Demry Croft: Burn the 'shirt??

[Killjoy]

Let's pull the RS - not because it is the smart thing to do, or because it will help the offense but let's pull it so the fanbase can watch him throw an incompletion and everybody can shut up about him being the immediate answer already.

Wrong, pigskin breath! They will then just say that Perra is the solution. We even had one "genius" as Sid would call him who wanted to hold tryouts of U of M students for the QB position. He said there must be at least 15 former high school students on campus who were better than Mitch. With People thinking like that I am afraid it has become impossible to have a rational discussion on this subject.

 

[Rescooter]

Wrong, pigskin breath! They will then just say that Perra is the solution. We even had one "genius" as Sid would call him who wanted to hold tryouts of U of M students for the QB position. He said there must be at least 15 former high school students on campus who were better than Mitch. With People thinking like that I am afraid it has become impossible to have a rational discussion on this subject.

I've been laughing about that all weekend. Thanks for bringing it up again.

 

[Hates Monikers]

While I agree with a lot of posters in this thread that have said things along the lines of "I don't know, only the coaches know" and "if he were the better player he would already be playing", I think it is time to give Demry some run.

But here's where my opinion differs from many others who think he should play: I think we should move forward with Mitch as the starter and burn the shirt in the third quarter if we are up big. While I realize it may be shortsighted to burn the shirt for what could amount to 1.5 quarters of mop up time play vs Kent State and 1.5 quarters of mop up time play vs Ohio, perhaps he comes out and shows he is ready to play.

And if he's not ready, a good chunk of playing time this year as a backup prepares him well for a potential QB competition next August.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is the argument I was trying to make early on in this thread. Without having seen them, I'm still pretty certain that neither Croft nor Perra should be startging this year. But if one of them doesn't see action this year, then next year we're in the same spot. This is a two-season issue.

We have to take steps to develop someone -- hopefully to compete as a starter next year, but at least to be available as a competent backup in case of injury. Only the coaching staff knows who that should be.

 

[jordanras91]

Now that it's been a few days, I'm fine with Leidner finishing out the year as the qb while Croft develops his body more in the weight room. There's no sense in burning his redshirt if he's only going to see garbage minutes and if Leidner gets hurt. The thing I would like to see is a competition in spring ball for the starting job, if Croft beats out Leidner then he has four years left of eligibility, even if he doesn't then we still have him for at least three more years after Leidner graduates.

 

[GoldenGopher88]

Any word on Perra? Coach Kill seemed intrigued by him this Spring and was disappointed he was injured for our Spring game. It's hard for me to believe that Strevler is a better back-up QB then Perra. I would personally like to see what this young man can do. It's hard to believe that he'll stay stay on-board as a PWO after this year, if not given at least an opportunity?

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Maybe the backups aren't as good in practice, but are "gamers". IALTO

Would you concede a scenario where a workout wonder is great in practice but has the yips in games, and the backup's play is better than the starter?

Would Streveler at his best be worse than Bad Mitch? Im going to speculate that the answer is Probably not. Same for Perra.

 

[Great Plains Gopher]

+1

Let him mature physically in strength & conditioning program with the current crop of red shirt O-Linemen and play him extensively in practices. FOR NOW.

In the next two non-conference games, they must play the current backups to give them game experience. They need to be evaluated in actual game conditions. What will happen if Leidner goes down for an extensive period?

Things may change. If you look around the B1G West in the first two non-cons games, everybody's improved. There are no gimmes for the Gophers. To say that the Gophers have one of the toughest overall schedule in the B1G West is an understatement.

To me, the team's overall health is the biggest concern with all the injuries piling up after two games. Key injuries will dictate which red shirts will burn.

Ditto all of the above - I'd really like to see Perra and Streveler do some passing against Kent State and Ohio - as you say, in case Mitch is hurt during the season. Ideally, Croft would gain some muscle weight and have a redshirt year to learn the system. Ideally.

 

[DougMN]

Any word on Perra? Coach Kill seemed intrigued by him this Spring and was disappointed he was injured for our Spring game. It's hard for me to believe that Strevler is a better back-up QB then Perra. I would personally like to see what this young man can do. It's hard to believe that he'll stay stay on-board as a PWO after this year, if not given at least an opportunity?

Good point- they should definitely give Perra some snaps- if nothing else they get some real game footage of him. They will very likely lose him anyway.

Let's not forgot- Leidner became the starter over Nelson in midseason. Nelson became the starter over Gray in midseason. And all under Coach Kill.

 

[dpodoll68]

They will very likely lose him anyway.

Based on what?

 

[Winnipegopher]

Based on what?

There is a prevailing belief that players. especially QBs, will transfer to play. I think it is true for some but Perra didn't come in with false promises, he came in as a walk-on. I suspect Perra wants a UM education and potential opportunities (I read somewhere he desires to coach) over dropping down and playing FCS or D-2. I will also add that there is no guarantee a QB who drops down will become a starter. I am not going to look it up but am pretty sure Max Shortell started more games in two years at Minnesota than he did in two years at Jacksonville State.

 

[Spoofin]

<b>Any word on Perra</b>? Coach Kill seemed intrigued by him this Spring and was disappointed he was injured for our Spring game. It's hard for me to believe that Strevler is a better back-up QB then Perra. I would personally like to see what this young man can do. It's hard to believe that he'll stay stay on-board as a PWO after this year, if not given at least an opportunity?

Any word other than he is behind Mitch, Chris, and Demry on the depth chart? No.

If we don't want to try a rFR, why not the 4th string guy, right?

 

[Spoofin]

Would you concede a scenario where a workout wonder is great in practice but has the yips in games, and the backup's play is better than the starter?

Would Streveler at his best be worse than Bad Mitch? Im going to speculate that the answer is Probably not. Same for Perra.

I think there have been countless kids that are great in practice, but can't perform well in a game. I also think there has never, in any sport in the history of the world, been a kid who struggles in practice, but is great in games. The "gamer" theory is the worst ever and shows the ultimate 'reach' by a desperate fan. One has never ever ever existed.

That was a bit strong, but you get the point. If Strev, Demry, Perra, Wren, etc can't outperform Mitch in practice then ML7 is our best option at this point. Period.

 

[Rescooter]

I think there have been countless kids that are great in practice, but can't perform well in a game. I also think there has never, in any sport in the history of the world, been a kid who struggles in practice, but is great in games. The "gamer" theory is the worst ever and shows the ultimate 'reach' by a desperate fan. One has never ever ever existed.

That was a bit strong, but you get the point. If Strev, Demry, Perra, Wren, etc can't outperform Mitch in practice then ML7 is our best option at this point. Period.

Genius! Yes, I can see it now - Wren would be awesome.

 

[GoldenGopher88]

Spooner-keep drinking the Kool-Aid. My point being that I'm hard pressed to believe Strevler is a better QB than Perra. I would like for him to have an opportunity, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Killjoy]

Genius! Yes, I can see it now - Wren would be awesome.

If we had Wren using Morse code in giving signals, the other team would REALLY be confused. They would be totally clueless as to what we were doing.

 

[60's Guy]

Not never

I think there have been countless kids that are great in practice, but can't perform well in a game. I also think there has never, in any sport in the history of the world, been a kid who struggles in practice, but is great in games. The "gamer" theory is the worst ever and shows the ultimate 'reach' by a desperate fan. One has never ever ever existed.

That was a bit strong, but you get the point. If Strev, Demry, Perra, Wren, etc can't outperform Mitch in practice then ML7 is our best option at this point. Period.

Ya, that's a bit strong. It's not that simple. There are lots of reasons you hook your wagon to a player and he/she is the guy. I can't give you any famous examples and high school sports is differenent than college in many ways. But with that caveat, most all college players were at least "good" in high school. The ability for them to step up in one shining moment, I think happens often, if given the chance. The problem is sustainability. They likely have shortcomings that in game two or three are discovered, schemed against by the opponent and they can't overcome their weaknesses.

And often their strengths are different than the starters strengths who you have built your team around. I have absolutely witnessed it in games I coached and watched. I've also coached kids who are horrible at certain phases but if you somehow mask those inadequacies and if they are rockstars at their one skill, they are major contributors to team success. A little different because it happens because you run out of alternatives with injuries or reasons kids can't play.

So, my point, maybe or even likely our backups can't play better but to say NEVER is way too strong. People absolutely do rise up and play better in games. Usually, those same people have days or moments at least here and there in practice where you ask yourself who is that? Gamers is a very real thing...it's just not something that is common just because someone gets a chance.

But Perra could be a better passer in a game than Mitch based on past coach's comments. The coaches are not talking backup quarterbacks at all because Mitch has struggled and they don't want any controversary. Limegrover was praising Perra after a week or so of the fall...right now it's all Mitch. And it's all about confidence...might not be there right now for them. We don't know...Perra, Croft etc have talent...they could play well in a game...Max Shortell played maybe his best game vs USC in his first.

 

[Spoofin]

Ya, that's a bit strong. It's not that simple. There are lots of reasons you hook your wagon to a player and he/she is the guy. I can't give you any famous examples and high school sports is differenent than college in many ways. But with that caveat, most all college players were at least "good" in high school. The ability for them to step up in one shining moment, I think happens often, if given the chance. The problem is sustainability. They likely have shortcomings that in game two or three are discovered, schemed against by the opponent and they can't overcome their weaknesses.

And often their strengths are different than the starters strengths who you have built your team around. I have absolutely witnessed it in games I coached and watched. I've also coached kids who are horrible at certain phases but if you somehow mask those inadequacies and if they are rockstars at their one skill, they are major contributors to team success. A little different because it happens because you run out of alternatives with injuries or reasons kids can't play.

So, my point, maybe or even likely our backups can't play better but to say NEVER is way too strong. People absolutely do rise up and play better in games. Usually, those same people have days or moments at least here and there in practice where you ask yourself who is that? Gamers is a very real thing...it's just not something that is common just because someone gets a chance.

But Perra could be a better passer in a game than Mitch based on past coach's comments. The coaches are not talking backup quarterbacks at all because Mitch has struggled and they don't want any controversary. Limegrover was praising Perra after a week or so of the fall...right now it's all Mitch. And it's all about confidence...might not be there right now for them. We don't know...Perra, Croft etc have talent...they could play well in a game...Max Shortell played maybe his best game vs USC in his first.

But I'm not interested in someone who flashes for just a game. I'm sticking with Never Happened [emoji3].

 

[killme]

The ability for them to step up in one shining moment, I think happens often, if given the chance....

...A little different because it happens because you run out of alternatives with injuries or reasons kids can't play.

... Gamers is a very real thing...it's just not something that is common just because someone gets a chance...

Unless everyone else gets hurt, this coaching staff is not going to play someone who isn't performing in practice. It would truly be a last resort. Putting someone in a game because they made one play in practice would be reckless, and IMHO, foolish, just to see if maybe there are some "gamers" on the roster. This program is solid because that's just not conducive to consistently good, improving teams.

Your point about sustainability is important. Mitch is a good example. He has played brilliantly at times, and had some awful stretches, too. But, the bad is coming less and the good more.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I think there have been countless kids that are great in practice, but can't perform well in a game. I also think there has never, in any sport in the history of the world, been a kid who struggles in practice, but is great in games. The "gamer" theory is the worst ever and shows the ultimate 'reach' by a desperate fan. One has never ever ever existed.

That was a bit strong, but you get the point. If Strev, Demry, Perra, Wren, etc can't outperform Mitch in practice then ML7 is our best option at this point. Period.

I have never heard the coaches say Mitch is light years better than Streveler or Perra or Croft, yet this #narrative has become gospel with some here. Where is this narrative coming from? Why must you trash our backups to make the case for Mitch starting? Maybe he does the little things that QBs need to do and the other guys are deficient in one or two or three areas.

My point is that Mitch has some very bad games. Terrible. He also has some above average and terrible in the same game. its incredible to behold. I very much doubt our backups are worse than "Bad Mitch". If "Bad Mitch" is the best QB on our roster we are well and truly ****ed.

 

[Spoofin]

I have never heard the coaches say Mitch is light years better than Streveler or Perra or Croft, yet this #narrative has become gospel with some here. Where is this narrative coming from? <b>Why must you trash our backups to make the case for Mitch starting? </b> Maybe he does the little things that QBs need to do and the other guys are deficient in one or two or three areas.

My point is that Mitch has some very bad games. Terrible. He also has some above average and terrible in the same game. its incredible to behold. I very much doubt our backups are worse than "Bad Mitch". <b>If "Bad Mitch" is the best QB on our roster we are well and truly ****ed.</b>

Where did I trash our backups? I said if they can't outperform Mitch then Mitch should start. That isn't trashing. Just so you understand what trashing is - check out the 2nd bolded part above. Good talk.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Where did I trash our backups? I said if they can't outperform Mitch then Mitch should start. That isn't trashing. Just so you understand what trashing is - check out the 2nd bolded part above. Good talk.

Has it occurred to that they aren't hitting the QBs in practice? The tenor is completely different than in a game. Your assertion that practice always equals game performance is odd, but you're free to believe it.

 

[hungan1]

Are we being anal retentive about our QBs in MN (and this pre-dates the Jerry Kill era)?

Attention Demry Croft & Tony Poljan: Be prepared to get the treatment as we expect you to be a Peyton Manning, Aaron Rogers, ... throw a tight spiral and be a perfect QB.

The starting QB is no good. You backups must be better than the starter. Why aren't they starting you? Fire the OC, fire the coach.

Jimminy crickets! Aren't we a happy bunch?

 

[HoustonTXGopher]

Why does everyone stop at the QB position? I am sure there are younger guys all over our program that are better than the starters but our coaches are just really stubborn so they won't play them.

And now for a different line of thinking. Let's say Poljan is really going to be that good, then wouldn't we want Croft to be playing now? I mean this gives Croft a couple years to play before Poljan steals the job from him. I guess you can see where I am going with this...

Great college QB's typically don't translate to the NFL. Great college QB's have exceptional escapability, slightly better than average arms and great defenses! Vince Young, Tim Tebow, Cam Newton, RG III, Johnny Manziel, Kellen Moore, Russell Wilson, etc..

I would love to see a Gopher QB that can really extend plays and be a serious threat to break the pocket and pick up good yardage when there is nothing available. You know like a guy we played against to open the season. Leidner and Streveler do not have this ability and if Croft does, bring him on!

And as a reminder, there is not an elite NFL QB that won a national championship since.......?????

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Lets all hope Mitch finishes the season as the starter. He has the ability. He has learned to throw the ball away. Yes, he threw it away from the pocket last weekend, but baby steps. I've been a big fan of that big dummy since 2013. I want to see him succeed. Protect him, play to his strengths, figure out a way to run the ball with the blockers we have, not the ones we wish we had. It can happen.

 

[60's Guy]

Unless everyone else gets hurt, this coaching staff is not going to play someone who isn't performing in practice. (Totally Agree)It would truly be a last resort.(Yup) Putting someone in a game because they made one play in practice would be reckless, and IMHO, foolish, (And Stupid)just to see if maybe there are some "gamers" on the roster (NOT what I suggested). This program is solid because that's just not conducive to consistently good, improving teams. (Playing someone JUST to see if they are a gamer is laughable...not my point...my point was: NEVER could a backup outperform a starter AND that is just not true imo...it is true if they NEVER get a chance to do so but I'm not advocating they get that opportunity to see if they are a gamer.)

Your point about sustainability is important. Mitch is a good example. He has played brilliantly at times, and had some awful stretches, too. But, the bad is coming less and the good more.

(IF that were true there wouldn't be 8 threads trashing his performance)

 

[60's Guy]

Why does everyone stop at the QB position? I am sure there are younger guys all over our program that are better than the starters but our coaches are just really stubborn so they won't play them.

And now for a different line of thinking. Let's say Poljan is really going to be that good, then wouldn't we want Croft to be playing now? I mean this gives Croft a couple years to play before Poljan steals the job from him. I guess you can see where I am going with this...

Great college QB's typically don't translate to the NFL. Great college QB's have exceptional escapability, slightly better than average arms and great defenses! Vince Young, Tim Tebow, Cam Newton, RG III, Johnny Manziel, Kellen Moore, Russell Wilson, etc.. (There many ways to play quarterback successfully, not just one. J. Winston was a pretty good college QB. Cardale Jones is a pretty good college QB. Leadership is a pretty big component too. Joe Kapp won on leadership alone. In the NFL Jeff George and Jay Cutler had/have the arms but struggled/struggle to win because of lack of leadership. Maybe Mitch gets it done with mostly leadership?

I would love to see a Gopher QB that can really extend plays and be a serious threat to break the pocket and pick up good yardage when there is nothing available. You know like a guy we played against to open the season. Leidner and Streveler do not have this ability and if Croft does, bring him on!

And as a reminder, there is not an elite NFL QB that won a national championship since.......?????

What's the point?

 

[GopherHomer]

I asked this last season, and didn't really get a response but I'll try again. For those that think Mitch should not be our QB, what sort of stats are you looking for from our QB? Completion %, Yds/game (rushing/passing combined), etc. Let's turn this debate from "qualitative" to "quantitative."

Or is it just wins that count for a QB?

 

[Spoofin]

Has it occurred to that they aren't hitting the QBs in practice? The tenor is completely different than in a game. Your assertion that practice always equals game performance is odd, but you're free to believe it.

PE - I don't expect you to read all of my posts, but if you are going to quote my post and challenge me on it - then it would be courteous if you did.

First I say if the backups aren't outperforming ML7 in practice, then they shouldn't start. Your response: "Why do you have to trash the backups?" Huh?

Now you say I said practice always equals game performance and that I must not realize they are not hitting in practice. Huh? Read my post. I said there are countless (exact words) kids who perform better in practice then in games (in large part because there is no hitting, it is a different pace, etc). What I don't buy is the theory of a "gamer" - someone who consistently struggles in practice then goes and consistently lights it up in a game.

I am trying to say that if our backups don't show in practice they are better than Mitch, then I don't understand why folks would want us to throw them in the game to "see what they can do". Heck, some have even suggested playing all our QBs for 1-quarter each to "see what they can do". To me that is silly.

Hopefully you don't interpret this email as me ripping on all the Gopher greats from the past. Huh?

 

[goldy93]

Unless everyone else gets hurt, this coaching staff is not going to play someone who isn't performing in practice. It would truly be a last resort. Putting someone in a game because they made one play in practice would be reckless, and IMHO, foolish, just to see if maybe there are some "gamers" on the roster.

The bold point is on point. I would add, what kind of message would you send to your team if you have someone who is lousy in practice and you are putting them in games? That practice is not important to playing time? Who cares how you perform the other 6 days of the week, you will still get in?

 

[Pompous Elitist]

How do we know they are lousy in practice? Has this ever been stated by a coach?

Please note, I think Mitch should be the starter. I'm just trying to break this strange narrative.