Freiermuth: “I don’t think they have the caliber of tight end room”

Donate To GopherHole
Hmm, should I trust the NFL, or some message board armchair warrior trying to bully anyone who brings up anything he arbitrarily perceives as a negative, about the value of the TE position to a modern offense?

That’s a tough one. But think I’m gonna go with the former ...
 

Should have thrown to the WR
-KC
Bob_Loblaw said:
Oh yeah. I noticed those comments during the year that we had our best offense in my lifetime. We were incredibly inefficient and averaged more than 10 yards an attempt and some people were obsessed with the TE. It was weird then and it's weird now.
Click to expand...

Few would argue the offense wasn’t really good this year, and historically good for MN. However as you obviously know there are certain situations where having an outlet mismatch or a big body in the end zone is advantageous.

Although MN was really good in the red zone this year there were some struggles to get into the end zone vs IA and Wisconsin, and also some struggles to move the chains at times. Yeah, our two stud WRs are great, but not so sure about 2020 until I see CAB produce like TJ. There’s nothing wrong with having more options.
 
Last edited:

MplsGopher said:
Hmm, should I trust the NFL, or some message board armchair warrior trying to bully anyone who brings up anything he arbitrarily perceives as a negative, about the value of the TE position to a modern offense?

That’s a tough one. But think I’m gonna go with the former ...
Click to expand...

Did you just call me a bully because I think the topic is asinine? Welcome to message boards! The entire point of it is for people to disagree.

I think the topic is asinine because you are nitpicking a dynamic offense. What we did last year worked and you wanted to throw the ball more to TEs? I think it's an awful take. I never thought to myself, I wish we would give Morgan less protection so that we could throw to Paulson instead of Bateman. That would be swell.

As far as the NFL, yeah, tons of modern NFL offenses throw to the TE a lot. Many of them do not. I'm not opposed to throwing the ball to the TE, my argument is that it is not a necessity to having a really strong offense. As I've shown you (because you do not understand google), it is a trend for some teams to max protect and put less receivers out. There has been an increase in the use of 6 OL in the NFL for this exact reason. I'm not googling things for you anymore, so you can google that if you'd like.

Of course, we're talking about offensive preferences, so there are definitely teams that do not adhere to that philosophy and I get that too. The Saints, Patriots, Packers, and Texans did not use the TE very much and the Ravens and 49ers did. It's my point, it's a style thing.

For our offense, last year, I think the staff did a fantastic job of play calling. We had receivers who (IMO) could not be covered if we gave Morgan enough time to throw. So I had absolutely zero issue with the attempts going to Bateman, Johnson, and CAB.

If the staff adds more wrinkles and decides to throw the ball to the TEs more, I'm cool with that too. There will also come a day when we do not have the two best WRs in the Big 10, and we will likely have to adjust as well. Again, I'm cool with that.

What is asinine to me, and I'm sorry if this hurt your feelings, is to look at last year and come out with "we should have thrown to our TEs more". IMO, it's a dumb take. There are certainly areas to pick and prod some of our decisions, I am pretty surprised that some Gopher fans are choosing that one.
 

MinnGopher, thanks again for your respectful and thoughtful posts on this discussion!

MinnGopher said:
Yeah my counter was it doesn’t matter if your advantage is Using WRs or using a TE. All receivers can block or catch a pass on any play, so I’m not sure I follow the logic where a TE is really that much of an asset, especially when we don’t have proven pass catchers at TE.
Click to expand...

Well it's hard to prove out the pass-catching ability of our TEs, if we don't throw them the ball? Practice isn't the same as a game. Supposedly Tanner Morgan didn't do as well in practice as Annexstad. Seems like he plays pretty well in games though.

As to your argument about WR being able to block. Yes of course, perfectly valid. However, in the context of this discussion, that argument works much better if our offense was run exclusively out of 10 (or even 00) personnel. Meaning (at least) 4 true WR body guys on every play (not lining up TE in the slot). Guys who are like 5'9"-6'3" and 180-200 ish pounds or so. Not big guys, true TE body guys.

If that were the case, then fine. But that was not the case. We used 11 and 12 personnel quite a bit this year. But the TE we had out there rarely did anything but block.

So that is my philosophical opposition. If the opponent knows the TE won't put pressure on the defensive coverage, it gives them a strategic advantage in defending our passes that they don't need to have.


MinnGopher said:
I’m not sure why when we have had the best offense we have had in years we are saying well hey I like this wrinkle, we should add it.
Click to expand...
If we had gone 12-0 this year, I would have no leg to stand on. This argument above would win the day.

But that isn't what happened by a long shot. So that's where cracks have formed that allow in arguments about how the offense could be better.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
However as you obviously know there are certain situations where having an outlet mismatch or a big body in the end zone is advantageous.
Click to expand...
But it doesn't even have to be that simple/limited.

TE can be primary receivers on any given pass play. The NFL has shown that this works. It's always about matchups. If your two best WR are being double covered by talented DBs, but your TE is being covered by a mediocre/slow MLB ... that's a mis-match that can be exploited.
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
Did you just call me a bully because I think the topic is asinine?
Click to expand...
Bob_Loblaw said:
What is asinine to me, and I'm sorry if this hurt your feelings, is to look at last year and come out with "we should have thrown to our TEs more". IMO, it's a dumb take.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are seeking to intimidate through your word choice. Look up the definition of bully.

Bob_Loblaw said:
What we did last year worked and you wanted to throw the ball more to TEs?
Click to expand...
If we had gone 12-0 this year, I would have no leg to stand on. This argument above would win the day.

But that isn't what happened by a long shot. So that's where cracks have formed that allow in arguments about how the offense could be better.

Bob_Loblaw said:
I wish we would give Morgan less protection so that we could throw to Paulson instead of Bateman.
Click to expand...

I wish we would not have given Morgan excessive blockers, that weren't needed, so that we could put more stress on the defensive coverage, especially when Bateman was being double-teamed by talented DBs while Paulson would've been covered by a mediocre, slow MLB.

Turned that right on it's head, didn't I?

Bob_Loblaw said:
I'm not opposed to throwing the ball to the TE, my argument is that it is not a necessity to having a really strong offense. As I've shown you (because you do not understand google), it is a trend for some teams to max protect and put less receivers out. There has been an increase in the use of 6 OL in the NFL for this exact reason.
Click to expand...

You've supplied no data on the average number of times per game that NFL teams choose to keep more than the 5 regular OL and a running back in to pass protect, thus reducing the number of route runners.

Yes, teams do it. I never said teams should never do it. I think it make sense, as a change-up or in certain situations. Just because teams do it a few times a game, there's no reason to pretend it's the new normal.

Bob_Loblaw said:
The Saints, Patriots, Packers, and Texans did not use the TE very much and the Ravens and 49ers did. It's my point, it's a style thing.
Click to expand...

But again, no. Just because the four teams you mention didn't target their TE often in passing plays doesn't mean that they didn't send the TE out on routes!

Bob_Loblaw said:
We had receivers who (IMO) could not be covered if we gave Morgan enough time to throw.
Click to expand...

Then why aren't you advocating for 9 pass-blockers and just sending Bateman out to run routes? If you give Morgan 37 seconds to throw the ball, eventually Bateman will get open!


I think you're arbitrarily exalting the virtues of 7 pass-blockers and 3 route-runners, simply because we did that a lot this year.

We had a lot of success, and that's great. But we didn't go 12-0. There is room to consider what could be done better.
 

MplsGopher said:
MinnGopher, thanks again for your respectful and thoughtful posts on this discussion!



Well it's hard to prove out the pass-catching ability of our TEs, if we don't throw them the ball? Practice isn't the same as a game. Supposedly Tanner Morgan didn't do as well in practice as Annexstad. Seems like he plays pretty well in games though.

As to your argument about WR being able to block. Yes of course, perfectly valid. However, in the context of this discussion, that argument works much better if our offense was run exclusively out of 10 (or even 00) personnel. Meaning (at least) 4 true WR body guys on every play (not lining up TE in the slot). Guys who are like 5'9"-6'3" and 180-200 ish pounds or so. Not big guys, true TE body guys.

If that were the case, then fine. But that was not the case. We used 11 and 12 personnel quite a bit this year. But the TE we had out there rarely did anything but block.

So that is my philosophical opposition. If the opponent knows the TE won't put pressure on the defensive coverage, it gives them a strategic advantage in defending our passes that they don't need to have.



If we had gone 12-0 this year, I would have no leg to stand on. This argument above would win the day.

But that isn't what happened by a long shot. So that's where cracks have formed that allow in arguments about how the offense could be better.
Click to expand...
Same to you man, its actually enjoyable to debate and discuss the different viewpoints rather than just view the differences as negative.

I don't think its hard to prove out the pass catching ability of our TEs. They get to go up against a solid D and get better every day, and our coaching staff doesn't view it more beneficial than what we are doing now. I think that if our TEs were good at getting open they would at least run more routes in the games, but that is not the case. If they were getting open in practice I think they would be getting a handful more looks during the games, but that isn't the case either.

The personnel argument you make does make sense to me though. You need to be a threat to leak someone out occasionally, but conversely if they can't get open it might not be your top choice.

Offensive production (scoring, yardage, big plays) should be the marker above our record though. The D definitely can impact that which is completely unrelated to the O, but obviously our Offense hurt us some in our losses as well. I'm not disagreeing that it would be nice to have some TE production cus balance is always helpful and can help stress the D, but I don't view it quite as important as others.
 

I feel that a limited offensive scheme works fine when it can be used to "suffocate" opponents with less talent at key positions or that play unfocused or undisciplined defense. But playing a limited, predictable offense against a defense with high athletic ability across the board, especially one that plays with great focus and discipline (e.g., Iowa or Wisconsin), ends up suffocating your own team. The virtue of throwing to TEs and to backs out of the backfield, and to running misdirection and counter plays--in addition to our normal suite of plays--is that it gives defenders a lot more to think about, meaning more opportunities for the offense to create and exploit a defensive misstep. We are not going to bowl over the defense of WI, IA, tOSU, or MI--or Auburn--by running a limited, predictable offense. Against those teams, I believe we have to create some uncertainty in the minds of their well-coached defensive players to be competitive. Predictability becomes a greater burden on the offense week-by-week, as the season wears on, because opposing coaches have more film to study and defensive players are maturing in their roles.
 

MinnGopher said:
Same to you man, its actually enjoyable to debate and discuss the different viewpoints rather than just view the differences as negative.

I don't think its hard to prove out the pass catching ability of our TEs. They get to go up against a solid D and get better every day, and our coaching staff doesn't view it more beneficial than what we are doing now. I think that if our TEs were good at getting open they would at least run more routes in the games, but that is not the case. If they were getting open in practice I think they would be getting a handful more looks during the games, but that isn't the case either.

The personnel argument you make does make sense to me though. You need to be a threat to leak someone out occasionally, but conversely if they can't get open it might not be your top choice.

Offensive production (scoring, yardage, big plays) should be the marker above our record though. The D definitely can impact that which is completely unrelated to the O, but obviously our Offense hurt us some in our losses as well. I'm not disagreeing that it would be nice to have some TE production cus balance is always helpful and can help stress the D, but I don't view it quite as important as others.
Click to expand...
Well said. I think we're actually somewhat close in our positions.

Perhaps a fair summary might go: you think it is just fine if we mostly have 7 pass-blockers and 3 route-runners, with sending the TE out on a route occasionally, while I think sending the TE out on the route should be the thing we do most of the time, and keeping him in to pass-block should be the occasional part.

Anyhow, good discussion, thanks again
 



Gophergrandpa said:
The virtue of throwing to TEs and to backs out of the backfield, and to running misdirection and counter plays--in addition to our normal suite of plays--is that it gives defenders a lot more to think about, meaning more opportunities for the offense to create and exploit a defensive misstep. We are not going to bowl over the defense of WI, IA, tOSU, or MI--or Auburn--by running a limited, predictable offense. Against those teams, I believe we have to create some uncertainty in the minds of their well-coached defensive players to be competitive. Predictability becomes a greater burden on the offense week-by-week, as the season wears on, because opposing coaches have more film to study and defensive players are maturing in their roles.
Click to expand...
I think this is pretty much perfectly stated, as the "on paper" reasoning/philosophy.
 

MplsGopher said:
Well said. I think we're actually somewhat close in our positions.

Perhaps a fair summary might go: you think it is just fine if we mostly have 7 pass-blockers and 3 route-runners, with sending the TE out on a route occasionally, while I think sending the TE out on the route should be the thing we do most of the time, and keeping him in to pass-block should be the occasional part.

Anyhow, good discussion, thanks again
Click to expand...
Fair assessment for sure. I think the difference is that I am pretty indifferent on if we use the TE given our circumstances and how we play, while you think that we could probably scheme something up or give our TEs a few more looks in games to give us a little more diversity in play calling.
 

If one decides the Gopher offense needs an extra receiver to "leak out" of pass protection, I'd much rather it be one of the Gophs very skilled running backs instead of the tight ends. The current tight end group would be my last option for catching passes. The Gophs running backs are just OK blockers (Mo being the best) but can be game changers with the ball especially when matched with a linebacker, while the current tight ends are very good blockers and also very unproven receivers.
 




Panthadad2 said:
If one decides the Gopher offense needs an extra receiver to "leak out" of pass protection, I'd much rather it be one of the Gophs very skilled running backs instead of the tight ends. The current tight end group would be my last option for catching passes. The Gophs running backs are just OK blockers (Mo being the best) but can be game changers with the ball especially when matched with a linebacker, while the current tight ends are very good blockers and also very unproven receivers.
Click to expand...
I'd be fine throwing more screens, as well.
 

We've got two big dudes at TE in Paulson and Spann-Ford. When will the Gophers use their size and athleticism for other than extra offensive linemen?

I hope that with the new OC, they incorporate pass catching TEs more than they currently are doing now. The WRs will still be the dominant pass catching threat. However, pass catching TEs put a new wrinkle in the offense that will stretch defenses.
 

To all of you whiners, I’m pointing out his poor choice of syntax. “I don’t think 90% of GopherHole has the caliber of syntax room.”
 


I don't get how this is still such a rampant argument:

EVERYONE WANTS TO THROW IT MORE TO THE TIGHT ENDS - coaches, fans, the QB, the TE's.

The reason the Gophers don't, is because until the O-line grows up and can block a 4 man front consistently, the TE's are relegated mainly to helping with blocking. When/if our line can do that, "Wheeeeeeeeeee!"- you'll see everything open up and this will be a very dangerous team.

End of story.
 


WhoFellDownTheGopherHole? said:
I don't get how this is still such a rampant argument:

EVERYONE WANTS TO THROW IT MORE TO THE TIGHT ENDS - coaches, fans, the QB, the TE's.

The reason the Gophers don't, is because until the O-line grows up and can block a 4 man front consistently, the TE's are relegated mainly to helping with blocking. When/if our line can do that, "Wheeeeeeeeeee!"- you'll see everything open up and this will be a very dangerous team.

End of story.
Click to expand...
Fleck didn't throw to the TE at WMU.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Fleck didn't throw to the TE at WMU.
Click to expand...

Well of course he didn't, he wasn't the QB....

All jokes aside, i think the QB there was locked in on Davis most of the time anyway, and if i recall they had a pretty good volume WR2 also.

I'm not saying it would be a focus of his gameplan, but i absolutely believe that if they weren't needed for blocking on nearly every play, fans would see enough extra involvement to add all of the "little wrinkles" that posters keep referencing a desire to see.
 

WhoFellDownTheGopherHole? said:
The reason the Gophers don't, is because until the O-line grows up and can block a 4 man front consistently, the TE's are relegated mainly to helping with blocking. When/if our line can do that, "Wheeeeeeeeeee!"- you'll see everything open up and this will be a very dangerous team.

End of story.
Click to expand...
So your solution is to put a TE next to an OT, and let the TE block the DE instead of the OT. Because the TE is much less effective at pass-blocking than the OT. Hmm..
 




PitinoFan said:
Exactly. They don’t need to be the focal point of the offense. Just throw to them often enough to make defenses account for it.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Or don't account for them and get an easy TD and huge 4th down play. Auburn burned the Gophs with the TE a few times today too if I recall correctly.
 

MplsGopher said:
Well said. I think we're actually somewhat close in our positions.

Perhaps a fair summary might go: you think it is just fine if we mostly have 7 pass-blockers and 3 route-runners, with sending the TE out on a route occasionally, while I think sending the TE out on the route should be the thing we do most of the time, and keeping him in to pass-block should be the occasional part.

Anyhow, good discussion, thanks again
Click to expand...
Not going to lie we had a bootleg during the game where we had Witham open running across the middle and I was hoping they were going to dump it to him haha, thought of this convo when that happened
 


Can we turn freiermuth into a meme, please? At the very least send all of our witty comments to his personal cell phone, mocking his word choice.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom