Quarterback Position

Donate To GopherHole
Gopherdrummer said:
Valid points, yes. But the passing game isn't the only variable:

Iowa game: didn't run our base offense (see my other post)
Michigan: Only gained 136 yards rushing. My guess is we also didn't completely run our base offense - I could be wrong, I didn't get to watch this game

B1G winning streak - implement shifts and motions and the offense wakes up for four games. We go crazy on the ground and become pretty efficient in the passing game (not blazing, but efficient)

Wisconsin and MSU - we faced the two best defenses in the conference and the offense couldn't get a rhythm. The run game had some success against UW early, but turnovers would kill the momentum and the passing game never showed up when we tried to force it. If the offense wakes up against MSU, we may actually win that game. But their defense killed any momentum.

These first two games were treated like NFL preseason games. Mitch didn't run the read option a lot against EIU and we had committed to working the passing game a bunch.

This isn't an exact science, it is football. Agree that we need a consistent QB, but there is a lot of pessimism on this board for a team who is 2-0. Plenty of other teams in the B1G would like to have our record with our performances. TCU will provide some answers about this offense. Keep pounding the ball, keep 3rd downs at a short distance, and I believe the passing game will open up.
Click to expand...

It's been the biggest factor and I hope you're right.
 

MaroonGold1 said:
Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen too much discussion on the QB position.

All of the stories this summer have been related to Leidner and his leadership qualities, taking the reigns, etc. That is all well and good, glad that he has stepped up... BUT, has he really proven himself to be a Big Ten QB? He was ok last year, accuracy numbers better than Nelson, but pretty fumble prone with not much in terms of pocket presence IMO. Now I realize he was a RS freshman, so I'll give him time... but did anyone else watch him last year and think he should be the unquestioned starter (knowing Nelson is gone) this season with no competition at all?

Is this an indictment on Strevler at all? Seems to me if he was anywhere near as good as people we're initially hoping, he'd at least be in the conversation with Leidner. Also, its pretty unlikely that Leidner can play the physical style he did last year and stay on the field all season, who gets the next look.. Rhoda?
Click to expand...

Hope you've got enough QB talk. ;)
<img id="ums_img_tooltip" class="UMSRatingIcon">
 

Iceland12 said:
You're saying that all the FBS teams out there that have a competent Passing game are using 5th Year Seniors? 80% of them? 60? 20?

Or are you just saying "blame Brewster"? Pretty late for that isn't it?

Kill and Company have done a good job at nearly everything here, except they've yet to recruit a competent QB.
Click to expand...

Disagree strongly that the coaches didn't recruit a competent QB. PN, in particular, had plenty of ability that was pretty plain to see when the reins were removed. The problem, to me, seems much more the system, which emphasizes the run to gain most of the yards, with the passing game emphasizing deep balls and first down plays rather than used to move the ball up the field. I'd rather we had a much better mix. This style costs us hugely when facing a good run defense; e.g., UW, MSU, and Syracuse last year.

Mix in some passing plays to move the ball, and you'll develop the entire passing game; along with be able to recruit better at the QB and WR positions.
 

Gopherdrummer said:
Last time I watched the B1G West, which was Saturday, no other team has a consistent option at QB.

Last time I watched the Gophers, which was Saturday, we improved to a 2-0 record, lead our opponent 35-0 at one point and rushed for nearly 300 yards on the day. Iowa rushed for 113 against a MAC team, and Wisconsin's best player (Gordon) rushed for only 38 yards on 17 attempts. UW's QB started slow and picked up his game, sure, but things didn't start clicking until the 2nd half.

We have scored the majority of our points in the first half, and have created opportunities on defense/special teams. If these trends continue into the B1G season, I would be plenty happy with this team. We build solid leads early and have been able to hold a lead thus far in the season.

Pound the rock. The passing game will develop if we stick to our identity. The reason the passing game fails is when we completely throw our identity out the window (see: the Iowa game last year). Our QBs will be fine. I hope Leidner is good to go. I hope he continues to develop. He has shown flashes of ability, and he seems to lack some of the head scratchers that Nelson committed.
Click to expand...

First off, the max lead was 28-0, not 35-0, and the defense was the main cause of that difference, including one TD of their own and another short TD setup. Second, that Iowa game last year that you seem to lament, that WAS the exact same offensive plan used in the first four games last year; those first games' offenses looking eerily similar to the stagnant offenses witnessed the final three games last year and the first two so far this year. We've been over this time and again: the COACHES themselves admitted that they had to do something different. And so they did, to great success during an unprecedented four-game B1G winning streak last year. And then they went back to a much more conservative offense to finish 2013 (with 3 losses due to ugly offense), and that continues today. It's up to the coaching staff to decide to get back their mojo, or we simply have zero shot at another four-game winning streak in the B1G this year, because the offense will have trouble scoring more than a TD or two maximum per game. Either that or the D pitches a bunch of shutouts, and I like the D, but not confident that shutouts will be typical.
 

cncmin said:
First off, the max lead was 28-0, not 35-0, and the defense was the main cause of that difference, including one TD of their own and another short TD setup. Second, that Iowa game last year that you seem to lament, that WAS the exact same offensive plan used in the first four games last year; those first games' offenses looking eerily similar to the stagnant offenses witnessed the final three games last year and the first two so far this year. We've been over this time and again: the COACHES themselves admitted that they had to do something different. And so they did, to great success during an unprecedented four-game B1G winning streak last year. And then they went back to a much more conservative offense to finish 2013 (with 3 losses due to ugly offense), and that continues today. It's up to the coaching staff to decide to get back their mojo, or we simply have zero shot at another four-game winning streak in the B1G this year, because the offense will have trouble scoring more than a TD or two maximum per game. Either that or the D pitches a bunch of shutouts, and I like the D, but not confident that shutouts will be typical.
Click to expand...

Holy Christmas. No. It. Was. Not. Clearly you did not take the time to read the link that Gopherdrummer helpfully posted for you; I'll relink here in case you're too lazy to hit the back button on your browser.
http://www.thedailygopher.com/2013/9...able-questions
 


cncmin said:
Disagree strongly. PN, in particular, had plenty of ability that was pretty plain to see when the reins were removed. The problem, to me, seems much more the system, which emphasizes the run to gain most of the yards, with the passing game emphasizing deep balls and first down plays rather than used to move the ball up the field. I'd rather we had a much better mix. This style costs us hugely when facing a good run defense; e.g., UW, MSU, and Syracuse last year.

Mix in some passing plays to move the ball, and you'll develop the entire passing game; along with be able to recruit better at the QB and WR positions.
Click to expand...

You might be right about the system, but Nelson displayed a very weak arm. Don't know what he looked like in High School or practice but in games he had very little zip on short throws and couldn't throw more than 15 yards with any authority. Don't know how those skills would help take to many of those defenders "out of the box".
 


Kill said Sunday that Perra, a Roseville native, would be his No. 3 quarterback behind Leidner and Streveler if his team had to play again right now.

"Jacques had a good camp," he said, "and threw the ball very well."
 

dboy said:
Kill said Sunday that Perra, a Roseville native, would be his No. 3 quarterback behind Leidner and Streveler if his team had to play again right now.

"Jacques had a good camp," he said, "and threw the ball very well."
Click to expand...

GHer's back in early 2014 told us Perra had 0 chance of playing in 2014. dang i'm good.
 



The Iowa game? Gophers were down 20-0 until 3 minutes to go in the 3rd Quarter. They ended-up rushing 27 times for an abysmal 30 yards. 12 of which came on a single run. They passed 24 times, completed 12 of them for 135 yards and a TD, but gave up 2 picks.

That wasn't the same Offense they showed in the Non-Conference games. Kill and Company didn't suddenly decide they were gonna throw it all over the place. The Running Game got stuffed and they did what they could to salvage the game. Starting a still injured Nelson aside. They threw the ball because Iowa completely shut the running game down while putting-up 464 yards themselves and taking a 20-0 lead!

The Hawkeyes set the pattern for all Gopher losses that came after them. Make the Gophers throw the ball and you've got a chance to beat them.

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/playbyplay?gameId=332710135&period=1
 

Iceland12 said:
You might be right about the system, but Nelson displayed a very weak arm. Don't know what he looked like in High School or practice but in games he had very little zip on short throws and couldn't throw more than 15 yards with any authority. Don't know how those skills would help take to many of those defenders "out of the box".
Click to expand...

Kind of, yes, but I think this had more to do with a run-heavy offensive system and mediocre (at best) receiving corps. PN missed his share of open throws, but he never seemed all that far off; not like an Adam Weber who'd miss a 10-yard throw by 5 yards.
 

Iceland12 said:
The Iowa game? Gophers were down 20-0 until 3 minutes to go in the 3rd Quarter. They ended-up rushing 27 times for an abysmal 30 yards. 12 of which came on a single run. They passed 24 times, completed 12 of them for 135 yards and a TD, but gave up 2 picks.

That wasn't the same Offense they showed in the Non-Conference games. Kill and Company didn't suddenly decide they were gonna throw it all over the place. The Running Game got stuffed and they did what they could to salvage the game. Starting a still injured Nelson aside. They threw the ball because Iowa completely shut the running game down while putting-up 464 yards themselves and taking a 20-0 lead!

The Hawkeyes set the pattern for all Gopher losses that came after them. Make the Gophers throw the ball and you've got a chance to beat them.

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/playbyplay?gameId=332710135&period=1
Click to expand...

It seems you and I are largely in agreement about the Iowa game. Or maybe I'm reading your post differently than you meant to say it. Anyway, I agree that the passing game came late out of desperation. They tried stuffing the run up the gut time after time after time in the first half, which looked exactly like the lifeless offense of the four non-conference games (perhaps this is where we disagree?). The mix of play calling in that first half was pathetic. By halftime that game was essentially over. Then came the desperation passing game, far too late to be effective.

The Michigan game came next, and was more of the same. Lifeless play calling, no offensive energy, abject offensive failure. It was after the Michigan game that the coaching staff decided they had to change their general gameplan. Then came the NW game - the 2nd half anyway; followed by the Nebraska game, the Indiana game, and the first half of the PSU game, all of which the offense flowed. They got a big lead on PSU, and came out in the second half of the PSU game going back to the conservative run-up-the-gut game, which completely stopped all of the momentum that PN and the offense had been enjoying, and then failed to score an offensive TD for almost 12 straight quarters; or thereabouts.

We had explicit arguments on this very board regarding these things - particularly the big changes in game planning between the Michigan and Nebraska games. The coaching staff admitting the changes was a big deal here, because it led to a lot of mea culpas from the crowd who chastised those of us who had suggested that Limegrover's offense had completely changed between those two games.
 

Well, after the MI game some of holers stared into the teeth of back to back losses and predicted the 3(4) game win streak. dang, i am good! imma pour me a Schlitz in a fluted pilsner glass. gnight.
 



cncmin said:
It seems you and I are largely in agreement about the Iowa game. Or maybe I'm reading your post differently than you meant to say it. Anyway, I agree that the passing game came late out of desperation. They tried stuffing the run up the gut time after time after time in the first half, which looked exactly like the lifeless offense of the four non-conference games (perhaps this is where we disagree?). The mix of play calling in that first half was pathetic. By halftime that game was essentially over. Then came the desperation passing game, far too late to be effective.

The Michigan game came next, and was more of the same. Lifeless play calling, no offensive energy, abject offensive failure. It was after the Michigan game that the coaching staff decided they had to change their general gameplan. Then came the NW game - the 2nd half anyway; followed by the Nebraska game, the Indiana game, and the first half of the PSU game, all of which the offense flowed. They got a big lead on PSU, and came out in the second half of the PSU game going back to the conservative run-up-the-gut game, and then failed to score an offensive TD for almost 12 straight quarters; or thereabouts.

We had explicit arguments on this very board regarding these things - particularly the big changes in game planning between the Michigan and Nebraska games. The coaching staff admitting the changes was a big deal here, because it led to a lot of mea culpas from the crowd who chastised those of us who had suggested that Limegrover's offense had completely changed between those two games.
Click to expand...

We basically agree. Take a look at post #231 and #235 (I think). We just disagree with the losses at the end of the season.You seem to think that it's all scheme, I think it's because when Defenses took away the run, the Gophers didn't have a QB, or Receivers to a lesser extent, who could Pass them back into the game(s).

In other words, they won the games that the Passing Offense showed-up for and lost the others. The schemes tried to cover that basis flaw IMHO.

But hell, I've been wrong before...:eek:
 

Iceland12 said:
We basically agree. Take a look at post #231 and #235 (I think). We just disagree with the losses at the end of the season.You seem to think that it's all scheme, I think it's because when Defenses took away the run, the Gophers didn't have a QB, or Receivers to a lesser extent, who could Pass them back into the game(s).

In other words, they won the games that the Passing Offense showed-up for and lost the others. The schemes tried to cover that basis flaw IMHO.

But hell, I've been wrong before...:eek:
Click to expand...

Nah, I definitely don't think it was all scheme - a poor receiving corps (after the loss of Engel) and a frustrated QB didn't help anything - but I think the scheme contributed to much of those failures end-of-season. I think a lot of momentum was lost in the second half of the PSU game, where an on-fire PN began to look a bit frustrated with the play calling. Clearly, considering this spring's events, PN was more than a bit of a headcase, but part of the coaching staff's job is to make things work given players' physical and mental capabilities; and I'm not convinced they managed that properly at the end of 2013.

Anyway, cheers.
 

A few of the posters are borderline trolling.

To even imply that PN was head and shoulders above ML when statistically and otherwise he clearly was not and is not, or that ML isn't "competent" is trollish.

ML has had six starts and 28 attempts this season. He has had some good throws and some bad throws and decisions. He's our QB, like it or not and is working hard to get better. I happen to like Streveler, but I'd rather have some continuity at QB and let him develop and let the chips fall this season.

As the PN backers were so fond of saying last season, if Streveler is better than ML (at this point in time) he'd be starting.
 

cncmin said:
Kind of, yes, but I think this had more to do with a run-heavy offensive system and mediocre (at best) receiving corps. PN missed his share of open throws, but he never seemed all that far off; not like an Adam Weber who'd miss a 10-yard throw by 5 yards.
Click to expand...

You were either drunk, passed out, or hallucinating all of last season. I've been accused of wearing maroon and gold colored glasses but this is comical.
 

Pompous Elitist;931625[I said:
]A few of the posters are borderline trolling.

To even imply that PN was head and shoulders above ML when statistically and otherwise he clearly was not and is not, or that ML isn't "competent" is trollish[/I].

ML has had six starts and 28 attempts this season. He has had some good throws and some bad throws and decisions. He's our QB, like it or not and is working hard to get better. I happen to like Streveler, but I'd rather have some continuity at QB and let him develop and let the chips fall this season.

As the PN backers were so fond of saying last season, if Streveler is better than ML (at this point in time) he'd be starting.
Click to expand...

Nice try.
 



Did I write anything demonstrably false in order to flame our QB? Simply asking you to communicate clearly on why this was a nice try. You know, expand on your point.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Did I write anything demonstrably false in order to flame our QB? Simply asking you to communicate clearly on why this was a nice try. You know, expand on your point.
Click to expand...

So you're not trolling for posts? You just think there haven't been enough posts on the subject already?

Like I said, nice try.

Still not getting it huh? Guess not. Does it still count when you're the only one posting?

Just how many people on this site are getting paid for getting posts anyway? Or better yet, how many people are posting under multiple names and are just trying to be dicks?
 

If we had a Wisconsin fan coming in spouting off like cinnamon or WaiterWhat we'd call them what they are: trolls.

But "nice try" trying to communicate. I still don't understand what the point of your post was.
 

Iceland12 said:
So you're not trolling for posts? You just think there haven't been enough posts on the subject already?

Like I said, nice try.

Still not getting it huh?
Click to expand...

Don't blame me for using two word sentences. Get your point out man - do you talk like this in your professional life? Me Tarzan! For someone with over 11,000 posts in less than 6 years I guess you need to be terse...
 

Iceland12 said:
So you're not trolling for posts? You just think there haven't been enough posts on the subject already?

Like I said, nice try.

Still not getting it huh? Guess not. Does it still count when you're the only one posting?

Just how many people on this site are getting paid for getting posts anyway? Or better yet, how many people are posting under multiple names and are just trying to be dicks?
Click to expand...

You...ahh...you're not making sense.

Not trying to be an ass, but I really can't figure out what you're trying to say.
 


Pompous Elitist said:
If we had a Wisconsin fan coming in spouting off like cinnamon or WaiterWhat we'd call them what they are: trolls.

But "nice try" trying to communicate. I still don't understand what the point of your post was.
Click to expand...

ummm, i'm not sure what trolling is but if by trolling you mean my ability to analyze gopher football is excellent then i fully agree. Your heart aches to see things as clearly as me but hang in there.
 

wait!what? said:
ummm, i'm not sure what trolling is but if by trolling you mean my ability to analyze gopher football is excellent then i fully agree. Your heart aches to see things as clearly as me but hang in there.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's you all right - a GopherHole expert.:rolleyes:
 

cncmin said:
Kind of, yes, but I think this had more to do with a run-heavy offensive system and mediocre (at best) receiving corps. PN missed his share of open throws, but he never seemed all that far off; not like an Adam Weber who'd miss a 10-yard throw by 5 yards.
Click to expand...

Nelson was recruited to run the spread-option out of the shotgun. We then switched the offense to the current pro-style, under center with play action. By doing that we go from needing a dual-threat QB who can sling the ball, to a strong armed pocket passer. Goodbye Nelson, hello Leidner. I believe we just didn't have the play makers at WR to make that system work at the time. The staff took stock of what they did have to work with & it was linemen, tight ends & runners, so here we are. Nelson, like Leidner this season didn't have many WR's to work with.
 

Iceland12 said:
So you're not trolling for posts? You just think there haven't been enough posts on the subject already?

Like I said, nice try.

Still not getting it huh? Guess not. Does it still count when you're the only one posting?

Just how many people on this site are getting paid for getting posts anyway? Or better yet, how many people are posting under multiple names and are just trying to be dicks?
Click to expand...

It's all a big conspiracy.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom