Brewster on the Sports Huddle

[Bob_Loblaw]

Isn't is (bleep) CLOWNS, not CLOWN (bleeps)? ... Media is not allowed access to practice for more than a few minutes, so impossible to pass along thoughts on Hageman, Garin, Olson, etc.
What they need to do to improve? Corners closer to the line of scrimmage, safeties not so far back, find a way to develop someone capable of getting to the QB on a consistent basis, finding a capable RB, something they haven't done in three-plus recruiting classes (Lipscomb doesn't count because there was never a good chance of him getting into school), developing O-linemen, and solving the QB quandary, which might have to entail going to even more of a "Spread" look with Gray getting the snaps, which we saw at times this year.

The areas he needs improvement do include on where he plays his CBs and Safeties. Teams who have a god awful offense can not afford to play their safeties and corners up as much you might like. Even the best CBs and Safeties will get beat sometimes, and when you play press coverage (and have a terrible offense), a couple mistakes can put you behind the 8 ball. Most of our issues in the passing game were a result of having big rugged LBs. Campbell and Triplett had nice years and they play hard, but they were simply not athletic enough to cover in space. The Gophers defense was pretty solid, but it was not a dominant defense that you press all of your opponents and let them win games for you.

The problems are:
-finding a consistant pass rush
-solve the running game problems
-develop O-Lineman
-QB quandry

 

[caliGopher]

Why even bother doing on air radio brewster......I mean seriously?

What a very Masonesque quote...

 

[WAGopher]

This about sums it all up. If you really look at the state of journalism (and I use the term very lightly) today this is par for the course. In many ways its an indictment on our educational system. Somewhere along the line journalists have begun to take the cowards way out. This is a safe and cushy position for them. This statement provides excellent insight into the mindset of todays journalists in general, but particularily sports journalists. Look at the commercially successful people in that line of business today. It is the loud, the obnoxious, the outrageous. No different than Hollywood and the entertainment business. The very nature of the business today rewards not those who provide insight or education, but those who yell loudest and can provide the most cynicism. Any lazy person can do this job today if they simply sell out their morals and integrity. The formula is very simple... make outrageous statements/comments or take a consistently negative opinion knowing that if you are right (which is generally a 50/50 proposition) you can scream louder and spew forth more cynicism anbd if you are wrong you can simply ignore it knowing no one will call you on it, the media protects its own very well against outsiders despite the cut-throat internal competition. A friend of mine uses the term scumbag journalism and I find it very appropriate. Get nitpicky about verbiage or some minor comment and tries to create your own story (screaming loudest and cynically). Journalisms present contributions to society are essentially worthless, and equally bad, all too predictable.

I wasn't too sure of what to make of some of your previous posts, but this one won me over. it's right on the mark.

 

[akgopher]

What a very Masonesque quote...

I think Mason beyond the live, hostile calls might have been more sick of doing the show with Sid. He was pretty priceless when it came to further inciting the wolves with his insults. That was entertaining radio, I felt worse for Mason for having to deal with Sid's mouth in the booth when he was trying to defend himself and the program, than the actual manner of the calls.

 

[Doogie]

Are you serious about the comments regarding the safties and corners playing closer to the line of scrimmage? I hope you realize that it goes a little deeper in a playbook than just moving a corner up to the line of scrimmage. That was an armchair quarterback comment if I've ever heard one.

And as far as our running backs go...THEY ARE ALL SOPHOMORES AND FRESHMEN for crying out loud. Bennett would be our back if he didn't blow out a knee. I think they deserve a few more years before we call them incapable. See, right there, how can you not analyze and realize that all our running backs are young? Plus, besides Wisconsin what Big Ten team had a running game this year?

And on a sidenote...instead of talking about what we need to improve, why not write something as to what 2010 is going to look like.

Young RBs are incapable of shining? We could cite dozens of examples that say that is not the case -- Ingram, and he was fine last year (Ala.), Lewis (Pitt.), James (Ore.), Williams (VT), Harris (BC) ... most of the top 10-15 RBs are sophomores or freshmen ... I think 2010 will bring 5 or 6 wins and a new coach.

 

[Doogie]

Why does he even waste his time going on radio for half an hour

The geniusses will pick apart every single comment.

Why even bother doing on air radio brewster......I mean seriously?

Why does he waste his time? Because he makes a lot of $$ for media obligations.

 

[MBAGuy]

People who use the phrase "i'm a realist" typically don't have reality on their side, so here we go again with you. You keep regurgitating the same nonsense over and over again with a complete disregard for reality. So here we go again, try and take mental note so that people don't have to continuiously correct you on this subject.

"Roof got those guys, whether lucky or not, to force turnovers" - - You are right. Ted Roof was able to get those guys to force 1 more TO in Big 10 play than last season. What a drastic drop off? So are you insinuating that it is a big drop off to force 1 less TO in an 8 game stretch, or you were just another one of those "realists" ignorant of reality?

Kevin Cosgrove's defense forced 16 TO's in Big 10 play (2/game) and 4 in the Bowl game.

QFT.

Would love to hear what a successful 2010 season would be for Doogie.

 

[GoGophers2005]

Young RBs are incapable of shining? We could cite dozens of examples that say that is not the case -- Ingram, and he was fine last year (Ala.), Lewis (Pitt.), James (Ore.), Williams (VT), Harris (BC) ... most of the top 10-15 RBs are sophomores or freshmen ... I think 2010 will bring 5 or 6 wins and a new coach.

So you are saying that Brew should have brought in the Heisman Trophy winner? My God. Delusional. Like I said earlier get some perspective.
I also said basically EVERY team in the Big Ten is looking for a 'shining' running back. It's not just the Gophers.

Another way to make your point isn't to rip on the program with your doom and gloom attitude, but maybe suggest that it would be 'interesting to see what a running back that is 6'2" 230 lbs would look like in Jedd Fisch's offense.' That would look like your actually looking at the program from a true fan standpoint and not someone trying to find their next job.

 

[Doogie]

A win in a trophy game (0-9), vs. a ranked team (0-8), or a win in a bowl game (0-2) would be nice. The college game is all about offense. A 3rd-and-10 is practically a toss-up, so offensive TDs in every game would be nice as well (none in three games and one in three other games, including vs. the Buckeyes' third-stringers).
Also would like to see: Better use of timeouts, less mass confusion with the hand signals, not leading the conference in penalties for a 3rd straight year, and an ability to not drop so many potential INTs.
Can also add this: A conference win in November for once.

 

[Doogie]

So you are saying that Brew should have brought in the Heisman Trophy winner? My God. Delusional. Like I said earlier get some perspective.
I also said basically EVERY team in the Big Ten is looking for a 'shining' running back. It's not just the Gophers.

Another way to make your point isn't to rip on the program with your doom and gloom attitude, but maybe suggest that it would be 'interesting to see what a running back that is 6'2" 230 lbs would look like in Jedd Fisch's offense.' That would look like your actually looking at the program from a true fan standpoint and not someone trying to find their next job.

Wisconsin isn't, neither is Penn State, and what does that have to do w/ the Gophers? ... I was using those guys to prove your shortsightedness, that many, many RBs have success in their first and second years on the field.
I would be interested in seeing that kid in Fisch's offense ... it's on them to bring that sort of talent in.

 

[McGopherFan]

A chance on both sides

Mostly from chat here, it sounds like he was given opportunities on both sides of the ball and selected to focus on defense.

He could be a force in there. When did they move Haggeman from TE to DL?

 

[McGopherFan]

They are like miracles

Could someone point out our "improvements"???

Those who see them don't need them pointed out, and those that ask to have them pointed out aren't likely to be satisfied that what is laid out is truely a miracle or in this case an improvement.

 

[GoGophers2005]

Wisconsin isn't, neither is Penn State, and what does that have to do w/ the Gophers? ... I was using those guys to prove your shortsightedness, that many, many RBs have success in their first and second years on the field.
I would be interested in seeing that kid in Fisch's offense ... it's on them to bring that sort of talent in.

Well no duh that there are some good running backs out there that are young. I also think that the Gophers are not alone in their quest for a running back, but lets remember our backs and our OL are young and that we can't ignore that. It's not an excuse its just facts. All I read in the paper is "gophers offense sux, fire Brewster" without really analyzing what the problems are. Too many journalists can't take the time to grab a media guide and find out the eligibilty left on the team, especially in the areas where we are struggling.

I'm tired of the doom and gloom with some people, its just not that bad.

 

[vinko bogataj]

I do agree that people need to get off of Doogie's back. While I think he's overreacting about Brewster's statement, he makes his living off of people like Brewster

By definition that would make him a parasite. Perfect summation of journalism today. Sean Hannity and Daily Kos > Woodward and Bernstein. A proud profession indeed.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

A win in a trophy game (0-9), vs. a ranked team (0-8), or a win in a bowl game (0-2) would be nice. The college game is all about offense. A 3rd-and-10 is practically a toss-up, so offensive TDs in every game would be nice as well (none in three games and one in three other games, including vs. the Buckeyes' third-stringers).
Also would like to see: Better use of timeouts, less mass confusion with the hand signals, not leading the conference in penalties for a 3rd straight year, and an ability to not drop so many potential INTs.
Can also add this: A conference win in November for once.

I know that Michigan State game was all of 3 hours too early to make 09 a succesful season....good thinking!

As far as the college game being all about offense....Iowa had a putrid offense (almost as bad as the Gophers) and they had a good season. You are trying to make this a point for the sake of your argument but again you failed to back up this line of thinking with any sort of factual evidence. The fact is that the top 5 teams in the Big 10 in defense were the exact same 5 teams who finished in the top 5 in the conference (almost in the exact order of the standings). Defense is the name of the game in college and especially Big 10 football.

 

[Doogie]

Funny stuff on the MSU game.
Ohio State and Iowa have all-world defenses ... there is little chance that any Gophers team in the near future will ever duplicate what the Buckeyes and Hawkeyes accomplished this year ... better/easier route to take is to elevate the offense significantly.
And never doubted the importance of a strong defense, but this decade, the college game with the spread offenses, has seen a ton of points scored ... if someone wants to do the research, I would think this recently completed decade was the highest scoring decade in college football in a long, long time.

 

[WAGopher]

The college game is all about offense. A 3rd-and-10 is practically a toss-up, ...

Wrong on both counts. The best teams have strong defenses. And your blanket 3rd down statement is also wrong. The average Big Ten 3rd down efficiency for 2009 is 41%. Not one Big Ten team averaged 50% or more, which means more times than not, a team won't convert a 3rd down.

 

[Doogie]

My semi-blanket statement should've been elaborated on more ... and I used the word practically ... common sense says a 3rd and 10 will more often than not, not be converted. I have never doubted the importance of a very good defense.

 

[GoGophers2005]

The college game is all about offense? Do you watch college football?
And there is little chance the Gophers will ever duplicate what OSU and Iowa did this year? There you go again.....how do you know?

 

[MBAGuy]

Funny stuff on the MSU game.
Ohio State and Iowa have all-world defenses ... there is little chance that any Gophers team in the near future will ever duplicate what the Buckeyes and Hawkeyes accomplished this year ... better/easier route to take is to elevate the offense significantly.

In scoring defense, Iowa went from 45th in 2006 to 12th in 2007. They were 5th in 2008 and 9th this year.

The Gophers were ranked 51 this year, which is not significantly different from where Iowa was before their jump. But there's little chance of the Gophers making the jump, right?

Your biases are fun.

 

[Doogie]

MBAGuy -- You name the stakes ... if the current regime is still in place in a few years, which is a giant if, I will bet you that the Gophers don't make the sizable jump in scoring defense that you suggest they have a chance to do.

 

[Doogie]

The college game is all about offense? Do you watch college football?
And there is little chance the Gophers will ever duplicate what OSU and Iowa did this year? There you go again.....how do you know?

My "all" comment was a bit of hyperbole ... but scoring this decade was unprecedented. I would bet (no, I haven't looked up the numbers for decade comparisons) that this was the highest scoring decade in a long time.
So, you think they can/will copy the success of Ohio State defensively in the near future?

 

[MBAGuy]

MBAGuy -- You name the stakes ... if the current regime is still in place in a few years, which is a giant if, I will bet you that the Gophers don't make the sizable jump in scoring defense that you suggest they have a chance to do.

I have zero interest in participating in the wager shtick you use here.

I'd just like you to provide some rationale behind your assertions. Do we not have a chance to improve because of a lack of athletes? Or is it coaching deficiency? If it's the latter, then why do you believe Brewster deserves another year? If we're unable to make the same progress consistent with teams against which we have been historically competitive, it seems to me there's no reason to keep him around.

 

[Doogie]

Who can rush the passer? Who strikes fear in the secondary? Who will adequately replace Campbell? It has to do with talent. I'll defer to the high school coaches on this board (lakesgopher) on scheme issues, although the soft coverage the corners play I know bothers many, as does having 1 safety 20 yards away from the line of scrimmage.

Your turn now ... why are you convinced that we will potentially see vast improvement?

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

My "all" comment was a bit of hyperbole ... but scoring this decade was unprecedented. I would bet (no, I haven't looked up the numbers for decade comparisons) that this was the highest scoring decade in a long time.
So, you think they can/will copy the success of Ohio State defensively in the near future?

If Iowa can build a great defense then it is entirely possible that MN can build a dominant defense. We recruit similar caliber of athletes each season, and they should be our role model for success. What seperates tOSU from the Iowa/Wisconsins of the world is that tOSU is going to be great every single season on defense, and no, we can't replicate that kind of success.

If you ask the question, do you think the Gophers can/will copy the success of Iowa defensively in the near future? (solid D and a really good D every few years)

I think they certainly can, as far as if they will...i guess time will tell.

 

[bankonit]

If Iowa can build a great defense then it is entirely possible that MN can build a dominant defense. We recruit similar caliber of athletes each season, and they should be our role model for success. What seperates tOSU from the Iowa/Wisconsins of the world is that tOSU is going to be great every single season on defense, and no, we can't replicate that kind of success.

If you ask the question, do you think the Gophers can/will copy the success of Iowa defensively in the near future? (solid D and a really good D every few years)

I think they certainly can, as far as if they will...i guess time will tell.

We are recruiting better athletes than them and will be recruiting WAY better athletes than them once we turn it around just a little.

 

[GoGophers2005]

Who can rush the passer? Who strikes fear in the secondary? Who will adequately replace Campbell? It has to do with talent. I'll defer to the high school coaches on this board (lakesgopher) on scheme issues, although the soft coverage the corners play I know bothers many, as does having 1 safety 20 yards away from the line of scrimmage.

Your turn now ... why are you convinced that we will potentially see vast improvement?

Aren't these the sort of questions a journalist or the media should be writing about? Why do we have to give you these answers?

And to answer your soft coverage on the corner question...the reason why corners play off is two fold (and probably 10 fold because there are a ton of reasons to have soft corners):
1. So they don't get burned deep because they probably have little to no safety help.
2. Quarterbacks in college football are really not as accurate and tend to not look off the side of the field in which they are going to throw to. So its a way of putting a corner in position where he can look into the quarterback without having his full attention on bumping and running with a WR.

 

[bankonit]

Who can rush the passer? Who strikes fear in the secondary? Who will adequately replace Campbell? It has to do with talent. I'll defer to the high school coaches on this board (lakesgopher) on scheme issues, although the soft coverage the corners play I know bothers many, as does having 1 safety 20 yards away from the line of scrimmage.

Your turn now ... why are you convinced that we will potentially see vast improvement?

Tinsley and Reeves and Maresh are all better than Campbell. It won't be a problem.

 

[Doogie]

Aren't these the sort of questions a journalist or the media should be writing about? Why do we have to give you these answers?

And to answer your soft coverage on the corner question...the reason why corners play off is two fold (and probably 10 fold because there are a ton of reasons to have soft corners):
1. So they don't get burned deep because they probably have little to no safety help.
2. Quarterbacks in college football are really not as accurate and tend to not look off the side of the field in which they are going to throw to. So its a way of putting a corner in position where he can look into the quarterback without having his full attention on bumping and running with a WR.

Your posts prove you are passionate and knowledgeable, so why wouldn't we want to read your take? This is what the board is all about.

 

[MBAGuy]

Who can rush the passer? Who strikes fear in the secondary? Who will adequately replace Campbell? It has to do with talent. I'll defer to the high school coaches on this board (lakesgopher) on scheme issues, although the soft coverage the corners play I know bothers many, as does having 1 safety 20 yards away from the line of scrimmage.

Your turn now ... why are you convinced that we will potentially see vast improvement?

Ok, if it's a deficit in talent let's use Rivals rankings to look at Iowa and Minnesota's defensive recruits. We can agree that it's not perfect, but since most of our young defensive guys haven't seen significant playing time (and neither of us are allowed into practice for any significant time), it's all we've got.

I'm looking at Iowa's defensive recruits from 2006 to 2008 and Minnesota's defensive recruits (those who qualified and are still on the team) from 2008 to 2009. This should appropriately capture Iowa's move from 45 in 2006 to 12 in 2007 (and their success in subsequent years) while also providing some idea about whether our talent provides us with the capacity to make such a move. The number to the right of the year represents the average Rival's rating for all defensive recruits.

Iowa
2006: 5.39
2007: 5.51
2008: 5.31

Minnesota
2008: 5.55
2009: 5.67

This suggests our talent will be sufficient to improve on a year-over-year basis. Whether we'll match the success Iowa has had is anyone's guess, but the talent as judged by Rivals suggests there's reason for optimism. It's not a perfect methodology, but it's the best we've got.

Alternatively, we could rely on your method of pure conjecture.