How Far We Have Come!

[Iceland12]

3 different FCS programs (Eastern Washington, Youngstown State, Villanova) managed to have 2 players drafted this year while the Gophers managed one. I would think the overwhelming takeaway from this draft would be negative in regards to how far "we" have come. PJ Fleck had 3 guys drafted from Western Michigan. Wisconsin had 3 picks (two first rounders) and Iowa 4. This program has a long ways to go in terms of finding/developing NFL draft picks

Could be that since the Gophers had a good season in 2016, and they did it mainly with Defense, the remaining players on Defense are much better than the haters keep telling us they are. And since the 2 guys from WMU that were drafted early were from the Broncos Offense, maybe Fleck will boost that unit on the Gophers too.

Anybody who watched them last season shouldn't be surprised that the players on Offense weren't drafted...

 

[John Galt]

Well, it would certainly make the "the cupboard is bare" argument more convincing.

Right now the argument is, we should have low expectations this year because we lost a lot of talent from the 9-4 team and our old staff couldn't develop players. . . look at the draft.

I'm not saying youre one of the people who argues that the cupboard is bare, I can't keep those people straight, but it's the new illogical version of GH.

We lost some good college players. Not NFL type players, but good college players. Myrick, Lynn, Travis, Ekpes, Pirsig, Wolitarsky, etc.

The problem for Fleck is that Kill and Claeys didn't leave him any seniors that are NFL players either. The only one I see with a chance next year is Richardson.

 

[alchemy2u]

Well, it would certainly make the "the cupboard is bare" argument more convincing.

Right now the argument is, we should have low expectations this year because we lost a lot of talent from the 9-4 team and our old staff couldn't develop players. . . look at the draft.

I'm not saying youre one of the people who argues that the cupboard is bare, I can't keep those people straight, but it's the new illogical version of GH.

Beating that dead horse again and again and again. Please find some other carcass on which to exercise your pugilistic obsession.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Beating that dead horse again and again and again. Please find some other carcass on which to exercise your pugilistic obsession.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Huh? When is the last time I've commented on the cupboard being bare. I posted about it in an entirely apt thread (a thread commenting on the lack of talent the Gophers are graduating). Yet, you take the time to comment on that in THIS THREAD?

So let me get this straight, a thread about the lack of talent the Gophers have put into the NFL is NOT a good place to discuss the amount of talent we are losing?

You're a logical fella.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

We lost some good college players. Not NFL type players, but good college players. Myrick, Lynn, Travis, Ekpes, Pirsig, Wolitarsky, etc.

The problem for Fleck is that Kill and Claeys didn't leave him any seniors that are NFL players either. The only one I see with a chance next year is Richardson.

Don't get me wrong, I see your point. We simply don't have enough talent in our program. That said, it still seems like an illogical argument to make. . . our senior and junior classes of a 9-4 football team stink, but we shouldn't have high expectations. Implicit in that statement is that the underclassmen carried us (because we went 9-4 without a surplus of experienced talent).

The point still stands, we simply replaced CONSIDERABLY more talent going into last year than we will have to this year.

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

Don't get me wrong, I see your point. We simply don't have enough talent in our program. That said, it still seems like an illogical argument to make. . . our senior and junior classes of a 9-4 football team stink, but we shouldn't have high expectations. Implicit in that statement is that the underclassmen carried us (because we went 9-4 without a surplus of experienced talent).

The point still stands, we simply replaced CONSIDERABLY more talent going into last year than we will have to this year.

We only beat 3 teams that finished with a winning record last year. 1 Mountain West team, 1 B1G team, and 1 Pac 12 team in a Bowl game. That's why we won 9 games with not a lot of talent.

 

[Johnnyboy18]

We only beat 3 teams that finished with a winning record last year. 1 Mountain West team, 1 B1G team, and 1 Pac 12 team in a Bowl game. That's why we won 9 games with not a lot of talent.

****************9 wins

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

We only beat 3 teams that finished with a winning record last year. 1 Mountain West team, 1 B1G team, and 1 Pac 12 team in a Bowl game. That's why we won 9 games with not a lot of talent.

I know. You're making my point for me!

So it should be easy to repeat, right? Like, we shouldn't lose to any bad teams and we should beat most of the OK teams we play?

I'm not pretending that we were a top 10 team, I'm just saying that THAT standard. . .beating the bad teams and OK teams (all of them) should be super repeatable? Like, it's nothing. A team without much talent can do it.

 

[Johnnyboy18]

I know. You're making my point for me!

So it should be easy to repeat, right? Like, we shouldn't lose to any bad teams and we should beat most of the OK teams we play?

I'm not pretending that we were a top 10 team, I'm just saying that THAT standard. . .beating the bad teams and OK teams (all of them) should be super repeatable? Like, it's nothing. A team without much talent can do it.

But they lost to Iowa last year.

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

I know. You're making my point for me!

So it should be easy to repeat, right? Like, we shouldn't lose to any bad teams and we should beat most of the OK teams we play?

I'm not pretending that we were a top 10 team, I'm just saying that THAT standard. . .beating the bad teams and OK teams (all of them) should be super repeatable? Like, it's nothing. A team without much talent can do it.

The Gophers are less talented and not as deep this year. They also play what will likely be a slightly tougher schedule.

You keep saying we don't lose much, but we had 1 player drafted, 1 UDFA, and 3 others get camp invites. It's very possible we won't have one person drafted, and I'm not sure we have anyone that can get a camp invite either. Some would say Richardson, but he's closer to 5'10" than 6'0". Tell me the last time a 5'10" DT made it in the NFL?

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Quote Originally Posted by Bob_Loblaw View Post
I know. You're making my point for me!

So it should be easy to repeat, right? Like, we shouldn't lose to any bad teams and we should beat most of the OK teams we play?

I'm not pretending that we were a top 10 team, I'm just saying that THAT standard. . .beating the bad teams and OK teams (all of them) should be super repeatable? Like, it's nothing. A team without much talent can do it.


But the lost to Iowa last year.

Helped ya there little buddy. Try reading it again and let me know if you got it.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

The Gophers are less talented and not as deep this year. They also play what will likely be a slightly tougher schedule.

You keep saying we don't lose much, but we had 1 player drafted, 1 UDFA, and 3 others get camp invites. It's very possible we won't have one person drafted, and I'm not sure we have anyone that can get a camp invite either. Some would say Richardson, but he's closer to 5'10" than 6'0". Tell me the last time a 5'10" DT made it in the NFL?

Yeah, I don't think the record would be easy to repeat. I also don't even expect us to repeat the metrics that I laid out (beating all of the bad teams and our "worst" loss being to a team the caliber of Iowa last year (8-5, Outback Bowl, beat a top 5 team).

I do disagree though on talent. I think we are more talented this year. I think Steve Richardson is likely a better player than any of our SRs. Our running backs are a year older. I don't think the Ekpes are any better than Stetler/Jackson or Winston De(I don't want to look up his name).

In short, I think our most talented players got a year older. We should expect more out of them.

Depth. . .yeah, I agree. However, going into last year, I had questions about our depth too, but the FR class stepped up.

 

[John Galt]

Don't get me wrong, I see your point. We simply don't have enough talent in our program. That said, it still seems like an illogical argument to make. . . our senior and junior classes of a 9-4 football team stink, but we shouldn't have high expectations. Implicit in that statement is that the underclassmen carried us (because we went 9-4 without a surplus of experienced talent).

The point still stands, we simply replaced CONSIDERABLY more talent going into last year than we will have to this year.

If you are you arguing that we had more talent to replace in 2016 than we will in 2017, I disagree. Our draft picks last year were Murray and Campbell and we also lost BBC and KJ as key contributors. To use CBs as an example, losing Murray and BBC wasn't that difficult because we had 2 proven CBs returning - Myrick and Hardin (to a lesser extent). Who are the returning CBs this year with game experience that can replace Myrick, Hardin and Buford? Don't get me wrong, I think we have some talent, but it's much more of a question mark.

Going into this year, people viewed several seniors as potential NFL draftees - Travis, Myrick, Pirsig and even Leidner (gulp). What seniors on this year's squad have a chance to get drafted? Teams win with seniors, right? There aren't a lot of potential NFL seniors on the roster...

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

If you are you arguing that we had more talent to replace in 2016 than we will in 2017, I disagree. Our draft picks last year were Murray and Campbell and we also lost BBC and KJ as key contributors. To use CBs as an example, losing Murray and BBC wasn't that difficult because we had 2 proven CBs returning - Myrick and Hardin (to a lesser extent). Who are the returning CBs this year with game experience that can replace Myrick, Hardin and Buford? Don't get me wrong, I think we have some talent, but it's much more of a question mark.

Going into this year, people viewed several seniors as potential NFL draftees - Travis, Myrick, Pirsig and even Leidner (gulp). What seniors on this year's squad have a chance to get drafted? Teams win with seniors, right? There aren't a lot of potential NFL seniors on the roster...

First - We lost a lot of OL
Lauer - started multiple years
Christianson - started multiple years
Campion - started multiple years
Bush - stated a handful of games this year

We lost our starting FB (Miles Thomas), we lost one of our better TE (Plsek)

Second, I think we lost more at CB, I respectfully disagree with your opinion on that subject:
I realize that we had decent replacements at CB, but that doesn't change the fact that BBC and Murray were both really good.
The delta between BBC/Murray/Myrick as CBs & Myrick/1/2 year of Hardin/Shenault was much larger (IMO) than the delta between Shenault/Durr/K. Thomas. That is obviously speculative but BBC and Murray were really good. Side note, we also lost Craig James after the 2015 season, he showed a lot of promise as a CB and returner. He was gone. I think the opinions on James were pretty high before he transferred. We lost him.

As far as Safety - - I feel more confident this year than I did last (at this time):
Travis is probably slightly better than Antonio Johnson, but it isn't a drastic difference. The other S is drastic. Both the 2017 and 2016 team had Duke McGhee and Ayinde, however, we didn't know we had Winfield. We did (but I only think it's fair to argue what we knew in the offseasons because I could say "well, we know Chris Bell is going to be really good at WR"). We are absolutely fine at S next season.

Campbell - - There is not a comparison with our current team. He was the best LBer, by far.
As far as DL - - I think we lost more last year. Cockran was our DL of the year, Big 10 honorable mention. We also lost Alex Keith.
IMO - Cockran + Keith are pretty similar to the Ekpe brothers AND the rest of the DL is better, at least in theory (more experienced, another year older).

As far as Leidner, well, we know what we are replacing at that position. It really isn't much. I just can't buy an argument that his productivity will be difficult to replace.

In my opinion, we lost better players (Murray, Campbell and possibly BBC were all better than anyone on our team) and we lost considerably more depth. We lost 4 guys who started on the OL (2 more depth guys), we lost two key contributors on the DL (1 more depth guy).

 

[John Galt]

First - We lost a lot of OL
Lauer - started multiple years
Christianson - started multiple years
Campion - started multiple years
Bush - stated a handful of games this year

We lost our starting FB (Miles Thomas), we lost one of our better TE (Plsek)

Second, I think we lost more at CB, I respectfully disagree with your opinion on that subject:
I realize that we had decent replacements at CB, but that doesn't change the fact that BBC and Murray were both really good.
The delta between BBC/Murray/Myrick as CBs & Myrick/1/2 year of Hardin/Shenault was much larger (IMO) than the delta between Shenault/Durr/K. Thomas. That is obviously speculative but BBC and Murray were really good. Side note, we also lost Craig James after the 2015 season, he showed a lot of promise as a CB and returner. He was gone. I think the opinions on James were pretty high before he transferred. We lost him.

As far as Safety - - I feel more confident this year than I did last (at this time):
Travis is probably slightly better than Antonio Johnson, but it isn't a drastic difference. The other S is drastic. Both the 2017 and 2016 team had Duke McGhee and Ayinde, however, we didn't know we had Winfield. We did (but I only think it's fair to argue what we knew in the offseasons because I could say "well, we know Chris Bell is going to be really good at WR"). We are absolutely fine at S next season.

Campbell - - There is not a comparison with our current team. He was the best LBer, by far.
As far as DL - - I think we lost more last year. Cockran was our DL of the year, Big 10 honorable mention. We also lost Alex Keith.
IMO - Cockran + Keith are pretty similar to the Ekpe brothers AND the rest of the DL is better, at least in theory (more experienced, another year older).

As far as Leidner, well, we know what we are replacing at that position. It really isn't much. I just can't buy an argument that his productivity will be difficult to replace.

In my opinion, we lost better players (Murray, Campbell and possibly BBC were all better than anyone on our team) and we lost considerably more depth. We lost 4 guys who started on the OL (2 more depth guys), we lost two key contributors on the DL (1 more depth guy).

Good post Bob, I respect your opinion but still disagree. When I talk about big losses, I am also thinking about who we have to replace the said players...

O-Line: As for the OL losses, I think Lauer and Campion played 1 game each in 2015. So even though they were no longer on the roster and would have been good starters if healthy, we didn't really "lose" them since their contributions were close to nothing. Christenson was a loss, Bush was primarily a back-up who started a few games due to injuries. I think losing Moore, Pirsig and Mayes (2 starters and a solid back-up) is a much bigger loss.

CB: I can't argue that Murray and BBC were better than Myrick and Hardin, but last year we had proven guys to replace them. We'd be in excellent shape if Hardin and Buford were back. Given that they aren't, and that Durr tore his ACL, we are thin and largely unproven.

Safety: I agree that we are as good if not better off than last year. Between Winfield, McGhee, and Ayinde we have a lot of proven players returning.

LB: We have plenty of depth and easily replaced Campbell just like we will easily replace Lynn this year.

D-line: We also lost Elmore, a probable starter at DE. We currently have 2 active DE's on the roster. Losing the Ekpe's and Elmore is harder to replace than Cockran and Keith.

QB: Mitch's passing will be easy to replace. What won't be is his ability to run the read-option and score running TD's in the red zone. And his ability to pick up 3rd and 1.

RB: Better this year as Smith and Brooks are a year older

WR: Drew had 39 catches in 2015 and 66 last year. Our leading returning WR this year is Still with 18 catches. I don't know if we have a wideout capable of catching 50 passes.

 

[leadpipegopher]

Good post Bob, I respect your opinion but still disagree. As for the OL losses, I think Lauer and Campion played 1 game each in 2015. So even though they were no longer on the roster and would have been good starters if healthy, we didn't really "lose" them since their contributions were close to nothing. Christenson was a loss, Bush was primarily a back-up who started a few games due to injuries. I think losing Moore, Pirsig and Mayes (2 starters and a solid back-up) is a much bigger loss.

But we kept Rhoda

 

[Johnnyboy18]

But we kept Rhoda

He's the second best quarterback on the roster why wouldn't they keep him?

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

He's the second best quarterback on the roster why wouldn't they keep him?

He might be, but at the time they kept him I think the reason was more because he was a warm body at that spot.

 

[Johnnyboy18]

He might be, but at the time they kept him I think the reason was more because he was a warm body at that spot.

Maybe but to start spring he was the first string quarterback which shows the staff thought more of him than a warm body.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Maybe but to start spring he was the first string quarterback which shows the staff thought more of him than a warm body.

Warm body was what I was thinking when we straight up had a couple QBs and PJ asked Rhoda to stay. At that point I can't imagine them letting anyone who was there go, can you?

As for later, maybe, but then that's relative to the competition too.