WorkingMyTailOff
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2012
- Messages
- 5,997
- Reaction score
- 755
- Points
- 113
Leidner has not been the problem. It is an o line thing.
O-line and play calling seem to be lacking a little bit... Comes down to one person trying to do two full time jobs, pick one and focus on it.
Opening drive after big pass from Leidner to Carter and then the next play Woz and Campion ole their guys for a big sack.
The mystery to me is why the Gopher offense - with the same Head Coach and offensive coordinator, looks so much different than the offense the same staff ran at Northern Illinois. at No Illinois, they mixed up the run and the pass, they used two different QB's who had different styles, and they were very successful.
So why aren't they doing the same things at MN?
Options:
Northern Illinois had better players/athletes on offense?
Kill and Limegrover can't remember what they did at Northern Illinois?
They're doing it on purpose to run up web traffic?
Limegrover can't coach at the lighter weight, and he needs to start binge eating to get fat again.
OR - the option nobody wants to believe - the coaches are doing what they believe they have to with the current personnel.
I've never met a coach who deliberately tried to lose, or deliberately kept better players on the bench while using inferior players on the field. College coaching is all about winning. You win, you get more money and/or a better job. You lose, you get less money, and/or a worse job - or no job at all.
I know a lot of you are big on schemes and play-calling. I still maintain it's all about execution, and the Gophers just aren't executing.
The mystery to me is why the Gopher offense - with the same Head Coach and offensive coordinator, looks so much different than the offense the same staff ran at Northern Illinois. at No Illinois, they mixed up the run and the pass, they used two different QB's who had different styles, and they were very successful.
So why aren't they doing the same things at MN?
Options:
Northern Illinois had better players/athletes on offense?
Kill and Limegrover can't remember what they did at Northern Illinois?
They're doing it on purpose to run up web traffic?
Limegrover can't coach at the lighter weight, and he needs to start binge eating to get fat again.
OR - the option nobody wants to believe - the coaches are doing what they believe they have to with the current personnel.
I've never met a coach who deliberately tried to lose, or deliberately kept better players on the bench while using inferior players on the field. College coaching is all about winning. You win, you get more money and/or a better job. You lose, you get less money, and/or a worse job - or no job at all.
I know a lot of you are big on schemes and play-calling. I still maintain it's all about execution, and the Gophers just aren't executing.
I've had the same thoughts on why is the offense so much different than it was at Northern Illinois. It doesn't make sense. Were their skill position players that much better? How after 5 years have they not been able to recruit better players on offense at a Big Ten school compared to a MAC school?
Thank you for breaking it down a lot more and I see your point. It makes a lot of sense. So it seems like the OC is trying to run the same scheme as last year, but with a much less effective OL and without Fruechte, Maxx, and Cobb. In your opinion, do we have the talent to go to a 4 or 5 wr set and 3 step drop style of offense (assuming they have been practicing some variation of this a little bit)? This would hide our deficiencies on OL, but it would require quick/accurate passing and some mobility at QB.Here's what I see: Kent St. saw on film that Wozniak was a weak blocker, perhaps especially next to Campion, who's a bit banged up. They had this blitz drawn up to specifically use against the Wozniak/Campion. They slant to occupy the RG-C-LG, leaving Pirsig alone. That isolates Woz, a 6-10 TE, in pass protection against Nate Holley, their best defensive player, and isolates Campion against a quick safety, who is able to get around him with a speed move.
So, it boils down to a few things, I guess. One is injuries: Woz would likely be 3rd/4th string if all TE were healthy. Campion still seems a bit hobbled, and would have trouble keeping up with a speed rush from a safety.
It's also a microcosm of how poor a coordinator Limegrover is. How many times have we heard that a defense "showed us new looks" to throw our offense off. I'm guessing this is one of those "new looks" from Kent St. They likely didn't show a lot of double safety blitzes on film. But we showed a lot on film that would suggest to any d-coordinator that a double safety blitz would work. So they added the new wrinkle, and we stuck with the same game plan as always, and it resulted in a sack.
Leidner is 8 yards in the backfield--because our primary passing plays constitute downfield patterns. We keep a TE and a RB to help with pass protection (note Smith is at LOS--likely stayed to pick up middle blitz/chip a rusher before going out for dump off route). That leaves 8 Gophers at or behind the LOS on a pass play, with Kent St only rushing 5. And people complain that Leidner can't make quick reads. It's because he's got 3 available receivers, covered by 6 players in pass pro for Kent St.
Limegrover is clueless. I can't think of any other o-coordinator who so thoroughly neglects to provide check down routes for a QB. Dump off over the middle would go for a nice gain on this play. We never run any nice combo patterns. No rubs/pick plays to get space for a receiver. And we never run a screen, so teams are confident in blitzing us. Limegrover's response is to increase protection--not exploit open areas of the field with quick routes/screens. The result? Stacked boxes. Lots of blitzes. The o-line can't pick them up. And Leidner looks like a dope because none of his 3 available receivers are ever open. And we rarely run any plays to make a defense think twice. Limegrover is inept. His game plans aren't only vanilla--they're clueless. Who runs 3-receiver pass plays? Really, watch any other team, and tell me who so consistently runs 3-receiver pass plays.
Today's offense will not win the Gophers another game this year. How could it get worse?
Out offensive line is awful and is over matched on almost every play. Why is that the QB's problem?
. In your opinion, do we have the talent to go to a 4 or 5 wr set and 3 step drop style of offense (assuming they have been practicing some variation of this a little bit)? This would hide our deficiencies on OL, but it would require quick/accurate passing and some mobility at QB.
I don't think it is Highway Man. Anyone who blames this all on Leidner isn't paying close attention.Out offensive line is awful and is over matched on almost every play. Why is that the QB's problem?
Let's explore this further as I had this same debate in my head between 3-4 last night when I couldn't sleep.
First - let's assume that other than QB we have more talent. NIU had a BCS Bowl team and some outliners, but overall/through their tenure I think that is a fair assumption. If you disagree - just play along for a while.
Second - unless they are literally losing their memory, let's assume the coaches remember what worked at NIU and remember how to be creative. Again, I think that is a fair assumption. Considering we have seen them creative here in the past only supports that.
So, why are they calling it so vanilla - because if we buy the 2 points above, it is deliberate.
1. OL play is so bad
2. ML play is so bad
3. Don't want to show their hand before B1G
Let me say that I rolled my eyes at the prospect of #3 every time I read it before last night, but maybe? I think they were very creative on the KJ TD yesterday - I suspect they didn't want to put that play on tape against Kent State, but had to. I bet they wanted to save that for a critical play against someone else.
Could it be #3? More likely a combo of 1/2?
I believe the play calling yesterday especially the running game was by design based on personal in the OLine not that they didn't want to show their hand before B1G starts.
The coaches knew the Kent St offense was over matched against the Gophers D. Not many if any runs outside the tackles. Pretty safe throws after the 2 ints and everything was a safe run call to just get out of the game with a win.
The issue for me was the OLine not being able to get much push in the run game with what were basically straight ahead run plays. Even with the injuries the OLine should've been able to dominate Kent St's DLine straight up man to man.
Really?!? We scored 10-points in the first half and the coaches said to themselves, we don't need to worry about scoring anymore and will just protect a four point lead with our D. I don't think so.
Really?!? We scored 10-points in the first half and the coaches said to themselves, we don't need to worry about scoring anymore and will just protect a four point lead with our D. I don't think so.
Thank you for breaking it down a lot more and I see your point. It makes a lot of sense. So it seems like the OC is trying to run the same scheme as last year, but with a much less effective OL and without Fruechte, Maxx, and Cobb. In your opinion, do we have the talent to go to a 4 or 5 wr set and 3 step drop style of offense (assuming they have been practicing some variation of this a little bit)? This would hide our deficiencies on OL, but it would require quick/accurate passing and some mobility at QB.
Yes really.
Never said the didn't try to score. Imagine they thought they could handle Kent St up front so straight ahead running plays. Safe plays to protect to protect the ball and field position. Kent St wasn't going to drive the field on the defense.
To answer your question: No, I don't think we have the personnel to do a more spread-based offense. But that doesn't mean we can't incorporate a lot more versatility into our passing game. As noted throughout Limegrover's tenure, we don't employ screen passes, which is baffling. In a general sense, Kill/Limegrover seem to consider 1st down passing to be a chance at a big gain, rather than an opportunity to keep a defense honest. All of our receivers run deeper routes that are challenging throws and take a while to develop. A quick WR drag route would have worked nicely against this blitz. As would Woz chipping the blitzer, then running a short route. Maybe both routes would have only gotten 3 yards, but better than a drive-killing sack. But Kill/Limegrover don't seem to want to throw primarily for shorter gains.
Let's say our base offense is A, and little wrinkles are B. So, for us, base offense A is mostly running up the middle (and generally read option, though we haven't seen much this year.) And offense B is the addition of jet sweeps, bootlegs, play action passing, etc. Limegrover develops his entire gameplan around using A to set up B. So we waste a lot of downs "establishing" A, and then, BAM, we hit you with B on an important down. We saw that a bit yesterday. Leidner had a slick 3rd down bootleg for a 20 yard gain (negated due to holding). KJ's touchdown was a nicely designed play which caught Kent St. off guard. So, we RUTM 75 percent on 1st downs, and then Limegrover figures we'll catch you napping on a deep play action pass on a first down, and all those meager first down gains were worth it for one pass. He doesn't seem to put more thought into it than that.
The problem is that our play action plays are fairly easy to stop using the same defense as you use to stop the run, because we only have 3 guys out on long-developing patterns. The other problem is that Limegrover doesn't seem to think to use B to set up A. We will wait all game for the right chance to use that bootleg, and it did get us a 20 yard gain. But, if we had a bootleg be a regular part of our offense (or jet sweep, or short passes, etc.), we'd better be able to get good gains using our base plays, because the defense can't sit on them as much. Was a horrible running game really worth an important 3rd down gain on a bootleg? It seems to be to Kill/Limegrover, and that's the main problem with our offense.
Sounds crazy, but it would explain the RUTM calls over and over. I'm not saying it makes sense or even that it happened, but it is more plausible than Kill/Limey have forgotten how coach.
That makes sense and if they are going to introduce a new QB for a series or two (Perra or Croft), it would be nice to see a scheme that plays to their strength (not sure what that is yet).To answer your question: No, I don't think we have the personnel to do a more spread-based offense. But that doesn't mean we can't incorporate a lot more versatility into our passing game. As noted throughout Limegrover's tenure, we don't employ screen passes, which is baffling. In a general sense, Kill/Limegrover seem to consider 1st down passing to be a chance at a big gain, rather than an opportunity to keep a defense honest. All of our receivers run deeper routes that are challenging throws and take a while to develop. A quick WR drag route would have worked nicely against this blitz. As would Woz chipping the blitzer, then running a short route. Maybe both routes would have only gotten 3 yards, but better than a drive-killing sack. But Kill/Limegrover don't seem to want to throw primarily for shorter gains.
Let's say our base offense is A, and little wrinkles are B. So, for us, base offense A is mostly running up the middle (and generally read option, though we haven't seen much this year.) And offense B is the addition of jet sweeps, bootlegs, play action passing, etc. Limegrover develops his entire gameplan around using A to set up B. So we waste a lot of downs "establishing" A, and then, BAM, we hit you with B on an important down. We saw that a bit yesterday. Leidner had a slick 3rd down bootleg for a 20 yard gain (negated due to holding). KJ's touchdown was a nicely designed play which caught Kent St. off guard. So, we RUTM 75 percent on 1st downs, and then Limegrover figures we'll catch you napping on a deep play action pass on a first down, and all those meager first down gains were worth it for one pass. He doesn't seem to put more thought into it than that.
The problem is that our play action plays are fairly easy to stop using the same defense as you use to stop the run, because we only have 3 guys out on long-developing patterns. The other problem is that Limegrover doesn't seem to think to use B to set up A. We will wait all game for the right chance to use that bootleg, and it did get us a 20 yard gain. But, if we had a bootleg be a regular part of our offense (or jet sweep, or short passes, etc.), we'd better be able to get good gains using our base plays, because the defense can't sit on them as much. Was a horrible running game really worth an important 3rd down gain on a bootleg? It seems to be to Kill/Limegrover, and that's the main problem with our offense.
No one is saying to clean house and fire Kill or whatever... But the coaches better wake up and fix it, which I'm sure they will... for a while. That's how it's always been. Every year we have these offensive issues then the offense gets opened up and we go on a nice offensive streak, then it goes back to lame and predictable again. Then we lose a Bowl Game.
Run plays require more extension of the ligaments and compression at the knee joint as you are moving that heavy and fighting mass in front of you. Look at all the knee injuries. Run, run, run has its costs. 5 years of that and it will cause massive injuries along the line. Conservative play will ultimately bite you in the backside. Why has nearly everyone gone to the pass mentality? Part of it is the shear fun. It also may just reduce long term injury rates. PURE SPECULATION ON MY PART.
I've had the same thoughts on why is the offense so much different than it was at Northern Illinois. It doesn't make sense. Were their skill position players that much better? How after 5 years have they not been able to recruit better players on offense at a Big Ten school compared to a MAC school?
To answer your question: No, I don't think we have the personnel to do a more spread-based offense. But that doesn't mean we can't incorporate a lot more versatility into our passing game. As noted throughout Limegrover's tenure, we don't employ screen passes, which is baffling. In a general sense, Kill/Limegrover seem to consider 1st down passing to be a chance at a big gain, rather than an opportunity to keep a defense honest. All of our receivers run deeper routes that are challenging throws and take a while to develop. A quick WR drag route would have worked nicely against this blitz. As would Woz chipping the blitzer, then running a short route. Maybe both routes would have only gotten 3 yards, but better than a drive-killing sack. But Kill/Limegrover don't seem to want to throw primarily for shorter gains.
Let's say our base offense is A, and little wrinkles are B. So, for us, base offense A is mostly running up the middle (and generally read option, though we haven't seen much this year.) And offense B is the addition of jet sweeps, bootlegs, play action passing, etc. Limegrover develops his entire gameplan around using A to set up B. So we waste a lot of downs "establishing" A, and then, BAM, we hit you with B on an important down. We saw that a bit yesterday. Leidner had a slick 3rd down bootleg for a 20 yard gain (negated due to holding). KJ's touchdown was a nicely designed play which caught Kent St. off guard. So, we RUTM 75 percent on 1st downs, and then Limegrover figures we'll catch you napping on a deep play action pass on a first down, and all those meager first down gains were worth it for one pass. He doesn't seem to put more thought into it than that.
The problem is that our play action plays are fairly easy to stop using the same defense as you use to stop the run, because we only have 3 guys out on long-developing patterns. The other problem is that Limegrover doesn't seem to think to use B to set up A. We will wait all game for the right chance to use that bootleg, and it did get us a 20 yard gain. But, if we had a bootleg be a regular part of our offense (or jet sweep, or short passes, etc.), we'd better be able to get good gains using our base plays, because the defense can't sit on them as much. Was a horrible running game really worth an important 3rd down gain on a bootleg? It seems to be to Kill/Limegrover, and that's the main problem with our offense.
To answer your question: No, I don't think we have the personnel to do a more spread-based offense. But that doesn't mean we can't incorporate a lot more versatility into our passing game. As noted throughout Limegrover's tenure, we don't employ screen passes, which is baffling. In a general sense, Kill/Limegrover seem to consider 1st down passing to be a chance at a big gain, rather than an opportunity to keep a defense honest. All of our receivers run deeper routes that are challenging throws and take a while to develop. A quick WR drag route would have worked nicely against this blitz. As would Woz chipping the blitzer, then running a short route. Maybe both routes would have only gotten 3 yards, but better than a drive-killing sack. But Kill/Limegrover don't seem to want to throw primarily for shorter gains.
Let's say our base offense is A, and little wrinkles are B. So, for us, base offense A is mostly running up the middle (and generally read option, though we haven't seen much this year.) And offense B is the addition of jet sweeps, bootlegs, play action passing, etc. Limegrover develops his entire gameplan around using A to set up B. So we waste a lot of downs "establishing" A, and then, BAM, we hit you with B on an important down. We saw that a bit yesterday. Leidner had a slick 3rd down bootleg for a 20 yard gain (negated due to holding). KJ's touchdown was a nicely designed play which caught Kent St. off guard. So, we RUTM 75 percent on 1st downs, and then Limegrover figures we'll catch you napping on a deep play action pass on a first down, and all those meager first down gains were worth it for one pass. He doesn't seem to put more thought into it than that.
The problem is that our play action plays are fairly easy to stop using the same defense as you use to stop the run, because we only have 3 guys out on long-developing patterns. The other problem is that Limegrover doesn't seem to think to use B to set up A. We will wait all game for the right chance to use that bootleg, and it did get us a 20 yard gain. But, if we had a bootleg be a regular part of our offense (or jet sweep, or short passes, etc.), we'd better be able to get good gains using our base plays, because the defense can't sit on them as much. Was a horrible running game really worth an important 3rd down gain on a bootleg? It seems to be to Kill/Limegrover, and that's the main problem with our offense.