The quitting may have already started.
These things happen. Coaches say what coaches say. That said, the frequency we hear these things as Gopher fans is concerning in years 7-9.
As somone said in a different thread, he shouldn't get his automatic extension and any additional money should go into the coaches pool.
If you don’t trust him to make his own decisions about assistants then you probably should fire him
Umm, hire better ones using the additional $$.
I think there is probably already money there for that considering these ones make less than previous ones
So you don't trust him.
I think he made choices to develop them instead of hire experience.
I don't think he should be fired either. He should understand that games like Saturday are not acceptable and he needs to make the changes necessary. Not giving him the automatic extension seems to be one way to get that across to him. I think he completely comfortable. Maybe it helps, maybe it doesn't, but at least try something. I still feel 8-4 is definitely achievable, but harder after this type of loss if he can't get the team really focused going forward.
I’m fine giving the auto extension of one year if it doesn’t increase the buyout
I provided you with an answer. You either don't recognize it or don't want to recognize it.
Lots of aggression yesterday. With 13:33 left in quarter two, it was 17-0.
What do you want them to do other than throw the ball 2/3 of the time? Lol
You said when Mn is aggressive Mn loses big. So they must have been aggressive yesterday.
What part of yesterday was conservative apart from the losing?You said when Mn is aggressive Mn loses big. So they must have been aggressive yesterday.
3 man rushes on third and long?
Well considering we are awful at man to man I’m glad we didn’t rush 5
You are a clown. . A bad one but a clown.
My post didnt say the defense was the problem, nor did it argue whether the 3 man rush was a good idea or a bad idea (though ive shared my thoughts on that elsewhere). I was just answering the question of what we did that was conservative, and 3 man rush on third and long certainly is.
Thanks.
Playing 2 man under on third and long isn’t really conservative or aggressive, in my opinion.
Ask a football question.
How about putting in some new players? Can’t get any worse. Lose by 38, 48 or 50. What’s the difference? Give others a chance.
I honestly didn’t get to watch the last quarter and a half but I agree maybe some backups should’ve gotten some play
I asked you first
In defense of that, a three man rush puts 8 in zone coverage, all facing the QB. It’s an easier in zone to get after an athletic QB who takes off running, because he is observed by all DBs and backers. In man coverage, you’ve got three or four cover guys watching a receiver first, often with backs turned to the QB. A team with a truly dangerous QB sometimes forces this coverage on passing downs. This is especially germane for the Gophers, who likely do no meaningful practice against a seasoned, dangerous running QB ( as we don’t have one).
The more this goes on, the more curious I am on PJ's approach. Is he hiring below his budget to focus on his long term legacy (He wants to be lauded for his coaching tree in the talking points he writes for the SID to hand out 10 years from now, so he's hiring unqualified people?) at the expense of putting the best possible team on the field? That diesn't make sense, but it's plausible.
It’s interesting for suee