Watching the game and I think that they are more athletic and much better pass blockers than Christensen and Bak.
I am not gonna compare anyone because it was an entire game of excellent fundamentals by our OL what with zero holding penalties the entire game.
Watching the game and I think that they are more athletic and much better pass blockers than Christensen and Bak.
any idea why Bak didn't start? did I miss an injury?
Watching the game and I think that they are more athletic and much better pass blockers than Christensen and Bak.
so you believe you are better at recognizing the talent than JK?
so you believe you are better at recognizing the talent than JK?
so you believe you are better at recognizing the talent than JK?
Don't play this card very often but when you have played the game sometimes you have a bit more understanding about how things shake out relative to playing time. Bak and Christensen are both smart kids and the coaches might trust them more because of how bright they are even with what seems to me an obvious talent gap between them and Olson and Bush. Probably even more importantly, they both gained experience last year, too, and it's easy to keep penciling them in particularly with Olson just learning the center position. Happens all the time that maybe not quite the best player and/or athlete is on the field. Cobb is an example, maybe he would have had this same level of success last year if given the chance; I happen to think he would have. Or, maybe he actually didn't know the plays or the pass blocking assignments and that was legit why he didn't play. If you listen to him he's been pretty honest about his thought is nothing changed with him between last year and this other than opportunity. None of us know any of this stuff but if you think for a second that the best player always is the man who starts and plays the most, then you're naive. I just happen to think we're a better, more powerful, more athletic and better pass blocking line with Olson and Bush starting. I also do agree that the backs are doing a nice job. Cobb actually really had Bush's back on one play in particular against Penn St. where he was beaten cleanly and Cobb stepped up and hit the D lineman in the mouth.
Don't play this card very often but when you have played the game sometimes you have a bit more understanding about how things shake out relative to playing time. Bak and Christensen are both smart kids and the coaches might trust them more because of how bright they are even with what seems to me an obvious talent gap between them and Olson and Bush. Probably even more importantly, they both gained experience last year, too, and it's easy to keep penciling them in particularly with Olson just learning the center position. Happens all the time that maybe not quite the best player and/or athlete is on the field. Cobb is an example, maybe he would have had this same level of success last year if given the chance; I happen to think he would have. Or, maybe he actually didn't know the plays or the pass blocking assignments and that was legit why he didn't play. If you listen to him he's been pretty honest about his thought is nothing changed with him between last year and this other than opportunity. None of us know any of this stuff but if you think for a second that the best player always is the man who starts and plays the most, then you're naive. I just happen to think we're a better, more powerful, more athletic and better pass blocking line with Olson and Bush starting. I also do agree that the backs are doing a nice job. Cobb actually really had Bush's back on one play in particular against Penn St. where he was beaten cleanly and Cobb stepped up and hit the D lineman in the mouth.
Don't play this card very often but when you have played the game sometimes you have a bit more understanding about how things shake out relative to playing time.
If you listen to him he's been pretty honest about his thought is nothing changed with him between last year and this other than opportunity.
if you think for a second that the best player always is the man who starts and plays the most, then you're naive
I just happen to think we're a better, more powerful, more athletic and better pass blocking line with Olson and Bush starting.
I'm guessing that most people on this board have "played the game", myself included. Having "played the game" doesn't automatically give you any greater "understanding" than someone who hasn't.
He probably honestly believes that, but the coaches know a lot more about football than he does. I'm certain they would tell quite a different story. If not, he would've been playing this much last year.
The best players don't always start and play the most. That's why coaches lose their jobs a lot. Jerry Kill has never been fired in his life, an extreme rarity in the coaching profession. If he wants to continue to not be fired, he's going to always start and play the best players. On this team, right now, the best players are the ones starting and playing.
That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Don't labor under the assumption that it's anything more than your opinion, however. It doesn't carry any greater weight or validity because you "played the game".
This part of your post just isn't always true for many and varied reasons.
If it's close many times they play the guy with experience over the more talented guy with less experience.
Does that generate a better outcome or does it enable them to sleep better at night because they know what the kid with experience will do vs. more of an unknown?
Perhaps the coaches think a kid is a pain in the rear so he sits while another less talented player plays, etc, etc, etc.
I actually think it's funny when folks insist that the most "talented" players are always the ones who are on the field.
Hill is their guy as a fifth year senior and the coaches choose to keep Lynn at MLB and to have him learn his trade behind Wilson.
We'll see in two weeks Hill is going to get worked over by Wisconsin, but he'll be the guy and maybe for good reasons overall but I'd like for Lynn to get a shot against teams like Wisconsin, Iowa, etc. to play alongside Wilson; who as an aside has been mostly invisible the past two weeks.
Yes, it is. The problem with your argument is that you're assuming the more talented player is always the better player.
Yes, because he's the better player.
If he is more reliable, that makes him the better player.
If he is more reliable, that makes him the better player.
Some may insist that, but I am not. I am advocating just the opposite, in fact.
Because Hill and Wilson are better players right now than Hill.
This is why Jerry Kill is paid a 7-figure salary and why you are posting on a message board.
The dynamics and politics within a football team are much more robust and complex than you either know about or are willing to entertain/admit. So you know that Hill is a better player than Lynn? You know that Cobb wouldn't have done what he is doing this year last year if he had gotten the chance? You know that Bak is a better player than Bush? You have no idea; no more than I know for sure that my opinions are correct. The only thing I'm certain of is you're that guy who is always the smartest one in the room whether you actually have your head up your arse, or not.
The dynamics and politics within a football team are much more robust and complex than you either know about or are willing to entertain/admit.
So you know that Hill is a better player than Lynn? You know that Cobb wouldn't have done what he is doing this year last year if he had gotten the chance? You know that Bak is a better player than Bush? You have no idea; no more than I know for sure that my opinions are correct. The only thing I'm certain of is you're that guy who is always the smartest one in the room whether you actually have your head up your arse, or not.
Who said otherwise? Your "played the game" experience lends you zero insight whatsoever into the dynamics and politics of the 2013 University of Minnesota Golden Gopher football team. Sorry to break that to you.
It's a real-life case of Occam's razor. Does Jerry Kill want to win, or does he want to lose? Does playing better players or worse players increase his chances of winning? You must think Jerry Kill and staff are pretty stupid if they're willingly playing inferior players. Of course, we already know that you think you're smarter than the coaching staff because you're still making sure that Limegrover is doing his penance for something that happened 6 weeks ago.
Had the other two RBs not gotten injured it was likely he woudn't have had this breakthrough.
Would we have won four in a row with the other two playing; likely not.
Is Cobb a better football player than Kirkwood or Williams, very likely yes.
Do any of us know why he wasn't on the depth chart at the beginning of the year; no.
Would there have been any malice by the coaching staff by going with their favorite RBs at the time vs. playing Cobb; most likely not.
But, it is a perfect example of what I'm talking about here and it happens all the time
Someone got better when he got more practice reps, because more practice reps became available? I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!!!
Pointless theoretical exercise - absolutely no way to know.
Yes - that's why he's playing the most of the three.
Yes, I do - the other players were better.
No. They would've been playing the best players, as they are still.
No, it isn't. It's a perfect example of how the better players were playing at the beginning of the season, and how the better players are playing now.
Why are you a Gopher fan if you think our coaches are so stupid, spiteful, and vindictive?
I vacillate between being irritated by you and feeling sorry for you because you're so ignorant.
It's obvious that you're right and I'm wrong
and whenever I disagree with your point of view I hate Kill and his coaches
and really shouldn't be a Gopher fan
Good luck to you living in your own private little La-La land.
Hurts to be so wrong all of the time, I know.
dpodoll came to me for a private diagnosis, because he knows I am a world renowned but retired proctologist. Indi, I can assure you there are lots of things up his arse, because so many people have told him to stick them there, but I found no evidence of his head up there anywhere.
And please believe me, I looked hard.
Just because he looked like this, does not make it a final diagnosis...
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/58073/
We can break it down in one player; David Cobb. Had the other two RBs not gotten injured it was likely he woudn't have had this breakthrough. Would we have won four in a row with the other two playing; likely not. Is Cobb a better football player than Kirkwood or Williams, very likely yes. Do any of us know why he wasn't on the depth chart at the beginning of the year; no. Would there have been any malice by the coaching staff by going with their favorite RBs at the time vs. playing Cobb; most likely not. But, it is a perfect example of what I'm talking about here and it happens all the time; not that you will be able to admit same.
Cobb wasn't on the depth chart? Maybe some chart they didn't release, but Cobb has been getting touches all season (prior to any injury to Williams).
You might have a point with Kirkwood, but Cobb has been getting more touches than Williams all season (before any injury). Cobb has outperformed everyone and we've split carries less. I suppose you could make the argument that Cobb wouldn't have gotten touches this season unless Kirkwood got injured, but it looks like Cobb was #2 (ahead of Williams) all season.
So Cobb isn't really what you are talking about. Cobb is a guy who overtook the #2 RB spot (ahead of Williams), even though most of us were pretty impressed with Williams last season. That move seemed to happen behind the scenes and it was validated as a good decision by Cobb's production.