***POST-GAME THOUGHTS THREAD***

Donate To GopherHole

cncmin said:
See, it's not my job to figure out how to move the football and score. That's HIS job. And he's been doing a poor job of that ever since he got to the U. It doesn't require genius-level intelligence to realize that you shouldn't expect different results by simply doing the same failing thing over and over, with few or no adjustments. He runs an extremely predictable offense that offers almost no imagination, one designed for and requiring superior athletes to dominate the line of scrimmage and explosive RBs to break tackles. It is not evident, through 2 1/2 years of Kill's tenure, that the team has either ability. But the coaching staff continues to coach a system that requires it, regardless.

GopherinIowa, you made my point for me - you listed a bunch of plays that were NOT simply runs up the gut that either worked very well or, had they simply been executed, would have been huge gains or scores. Even the TD that was called back was outside the box, and that was a score, on a play that displayed a bit of imagination. The QB rollout for the final first down was very effective; how many of us just expected another dive play with a 4th-down punt forthcoming? It would appear then, that you are agreeing with me that opening up the playbook permits the opportunity to move the ball.

What much of the fanbase is complaining about is that the offense is boring, unimaginative, and ineffective. What we're asking for is - because the standard calls (mostly, unimaginative variations of runs up the middle) aren't effective - is to actually try something different; be it a higher proportion of screen passes, pump and goes, TE posts, even strong-side option sweeps, off-tackle runs...anything but keep repeating the same thing that fails time and time again, which is usually (1) middle run, (2) middle run, (3) simple, short passing pattern on 3rd-and long, and (4) punt. The coaching staff employs a simple, mid-tier varsity level playbook. I expect more from a coaching staff getting paid that much money at this level, and I don't apologize for that expectation.

Much of the fanbase is suddenly under the belief that - because they won at NW - that the offense was coached near-optimally to enable that win. The rest of the fanbase is seeing past those delusions, realizing that the team won in spite of the offense.
Click to expand...


I respectfully disagree. I think the play calling Saturday was much, much better. Not because they won. And not because it's so imaginative (after all, very little in football is actually new and imaginative anymore). It was about timing and risk taking. They called plays on certain downs at certain times that they haven't been calling thus far this season. As Limegrover said in his post-game interview, he called about a half-dozen riskier pass plays when he thought NU would be expecting run and vice-versa. And guess what, I think every one of those worked even though they weren't all completed. Just about every unexpected call left a receiver open. We had open receivers numerous times yesterday. Separation ain't no issue when the element of surprise, risk-taking and out-guessing is employed.
 

cncmin said:
See, it's not my job to figure out how to move the football and score. That's HIS job. And he's been doing a poor job of that ever since he got to the U. It doesn't require genius-level intelligence to realize that you shouldn't expect different results by simply doing the same failing thing over and over, with few or no adjustments. He runs an extremely predictable offense that offers almost no imagination, one designed for and requiring superior athletes to dominate the line of scrimmage and explosive RBs to break tackles. It is not evident, through 2 1/2 years of Kill's tenure, that the team has either ability. But the coaching staff continues to coach a system that requires it, regardless.

GopherinIowa, you made my point for me - you listed a bunch of plays that were NOT simply runs up the gut that either worked very well or, had they simply been executed, would have been huge gains or scores. Even the TD that was called back was outside the box, and that was a score, on a play that displayed a bit of imagination. The QB rollout for the final first down was very effective; how many of us just expected another dive play with a 4th-down punt forthcoming? It would appear then, that you are agreeing with me that opening up the playbook permits the opportunity to move the ball.

What much of the fanbase is complaining about is that the offense is boring, unimaginative, and ineffective. What we're asking for is - because the standard calls (mostly, unimaginative variations of runs up the middle) aren't effective - is to actually try something different; be it a higher proportion of screen passes, pump and goes, TE posts, even strong-side option sweeps, off-tackle runs...anything but keep repeating the same thing that fails time and time again, which is usually (1) middle run, (2) middle run, (3) simple, short passing pattern on 3rd-and long, and (4) punt. The coaching staff employs a simple, mid-tier varsity level playbook. I expect more from a coaching staff getting paid that much money at this level, and I don't apologize for that expectation.

Much of the fanbase is suddenly under the belief that - because they won at NW - that the offense was coached near-optimally to enable that win. The rest of the fanbase is seeing past those delusions, realizing that the team won in spite of the offense.
Click to expand...

Nope, you're wrong again. I've been defending Limegrover all season because I think he is in a really tough place. He doesn't have the weapons to score on people if we aren't running the ball well. All of these plays that you like are only productive if we can establish the run (ya know those boring dives up the middle like the ones that sealed the game for us).

The problem is that we miss plays. Limegrover wouldn't have been more or less of a genius if Leidner would have hit a wide open Maxx Williams. He wouldn't have become some sort of guru if Wolitarsky would have pulled in that easy catch or if the refs didn't create a phantom pass interference on the Fruechte TD or even if Harbeson would have handled the pitch on the reverse.

It's not that anyone thinks Limegrover is a genius, it's that we live in reality. We realize what we have on our offense and understand how field position, time of possession, running the ball and not turning the ball over is our recipe for success. I wish we had Baylor's offense, but we don't.
 

cncmin said:
See, it's not my job to figure out how to move the football and score. That's HIS job. And he's been doing a poor job of that ever since he got to the U. It doesn't require genius-level intelligence to realize that you shouldn't expect different results by simply doing the same failing thing over and over, with few or no adjustments. He runs an extremely predictable offense that offers almost no imagination, one designed for and requiring superior athletes to dominate the line of scrimmage and explosive RBs to break tackles. It is not evident, through 2 1/2 years of Kill's tenure, that the team has either ability. But the coaching staff continues to coach a system that requires it, regardless.

GopherinIowa, you made my point for me - you listed a bunch of plays that were NOT simply runs up the gut that either worked very well or, had they simply been executed, would have been huge gains or scores. Even the TD that was called back was outside the box, and that was a score, on a play that displayed a bit of imagination. The QB rollout for the final first down was very effective; how many of us just expected another dive play with a 4th-down punt forthcoming? It would appear then, that you are agreeing with me that opening up the playbook permits the opportunity to move the ball.

What much of the fanbase is complaining about is that the offense is boring, unimaginative, and ineffective. What we're asking for is - because the standard calls (mostly, unimaginative variations of runs up the middle) aren't effective - is to actually try something different; be it a higher proportion of screen passes, pump and goes, TE posts, even strong-side option sweeps, off-tackle runs...anything but keep repeating the same thing that fails time and time again, which is usually (1) middle run, (2) middle run, (3) simple, short passing pattern on 3rd-and long, and (4) punt. The coaching staff employs a simple, mid-tier varsity level playbook. I expect more from a coaching staff getting paid that much money at this level, and I don't apologize for that expectation.

Much of the fanbase is suddenly under the belief that - because they won at NW - that the offense was coached near-optimally to enable that win. The rest of the fanbase is seeing past those delusions, realizing that the team won in spite of the offense.
Click to expand...

I'm confused then. You're agreeing that the play calling was creative yesterday, yet you're then saying the offense is boring and unimaginative. Which is it?

And please point to where someone said the "offense was coached near-optimally to enable that win"? Just because someone doesn't think the play calling is the only reason the offense hasn't been good, doesn't mean they think the play calling is great either. It is possible to believe both of those things.
 

Why don't you negative Nellies shut the fück up and let the rest of us enjoy the win? You can put your big girl whiny piss pants back on after our next loss. Jesus.
 


dpodoll68 said:
Why don't you negative Nellies shut the fück up and let the rest of us enjoy the win? You can put your big girl whiny piss pants back on after our next loss. Jesus.
Click to expand...

Look it's an Internet tough guy.
 

GopherGod said:
Look it's an Internet tough guy.
Click to expand...

Look it's an insecure Husker fan with no self-esteem who's wasted years of his life masquerading as a Gopher fan and alum on a trivial Gophers-themed message board.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Look it's an insecure Husker fan with no self-esteem who's wasted years of his life masquerading as a Gopher fan and alum on a trivial Gophers-themed message board.
Click to expand...

Look it's a guy who is a failure in his professional and personal life because he is either incompetent or lazy. He comes here for validation because he couldn't become a professor, couldn't even get a high school teaching job, so works a dead end job at the university where he can spend all day on a message board rather than trying to actually accomplish something.
 

I realize that Limegrover is working with some limitations, but what we saw in the TT bowl game seems to be almost completely lost.

I am not at practice every day, and teams do change is subtle ways from year to year, not to mention TT was not good on defense, so I cannot be too hard on Limgrover, but the offense can be tough to watch.

I have been hearing for a year about KJ May's physical gifts (I actually heard the Creative Charters guy fanatically gushing to the grey hairs about him on the bus in Las Vegas citing a RoseBowl in our future due to KJ!), not to mention Harbison, and the converted QB but there is not much done to stretch the field with these guys.
 



GopherGod said:
Look it's a guy who is a failure in his professional and personal life because he is either incompetent or lazy. He comes here for validation because he couldn't become a professor, couldn't even get a high school teaching job, so works a dead end job at the university where he can spend all day on a message board rather than trying to actually accomplish something.
Click to expand...

At least I'm not a liar who seeks some sort of validation for my fabricated persona on the fan board of an insignificant team.
 

Spoofin said:
This discussion about how folks think they know better than Limegrover is so silly. We scored 40+ points earlier this year against poor teams. Our offense won't do that in the B1G (Indiana?) and so we play a style to keep us in games. You do remember we were in the IA game in the 4th and the MI game into the 3rd, right? You do know we won the game yesterday, right?

We ran an offense that gave us TOP advantage and kept our D fresh. The D playing well isn't mutually exclusive to the O's play! It may also be the reason we were able to run for first downs to seal the game at the end. We played an offense that had zero turnovers. I can't be certain, but pretty sure that helped us win too.

The bottom line is we won the game and most likely because we played the style we did. This idea that if we would have aired it out would have meant a blow out is so wrong. This isn't Madden guys, the Hail Mary, Fake FG, and QB Waggle are not always the key to success.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Good post.
 

Great win and very fun day at Ryan Field yesterday! From our section, we didn't have a good view of the Gopher coaches. Can someone comment on whether or not Claeys got after the refs following any of those atrocious calls? With his self described quiet personality and some of the comments about him not saying much on the sidelines, just curious as to his reaction.

Also, was very surprised at the overwhelmingly negative sentiment towards Coach Fitz by the Northwestern season ticket holders where we were sitting. And this was in the first half. We moved to sit by other Gopher fans in the second half so I can only imagine continued displeasure.
 

jaymil said:
As far as Limegrover calling plays, he just seem more comfortable opening up the playbook a little with Nelson as the QB. And while most people believe Leidner was the better passer before today, I was still skeptical. Leidner has looked tentative to me as a passer despite the numbers. Rarely have I seen him step up and deliver a strike. He either has a pretty weak arm or he's just not very confident letting it rip. Nelson also looks like he reads the defense better. We don't know how these guys look in practice but the way the offense is called in games leads me to believe this staff believes Nelson is the better thrower. I'd like to see Nelson start from now on with Leidner getting a few series here and there to pound the rock and give Nelson a breather.
Click to expand...

+1. I agree with you jaymil 100%.
 



I think Coach Claeys took his headset off for a moment to give some lip service to someone I presume is one of the refs.
 

cncmin said:
It appears that you are being serious here, so I'll play. So if the first play of the game is a play-action pang ss, then by your argument, the offensive coaching staff equals pure genius? Please tell me your argument is a heck of a lot stronger than that. If calling a play-action pass as the first offensive play of the game is all it takes to demonstrate offensive acuity, I'd say your standards are extremely poor.
Click to expand...

Opps. Real post later.
 


cncmin said:
It appears that you are being serious here, so I'll play. So if the first play of the game is a play-action passs, then by your argument, the offensive coaching staff equals pure genius? Please tell me your argument is a heck of a lot stronger than that. If calling a play-action pass as the first offensive play of the game is all it takes to demonstrate offensive acuity, I'd say your standards are extremely poor.
Click to expand...

One thing I have noticed about your posts, that I find quite off putting, is your frequent use of Straw Man arguments. A Straw Man argument consists of attributing to your opponent a position they never took, and that no one would ever reasonably take. For example:"...then by your argument, the offensive coaching staff equals pure genius." Then you argue against that position, as if Spoofin had actually made that point. He did not. No one did. No one would.

The Straw Man is a well known logical fallacy, and is generally used to put the opponent on the defensive when the user of the Straw Man has a weak argument.

I rest my case.
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
Nope, you're wrong again. I've been defending Limegrover all season because I think he is in a really tough place. He doesn't have the weapons to score on people if we aren't running the ball well. All of these plays that you like are only productive if we can establish the run (ya know those boring dives up the middle like the ones that sealed the game for us).

The problem is that we miss plays. Limegrover wouldn't have been more or less of a genius if Leidner would have hit a wide open Maxx Williams. He wouldn't have become some sort of guru if Wolitarsky would have pulled in that easy catch or if the refs didn't create a phantom pass interference on the Fruechte TD or even if Harbeson would have handled the pitch on the reverse.

It's not that anyone thinks Limegrover is a genius, it's that we live in reality. We realize what we have on our offense and understand how field position, time of possession, running the ball and not turning the ball over is our recipe for success. I wish we had Baylor's offense, but we don't.
Click to expand...

Thanks Bob for your thoughtful analysis. I would like to call you an "expert" but most people here would assume that I am being cynical. I am not and yes you are as about as close as we get to an expert on the GopherHole (My apologies to Husker70 who is good but is still not perfect).
 

Killjoy said:
Thanks Bob for your thoughtful analysis. I would like to call you an "expert" but most people here would assume that I am being cynical. I am not and yes you are as about as close as we get to an expert on the GopherHole (My apologies to Husker70 who is astute but is still not perfect).
Click to expand...

FIFY, Killjoy.
 



Killjoy said:
Thanks Bob for your thoughtful analysis. I would like to call you an "expert" but most people here would assume that I am being cynical. I am not and yes you are as about as close as we get to an expert on the GopherHole (My apologies to Husker70 who is good but is still not perfect).
Click to expand...
Bob we have lots of weapons on offense if we not so predictable!! You need to air it out and not try to ru. Up the middle all the time !!
 

Killjoy said:
Wow! Don't you think maybe you might be a little over the top. The bolded remark above is all a person needs to know that you shouldn't be taken seriously. I suggest you might want enroll in an anger management class since you can't seem to control it.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Actually no I think the two minute drill we trotted out would be bested by most 5th grade teams. We must not have been watching the same game and/or you are accustomed to inferiority.
 


GophersInIowa said:
Please let us know what you think should be changed then? Most everyone has already agreed that the 2-minute drill was terrible yesterday. Most everyone has already agreed that Limegrover can be frustrating at times. But most everyone else believes play calling is not the main reason the offense isn't very good.

Yesterday, they mixed in some timely play action passes. They ran a successful screen. They ran a reverse flea flicker that should have resulted in an easy TD. They ran a run/pass option on 3rd down to get the first down and the win instead of just running it up the middle to keep the clock running. So I'll ask you again, what should be changed? Pass more?
Click to expand...

Pass more; definitely and less predictability. My wife even knows what plays are coming. We should run 8-10 bubble screens a game it's kind of the great talent equalizer and it'll help get 8 out of the box. That's just one example of things most good B1G teams are doing.
 


I had no problem with Limegrover Sat. except for the two minute drill. I don't care about style points as long as we score enough points.
 


play hard said:
Engel and Williams and Maye can be
Click to expand...

Engel - Solid receiver as long as he doesn't need to be the #1 guy, not a weapon.
Williams - assuming you mean Maxx has shown some flashes of being a good player. He is one guy I would like to see them get the ball to more.
Maye - He has been a non factor for the most part since he got here. I know people are enamored with his speed but I don't see much that says he is going to be a great receiver or could be a huge weapon.

We are lacking big time at the offensive skill positions, especially at the WR spot. Maybe some of these young guys develop into great players but right now there is not much there to look at. I like that Wolitarsky is getting an opportunity to show what he can do....time will tell if he has what it takes to be successful at this level. Problem with saying that in relation to skill guys is that spots like WR, and RB are areas where a guy can make an immediate impact even as a freshman but we don't seem to be finding those guys.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom