Reading between the lines

Donate To GopherHole
John Galt said:
I wonder if Chicago Bulls fans in the 90s were clamoring for more shots by Luc Longley and their centers? I’m sure fans were upset because everyone knows having a more diversified offense helps and it would have been nice to get some higher percentage shots in the paint?

Or maybe the Patriots all these years should have been running the ball more in order to have a more balanced offense?
Click to expand...

I don't know if Phil Jackson knew that having a dominant center can actually be good (see David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, etc.). Someone should have told him. . .
 

Mitu said:
So, I'm probably missing something, but what is the benefit of using a TE instead of an extra OL to block when your offense never passes to them? Seems like if you don’t have the threat of them being a receiver, all you’ve got is a blocker who isn’t as effective as a normal OL.
Click to expand...
As as pass blocker, you are exactly correct. TE are usually not great pass blockers, at least against DL.

As run blockers, the TE can be exceptional when you ask them to get quickly to the next level and block an OLB, or DB. Asking them go solo-block a DE, especially a large, talented DE, in a zone scheme, is potentially a recipe for disaster.

But if it's 3rd and long and every grandma in the stadium knows it's a pass, it makes zero sense to me to keep the TE in to block. Would rather see an extra true WR body type in there, or send the TE on a route.
 

John Galt said:
If only Ciarrocca knew this, right? Maybe you can meet up for coffee and explain to him that TEs are allowed to catch passes?
Click to expand...

OK, we get it. You don’t want the TEs involved in the passing game. Maybe you should contact the staff and let them know how you feel, because they’re telling recruits that’s going to change. Warn them before they make that disastrous mistake.

If they had gone to the Rose Bowl this year, you’d have a stronger leg to stand on. The offense faltered in the two losses. Whether it’s TE usage or something else entirely different, they have to get better to take the next step.
 

John Galt said:
Or maybe the Patriots all these years should have been running the ball more in order to have a more balanced offense?
Click to expand...
Not even remotely close to a reasonable analogy. Just shows how tone deaf you are to what knowledgeable fans actually are complaining about.
 

MplsGopher said:
Not even remotely close to a reasonable analogy. Just shows how tone deaf you are to what knowledgeable fans actually are complaining about.
Click to expand...
No one has ever accused you of being knowledgeable.
 



PitinoFan said:
OK, we get it. You don’t want the TEs involved in the passing game. Maybe you should contact the staff and let them know how you feel, because they’re telling recruits that’s going to change. Warn them before they make that disastrous mistake.

If they had gone to the Rose Bowl this year, you’d have a stronger leg to stand on. The offense faltered in the two losses. Whether it’s TE usage or something else entirely different, they have to get better to take the next step.
Click to expand...
I want us to play to our strengths and score points. Your complaining about TE usage is beyond stupid because we just had the best passing offense we’ve ever had. If there were more passes to Witham and Ko Kieft, there would have been fewer explosive plays to Bateman, Johnson and CAB. What part of that don’t you understand? Do we go up big on the road against Purdue if we don’t have long passes to the WRs? You would have preferred 5 yard passes to the TEs rather than 60 yard TDs to Bateman and CAB?

You are trying to use our 2 losses as examples for why the TE should have been used more. I’ll cite our 11 wins as examples of the offense working to perfection.
 

John Galt said:
we just had the best passing offense we’ve ever had.
Click to expand...
Therefore it's impossible to ever improve upon it????

And you call us stupid :rolleyes:

John Galt said:
If there were more passes to Witham and Ko Kieft, there would have been fewer explosive plays to Bateman, Johnson and CAB. What part of that don’t you understand?
Click to expand...
That could only physically, possibly be a true statement if Bateman, Johnson, and CAB never dropped any passes or had any targets to them be uncatchable or intercepted.

Obviously not true in the slightest.

There would have been plenty of room to have, say, 20% of targets go to TE, and then the rest of 80% of targets go to the WR for those big, explosive plays that make you soil your pants.


By the way, nice try on Keift. He is what he is. Mainly a blocker, and that's just fine and dandy. No one was asking for more targets to him.
 

John Galt said:
I want us to play to our strengths and score points. Your complaining about TE usage is beyond stupid because we just had the best passing offense we’ve ever had. If there were more passes to Witham and Ko Kieft, there would have been fewer explosive plays to Bateman, Johnson and CAB. What part of that don’t you understand? Do we go up big on the road against Purdue if we don’t have long passes to the WRs? You would have preferred 5 yard passes to the TEs rather than 60 yard TDs to Bateman and CAB?

You are trying to use our 2 losses as examples for why the TE should have been used more. I’ll cite our 11 wins as examples of the offense working to perfection.
Click to expand...

No middle ground. Just as I suspected.
 



John Galt said:
I want us to play to our strengths and score points. Your complaining about TE usage is beyond stupid because we just had the best passing offense we’ve ever had. If there were more passes to Witham and Ko Kieft, there would have been fewer explosive plays to Bateman, Johnson and CAB. What part of that don’t you understand? Do we go up big on the road against Purdue if we don’t have long passes to the WRs? You would have preferred 5 yard passes to the TEs rather than 60 yard TDs to Bateman and CAB?

You are trying to use our 2 losses as examples for why the TE should have been used more. I’ll cite our 11 wins as examples of the offense working to perfection.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, that is not what I am saying. I don't want a 10-yard pass to the TE in place of a 25-yard pass to a WR. I want a 10-yard pass to the TE in place of a long incompletion on a down-field pass.

Yes, the Gophers had success in some circumstances with throwing the ball into coverage and betting on the WR to make a contested catch. But - if the odds of completing that contested pass are 40% - and the odds of completing the 10-yard pass to the TE are 60% - I am arguing that sometimes - not every time - but sometimes, it might be better to try for the higher-percentage throw.

I think that would compliment the down-field pass. Throwing a few more passes to TE's will force the defense to adjust its coverage - maybe prevent the LB's from taking deeper drops, and open up the mid-range crossing patterns for CAB or Douglas.

I see it as a win-win for the offense.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
With all due respect, that is not what I am saying. I don't want a 10-yard pass to the TE in place of a 25-yard pass to a WR. I want a 10-yard pass to the TE in place of a long incompletion on a down-field pass.

Yes, the Gophers had success in some circumstances with throwing the ball into coverage and betting on the WR to make a contested catch. But - if the odds of completing that contested pass are 40% - and the odds of completing the 10-yard pass to the TE are 60% - I am arguing that sometimes - not every time - but sometimes, it might be better to try for the higher-percentage throw.

I think that would compliment the down-field pass. Throwing a few more passes to TE's will force the defense to adjust its coverage - maybe prevent the LB's from taking deeper drops, and open up the mid-range crossing patterns for CAB or Douglas.

I see it as a win-win for the offense.
Click to expand...
No sh$t Sherlock, we’d all prefer a 10 yard pass to a TE vs. a 25 yard incompletion. But only in the GH TE Fantasyland do all all the incompletions turn into TE catches and all the big plays to WRs still happen as well. Let me speak slowly so everyone understands- every play that has Ko Kieft, Witham or Paulson as the primary target is a play that wasn’t going to be a pass to Bateman, Johnson or CAB. There is only one football to be caught on each play. The result of using the TEs more would have been fewer big plays from the WRs. There is no 60 yard TD to Bateman on the 1st series vs Penn St if the offense plays it conservative on the blitz and throws a 5 yard pass to Witham. Etc. Etc. Etc. Our WRs were so good they could get open on their own this year. They didn’t need any help from the TEs.
 


As one who is a proponent of throwing 3 or 4 passes a game at key junctures to TEs, I am a little surprised to see how fervently many GopherHolers oppose the use of permitted receivers as actual receivers. Theory appears to be that any pass to a TE is one taken away from our fine WRs. Maybe that is true, or maybe we throw 3 or 4 more passes a game. Or maybe we throw 3 or 4 passes to open TEs and force a couple fewer passes downfield into tight coverage windows, perhaps keeping a drive going. Tanner Morgan’s incredible accuracy means that our great wide receivers generally can tear a bad defense apart. I get it. But there are a few games a year, against great defenses, where it would be nice to have an additive, well-practiced pass outlet to exploit defenses that overcommit to WR defensive coverage. To me the question is if you announce in advance to a sound, well-coached defense that you intend never throw to the TEs, do you free the defense to ignore the TEs in coverage, allowing the defense to gain numbers elsewhere? If the strategy is never to throw to TEs, why put 260-70 lb TEs on the field, as their blocking, while effective, might not be as devastating as a 320 pound tackle’s blocking? Why not just put TE numbers on JJ Guedet and Dixon and line them up at TE for true max protection and run blocking?
 



John Galt said:
But only in the GH TE Fantasyland do all all the incompletions turn into TE catches and all the big plays to WRs still happen as well.
Click to expand...
The only people who think in this absurd level of binary black and white, are the people who can't make an argument without it. :rolleyes:
 

John Galt said:
No sh$t Sherlock, we’d all prefer a 10 yard pass to a TE vs. a 25 yard incompletion. But only in the GH TE Fantasyland do all all the incompletions turn into TE catches and all the big plays to WRs still happen as well. Let me speak slowly so everyone understands- every play that has Ko Kieft, Witham or Paulson as the primary target is a play that wasn’t going to be a pass to Bateman, Johnson or CAB. There is only one football to be caught on each play. The result of using the TEs more would have been fewer big plays from the WRs. There is no 60 yard TD to Bateman on the 1st series vs Penn St if the offense plays it conservative on the blitz and throws a 5 yard pass to Witham. Etc. Etc. Etc. Our WRs were so good they could get open on their own this year. They didn’t need any help from the TEs.
Click to expand...

Mods, MJ was temporarily banned for responding emotionally to a provoked attack and here is a totally unwarranted, insulting post. ?

Galt, everyone understands what you’re saying. But, it’s situational matchups. Did you send off an angry email to the staff after the Outback Bowl? There’s more than one way to skin a cat. Johnson is gone. It’s true the team hit on a high percentage of downfield throws but that may not always be the case going forward based on personnel, defensive scheme or skill. It’s smart to cultivate options for certain high stakes situations.

Nobody, including the posters you’re savaging is suggesting to make major changes or suggesting the offense wasn’t very good in 2019. The team was a dropped pass away from the Rose Bowl. But again there were times where success rate may have been higher to move the chains or put the ball in the end zone with a mismatch or uncovered player. It’s ok to make that argument. It isn’t stupid or ignorant or whatever other garbage was said above.
 

Gophergrandpa said:
As one who is a proponent of throwing 3 or 4 passes a game at key junctures to TEs, I am a little surprised to see how fervently many GopherHolers oppose the use of permitted receivers as actual receivers. Theory appears to be that any pass to a TE is one taken away from our fine WRs. Maybe that is true, or maybe we throw 3 or 4 more passes a game. Or maybe we throw 3 or 4 passes to open TEs and force a couple fewer passes downfield into tight coverage windows, perhaps keeping a drive going. Tanner Morgan’s incredible accuracy means that our great wide receivers generally can tear a bad defense apart. I get it. But there are a few games a year, against great defenses, where it would be nice to have an additive, well-practiced pass outlet to exploit defenses that overcommit to WR defensive coverage. To me the question is if you announce in advance to a sound, well-coached defense that you intend never throw to the TEs, do you free the defense to ignore the TEs in coverage, allowing the defense to gain numbers elsewhere? If the strategy is never to throw to TEs, why put 260-70 lb TEs on the field, as their blocking, while effective, might not be as devastating as a 320 pound tackle’s blocking? Why not just put TE numbers on JJ Guedet and Dixon and line them up at TE for true max protection and run blocking?
Click to expand...
 

John Galt said:
I want us to play to our strengths and score points. Your complaining about TE usage is beyond stupid because we just had the best passing offense we’ve ever had. If there were more passes to Witham and Ko Kieft, there would have been fewer explosive plays to Bateman, Johnson and CAB. What part of that don’t you understand? Do we go up big on the road against Purdue if we don’t have long passes to the WRs? You would have preferred 5 yard passes to the TEs rather than 60 yard TDs to Bateman and CAB?

You are trying to use our 2 losses as examples for why the TE should have been used more. I’ll cite our 11 wins as examples of the offense working to perfection.
Click to expand...
You do realize passing to the TEs played a rather major role in that 11th win, right?
 

OK, I give up! We definitely should not include TEs in our passing game as potential receivers. Why would any team with good WRs ever waste a pass on a TE? I understand now that it is impossible for the Gophers in 2020 to throw the same number of passes to WRs as in 2019 yet add maybe 30-40 passes to TEs. Football is a zero sum game, with a set limit on the number of passes a QB is allowed to throw in a game, so that any pass to a TE is one that a WR necessarily has been deprived of. I checked the stats to prove this. Here are some passing attempt numbers in the BIG for 2019: Lewerke, 436; Stanley, 399; Patterson, 381; Fields, 354; Coan, 339; Morgan, 318. The stats show that it is impossible for the Gophers to diversify their offense slightly by adding 30-40 passes from Morgan to TEs without subtracting from the 300 or so throws that went to WRs in 2019. I surrender.
 

Gophergrandpa said:
OK, I give up! We definitely should not include TEs in our passing game as potential receivers. Why would any team with good WRs ever waste a pass on a TE? I understand now that it is impossible for the Gophers in 2020 to throw the same number of passes to WRs as in 2019 yet add maybe 30-40 passes to TEs. Football is a zero sum game, with a set limit on the number of passes a QB is allowed to throw in a game, so that any pass to a TE is one that a WR necessarily has been deprived of. I checked the stats to prove this. Here are some passing attempt numbers in the BIG for 2019: Lewerke, 436; Stanley, 399; Patterson, 381; Fields, 354; Coan, 339; Morgan, 318. The stats show that it is impossible for the Gophers to diversify their offense slightly by adding 30-40 passes from Morgan to TEs without subtracting from the 300 or so throws that went to WRs in 2019. I surrender.
Click to expand...

Yeah, some folks here dont seem to understand the value of having TEs as receiving threats, regardless of whether they're the best option on a given play. It's not a binary choice between Bateman on a 60 yard bomb or BSF on a 10 yard out route. It's the fact that BSF is one more receiving threat that the defense has to scheme around, therefore creating better matchups all around.
 

Gophergrandpa said:
As one who is a proponent of throwing 3 or 4 passes a game at key junctures to TEs, I am a little surprised to see how fervently many GopherHolers oppose the use of permitted receivers as actual receivers. Theory appears to be that any pass to a TE is one taken away from our fine WRs. Maybe that is true, or maybe we throw 3 or 4 more passes a game. Or maybe we throw 3 or 4 passes to open TEs and force a couple fewer passes downfield into tight coverage windows, perhaps keeping a drive going. Tanner Morgan’s incredible accuracy means that our great wide receivers generally can tear a bad defense apart. I get it. But there are a few games a year, against great defenses, where it would be nice to have an additive, well-practiced pass outlet to exploit defenses that overcommit to WR defensive coverage. To me the question is if you announce in advance to a sound, well-coached defense that you intend never throw to the TEs, do you free the defense to ignore the TEs in coverage, allowing the defense to gain numbers elsewhere? If the strategy is never to throw to TEs, why put 260-70 lb TEs on the field, as their blocking, while effective, might not be as devastating as a 320 pound tackle’s blocking? Why not just put TE numbers on JJ Guedet and Dixon and line them up at TE for true max protection and run blocking?
Click to expand...
You make no sense, that's why. Good grief. Apple and oranges. This isn't EA NCAA Football 2021 or Hot Tub Time Machine. You're in a time/reality bubble, maybe something out of Star Trek or the Avengers: Endgame.

They threw to the TEs when it worked, and didn't when it didn't. It wasn't like Morgan ignored the TEs. We ran plenty of plays with them in play. And contrary to the delusional, they wern't open on every play. Watch the games again, or stuff the yapper. Apparently, forcing throws to the TEs would have been better than a game altering throw to Bateman.

Come on.
 

highwayman said:
You make no sense, that's why. Good grief. Apple and oranges. This isn't EA NCAA Football 2021 or Hot Tub Time Machine. You're in a time/reality bubble, maybe something out of Star Trek or the Avengers: Endgame.

They threw to the TEs when it worked, and didn't when it didn't. It wasn't like Morgan ignored the TEs. We ran plenty of plays with them in play. And contrary to the delusional, they wern't open on every play. Watch the games again, or stuff the yapper. Apparently, forcing throws to the TEs would have been better than a game altering throw to Bateman.

Come on.
Click to expand...
Talk about making no sense. Look at the stats and tell me KC didn’t ignore TEs.
 

PitinoFan said:
Maybe we should just eliminate all running plays, and throw deep to the WR every play. 60 yard TD passes>4 yards and a cloud of dust.
Click to expand...
If it worked, of course we should. Teams used to be successful running the wishbone. The only metric that really matters is points scored. We would
Spoofin said:
You do realize passing to the TEs played a rather major role in that 11th win, right?
Click to expand...
I fully realize that. And you realize that not utilizing the TE's didn't stop us from winning the other 10, right? Or from having the best passing offense in our lives, right?
 

John Galt said:
I fully realize that. And you realize that not utilizing the TE's didn't stop us from winning the other 10, right? Or from having the best passing offense in our lives, right?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. However, I wasn’t the one that used our 11-wins as an example of why we shouldn’t include our TEs more in the offense - so there is that JG.

This isn’t that complicated: KC doesn’t believe in using TEs in the pass game and has been very successful not using them. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have more or that the Gophers shouldn’t if they want to maintain/improve this year’s offensive output. You are so busy yelling about how great we were that you are missing the forest through the trees. Still room to improve.
 

John Galt said:
If it worked, of course we should. Teams used to be successful running the wishbone. The only metric that really matters is points scored. We would

I fully realize that. And you realize that not utilizing the TE's didn't stop us from winning the other 10, right? Or from having the best passing offense in our lives, right?
Click to expand...

The only thing that I care about with our offense is that we move the ball and score points.
 

I don’t believe Kansas City ignores the TE. KC had 576 passing attempts in 2019 and 378 completions. Of the 378 completions, 97 (almost 25%) went to TE Travis Kelce. The WRs got their share, too. Throwing to TEs is not akin to the wishbone offense. It is a part of many of today’s successful balanced offenses. My request has been simple: look for about 10% of Gopher completions to TEs. Enough to keep the TEs’ heads in the game as receivers, and to keep defensive secondaries and LBs honest. Safe to say GopherHolers disagree on the value and usage of TEs. That’s not a problem. It’s OK. We can agree to disagree.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:


So, as far as I know, when a QB drops back to pass, on most patterns there is more than one option. I don't think there are many routes where only one receiver goes out. In the vast majority of passing plays, the QB has to go through a series of reads and progressions.

By all means, if the QB sees a WR wide open, throw it to him. Every time. But, if the 1st progression or 2nd progression is covered, and there is a TE available on a check-down route for a 6 or 7-yard gain, that could make the difference between 3rd and 10 and 3rd and 3.

Again, we are not saying "Don't throw to the WR's!" We are saying, "IF the WR's are covered, at least consider throwing to the TE." I don't think that represents a radical change in the offense.

And - if a WR is wide open, and the QB throws to the TE - that's on the QB - not on the play-caller.
(unless the QB plays for the Vikings and is running for his life on every play).
 


Here is an article on KC’s Kelce and the 49er’s Kittle, two of the best TEs in pro ball. Both are important cogs in their teams’ offense. In fairness to Spoofin’s comments, Kelce does split out wide a lot; Kittle stays in more. My only point is that TE is a real position and good teams, with good with good QBs and loads of good WRs, don’t all ignore the TE.
Finito.

www.espn.com

Chiefs' Travis Kelce, 49ers' George Kittle: Game respects game at Super Bowl

Kelce and Kittle, the two top tight ends and two of the top personalities in the NFL, will share the spotlight at Super Bowl LIV.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
I'm not opposed to throwing to the TE, but there is a fever for passing to the TE on the internet sometimes that seems to border on absurdity...


I like it too but there are limits to what it can do for you (compared to throwing to WRs...) and if you're OL struggles... even more limits.
Click to expand...
Mostly on this on this board...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom