No magic

Donate To GopherHole
skiumah1 said:
Yeah I think it's way too early to be hitting the panic button on Sanford. The playcalling in the 4th was disappointing though and probably cost us the game.
Click to expand...
I'm not really sure how much of that is on Sanford. We were dangerously close to blowing the Penn State game last year due to the same conservative playcalling. I believe the Purdue game was closer than it should have been for the same reason. Might be a Fleck thing.
 


fair said:
I'm not really sure how much of that is on Sanford. We were dangerously close to blowing the Penn State game last year due to the same conservative playcalling. I believe the Purdue game was closer than it should have been for the same reason. Might be a Fleck thing.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Whoever is deciding to make those calls is deciding not to play to our strengths. I think we all love the idea of our defense being able to close the game for us. They did that for us last year. It's more than obvious at this point that our defense is not doing that this year. We knew that in the 4th quarter against Maryland. PJ, Sanford or whoever, the playcalling was bad and should've been adjust based on how we all knew our D was playing
 

skiumah1 said:
Fair enough. Whoever is deciding to make those calls is deciding not to play to our strengths. I think we all love the idea of our defense being able to close the game for us. They did that for us last year. It's more than obvious at this point that our defense is not doing that this year. We knew that in the 4th quarter against Maryland. PJ, Sanford or whoever, the playcalling was bad and should've been adjust based on how we all knew our D was playing
Click to expand...
FTR, I agree with you 100%. Coaches have to do what's necessary to win the game. Period. Yes, your defense SHOULD'VE played better and gotten a stop. It wasn't going to happen. So you adjust and do what's needed to win.

I thought of this yesterday when I was watching the Seahawks - 49ers. Seattle got the ball back up two scores near midfield with like 4 min to go. Classic "turtle up" and run clock time, right? First and second down they go play action against stacked boxes and complete short passes that result in a first down. Now they've got SF on their heels, so they mix in some run and a couple more passes, and 2 min later they're in the endzone.
 

MGGopher said:
FTR, I agree with you 100%. Coaches have to do what's necessary to win the game. Period. Yes, your defense SHOULD'VE played better and gotten a stop. It wasn't going to happen. So you adjust and do what's needed to win.

I thought of this yesterday when I was watching the Seahawks - 49ers. Seattle got the ball back up two scores near midfield with like 4 min to go. Classic "turtle up" and run clock time, right? First and second down they go play action against stacked boxes and complete short passes that result in a first down. Now they've got SF on their heels, so they mix in some run and a couple more passes, and 2 min later they're in the endzone.
Click to expand...
This. I don’t know about you all but I trust Tanner, Rashod, CAB to make a play. Give them a chance.
 


skiumah1 said:
I'm not giving the defense credit here. That would be great if they held their own. But I think we understood the defense wasn't gonna get it done. That was a given. So once you establish that blame, you adjust your offensive play calling because we know they're the ones who are gonna have to win the game for us.

It's a lost cause when you're giving up 10+ yards a play.

Yes the defense is to blame first. I just don't understand acting like the offense played a flawless game. The 4th quarter was a disaster on offense.
Click to expand...
The defense lost the game, no doubt. But the offense, could have easily won the game in the 4th Q (despite the defense) had it not gone into a shell; had it not ghosted several of its most powerful weapons; had it not called plays that were 100% what Maryland expected and was set up to stop; and had it not placed the entire burden of "closing" the game on a RB (a stud) who had already run about 35 punishing plays, many into stacked boxes. I don't have an ounce of criticism for the players on offense; to the contrary, they played like heroes. My critique is for the endgame strategy and play calling by the offensive coaches--who had to know they were, in that game, covering for a confused and ineffective defense. I love most of everything PJ has brought to this team. But his (or Sanford's) strategy of closing out this win by laying down several of his proven offensive weapons and taking his foot off the offensive accelerator was really questionable. Given the night our defense was having, our offense was in reality our only effective defense. So, this loss clearly is on the woeful defense, but, with play calling in the 4th Q that utilized the full gamut of our offensive weapons, taking advantage of, rather than surrendering to, the fact that Maryland had sold out to stop the run, I believe we would have won ... perhaps easily. Refusing to take what the Maryland defense was giving you, and playing right into Maryland's outsized bet at the line, was a poor closing strategy, especially when it became clear that it meant you are handing over closing responsibility to a defense that, for the moment is yielding far more yards per carry than any other team in FBS football.
 

MGGopher said:
FTR, I agree with you 100%. Coaches have to do what's necessary to win the game. Period. Yes, your defense SHOULD'VE played better and gotten a stop. It wasn't going to happen. So you adjust and do what's needed to win.

I thought of this yesterday when I was watching the Seahawks - 49ers. Seattle got the ball back up two scores near midfield with like 4 min to go. Classic "turtle up" and run clock time, right? First and second down they go play action against stacked boxes and complete short passes that result in a first down. Now they've got SF on their heels, so they mix in some run and a couple more passes, and 2 min later they're in the endzone.
Click to expand...
Yeah you gotta love that as a Seahawks fan. Playing to win. Good example. Pete Carroll has always had that mentality, whether you love him or hate him, he's a great coach
 
Last edited:


PMWinSTP said:
Your defense is only to blame. Offense did more than enough to win. Period.
Click to expand...
This is incredibly dumb.

You claim on one hand the defense isn't capable of stopping anyone, then demand the defense stop someone to win the game.

You then claim the offense isn't a problem, while ignoring the 4th quarter, where the offense told the defense "we're done, win the game."

Its been obvious since the first quarter of game 1, the defense isn't going to win any games.

Given that, the offense needs to operate that way. The offense has to win games.
 



fair said:
I'm not really sure how much of that is on Sanford. We were dangerously close to blowing the Penn State game last year due to the same conservative playcalling. I believe the Purdue game was closer than it should have been for the same reason. Might be a Fleck thing.
Click to expand...
100% a fleck thing

he plays to shorten the game. Sometimes even when he is losing. It is what it is. I don’t always like it.
 

Some guy said:
100% a fleck thing

he plays to shorten the game. Sometimes even when he is losing. It is what it is. I don’t always like it.
Click to expand...

I decided to stop questioning PJF back in 2018, late in the year and I accept that he is going to follow the Tresselball approach of draining the clock and playing defense. We saw some conservative play late, with a lot of running success late in the Auburn win, but they did not always play RUTM and try just to barely hold on on offense in that game either.

Going for two in OT is a lower percentage option, I usually hate to see, but in this case the defense was so horrible, it seemed unlikely we could ever stop Maryland and I would have been OK with an exception. I was not looking forward to seeing #55 or #8 try to tackle Funk or Tua again, even if the EP try went through. Those two are not ready, and may never be ready.

Since Seth Green had already run the last TD in, showing Maryland the same look again with Green then running the play we saw in the Auburn game, with the fake run, and toss over the top to #85 or any TE wold have been nice. Chances are it would have worked, or worse case Green runs it in if the outside lane is there.
 

oak_street1981 said:
I decided to stop questioning PJF back in 2018, late in the year and I accept that he is going to follow the Tresselball approach of draining the clock and playing defense. We saw some conservative play late, with a lot of running success late in the Auburn win, but they did not always play RUTM and try just to barely hold on on offense in that game either.

Going for two in OT is a lower percentage option, I usually hate to see, but in this case the defense was so horrible, it seemed unlikely we could ever stop Maryland and I would have been OK with an exception. I was not looking forward to seeing #55 or #8 try to tackle Funk or Tua again, even if the EP try went through. Those two are not ready, and may never be ready.

Since Seth Green had already run the last TD in, showing Maryland the same look again with Green then running the play we saw in the Auburn game, with the fake run, and toss over the top to #85 or any TE wold have been nice. Chances are it would have worked, or worse case Green runs it in if the outside lane is there.
Click to expand...
I wanted to go for 2 because college overtime favors the team with the better kicker
 

my overall feeling is that I'm not happy with how the team is playing, but beyond that, I'm mad at myself.

because last year, I let myself start to believe. I started to believe that Fleck was different, and we were watching the program take that proverbial "next step" into a program that would be relevant in the conference on a regular basis and a top-20 level team nationally.

and now, I'm mad at myself for buying into the hype. I had grown to accept that the Gopher program was what it appeared to be - a program that could win 7 or 8 games most years, and every now and then, run off a 9- or 10-win season when the stars aligned correctly. But last year, I let myself dream that maybe, the Gophers could be better than that.

and now, reality has kicked me in the nuts.

Oh well, I'm only 65. If I'm lucky, they'll make to back to the Rose Bowl in my lifetime. hey, my mom is 94, so I have that going for me.
 



short ornery norwegian said:
my overall feeling is that I'm not happy with how the team is playing, but beyond that, I'm mad at myself.

because last year, I let myself start to believe. I started to believe that Fleck was different, and we were watching the program take that proverbial "next step" into a program that would be relevant in the conference on a regular basis and a top-20 level team nationally.

and now, I'm mad at myself for buying into the hype. I had grown to accept that the Gopher program was what it appeared to be - a program that could win 7 or 8 games most years, and every now and then, run off a 9- or 10-win season when the stars aligned correctly. But last year, I let myself dream that maybe, the Gophers could be better than that.

and now, reality has kicked me in the nuts.

Oh well, I'm only 65. If I'm lucky, they'll make to back to the Rose Bowl in my lifetime. hey, my mom is 94, so I have that going for me.
Click to expand...
Don’t be mad at yourself for buying the hype. Be mad at yourself for having unrealistic expectations.

the gophers weren’t going to go from perennially mediocre to a national contender each year in a 3 year transition.

I thought they’d be better this year but I was hoping for 5-3 or 6-2. I didn’t think they’d go 8-0 (although I hoped they would).


Barry Alvarez had a losing season in his 6th year at Wisconsin AND in his 12th year at wisconsin. He was 7-6 in his 14th.

Mark dantonio was 6-7 in his third year at Michigan state and 7-6 in his 6th. He was 3-9 in his season following his playoff appearance.


I too think the next step beyond having a breakout year should be to have breakout years multiple years in a row. It turns out that might not happen in year 4. Color me shocked.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom