***OFFICIAL MINNESOTA AT wisconsin BATTLE FOR PAUL BUNYAN'S AXE IN-GAME THREAD!!!***

Donate To GopherHole
60's Guy said:
They were missing two starters all year. Then they all got COVID. They’ll be fine if all on board and healthy and can practice consistently.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I think OL was a pleasant surprise this year. I thought with the 2 guys out that it would get ugly. But, the young guys played well. I didn’t think there was great progression of the OL under Kill. I think this is a welcome change under Fleck- I think he’s done pretty well recruiting and developing. I would like to see him sign a few more each year, but ones that have played have generally been good. No, it’s not the WI OL, but do you see the ratings of the guys they’re signing? They should have a good OL.

I wouldn’t mind seeing a transfer at OL for added veteran depth, but it’s more important at LB, DL, and WR.
 

21 of 27 first down plays were runs. Of the 6 pass plays on first downs:
- incomplete
- complete for 14 yds
- incomplete
- completion for 10 yds
- completion for 20 yds
- sack
 


Some guy said:
You said bad.
They aren’t bad.
It was a frustrating season
Click to expand...

I didn’t say they were bad, I literally said “Even when Wisconsin isn’t good...” If I meant to say they were bad I would have used that specific word.
 

Some guy said:
My point still stands. If you want us to run less on first down, you’re going to need a new head coach
Click to expand...
New coaching isn't the answer here... it's a QB that inspires confidence and one that the coaching staff believe can get the job done.
 


forever a gopher said:
No, not bad at all. Just average. Their LB play is still elite, which tends to give us fits in our slant passing game. We seem to struggle the most against teams with great LB. Wisconsin has them in spades.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Wisconsin’s LB’s are very aggressive, and hugely disruptive of both the run and pass game. Ours aren’t (this year); we seem more reactive. Could change for us next year. It is a combination of talent, coaching and game day play calling. Wisconsin’s LBs take chances (lots of blitzes), but rarely get burned. 🤷🏼‍♂️
 

I would love to see improved linebacker play next year. That in itself would help "tighten" up the D.
 

WindyCityGopher said:
I didn’t say they were bad, I literally said “Even when Wisconsin isn’t good...” If I meant to say they were bad I would have used that specific word.
Click to expand...

Wisconsin was not the team we are used to seeing for sure. Beating them still would have been an accomplishment to be proud of today

They were down a bunch of WRs, (Danny Davis for one) and two RBs, with #37 being the only regular available. The OL seemed to not be 100 percent either, but held up. The QB is shell of what he was a few weeks ago, and Barry's grandson the TE, #84 looked to be be playing with some shoulder problems. As usual Wisconsin did enough to win, and we managed to screw up enough to lose.

Mertz had the one scoring drive late, when he wasn't worthless, before he got hurt, and #2 Wolf did what was needed, and we again made a small, (white of course) 4th team WR (this time Jack Dunn, #16) look like a a NE Patriot Superstar.

I have no idea what Wisconsin was missing on defense, but that was a pretty tough, physical defense. Those LBs were tough as hell, and smart. The whole defense is very well coached.

This was depressing, but not the end of the world. This whole year can just be wiped and tossed down the memory hole.
 

Gophergrandpa said:
Wisconsin’s LBs take chances (lots of blitzes), but rarely get burned.
Click to expand...
Wisconsin rarely blitzes if, by that you mean that they rush more than 4. Their base D might be labelled a 3-4, but mostly they play a 2-4-5. The trick is you are never sure which 4 are coming at you.
 




hello-world said:
If the linebacker stays home, then that play will always be covered, and Morgan will never see him. It's an awful play. Take it out of the playbook.
Click to expand...
It is called a throwback play. It is actually a great play design and best utilized against a defense that over commits. As we saw tonight, Wisconsin often was sending the house.

Great play call and design. Awful throw by Morgan.
 

Stan The Caddy said:
It is called a throwback play. It is actually a great play design and best utilized against a defense that over commits. As we saw tonight, Wisconsin often was sending the house.

Great play call and design. Awful throw by Morgan.
Click to expand...

It's dumb and always results in breaking the number one rule in qb play, never thow late over the middle.

You cannot see the defense, you don't know where your receiver will be, and you will always throw off balance.

It's right up there with the reverse in the list of overly risky play concepts that are almost never worth running unless you are completely desperate.
 




hello-world said:
It's dumb and always results in breaking the number one rule in qb play, never thow late over the middle.

You cannot see the defense, you don't know where your receiver will be, and you will always throw off balance.

It's right up there with the reverse in the list of overly risky play concepts that are almost never worth running unless you are completely desperate.
Click to expand...
Agree to disagree.
The throw on a throwback is not a late throw over the middle. If you think that it is, i seriously question your football acumen.

It is designed to get the defense going one way and throwing back the opposite way...

Which is completely different than a broken play scramble throwing late over the middle or against their body.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
I did, it was 2. How many drops were there that hit WRs in the hands?
Click to expand...
I did not feel like drops were a big problem tonight. Seth Green actually made two good catches to bail Morgan out on bad throws.

I could be wrong about the drops, I just do not recall numerous dropped passes. Morgan was 13-25.

The two bad passes you reference had a disproportionate impact on the game and were egregious. You cannot make that throw in the end zone and the throwback pass was atrocious. Severely under thrown.
 

60's Guy said:
1000% we improved dramatically on defense.
Our O- line improved from game one but had too many combinations.
But, did you expect us to be so very woeful to begin? We couldn’t play worse. We had to improve. We still finished 3 and 4 in year four.
Click to expand...
I couldn't believe how poorly we played to start the season. As you stated we couldn't have played any worse especially on D. Maybe I should have said stated how nice it was to see so much improvement.
 

GhostofBronko said:
Wisconsin rarely blitzes if, by that you mean that they rush more than 4. Their base D might be labelled a 3-4, but mostly they play a 2-4-5. The trick is you are never sure which 4 are coming at you.
Click to expand...
Well, the guys they label as LBs are in our backfield a lot. It might not be “blitzing,” but what ever name you want to give it, it is something that our LBs, who normally stay back and react, rarely do. Whatever Wisconsin does, their linebackers appear to me to be much more disruptive than ours.
 

If the first number is how many guys have their hand in the dirt (3pt stance), the yes indeed, I more often than not only saw two of those for Wisc.

But while the end guys were in 2-pt stances, they had four guys on/near the line. So at some level the difference between a 2-4-5 or 2-5-4 and a 4-2-5 or 4-3-4 are semantic. It really gets down to: what are the heights/weights of the guys, where do they usually line up for our formations, and what are their responsibilities?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom