Mike Sanford hired as OC @ Colorado (who apparently have no idea what they are doing)

Donate To GopherHole


hello-world said:
As a fan, I would rather see Fleck take the time to get the right play call than stick with a poor play call and snap the ball 10 seconds sooner. Running the wrong play more quickly doesn't make the offense more effective (though Chip Kelly would disagree).

One thing that coaches can do to counter Fleck's approach is implement a defense that changes based on when the ball is snapped. That's something that Zimmer does at Minnesota, and it gives Aaron Rodgers fits because he can't read the defense and adjust based on the formation. I think Bielema implemented something similar at Illinois this season and I think that is still going to give the Gophers problems next year.
Click to expand...

No doubt, but MNs points per play was 62nd in the nation, total yards and scoring were of course worse. It seemed like Sanford was not always selecting the right play despite running the clock to < 10 sec, and that was abundantly obvious at times and a few were so head scratch-inducing widespread ridicule and protests ensued from the Xs and Os guys.

To his credit, the 2021 offense was probably better than the 2017 offense under Ciarocca. So yeah, it could be worse. I’d argue the 2021 offense had better components, more experience though.

Not a coach.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
No doubt, but MNs points per play was 62nd in the nation, total yards and scoring were of course worse. It seemed like Sanford was not always selecting the right play despite running the clock to < 10 sec, and that was abundantly obvious at times and a few were so head scratch-inducing widespread ridicule and protests ensued from the Xs and Os guys.

To his credit, the 2021 offense was probably better than the 2017 offense under Ciarocca. So yeah, it could be worse. I’d argue the 2021 offense had better components, more experience in 2021 though.

Not a coach.
Click to expand...

You're right about the stats, but the numbers don't tell the whole story. Fleck's philosophy isn't about attempting to put up huge, eye-popping totals in yards gained and points scored. Fleck wants to win by playing keep away, avoiding mistakes and patiently chipping away at the opponent, rather than trying to win a shootout. For Fleck, the goal is to control the game by controlling the ball and the clock.

It works. Fleck's record is solid.

Also, look to our eastern and southern neighbors: Wisconsin and Iowa have had substantial success over a good number of B1G seasons, running their own versions of this ball-control style of offense.
 
Last edited:

RememberMurray said:
You're right about the stats, but the numbers don't tell the whole story. Fleck's philosophy isn't about attempting to put up huge, eye-popping totals in yards gained and points scored. Fleck wants to win by playing keep away, avoiding mistakes and patiently chipping away at the opponent, rather than trying to win a shootout. For Fleck, the goal is to control the game by controlling the ball and the clock.

It works. Fleck's record is solid.

Also, look to our eastern and southern neighbors: Wisconsin and Iowa have had substantial success over a good number of B1G seasons, running their own versions of this ball-control style of offense.
Click to expand...

MN‘s defense was good enough to win 10+ games this year. Sanford was fired for a reason. There is nothing wrong with running a 60/40 offense but it cannot have self-induced breakdowns.

I’m not going to argue whether we should be copying Wisconsin and Iowa. I’d like to match their defense and special teams, but I think MN has potential to be better on offense. They have to attract higher skill level guys though, which has been a mild problem for Wisconsin and Iowa despite their relative w/l success likely due to their plodding offenses. Chicken or egg argument. If it’s built, will they come?
 


They're probably looking at it like, man this guy put 30 points on us....


forgetting that their defense sucks, hard.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
MN‘s defense was good enough to win 10+ games this year. Sanford was fired for a reason. There is nothing wrong with running a 60/40 offense but it cannot have self-induced breakdowns.

I’m not going to argue whether we should be copying Wisconsin and Iowa. I’d like to match their defense and special teams, but I think MN has potential to be better on offense. They have to attract higher skill level guys, though, which has been a mild problem for Wisconsin and Iowa despite their relative w/l success likely due to their plodding offenses. Chicken or egg argument. If it’s built, will they come?
Click to expand...

I'm not defending Sanford. I'm just pointing out that in general, the grind-the-clock and control the ball philosophy is a Fleck thing. That type of attack will remain here in Minnesota as long as Fleck is coach. The basic philosophy won't change just because Sanford is gone.

We're definitely not attempting to "copy" Iowa and Wisconsin. But all three teams have a similar take on ball control. Each of the three pursue it in their own unique way.

I agree with your statement that Minnesota can be better than Iowa and Wisconsin on offense. In fact, I'd say the Gophers are already better on offense than both the Hawkeyes and the Badgers. Next year, with Ciarrocca, I expect the Gophers to dominate. I see Ciarrocca as a step up over Sanford.

But I don't expect an entirely new overall offensive approach just because Fleck changed offensive coordinators. It will remain ball control/clock control, as long as Fleck is the head honcho.
 
Last edited:

RememberMurray said:
I'm not defending Sanford. I'm just pointing out that in general, the grind-the-clock and control the ball philosophy is a Fleck thing. That type of attack will remain here in Minnesota as long as Fleck is coach. The basic philosophy won't change just because Sanford is gone.

We're definitely not attempting to "copy" Iowa and Wisconsin. But all three teams have a similar take on ball control. Each of the three pursue it in their own unique way.

I agree with your statement that Minnesota can be better than Iowa and Wisconsin on offense. In fact, I'd say the Gophers are already better on offense than both the Hawkeyes and the Badgers. Next year, with Ciarrocca, I expect the Gophers to dominate. I see Ciarrocca as a step up over Sanford.

But I don't expect an entirely new overall offensive approach just because Fleck changed offensive coordinators. It will remain ball control/clock control, as long as Fleck is the head honcho.
Click to expand...
You completely misunderstand the difference between ball and clock control and mismanaging the clock. Tressel would not recognize his style of football in Sanford's aberration at Minnesota.

Ball control means heavy run to keep the clock running but getting first downs through a balanced attack. It has nothing to do with assuring the play clock is close to zero while frantically changing plays. Ball control simply means keeping the football, not artificially trying to shorten the game and achieving disorganization.

Fleck and Ciarrocca do understand.
 

Dakota2 said:
You completely misunderstand the difference between ball and clock control and mismanaging the clock. Tressel would not recognize his style of football in Sanford's aberration at Minnesota.

Ball control means heavy run to keep the clock running but getting first downs through a balanced attack. It has nothing to do with assuring the play clock is close to zero while frantically changing plays. Ball control simply means keeping the football, not artificially trying to shorten the game and achieving disorganization.

Fleck and Ciarrocca do understand.
Click to expand...
I do think KC ran the clock quite a bit on 2019 but maybe down to more like 5-7 seconds and fewer frantic 1 second snaps.

Also, as a side note....when we do audible with 5 seconds can we not always make the new play a RUTM?
 



Word said:
I do think KC ran the clock quite a bit on 2019 but maybe down to more like 5-7 seconds and fewer frantic 1 second snaps.

Also, as a side note....when we do audible with 5 seconds can we not always make the new play a RUTM?
Click to expand...
That's it exactly. The difference between being in control and play clock mismanagement.
 








I remember reading in 2019 that much of the check with the sidelines stuff is window dressing and the play is already called. Defenses will see them check with the sideline, they’ll put a man in motion who was going in motion no matter what, the defense will change their original call and the gophers can exploit it. That was under KC as the OC.
 


GophersInIowa said:
Click to expand...
Haven't gone on any Colorado boards or anything but they can't be excited about this hire. I mean we had lots of fans that didn't like the hire here a couple years ago and he didn't exactly do anything during those 2 years to make those people think they were wrong about him.

The crazy world that is coaching. You can be deemed bad at your job and fired and then almost immediately hired for the exact same job somewhere else.
 


MNVCGUY said:
Haven't gone on any Colorado boards or anything but they can't be excited about this hire. I mean we had lots of fans that didn't like the hire here a couple years ago and he didn't exactly do anything during those 2 years to make those people think they were wrong about him.

The crazy world that is coaching. You can be deemed bad at your job and fired and then almost immediately hired for the exact same job somewhere else.
Click to expand...
We did beat CO 30-0, so in that one game interview our offense did well. Small sample size goes to Sanford.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
I‘m pretty sure I would have been upset about that in 2018/2019 (honestly struggling to remember much of 2017 at the moment) but don’t recall ever thinking about it. Then again, my memory ain’t what it used to be.

Like some others said Sanford seemed to struggle to get plays in quick enough. Just throwing schit but maybe the concept of the check with me offense is a little bit like the wildcat offense, something defenses initially had trouble with but have now adapted to. If we show this, we predict they’ll do that, so we’ll switch to this at just before or at the snap, and so on. Maybe just being less predictable on down and distance, varying tempo at times would help standard down success rate. I don’t know.
Click to expand...
My opinion, not particularly informed, I admit:

One thing that is predictable about an offense that habitually runs the play clock down to the very end is when the ball will be snapped. I think this give edge speed rushers a slight advantage that they shouldn't have. Don't see a lot of defenses being drawn offsides when the play clock has ticked down to zero. One of an offense's tools, a marginal one but still a useful tool, is knowing when, during a 10 to 15 second interval, the ball will be snapped. When you choose to forfeit the benefit of that tool, I think the offense gives up some of the element of surprise the rules grant it. Kind of like running the ball 70+% of the time. You might still win, might even win big, but you've decided to forfeit much of the element of surprise.

BTW, I think the perplexing instances this year in which we were running the play clock down, frantically changing plays (or giving the appearance of changing plays), while we were playing from behind, is very strange coaching. For virtually every team, there is a direct correlation between the number of offensive plays it runs and the number of offensive scores. The 2021 Gophers, with their dogged commitment to a grind-it-out running game, generally needed a lot of offensive plays in order to score (unless the defense gifted them a very short field). Why we would chew up the clock, minimizing the number of our offensive plays, while trying to close up a scoring deficit, is something I just don't understand. Maybe PJ can make the case for this unorthodox strategy, but I think the vast majority of head coaches choose to preserve the clock, in order to run more offensive plays, when trying to come back from a substantial deficit.

I don't think Ciarocca is of the always-burn-the-clock school. I think he believes in a dynamic offense and was a modulating influence on PJ, which is why our offense was more productive under Ciarocca. Hopefully, with Ciarocca's return, our offense burns the clock when it makes sense (it often does) but doesn't habitually burn the clock, like an addict that can't change behavior, even when it makes no sense.
 

The more I think about this ... the more I feel for CO fans.

There's "hey this is what we could get" and prospect type hires and ... this one ...
 

RememberMurray said:
I'm not defending Sanford. I'm just pointing out that in general, the grind-the-clock and control the ball philosophy is a Fleck thing. That type of attack will remain here in Minnesota as long as Fleck is coach. The basic philosophy won't change just because Sanford is gone.

We're definitely not attempting to "copy" Iowa and Wisconsin. But all three teams have a similar take on ball control. Each of the three pursue it in their own unique way.

I agree with your statement that Minnesota can be better than Iowa and Wisconsin on offense. In fact, I'd say the Gophers are already better on offense than both the Hawkeyes and the Badgers. Next year, with Ciarrocca, I expect the Gophers to dominate. I see Ciarrocca as a step up over Sanford.

But I don't expect an entirely new overall offensive approach just because Fleck changed offensive coordinators. It will remain ball control/clock control, as long as Fleck is the head honcho.
Click to expand...
Iowa runs the ball under 56% the last three years. 52% in 2019, 54% in 2020 and 56% this year. Their offense is taking heat at the inability to run the ball lately.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Haven't gone on any Colorado boards or anything but they can't be excited about this hire. I mean we had lots of fans that didn't like the hire here a couple years ago and he didn't exactly do anything during those 2 years to make those people think they were wrong about him.

The crazy world that is coaching. You can be deemed bad at your job and fired and then almost immediately hired for the exact same job somewhere else.
Click to expand...
It's been a great few days of reading
 

stocker08 said:
You're confusing me with someone in your GED program.
Click to expand...

No, I know most people even in a GED program wouldn't have time to accumulate 27,000 posts on a fan website. Whereas unemployment and parents free wifi is pretty likely recipe.

But again, it is gonna get better. You might get a job or an apartment some day or even get that elusive first kiss and then it is going to seem silly that you spent your time perusing through website posts to try and find instances where you felt wronged in some way. You can do this, I know you can.
 


goldengophers said:
He must be a terrific interview and a great connector.
Click to expand...
Must be. Was thinking about it though from the standpoint of someone trying to become a first time OC or DC, has to frustrating as heck to see people fail one place and get hired immediately somewhere else while you are just trying to break through.
 

Gophergrandpa said:
My opinion, not particularly informed, I admit:

One thing that is predictable about an offense that habitually runs the play clock down to the very end is when the ball will be snapped. I think this give edge speed rushers a slight advantage that they shouldn't have. Don't see a lot of defenses being drawn offsides when the play clock has ticked down to zero. One of an offense's tools, a marginal one but still a useful tool, is knowing when, during a 10 to 15 second interval, the ball will be snapped. When you choose to forfeit the benefit of that tool, I think the offense gives up some of the element of surprise the rules grant it. Kind of like running the ball 70+% of the time. You might still win, might even win big, but you've decided to forfeit much of the element of surprise.

BTW, I think the perplexing instances this year in which we were running the play clock down, frantically changing plays (or giving the appearance of changing plays), while we were playing from behind, is very strange coaching. For virtually every team, there is a direct correlation between the number of offensive plays it runs and the number of offensive scores. The 2021 Gophers, with their dogged commitment to a grind-it-out running game, generally needed a lot of offensive plays in order to score (unless the defense gifted them a very short field). Why we would chew up the clock, minimizing the number of our offensive plays, while trying to close up a scoring deficit, is something I just don't understand. Maybe PJ can make the case for this unorthodox strategy, but I think the vast majority of head coaches choose to preserve the clock, in order to run more offensive plays, when trying to come back from a substantial deficit.

I don't think Ciarocca is of the always-burn-the-clock school. I think he believes in a dynamic offense and was a modulating influence on PJ, which is why our offense was more productive under Ciarocca. Hopefully, with Ciarocca's return, our offense burns the clock when it makes sense (it often does) but doesn't habitually burn the clock, like an addict that can't change behavior, even when it makes no sense.
Click to expand...

The bolded was not applicable to the Gophers this year. They never trailed by more than one score in the second half except for the end of the OSU game.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Must be. Was thinking about it though from the standpoint of someone trying to become a first time OC or DC, has to frustrating as heck to see people fail one place and get hired immediately somewhere else while you are just trying to break through.
Click to expand...
I also wonder how much the game against Colorado factored in? Not that Dorrell is likely to say but I am curious.
 

There comes a time where your opponent isn’t the enemy but the clock Is. Hopefully the new OC will recognize such situations.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom