Burns: Qb analysis

Donate To GopherHole

Failing the teleportation of the 90s era Cowboys offensive line into TCF I would guess Air Fleck (I like it!) wants to run around 60% of the time which seems to be the scientifically correct ratio for a ball control team. Have to be able to pass. Have to develop that part of the game to elevate beyond what MN has seen in recent years. JMO.
 

Just wish we could see a pass first offense here in my lifetime, don't know if we have the talent to pull it off, but it would be nice to see. Feels like 10+ years of 4 yds and a cloud of dust. When your so focused of short gains you have to make forward progress every single down or drives die. The Oklahomas and Alabamas of the world seem to get by on a philosophy of going for 10+ every time and you only need to be successful one play out of three to keep things moving.
 

salzie said:
I can't take much more RUTM/RUTM/INCOMPLETE PASS/PUNT
Click to expand...

Sure, if that happens it does get old fast. When running that type of offense, you need to get to at least 3rd and realistic. You can't put the QB and OL in 3rd and long, everyone in the stadium knows it's a pass, and the opposing defense can stunt/blitz the lights out.

Also why I love screens, and wish offenses did more. They devour blitzes and really keep the defense on their toes. And of course play-action passes and less frequently (but can be deadly as well) draws. Love those types of plays, as a compliment to a pro-style running offense.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
That’s a little harsh. Mitch threw 8 TDs, 12 INTs, and 56% in 12 games in 2016. That team was above average because of the defense. It’s entirely reasonable to assume the offense might improve after a display like that. As bad as Croft was I’m not sure he had a game as bad as Mitch v. Wisconsin in 2016.
Click to expand...

The second half was very bad.
 



The key to mounting any meaningful offensive production is the offensive line, secondly the offensive line depth.

A pass first offense can be just as dangerous as a run first. I'll take a 60/40, 50/50, to a 40/60 run/pass ratio with this team.

The more balance they have the better their fortunes.
 

I don't claim to be a CFB or Gopher football genius, but I never felt Croft would be our QB. I get the same sense about Morgan although I think he will be miles above Croft. We need an OL that can sustain a 60% run. To go 50/50 or more pass it would have to be a short passing game. I expect to see an effective Air Annexstad offense without passing half the time. The OL will determine that. I am not hating on Morgan, just think he is a MAC QB instead of a B1G QB. That said, I don't care who is QB as long as we win in conference play.
 

diehard said:
I don't claim to be a CFB or Gopher football genius, but I never felt Croft would be our QB. I get the same sense about Morgan although I think he will be miles above Croft. We need an OL that can sustain a 60% run. To go 50/50 or more pass it would have to be a short passing game. I expect to see an effective Air Annexstad offense without passing half the time. The OL will determine that. I am not hating on Morgan, just think he is a MAC QB instead of a B1G QB. That said, I don't care who is QB as long as we win in conference play.
Click to expand...

The biggest thing, for me, is that Fleck's way of doing things has to show signs of life in year 3. I'm still willing to sacrifice a bit, this season, for the sake of next year being a potentially 8-win regular season.

So with that said, I think the starter for this season should, at least ultimately if not the whole time, be the guy that gives us the highest upside next year. The worst case, for me, would be to have Morgan start this year for most or all the year, do OK, and then next year switch to Annexstad as the starter. In that scenario, I would say "well 2018 was a waste then, Annexstad should've been playing that year".
 



Gophers_4life said:
The biggest thing, for me, is that Fleck's way of doing things has to show signs of life in year 3. I'm still willing to sacrifice a bit, this season, for the sake of next year being a potentially 8-win regular season.

So with that said, I think the starter for this season should, at least ultimately if not the whole time, be the guy that gives us the highest upside next year. The worst case, for me, would be to have Morgan start this year for most or all the year, do OK, and then next year switch to Annexstad as the starter. In that scenario, I would say "well 2018 was a waste then, Annexstad should've been playing that year".
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't buy that approach. The goal is to win games now - not at some point in the future. If Morgan is the better QB THIS YEAR, then he should play. If, by next year, with a year of age, growth and development, Annexstad becomes the better player, then he should take over as the starter at that time. What message does that send to the rest of the team, especially the (9) seniors, if they see the coaches not playing the best players, because they would rather develop for the future instead of trying to win this year. The future is not guaranteed. There is only this year.

Imagine being a player - at any level - and having the coach tell you "you're better than Davey right now, but I think Davey might be better than you in the future, so he's going to start ahead of you this year to accelerate his development." I suspect you would be really pi**ed.
 

I agree with hungan and diehard. It's going to boil down to effective line play. It's going to be difficult to figure out where the ceiling is for the offense, but a good line really raises the floor.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
That’s a little harsh. Mitch threw 8 TDs, 12 INTs, and 56% in 12 games in 2016. That team was above average because of the defense. It’s entirely reasonable to assume the offense might improve after a display like that. As bad as Croft was I’m not sure he had a game as bad as Mitch v. Wisconsin in 2016.
Click to expand...

Croft last year vs. NW: 2 of 11 for 43 yards and 3 INT.
 




GophersInIowa said:
Croft last year vs. NW: 2 of 11 for 43 yards and 3 INT.
Click to expand...

That’s not good, but still not as bad as that 0-15 stretch in the second half with 3 straight INTs IIRC. Prior to that the forced throw to the end zone resulting in another INT and taking points off the board. Haven’t seen anything like it before or since.

And, a senior vs a redshirt sophomore. I expect the latter to look like ****.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
That’s not good, but still not as bad as that 0-15 stretch in the second half with 3 straight INTs IIRC. Prior to that the forced throw to the end zone resulting in another INT and taking points off the board. Haven’t seen anything like it before or since.

And, a senior vs a redshirt sophomore. I expect the latter to look like ****.
Click to expand...

If we're comparing the full game and not just a stretch of the game, I would say they were pretty equally terrible. Leidner did score 2 TDs.

If we were discussing who's performance was more disappointing, frustrating, etc. I would agree it was Leidner by far.
 

GophersInIowa said:
If we're comparing the full game and not just a stretch of the game, I would say they were pretty equally terrible. Leidner did score 2 TDs.

If we were discussing who's performance was more disappointing, frustrating, etc. I would agree it was Leidner by far.
Click to expand...

my mom called me to laugh at how the qb cost mn the game. my senior......citizen....mother. sux forever.
 

GophersInIowa said:
If we're comparing the full game and not just a stretch of the game, I would say they were pretty equally terrible. Leidner did score 2 TDs.

If we were discussing who's performance was more disappointing, frustrating, etc. I would agree it was Leidner by far.
Click to expand...

I think we're splitting some pretty ugly hairs here but for the sake of argument that abominable NW game had I believe 6 drops (per PJ) and one sure thing TD ball bouncing off Philip Howard's chest into the hands of the NW defender at the goal line. That one play pretty much summarized the WR corpse last year.

I went searching for it. Behold.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/85jG9XmJXVw?start=5190" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

The discussion of the QB situation seems to have been directed toward passed experiences, failures, and what went wrong. I would suggest deciding on who will be starting on the offensive line will be question one. Two how many touches for Rodney? Can we rush the ball when we have to? Is Tyler Johnson who we think he can be? Then and only then who can lead the group? Execute the game plan. If we can break 60 percent completion barrier, hitting big plays in the passing game, then and only then we can become a threat to anyone in the West. My sense Tanner Morgan is the man. He fits the completion detail. He is an accurate thrower, with touch, and the ability to throw receivers open. I think he will run when it is open.
 

I respect that the best player now should play now, and I respect trying to win this year. Of course

But if Morgan starts and plays most of this year, and Annexstad becomes the starter next year ... I’m still going to say it was a waste to start Morgan this year.
 

Gophers_4life said:
I respect that the best player now should play now, and I respect trying to win this year. Of course

But if Morgan starts and plays most of this year, and Annexstad becomes the starter next year ... I’m still going to say it was a waste to start Morgan this year.
Click to expand...


I recall the last time the coaches selected the 'best' QB to play. funny thing that.
 

All I know is I feel better with two good decent QBs that can start.
 

Gophers_4life said:
I respect that the best player now should play now, and I respect trying to win this year. Of course

But if Morgan starts and plays most of this year, and Annexstad becomes the starter next year ... I’m still going to say it was a waste to start Morgan this year.
Click to expand...

(warning - partially serious). OK, but what if - playing behind Morgan is the motivation Annexstad needs to push himself to become a better player, allowing him to beat out Morgan for the starting job next year? In that scenario, it all works out for the best.
 

If our '19 Texas QB comes in early for spring practice it adds another possible dimension for next year.
 


short ornery norwegian said:
(warning - partially serious). OK, but what if - playing behind Morgan is the motivation Annexstad needs to push himself to become a better player, allowing him to beat out Morgan for the starting job next year? In that scenario, it all works out for the best.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct. This, and a million other scenarios are valid. So, it's not fair for me to say it like I have ... but I probably still will, even though I'm wrong.

To be honest, my statement is motivated by the idea that someone else proposed of Morgan being more like a MAC recruit that PJ brought with from W Mich, while Annexstad is more of a Big Ten recruit. Neither have started. Both could be roughly the same quality and potential at the beginning of the seasons. Both freshmen. So given all that ... it just makes me think we should go with the guy who is more likely to be our leader next year, now.

But yes, no need to restate all the valid counter-arguments. I understand them and accept them, too.



diehard said:
If our '19 Texas QB comes in early for spring practice it adds another possible dimension for next year.
Click to expand...

He may indeed be needed for 2019, if this season is a disaster for both our current QBs. But really hope one of them proves out and can lead the team in 2019 to eight wins type of season. Then we can look at 2020 ...
 

Gophers_4life said:
You're absolutely correct. This, and a million other scenarios are valid. So, it's not fair for me to say it like I have ... but I probably still will, even though I'm wrong.

To be honest, my statement is motivated by the idea that someone else proposed of Morgan being more like a MAC recruit that PJ brought with from W Mich, while Annexstad is more of a Big Ten recruit. Neither have started. Both could be roughly the same quality and potential at the beginning of the seasons. Both freshmen. So given all that ... it just makes me think we should go with the guy who is more likely to be our leader next year, now.

But yes, no need to restate all the valid counter-arguments. I understand them and accept them, too.





He may indeed be needed for 2019, if this season is a disaster for both our current QBs. But really hope one of them proves out and can lead the team in 2019 to eight wins type of season. Then we can look at 2020 ...
Click to expand...

Tanner had 3 power 5 offers, Annexstad had 3 power 5 offers. Same composite rating. Morgan had more experience in high school and has a year in the system. He looked better in the spring game, although that’s relative as neither looked particularly great IMO. We’ll see what happens but because of inexperience I suspect Annexstad is number two until Morgan loses the job or until at least his redshirt freshman year.
 

You are correct. I was well off on Morgan, so that shows what I know! Louisville clearly wanted him, but PJ got him to commit to W Mich (showing how good of a thing he had going there ....).

End of the day, and as you implied: at this moment they seem to be pretty close, though Morgan probably will go into fall camp starting out with the #1 offense, though would bet they split reps early on. And so, my point works in the other direction too! If Annexstad starts this year, and Morgan wins the job next year ... I will have thought it a waste to play Annexstad this year.

Basically, what I perceive as two relatively similar options ... I just want to play the guy who is going to be the starter next year, also as the starter this year. I'd even be willing to sacrifice a win this year to do that, but wouldn't be willing to sacrifice anything significant like 2+ wins or a bowl game. For example, if we're talking about 4-8 vs 5-7.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
I think we're splitting some pretty ugly hairs here but for the sake of argument that abominable NW game had I believe 6 drops (per PJ) and one sure thing TD ball bouncing off Philip Howard's chest into the hands of the NW defender at the goal line. That one play pretty much summarized the WR corpse last year.

I went searching for it. Behold.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/85jG9XmJXVw?start=5190" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Click to expand...

Looking forward to several more years of you defending Croft. I'm gettin' my popcorn!
 

Plausible Deniability said:
Looking forward to several more years of you defending Croft. I'm gettin' my popcorn!
Click to expand...

Simply saying he wasn’t as bad as the stats suggest. Said all along he wasn’t good but his team was equally bad. If that video isn’t evidence enough I don’t know what to say.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom