***MINNESOTA-INDIANA PRE-GAME THOUGHTS THREAD***

Donate To GopherHole
Gophers cant start slow like they did vs the Huskers, if they do with this offence it could be 21-0. Also I think that if the gophers punt more than 3 times in the game they are in trouble. Shorten the game run the football effectively, and get a turnover or two and that will be the key for a gophers victory Saturday. This game has a feeling of the Syracuse game last year when the questions were surrounding the D. Hopefully our D has just enough and the O continues on the success they had last week. Gophers Over Indiana 38-31.

GO GOPHERS!!!!
 

It's an interesting spread. I'm not a big gambler, but the last time I wanted to bet on a Gopher game was MTSU when their QB got hurt and before they took down the lines. I don't have a huge issue with the spread, because I think it is likely we win, or we lose by a fair amount. Of course, this is me just throwing numbers at a wall, but I say 40% we win, 20% we lose close, 40% we lose by the spread or more. I'm debating going online and making a moneyline bet (+275 and +300 are what I've seen... unfortunately the site I signed up for, and never used is the +275).
 

I don't think that the offense will need to be perfect. Indiana will score and can score quickly but the defense will get stops. The coaches have done a good job of making adjustments and will have to do it again this week.
 

Indi1006 said:
Doesn't work.
Click to expand...

It's better than just standing there waiting for the QB to pitch it, which is essentially what our DE's did last week. At the very least, if you hit the QB hard enough they'll stop calling the plays because they don't want their QB hurt.
 

Terrible logic alert -----> MSU, with their terrible offense, scored 48 on IU and only allowed 28. I think their defense is better than ours but our offense is better than theirs. With that said:
Gophers 52
IU 42
 


Minneapolis612 said:
Terrible logic alert -----> MSU, with their terrible offense, scored 48 on IU and only allowed 28. I think their defense is better than ours but our offense is better than theirs. With that said:
Gophers 52
IU 42
Click to expand...

nm
 

MinnesotaNice said:
With our strong running game and our WR's inability to get separation consistently, I would love to see a flea flicker coming out of the read option look mixed into the play calling! I wonder if they have that in their playbook? I'm calling that we see one this week or next.
Click to expand...

Huh? Our WR and TEs were running free all day against NE. We had some bad throws and drops but it wasn't because of the coverage. We don't need any trick plays.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
Huh? Our WR and TEs were running free all day against NE. We had some bad throws and drops but it wasn't because of the coverage. We don't need any trick plays.
Click to expand...

I don't remember WR's running free all day. I remember TE's wide open due to misdirection plays, pre-snap shifts causing defensive confusion, and play action passes. All season long its been shown that our WR's don't consistently win 1 on 1 match-ups. Our QB's have missed on a few deep balls when they have had a step, but overall, our WR's don't pose a huge threat right now. Opposing D Coordinators are far more concerned with our running game. That is my view anyways.

A trick play can give you an advantage if it's set up by play calling early in the game, properly executed, and called at the right time. I think the last few weeks of game film, and establishing a strong run game early makes a flea flicker an interesting call if the 2nd half is close and we want to take a shot down field. I'm not suggesting a crazy trick play here....the flea flicker has been around forever. It's boom or bust, but it's not very high risk. I hope Limegrover continues to keep opposing coaches on their toes. It can level the playing field if we are not as athletic at the skill positions.

With that said, I'm happy to absolutely destroy them up front, do nothing cute, rush for 450 yards, and hang 35 on them. That should get it done too.
 

MinnesotaNice said:
I don't remember WR's running free all day.
Click to expand...

I would offer you the opportunity to go rewatch the game and reassess your opinion. We only ran a few passing plays to wide receivers and they were wide open each time. Add in the TE and FB pass plays and we had receivers running free on 85% of our pass plays.

I don't care if we got those guys open with play action, shifts or having a lineman bark like a dog...they were open while we ran our offense. Trick plays are more likely to create a loss of yardage or a turn over as they are to create a positive gain. If you remember, we ran a flea flicker against NW and it resulted in a fumble and loss of 5 yards.

The shifts, motions and play action is our way of keeping defenses on their toes and it is our base offense...we just weren't running it for the first six weeks. Expect to see it going forward.
 



Agree to disagree. I don't think our WR's were running wild on Saturday, and unless set up by the run, I doubt they will be moving forward. The only WR with a catch was Engel. He had 2 catches for 40 yards.

I don't think it's a case of if Limegrover throws in some trick plays, I think its a case of when and how. I don't remember the flea flicker against NW..are you talking about the WR reverse when Harbison dropped the pitch?...Maybe I was grabbing a beer. It doesn't work every time, but when it does you can get a guy wide open that normally wouldn't burn someone. We haven't had any deep connections this year, so I figured it might be worth a try. Remember the Iowa game last year? It can work really well. Honestly, I just thought it'd be an interesting wrinkle if they ran it out of the read option. I am in no way suggesting we go away from our bread and butter of pounding the rock and throwing off of play action, but I wouldn't mind taking a risk once a game. The only other play I'd like to see is the annexation of Puerto Rico. This is the last I'll say about it, unless you want to move it to the "all things flea flicker" thread.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/gY6wk_qDdP8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

GophersInIowa said:
It's better than just standing there waiting for the QB to pitch it, which is essentially what our DE's did last week. At the very least, if you hit the QB hard enough they'll stop calling the plays because they don't want their QB hurt.
Click to expand...

You stop the option by playing inside-out. The DT and LB have the dive if there even is a dive part of the option, then they need to beat their reach blocks and get on their horse if the QB keeps and starts moving outside, the DE forces the QB to make a decision and I guess one way of doing that is to hammer him every time but if you slow play it gives more time for the LB and DT to flow and for the backfield guys to beat their blocks and start getting where they need to be. When the pitch happens the safety has to shoot the gap and try and make the play if he doesn't get there the CB DEFINATELY has to turn the play inside at least some so that one or more of the DT, LBers, safety and DE who are scraping inside-out can hammer the back. I think our let down was we let Abdullah get the corner and the sideline so our inside-out pursuit couldn't quite get there. He definately can't get the sideline or it's too hard for the pursuit to get there. CBs need to play it better and the safety has to get there even if they don't. Our backfield play was weak on the option plays more than anything. I think we'll get it corrected.
 

I think our CBs let him get the edge sometimes, but in addition, when the CBs were able to seal the edge, nobody made a play once Abdullah cut back. That was the real problem IMO
 

MinnesotaNice said:
With our strong running game and our WR's inability to get separation consistently, I would love to see a flea flicker coming out of the read option look mixed into the play calling! I wonder if they have that in their playbook? I'm calling that we see one this week or next.
Click to expand...
That would be a good idea. Do you think those TE's cutting across the middle will be open again the rest of the season? I have to think ever Defensive Coordinator will drill that into his team's preparation.
 



Just hoping Limegrover/Kill don't go back to a conservative, simplistic offensive gameplan. A gameplan consisting mainly of interior tailback runs won't allow them to score enough points to keep up. Gotta allow Nelson to get involved in the running game often.
Hope Claeys can figure out a way to slow them down. This is a very interesting matchup.
 

An occasional trick play can help in a number of ways. One, it can have a big impact on the game if it works. Two, it keeps defenses honest if you show one once in a while. Three, most players love them and it seems to add a 'fun' element to game-planning and practice. Kill and the staff have been stressing fun. The reverse pass that was botched a couple weeks ago could have been big. The play with Lauer lined up wide right last week was pretty cool. But, if winning and losing depends on the success of our trick plays, I think we're doomed.
 

killme said:
An occasional trick play can help in a number of ways. One, it can have a big impact on the game if it works. Two, it keeps defenses honest if you show one once in a while. Three, most players love them and it seems to add a 'fun' element to game-planning and practice. Kill and the staff have been stressing fun. The reverse pass that was botched a couple weeks ago could have been big. The play with Lauer lined up wide right last week was pretty cool. But, if winning and losing depends on the success of our trick plays, I think we're doomed.
Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by "trick play".
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom