This is D-1 football. We needed points there, it didn't have to be a touchdown.
Yep. That was a killer. I thought Leidner played pretty well all things considered. But that was the ballgame.
Blaming Leidner for losing the game seems pretty harsh.
That hurt, but didn't cost the Gophs the ballgame. They still would have had to score twice and maybe get a two-point conversion just to tie-it and send it into O.T. That coming from an Offense that scored 3 points in 8 Quarters.
Leidner's fumble didn't cost us the game, but it sealed the deal. He's had horrible ball control all season.
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
I didn't read that as him blaming Leidner for the loss but rather saying that fumble was the one that sealed the fact that we were not going to stage a comeback to win. We needed to get points on that drive and to come away with nothing was killer. Certainly can't pin the loss on Leidner but he is going to have to work his butt off in the off season on ball security as this is not the first time this year he has struggled to hang onto the ball in a key situation.
Nelson threw two interceptions when the game was in doubt. Leidner fumbled when the game was probably out of reach. Yet somebody started a thread about the fumble. Don't blame me.
Leidner will either learn to protect the ball or he will not play.
We get at least a field goal on that drive and it is an 8 point game so the game was definitely not out of reach. I just think you are reading too much into what was posted, ball security was a problem for Leidner all season and something he will have to improve on if he wants to be a viable option going forward.
Leidner will either learn to protect the ball or he will not play unless Nelson gets hurt. We need Leidner to step up in big way. He can throw the ball down field with a certain amount of accuracy. Nelson can't throw down field with any degree of accuracy.
And the other guy hasn't scored a TD in two and a half Big Ten games, since the end of the First Half against Penn State.
You're not making things feel better.
Nelson threw two interceptions when the game was in doubt. Leidner fumbled when the game was probably out of reach. Yet somebody started a thread about the fumble. Don't blame me.
Before this game, Nelson hadn't thrown an interception in 5 games. Leidner has fumbled the ball 3 times in the last two games he's played in as a backup
Leidner's ball security is a much bigger problem for the Gophers than Nelson's passing.
No, it isn't, not even close. How many wins has it cost them?
Didn't cost them the game today. Didn't cost them the Iowa game either. It wasn't his fumbles against Wisconsin that shut them out. Maybe Michigan? His fumble against them was costly but pretty early in the game, still, it did hurt. His interception was WAY after the outcome was settled. In fairness, you've got a difficult point to make. You want to downgrade Leidner to make it seem like Nelson has been good. He hasn't, he's been godawful for 2 and a half games now. Hopefully one of both of them can get better.
Maybe Leidner would have been worse than Nelson if he played more. That's the argument you should try because Mitch hasn't looked very good for awhile now. No, you seem to want to make the case that Nelson has been good.
That's an impossible case to make to people who have saw him play.
Did you just start watching Gophers Football a week ago?
Against Northwester, Nelson was GOOD
Against Nebraska, Nelson was GOOD
Against Indiana, Nelson was GOOD
Against Penn State, Nelson was GOOD.
Since the Northwestern game, Nelson has had two interceptions, both today, while Leidner has had three fumbles. I stand by my point. Leidner's ball security is and has been a much bigger problem for the team than Nelson's passing.
No, it isn't, not even close. How many wins has it cost them?
Didn't cost them the game today. Didn't cost them the Iowa game either. It wasn't his fumbles against Wisconsin that shut them out. Maybe Michigan? His fumble against them was costly but pretty early in the game, still, it did hurt. His interception was WAY after the outcome was settled. In fairness, you've got a difficult point to make. You want to downgrade Leidner to make it seem like Nelson has been good. He hasn't, he's been godawful for 2 and a half games now. Hopefully one of both of them can get better.
Maybe Leidner would have been worse than Nelson if he played more. That's the argument you should try because Mitch hasn't looked very good for awhile now. No, you seem to want to make the case that Nelson has been good.
That's an impossible case to make to people who have saw him play.