but we should look better next week because we'll have NMSU on film after tomorrow...
Click to expand...

We can hope at least. lol
 

The OP just wants Mason's offense back. He wants to blow out four bad teams, put up a ton of yards in the Big Ten. He forgets we could never stop anyone, and against good teams our offense became run, run, fade (incomplete), punt. Run, run, fade (incomplete), punt. We couldn't stop anyone, and couldn't move the ball in the second half against good teams.

I hope we see better offense too. However, I'm not throwing in the towel after one game. Not great, but a win.
 

Halsey Hall said:
You imply that creative is a bad thing. NOOOOO. It's a good thing. Did you see Boise State against Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl a few yrs back. WOW. That was effective AND fun. You have to remember this is about winning but also about bringing in fans (which will help us win in the future.) You sit in that stadium and you are bombarded with advertising the entire game. It gets really old. We need something on the field to make up for that moron in the pa booth.
Click to expand...

+1 - what they showed last night can't have many non-die hard fans saying, wow, that was exciting, I want to go back every week!
 

cncmin said:
+1 - what they showed last night can't have many non-die hard fans saying, wow, that was exciting, I want to go back every week!
Click to expand...

+1

Offense sells tickets... Defense wins games...
 


cncmin said:
+1 - what they showed last night can't have many non-die hard fans saying, wow, that was exciting, I want to go back every week!
Click to expand...

There were big plays in all three phases: 5 plays of 48 yards or more. We scored 51 points. If that isn't exciting for an average fan, then they'll never get excited.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom