PiPress: Jerry Kill not ready to reveal QB plan

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
61,741
Reaction score
17,654
Points
113
per Marcus:

"Everybody talks about the quarterback position," Kill said. "In our situation, we went through three of them last year. So we're glad we have two of them who are capable of playing, very bright young men. We feel like that's good. If we play both of them or play one -- sometimes the game dictates what you do and what kind of rhythm they get in. But we're going to say one way or the other because we don't want everybody else to know."

http://www.twincities.com/gophers/c...rce=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Go Gophers!!
 

i'd like the "play the hot hand" mentality at this point. both guys seem like they have a good working relationship and respect each other so i could see it working. but to be clear, i'm not meaning like alternate drives until someone gets a TD, but rather play a guy steady, if he can't get it going after a couple of series, then make the switch. i just add that as I'm in the same boat as some people who say the 2 QB system never works as you can't get in a rhythm.
 


That's because there is no quarterback plan. Just like before the Iowa game ... "I wonder what's new in the playbook that he didn't show in the first four games."
 



BleedGopher said:
per Marcus:

"Everybody talks about the quarterback position," Kill said. "In our situation, we went through three of them last year. So we're glad we have two of them who are capable of playing, very bright young men. We feel like that's good. If we play both of them or play one -- sometimes the game dictates what you do and what kind of rhythm they get in. But we're going to say one way or the other because we don't want everybody else to know."

http://www.twincities.com/gophers/c...rce=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Go Gophers!!
Click to expand...

I love the games coaches play, you wonder sometimes if they even buy half the stuff that comes out of their mouth leading up to a game. What Kill is doing with the QB position is very similar to what Frazier is doing with the Vikings QB situation (pretending that the mystery about the starter is going to make it harder for the opponent to game plan). In the case of the Vikings this is especially dumb because the entire world knows there is not a chance in He!! that Ponder is under center at the start of the Carolina game.

For our Gophers do you really think Michigan gives a crap if it is Leidner or Nelson under center? They are very similar QB's. Both have showed some ability as runners and neither is scary as a passer right now. Until we establish some ability to truly hurt a defense through the air our offense is very easy to prepare for. Spy the QB and take away the running game, make whoever is the QB figure out a way to beat you with his arm and a mediocre group of pass catching options. As long as you have the horses in the front 7 to physically outplay our guys up front there isn't much there to worry about right now as Iowa clearly proved on Saturday.
 

In the IA game Jerry just stuck with the game plan that got them to 4-0. ok, it didn't work. This staff knows how to adjust and we should expect to see adjustments from the 1st whistle.
 

Why is this even being written about? Kill shouldn't reveal anything to the public to keep the Wolverines guessing. In the end though it truelly doesnt matter as others have already mentioned both guys are so similar the preperations by Michigan would be the same. At this point the Gophers need the O-line to step up their play because if the team can't run they have no chance to win. If we can run it will open up some play action passing even if we are not a great passing team. If we can't run we will just see more of what we saw last week.
 




WolfontheProwl said:
Why is this even being written about? Kill shouldn't reveal anything to the public to keep the Wolverines guessing. In the end though it truelly doesnt matter as others have already mentioned both guys are so similar the preperations by Michigan would be the same. At this point the Gophers need the O-line to step up their play because if the team can't run they have no chance to win. If we can run it will open up some play action passing even if we are not a great passing team. If we can't run we will just see more of what we saw last week.
Click to expand...

Because Marcus is obsessed with QB controversies. There isn't much for Kill to say. He's said countless times that Nelson is the starter. If he is planning on giving Leidner some snaps, why should he have to tell everyone that? And you're right, with the way we ran the ball last week it wouldn't have mattered who the QB was.
 

wait!what? said:
In the IA game Jerry just stuck with the game plan that got them to 4-0.
Click to expand...

What? No, they almost completely went away from the game plan that got them to 4-0. That was what was especially frustrating for me.
 

dpodoll68 said:
What? No, they almost completely went away from the game plan that got them to 4-0. That was what was especially frustrating for me.
Click to expand...

A full 180 from the previous weeks offensive playbook? They threw more cuz they had to but otherwise I swore I saw the same game plan executed against a better defense.
 

wait!what? said:
A full 180 from the previous weeks offensive playbook? They threw more cuz they had to but otherwise I swore I saw the same game plan executed against a better defense.
Click to expand...

They ran some personnel grouping combination of:

21 (2 RB, 1 TE, 2 WR)
22 (2 RB, 2 TE, 1 WR)
and
31 (3 RB, 1 TE, 1 WR)

more than 50% of the time against SJSU and ran for the most yards by a Minnesota team in 7 years.

Conversely, against Iowa, they ran 11 personnel (1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WR) more than 50% of the time by itself. In other words, they decided to put more of the weakest personnel group on the squad (WR) on the field way more than they had in any of the 4 non-conference games and, not surprisingly, couldn't do dick with it. As MV put it earlier this week, Limegrover decided that our weakness was better than Iowa's weakness, and centered his gameplan around it, which was a colossally stupid decision. Not only did we run our weakest personnel grouping more than half of the plays, we were far less diverse, employing only 6 different personnel groupings (10, 11, 12, 14, 21, 22) as opposed to 11 different (02, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 23, 30, 31, 32) in the SJSU game.

The 2x and 3x personnel groupings have been by far our most effective in the non-conference, and we didn't run any sort of 3x personnel grouping, at all, in the Iowa game. Not once. The famous "Golden I" (32 personnel) was not on the field once. People have been saying that we couldn't run the ball against Iowa. The fact is that we didn't even try to run the ball against Iowa - at least not the way we had been the previous 4 games and the end of last season.

Most coaches would rather play to their strengths and if they lose, they at least knew they put forth their best effort and the other team was just better. Limegrover tried to outsmart them by playing to our weaknesses and, again, it was insanely idiotic, especially in a rivalry game with program-changing implications.
 



Doll, I am impressed. Seriously, this site is better because you post here. on the surface the O game plan appeared the same.
 

I think QB controversies are just like most things when assessing coaches. If he had started Leidner and we put up 165 yards of offense, everybody would be asking why we didn't go with our established starter. Conversely, if we beat Iowa in a potentially program changing win with Nelson in, nobody (probably hyperbole, there is always somebody) would have complained about decidign to start Nelson.

I remember in one of Tubby's years we had a strong start and then a tough B1G season, and we played a lot of guys and frequently used the oft-discussed "hockey line changes". When we were winning at the start of the year, the announcers were talking about how great it was that we were using so much of our bench and that was wearing out opponents, and how the line changes were allowing two units to build chemistry and succeed, and this was all evidence of how smart Tubby was. When the season started heading south, the announcers would talk about how foolish it was to have the bench players getting so much time on the court and prevented the starters from getting in a rhtyhm, and how foolish it was to use the line change and put all of our bench players out there together.

The point is, at the end of the day, the coach will look good if he wins and bad if he loses. Particularly good wins and bad losses will exacerbate that perception. Either quarterback was going to look like a dumb decision if we got pounded by only putting up 165 yards of offense (and if we had switched things up, preventing the starter from having the time to develop a rhythym and pulling him would have also looked dumb if it led to the same outcome). Either would look like a good decision if we had won that game. The problem is that we lost, and our offense was totally shut down by a mediocre Iowa team. Almost nothing is going to make Kill look good after that, just like almost nothing would make him look bad if we come out and upset Michigan this weekend.

For the record, I am not one of those absurd people coming on a message board to discuss sports and then saying that none of us have a right to criticize, discuss, or analyze the coach. That is why I come on here and it is fun, I just think at the end of the day, all of our perceptions will be largely based on game results, not game decisions.
 



This is by far the best explaination I have seen as to why Gophers struggled to run

dpodoll68 said:
They ran some personnel grouping combination of:

21 (2 RB, 1 TE, 2 WR)
22 (2 RB, 2 TE, 1 WR)
and
31 (3 RB, 1 TE, 1 WR)

more than 50% of the time against SJSU and ran for the most yards by a Minnesota team in 7 years.

Conversely, against Iowa, they ran 11 personnel (1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WR) more than 50% of the time by itself. In other words, they decided to put more of the weakest personnel group on the squad (WR) on the field way more than they had in any of the 4 non-conference games and, not surprisingly, couldn't do dick with it. As MV put it earlier this week, Limegrover decided that our weakness was better than Iowa's weakness, and centered his gameplan around it, which was a colossally stupid decision. Not only did we run our weakest personnel grouping more than half of the plays, we were far less diverse, employing only 6 different personnel groupings (10, 11, 12, 14, 21, 22) as opposed to 11 different (02, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 23, 30, 31, 32) in the SJSU game.

The 2x and 3x personnel groupings have been by far our most effective in the non-conference, and we didn't run any sort of 3x personnel grouping, at all, in the Iowa game. Not once. The famous "Golden I" (32 personnel) was not on the field once. People have been saying that we couldn't run the ball against Iowa. The fact is that we didn't even try to run the ball against Iowa - at least not the way we had been the previous 4 games and the end of last season.

Most coaches would rather play to their strengths and if they lose, they at least knew they put forth their best effort and the other team was just better. Limegrover tried to outsmart them by playing to our weaknesses and, again, it was insanely idiotic, especially in a rivalry game with program-changing implications.
Click to expand...

Against Iowa, you could see the struggles on the field to block with these personal groupings. I think Henry being out was a factor but not as much as the change to we have to throw the ball to beat Iowa. It is almost like they psyched themselves out with what they thought Iowa would stop then actually trying. Obviously SJSU had a lot weaker front, but the Gophers didn't even try some of the stuff they did against them.
 

Gold Vision said:
You still think Gray was a better option at QB than Weber??
Click to expand...

Yup. I think Q should have been playing a lot as a sophomore and starting after that. Despite his senior injuries, that year he was completing more passes than anybody else and was the best runner. Weber never got much above .500 and was not a natural runner. He was gutsy, but often missed the simplest short passes. A case in point was the Ohio State game, Q's freshman or sophomore year - he did more in five minutes (granted against reserves) than Weber did all game.
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
I think QB controversies are just like most things when assessing coaches. If he had started Leidner and we put up 165 yards of offense, everybody would be asking why we didn't go with our established starter. Conversely, if we beat Iowa in a potentially program changing win with Nelson in, nobody (probably hyperbole, there is always somebody) would have complained about decidign to start Nelson.

I remember in one of Tubby's years we had a strong start and then a tough B1G season, and we played a lot of guys and frequently used the oft-discussed "hockey line changes". When we were winning at the start of the year, the announcers were talking about how great it was that we were using so much of our bench and that was wearing out opponents, and how the line changes were allowing two units to build chemistry and succeed, and this was all evidence of how smart Tubby was. When the season started heading south, the announcers would talk about how foolish it was to have the bench players getting so much time on the court and prevented the starters from getting in a rhtyhm, and how foolish it was to use the line change and put all of our bench players out there together.

The point is, at the end of the day, the coach will look good if he wins and bad if he loses. Particularly good wins and bad losses will exacerbate that perception. Either quarterback was going to look like a dumb decision if we got pounded by only putting up 165 yards of offense (and if we had switched things up, preventing the starter from having the time to develop a rhythym and pulling him would have also looked dumb if it led to the same outcome). Either would look like a good decision if we had won that game. The problem is that we lost, and our offense was totally shut down by a mediocre Iowa team. Almost nothing is going to make Kill look good after that, just like almost nothing would make him look bad if we come out and upset Michigan this weekend.

For the record, I am not one of those absurd people coming on a message board to discuss sports and then saying that none of us have a right to criticize, discuss, or analyze the coach. That is why I come on here and it is fun, I just think at the end of the day, all of our perceptions will be largely based on game results, not game decisions.
Click to expand...

Very well written. Agree 100%.
 

wait!what? said:
In the IA game Jerry just stuck with the game plan that got them to 4-0. ok, it didn't work. This staff knows how to adjust and we should expect to see adjustments from the 1st whistle.
Click to expand...

This couldn't be further from the truth. They actually changed up the gameplan. What killed us (pun not intended) was the lack of a adjustment during halftime. Go back and watch the game. Formations and play calling was COMPLETELY different.
 

Annnnnd I should learn to read ALL of the thread before commenting.. dpo beat me to the punch.
 

dpodoll68 said:
They ran some personnel grouping combination of:

21 (2 RB, 1 TE, 2 WR)
22 (2 RB, 2 TE, 1 WR)
and
31 (3 RB, 1 TE, 1 WR)

more than 50% of the time against SJSU and ran for the most yards by a Minnesota team in 7 years.

Conversely, against Iowa, they ran 11 personnel (1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WR) more than 50% of the time by itself. In other words, they decided to put more of the weakest personnel group on the squad (WR) on the field way more than they had in any of the 4 non-conference games and, not surprisingly, couldn't do dick with it. As MV put it earlier this week, Limegrover decided that our weakness was better than Iowa's weakness, and centered his gameplan around it, which was a colossally stupid decision. Not only did we run our weakest personnel grouping more than half of the plays, we were far less diverse, employing only 6 different personnel groupings (10, 11, 12, 14, 21, 22) as opposed to 11 different (02, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 23, 30, 31, 32) in the SJSU game.

The 2x and 3x personnel groupings have been by far our most effective in the non-conference, and we didn't run any sort of 3x personnel grouping, at all, in the Iowa game. Not once. The famous "Golden I" (32 personnel) was not on the field once. People have been saying that we couldn't run the ball against Iowa. The fact is that we didn't even try to run the ball against Iowa - at least not the way we had been the previous 4 games and the end of last season.

Most coaches would rather play to their strengths and if they lose, they at least knew they put forth their best effort and the other team was just better. Limegrover tried to outsmart them by playing to our weaknesses and, again, it was insanely idiotic, especially in a rivalry game with program-changing implications.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It wasn't a stupid decision. It didn't work out for a few reasons (Nelson's inability to hit an open WR or to throw the ball away is some) but what was stupid was not changing the gameplan at half. If we hit on those open WRs/big plays, we'd all be praising Limegrover for his genius gameplan.
 

Gold Vision said:
You still think Gray was a better option at QB than Weber??
Click to expand...

Absolutely. In fact, I am quite sure of it. Better QB and FAR better athlete. Not playing Gray while Webber was here was a big mistake by Brewster and hurt our team for years.
 

Spoofin said:
Absolutely. In fact, I am quite sure of it. Better QB and FAR better athlete. Not playing Gray while Webber was here was a big mistake by Brewster and hurt our team for years.
Click to expand...

Disagreed. Both were sub-par, average at best. Keeping Gray at WR played out better because both were on the field.
 

Spoofin said:
Absolutely. In fact, I am quite sure of it. Better QB and FAR better athlete. Not playing Gray while Webber was here was a big mistake by Brewster and hurt our team for years.
Click to expand...

I agree that Gray should have been playing more at QB than he did his first two years. But I also believe they were right to keep Weber as a starter. I think he was a better QB (especially his senior season while on a bad team) than most give him credit for. Gray could have been better but we will never know.
 

Spoofin said:
Absolutely. In fact, I am quite sure of it. Better QB and FAR better athlete. Not playing Gray while Webber was here was a big mistake by Brewster and hurt our team for years.
Click to expand...

Diasagree completely
 

Okay was @ lifetime this am and ran into Mr. Foggie he was @gopher practice yesterday, he said Liedner took all the 1st team snaps. He also mentioned that coaches feel Nelson needs to work on his mechanics and footwork as they are not where they need to be. Take it for what its worth, we shall see tomorrow!
Go Gophers!!
 

Bump...sorry not sure why my last post did not take thread to the top...
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom