National Signing Day, and off we go!

Donate To GopherHole
highwayman said:
If they were here in AZ, you’d just assume they were a roper or bronc rider. Cade, Cole, Trip, Tate, Coburn, Sage, Roscoe…
Click to expand...
If he wasn't such a tool, Spencer Rattler is a great AZ name.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Yeah, I could certainly be wrong but I will believe it when I see it.

The analytics strongly favor fair catching most kicks. Maybe not to the extent that we saw it, but I would be shocked if we start returning kicks at anything more than a slight uptick from last year.

But we'll see.
Click to expand...
Analytics show that on kickoffs around the goal line, not for balls going to the 10 or 15 yard line.
 


btowngopher said:
They seem to produce more P5 players than Minnesota though.
Click to expand...
Per capita, absolutely. Burns talked about this with the Midwest recruiting lead on his podcast this week. They were both a little puzzled on why MN doesn't produce more FBS players. They sort of settled on the fact that outstate MN doesn't produce the way outlying parts of Iowa and Wisconsin do for some reason. Possible causes are elite talent in other sports like hockey, bball, and lacrosse.

Dakota2 said:
On another thread Fleck comments on every signee. In talking about Ryan Stapp he says he's looking to improve return game. He also just offered a D back from WKU in portal. He is noted also as a return man. And then there is Dino.

I don't think we will be fair catching kickoffs at the 10 or 15 next year.
Click to expand...
I'm convinced they wouldn't have been doing it this year either if it wasn't for all the injuries to skill players (RBs primarily, but CAB, MBS, Jackson, and Wright all missed time as well). You saw Bucky back there early in the year and again vs. Wisconsin when the team was going for broke. He was outstanding, btw...
 



hungan1 said:
The Big Ten East has a huge geographic advantage in recruiting.
Click to expand...
Oh sure, that’s obviously true. The vast majority of the traditional powers in the conference are also in the east. Still, I don’t recall a year where at least a couple of the west schools didn’t make it into the top half of the rankings.
 

Dakota2 said:
Analytics show that on kickoffs around the goal line, not for balls going to the 10 or 15 yard line.
Click to expand...
No, they don't. It's not entirely settled because the data is new. But no, this isn't true.

There are three variables:
(1) You are somewhere between 3-4times more likely to fumble on a KO return than score.
(2) Kickoffs are, by far, the play that is most likely to result in a concussion. Since implementing the KO rule, concussions dropped from 10.9 per 1000 plays to 2.04 per 1000 plays, so it's a risky play in terms of health/depth of your football team.
(3) Kickoffs are also one of the plays where you are most likely to be penalized.
(2) Since the kickoff rule has been implemented, only about 51% of the returns go beyond the 25 yard line and therefore, but the potential benefit is outweighed by the risk (fumble, penalty (and therefore being inside the 15), concussion, and then the near coinflip of not getting past the 50).

You can disagree with it all you'd like. I think it's a fair debate. I am just saying that it's not a MN thing to avoid returning kicks. It's a drastic trend in all of college football.
 
Last edited:

MGGopher said:
Per capita, absolutely. Burns talked about this with the Midwest recruiting lead on his podcast this week. They were both a little puzzled on why MN doesn't produce more FBS players. They sort of settled on the fact that outstate MN doesn't produce the way outlying parts of Iowa and Wisconsin do for some reason. Possible causes are elite talent in other sports like hockey, bball, and lacrosse.


I'm convinced they wouldn't have been doing it this year either if it wasn't for all the injuries to skill players (RBs primarily, but CAB, MBS, Jackson, and Wright all missed time as well). You saw Bucky back there early in the year and again vs. Wisconsin when the team was going for broke. He was outstanding, btw...
Click to expand...
There is some elite talent in outstate for hockey, a very small amount in bball and virtually none in lacrosse. I’d chalk it up to just not having that sting of a football culture in MN.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
No, they don't. It's not entirely settled because the data is new. But no, this isn't true.

There are three variables:
(1) You are somewhere between 3-4times more likely to fumble on a KO return than score.
(2) Kickoffs are, by far, the play that is most likely to result in a concussion. Since implementing the KO rule, concussions dropped from 10.9 per 1000 plays to 2.04 per 1000 plays, so it's a risky play in terms of health/depth of your football team.
(3) Kickoffs are also one of the plays where you are most likely to be penalized.
(2) Since the kickoff rule has been implemented, only about 51% of the returns go beyond the 25 yard line and therefore, but the potential benefit is outweighed by the risk (fumble, penalty (and therefore being inside the 15), concussion, and then the near coinflip of not getting past the 50).

You can disagree with it all you'd like. I think it's a fair debate. I am just saying that it's not a MN thing to avoid returning kicks. It's a drastic trend in all of college football.
Click to expand...
By now many have seen the ravages of CTE injuries, especially among pro football players.
 



Word said:
I would love to see those analytics. Link?
Click to expand...
You threw out analytics but didn't post any. Common sense says there is a difference between running a kick back from the goal line and running one back from the 15 or 10.

It's a shorter distance to run with the ball to get out past the 25. Oh, and it takes less time to do that. And, the guys coming down to tackle you have less time to arrive before you are long on your way.

Any analytical dispute with that?
 

Dakota2 said:
You threw out analytics but didn't post any. Common sense says there is a difference between running a kick back from the goal line and running one back from the 15 or 10.

It's a shorter distance to run with the ball to get out past the 25. Oh, and it takes less time to do that. And, the guys coming down to tackle you have less time to arrive before you are long on your way.

Any analytical dispute with that?
Click to expand...
Bob was the one that threw out analytics. I am just skeptical of those analytic numbers, thus I wanted to see the source. I would be willing to admit I'm wrong if I saw data that proved so.

What I seem to notice is that the shorter kickoffs are the ones that go higher in the air, almost more like a punt. So the coverage team has more time to cover and thus making it harder to get a good return. I think some teams even intentionally kick that way.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
No, they don't. It's not entirely settled because the data is new. But no, this isn't true.

There are three variables:
(1) You are somewhere between 3-4times more likely to fumble on a KO return than score.
(2) Kickoffs are, by far, the play that is most likely to result in a concussion. Since implementing the KO rule, concussions dropped from 10.9 per 1000 plays to 2.04 per 1000 plays, so it's a risky play in terms of health/depth of your football team.
(3) Kickoffs are also one of the plays where you are most likely to be penalized.
(2) Since the kickoff rule has been implemented, only about 51% of the returns go beyond the 25 yard line and therefore, but the potential benefit is outweighed by the risk (fumble, penalty (and therefore being inside the 15), concussion, and then the near coinflip of not getting past the 50).

You can disagree with it all you'd like. I think it's a fair debate. I am just saying that it's not a MN thing to avoid returning kicks. It's a drastic trend in all of college football.
Click to expand...
To fairly evaluate the statistic "only 51% of returns to beyond the 15 yard line" you would need to know from where they started. I know that would be true if you bring it out from five yards deep in the end zone. It is probably also true for kicks caught around the goal line or even from the 2-3 yard line. Don't return those unless it comes in very low and you have a lot of field open ahead.

But a normal kickoff that only makes it to the ten is easier to get back to the 25 and usually well beyond. You need a smart guy back there who has full discretion on when to go or not.

If concern is injuries they will just have to remove kickoffs from the game. As long as it exists good teams will see opportunity to improve field position and return selected kicks.
 





Word said:
Bob was the one that threw out analytics. I am just skeptical of those analytic numbers, thus I wanted to see the source. I would be willing to admit I'm wrong if I saw data that proved so.

What I seem to notice is that the shorter kickoffs are the ones that go higher in the air, almost more like a punt. So the coverage team has more time to cover and thus making it harder to get a good return. I think some teams even intentionally kick that way.
Click to expand...
Word said:
Bob was the one that threw out analytics. I am just skeptical of those analytic numbers, thus I wanted to see the source. I would be willing to admit I'm wrong if I saw data that proved so.

What I seem to notice is that the shorter kickoffs are the ones that go higher in the air, almost more like a punt. So the coverage team has more time to cover and thus making it harder to get a good return. I think some teams even intentionally kick that way.
Click to expand...
Yes, some teams do try to kick it high and a little short. Takes a pretty good kicker to do that consistently. Kind of like trying to hit a three iron high and ten yards shorter.

Point is, to have a good return game you need a guy back there who is smart and makes good decisions on what to field. And he must have full discretion to make those judgments.

Fleck mentioned Ryan Stapp in that role. I think he has a plan which means we will be opportunistic when a good chance presents itself.
 

Dakota2 said:
Yes, some teams do try to kick it high and a little short. Takes a pretty good kicker to do that consistently. Kind of like trying to hit a three iron high and ten yards shorter.

Point is, to have a good return game you need a guy back there who is smart and makes good decisions on what to field. And he must have full discretion to make those judgments.

Fleck mentioned Ryan Stapp in that role. I think he has a plan which means we will be opportunistic when a good chance presents itself.
Click to expand...
I could see Stapp being a punt returner and Bucko being the kick returner. That's assuming we have plenty of healthy running backs and d-backs.
 




kg21 said:
So which recruit are you most excited about......or which one intrigues you the most?

Mine is Anthony Smith. I just have this feeling we are due for a big time pass rusher off the edge. Great at rushing the passer and good against the run. Better than Mafe, even.

I'm just feeling it with this guy!
Click to expand...
Excited about the dline guys. Smith and bixby have a chance to be real game changers

also really like the aiden kid. Sounds like a top end WR prospect. Love the length of him and ryland at the CB spots
 

Dakota2 said:
To fairly evaluate the statistic "only 51% of returns to beyond the 15 yard line" you would need to know from where they started. I know that would be true if you bring it out from five yards deep in the end zone. It is probably also true for kicks caught around the goal line or even from the 2-3 yard line. Don't return those unless it comes in very low and you have a lot of field open ahead.

But a normal kickoff that only makes it to the ten is easier to get back to the 25 and usually well beyond. You need a smart guy back there who has full discretion on when to go or not.

If concern is injuries they will just have to remove kickoffs from the game. As long as it exists good teams will see opportunity to improve field position and return selected kicks.
Click to expand...
No one is taking the ball out 5 yards deep or at the goal line. I should say it's rare. I think it's safe to assume that the kicks that actually are returned are the most returnable kicks. The percentage of kicks returned out of the endzone is really low. So the numbers, as they stand now, already are skewed towards precisely the kinds of kicks you're talking about.

If you're talking about a line drive that lines at the 10 yard line. . . sure. Those almost never exist, but sure, they should be returned.

As far as removing kickoffs, yeah, that's what they've essentially done by making it so advantageous to fair catch. They intentionally drastically increased the number of touchbacks and the benefit of a touchback to help dissuade coaches from risking the cost. Even if you don't care about the players being injured, partaking in activities that makes concussions 5X more likely for your team isn't good for winning.

As far as good teams wanting to return kicks. Some of them. Many of them do not. Ohio State returns about the same percentage of kicks as we do. Alabama returns about the same percentage of kickoffs that we do. I understand you think returning kicks is smart and some good coaches agree with you. However, many good coaches with an absolute excess of skill players (Ohio State, Alabama) do not want their teams returning many kicks. It's not about good or bad, it's strategy.
 

Dakota2 said:
You threw out analytics but didn't post any. Common sense says there is a difference between running a kick back from the goal line and running one back from the 15 or 10.

It's a shorter distance to run with the ball to get out past the 25. Oh, and it takes less time to do that. And, the guys coming down to tackle you have less time to arrive before you are long on your way.

Any analytical dispute with that?
Click to expand...

The difference in knocking it into/through the end zone versus taking it from thr 10 or 15 is more like hitting a 3 iron versus 9 iron. The trajectory is vastly different (assuming you hit it as intended). That gives the kick team more time to get down field and tackle short of the 25. That's what my naked eye sees, no idea if analytics back it up or not.
 




PhiloVance said:
West division should be renamed the Development Division where we take 2 stars and make them into 3 stars.
Click to expand...
we signed a grand total of 0 2 star players this year according to 247 composites
 


per ESPN:

40. Minnesota Golden Gophers​

ESPN 300 commits: 0 | Previous ranking: 39
rd-arrow.png


Big Ten rank: 10 of 14
Top offensive commit: WR Ike White (four stars)
Top defensive commit: DE Trey Bixby (four stars)

Out of South Dakota, QB Jacob Knuth is from a bit off the beaten path but is a promising prospect with good arm strength and the mobility to extend plays outside the pocket. The Golden Gophers have several talented WRs in their class, including four-star White, who has quick hands and can be a slippery in space. RB Zach Evans is a physical runner who possesses a strong lower body, as well as good speed to take runs the distance once in the open field. They are keeping at home the top-rated player in state in Bixby.

www.espn.com

Football recruiting class rankings: The race for the No. 1 spot is on

National signing day means many top college football recruits will commit. In turn, there will be significant movement in the class rankings.
www.espn.com www.espn.com

Go Gophers!!
 

CentralGopher said:
There is some elite talent in outstate for hockey, a very small amount in bball and virtually none in lacrosse. I’d chalk it up to just not having that sting of a football culture in MN.
Click to expand...

Haven't there been articles roughly equating the number of D1 football programs in a state with the number of D1 level football players produced by that state?

For example, just over 3 million people live in Utah, but 247 shows seven 4* players in the 2022 class. Why? They have at least five D1 football programs.

That doesn't explain why Wisconsin usually produces more D1 level talent. They have six 4* players this year, but MN has only 1.

Who knows, maybe having St. Thomas as a D1 program will eventually lead to a bump in local talent. Arguably SDSU and NDSU have led to a bump in the number of outstate D1 players like Andries, Trey Lance, Logan Richter, Kristen Hiskins and Deylin Hastert.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom