Reading between the lines

[RememberMurray]

12-0. 100% offensive efficiency. Literally zero can be improved with the offense!

Again (and again, and again, and again)...

... no one said that. No one. Not... one... person.

Here it is, one more time and for the last time because this has grown beyond tiresome:

Some of us here have grave doubts that throwing to the blessed, holy, magnificent tight ends more often is the magic pill, the 'open sesame', the simple and obvious difference between going 11-2 and an undefeated season.

If you think it is — and you must believe it is, since it's the second time you've brought up '12-0' — and you want to actually convince me or anyone else that it is, please offer your rationale.

Start with this: lay out a believable scenario in which a few more tosses to Witham or Spann-Ford wins the Wisconsin game for us.

If your reasoning is convincing enough, heck, don't stop here in GopherHole: email your thinking to the coaching staff! If your theory is right, and you're convincing enough in presenting it, you'll be a maroon and gold hero.

By the way, I have to ask: does this magic formula work for all teams, at all times? Can any football team simply adopt this "throw more to the tight ends" philosophy and then expect an undefeated season?

Does personnel matter at all to the magic formula? Or is it any tight end, on any team?

Do you really believe that the Gopher tight ends could resemble Kelce or Kittle if we simply threw the ball to them more often, as you stated?

There are lots of coaches who would love to have a simple, easy solution like that.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

SpannFord looks very athletic. Witham made an incredible catch. Fair to argue whether they are good enough blockers to play full time and not tip our hand too much when they come in the game.

Even if they know what’s coming someone like Spann Ford can be a matchup problem. One play can decide a game and at times variation in the matchups might favor utilizing them downfield. Even stone hands Paulson.

 

[PitinoFan]

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Literally zero can be improved with the offense!

 

[Spoofin]

Again (and again, and again, and again)...

... no one said that. No one. Not... one... person.

Here it is, one more time and for the last time because this has grown beyond tiresome:

Some of us here have grave doubts that throwing to the blessed, holy, magnificent tight ends more often is the magic pill, the 'open sesame', the simple and obvious difference between going 11-2 and an undefeated season.

If you think it is — and you must believe it is, since it's the second time you've brought up '12-0' — and you want to actually convince me or anyone else that it is, please offer your rationale.

Start with this: lay out a believable scenario in which a few more tosses to Witham or Spann-Ford wins the Wisconsin game for us.

If your reasoning is convincing enough, heck, don't stop here in GopherHole: email your thinking to the coaching staff! If your theory is right, and you're convincing enough in presenting it, you'll be a maroon and gold hero.

By the way, I have to ask: does this magic formula work for all teams, at all times? Can any football team simply adopt this "throw more to the tight ends" philosophy and then expect an undefeated season?

Does personnel matter at all to the magic formula? Or is it any tight end, on any team?

Do you really believe that the Gopher tight ends could resemble Kelce or Kittle if we simply threw the ball to them more often, as you stated?

There are lots of coaches who would love to have a simple, easy solution like that.

Can you please offer your rationale on why it can’t improve things? No need to email the coaches, I am just curious. You seem quite sure this can’t help or be the difference between 11-2 and 13-0 and I am curious how you can be so sure. Not for all teams, just for the Gophers. Thanks.

 

[Gopherfan84]

In BB, there are 5 guys on the floor. If you are a PG, and everytime you take the ball down the court your 3 stars are being covered by 4 players, with one on you, leaving our worst starter unguarded everytime, I'm not going to try to force the ball into a double teamed player everytime, I'm going to pass it to the unguarded guy once in a while, and being he is unguarded, he might feel comfortable putting up an uncontested shot, and hey, he IS a div 1 player, so maybe he'll start draining 3s. Once a guy like that makes one, they seem to get easier to make. Eventually the opposing coach will call a time out and will tell someone to start guarding him, which then will open it up inside some, so now you go back to feeding it inside or whatever.

Same concept is true for cfb. If they are double covering the WRs, and/or stuffing the run, the occasional short toss to the TE might end up becoming a very reliable way to pick up first downs. And that's not robbing the WRs of 40-60 yard TD tosses, it's making it even easier to give them 25-40 yard TD passes. Three 30 yard TD passes is MORE YARDS and MORE points than two 40 yard TD passes, or if not more yardage, as you mentioned 50 or 60 yard TD passes, say it's a 50 and a 60 yard TD pass, and then one 3 and out because the WR was too well covered, so 110 yards, to the WRs, so more yardage, but still only 2 TDs. Oh, and despite the WRs only getting 90 yards on their 3 TD catches, you have to remember the three to six 7 yard catches to the TE adds another 21 to 42 yards of passing, so the QB gets 111 to 132 yards passing and 3 TDs, vs 110 yards passing and only 2 TDs.

And maybe after the 1st, or 2nd or 3rd drive where the QB is occasionally dumping it off to the TE for easy first downs, their defense adjusts and starts covering the TE, which then opens it up more for the WRs. I mean, how hard is that to figure out?

And then maybe the next game, the next opponent studies film and covers the TE from the start, and maybe he gets zero catches in the next game, that's fine, we'd have more single coverage to throw to our WRs, so they have another one of their 200+ yard games, GREAT!!! NO ONE Will cry for the TE if he doesn't get his yardage, as long as he's accomplishing something, that being making the defense cover him.


That is all anyone is suggesting, especially when the opponent is doing a good job of covering our WRs and stuffing our run. I'm trilled and very ok with our 11-2 season and how well our WRs performed and our QB, too. But no matter how good that 11-2 looks against our past performances, if a couple of tosses to the TE could have gotten us to 12-1, why not? Now I'm not saying that is why we lost to Iowa, but just saying, no reason to leave an unguarded player to just stand there not taking advantage of the situation.




But honestly, I don't really care, because I trust Fleck, 100%, to know better than me what best to do.

I don't think we actively attempted to avoid our TE. We just had 3 WR and 2 RBs who were better than any of our TEs. That's a lot of guys to already. With that type of talent, it's hard to get 4 receptions to a TE. I think our TE crew is getting improved and we will see them getting more passes next season.

 

[Gopherfan84]

12-0. 100% offensive efficiency. Literally zero can be improved with the offense!

Never said that. Just saying I have bigger qualms with special teams and our D. Our offensive staff is bright and is always looking to improve. I just liked that we got the ball to our best players a ton last year with teams scheming against them.

 

[RememberMurray]

Can you please offer your rationale on why it can’t improve things? No need to email the coaches, I am just curious. You seem quite sure this can’t help or be the difference between 11-2 and 13-0 and I am curious how you can be so sure. Not for all teams, just for the Gophers. Thanks.

Sure. No problem

First off:

I never said it "can’t improve things". I said I had grave doubts it could. There's a difference.

I never said I was "...quite sure this can’t help or be the difference between 11-2 and 13-0." I said I had doubts it could be that difference, and politely and simply asked the poster to give his rationale for that bold claim. I have an open mind on this. Heck, I'd love to be wrong! So... give some rationale. Convince me!

My rationale for having doubts about the wisdom of throwing more often to the tight ends (such as it is) is in my previous posts, but I'll say this again: Our tight ends appear (to me) to be mainly blocker-types, based on their physical builds and their apparent athletic ability (or lack thereof). They seem (to me) to be big and strong, but not particularly quick or nimble. Now, if I'm wrong, and if there's a budding Kittle or Kelce in the group just waiting to blossom, I'll be the first to admit it — when I see evidence of it.

If I'm wrong on this, well, that would be super-duper exciting news for all Gopher fans! Especially so for the "I Heart Tight Ends" crowd.

And you're correct in saying there's no need for me to email the coaching staff; judging by how they've been utilizing these guys in the offense they must see the same things I do.

 

[MplsGopher]

Never said that. Just saying I have bigger qualms with special teams and our D. Our offensive staff is bright and is always looking to improve. I just liked that we got the ball to our best players a ton last year with teams scheming against them.

Would you advocate for sending Bateman out as the lone route runner, and keeping the other nine players in to pass-pro?

On the flip side, would you prefer we just went 10 personnel as opposed to 11 or 12 and sending TE out on routes?

 

[MplsGopher]

My rationale for having doubts about the wisdom of throwing more often to the tight ends (such as it is) is in my previous posts, but I'll say this again: Our tight ends appear (to me) to be mainly blocker-types, based on their physical builds and their apparent athletic ability (or lack thereof). They seem (to me) to be big and strong, but not particularly quick or nimble. Now, if I'm wrong, and if there's a budding Kittle or Kelce in the group just waiting to blossom, I'll be the first to admit it — when I see evidence of it..

Did you watch the Auburn game?

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

solid strawman slugger. do you think that if the TE's caught 2-4 passes per game for 40-80 yards it would help or hinder the WR's get more open and/or open up the run game?

I think they cover the TE just the same either way 0 or 20 targets..


The QB though might be less protected.

 

[RememberMurray]

Did you watch the Auburn game?

Yup.

I recall two extremely big catches by tight ends, in crucial spots. One was a little floating lollipop of a throw on a play action, the guy who caught it was wide open. Anyone on the roster could have made that play. The other was a great catch on a poorly thrown ball. Neither of these two plays convinced me that our tight ends are fantastic receivers, and neither play had me screaming that we should be throwing more often to the tight ends. I still don't see how a little tight end magic would have led to an undefeated season. I still don't see how tight ends could have made a difference in the loss to Wisconsin. Sorry.

But, as I've said before, I'm open-minded on this. Make your case, I'll listen. However, the few plays made in the Auburn game aren't enough (by themselves) to take me from 11-2 to 13-0. I'll need more evidence than a couple of catches in one game.

Speaking of the victory over Auburn, did you happen to notice any of the plays the athletically-gifted wide receivers made in that game, or were you focusing on the tight ends (ahem) exclusively?

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Yup.

I recall two extremely big catches by tight ends, in crucial spots. One was a little floating lollipop of a throw on a play action, the guy who caught it was wide open. Anyone on the roster could have made that play. The other was a great catch on a poorly thrown ball. Neither of these two plays convinced me that our tight ends are fantastic receivers, and neither play had me screaming that we should be throwing more often to the tight ends. I still don't see how a little tight end magic would have led to an undefeated season. I still don't see how tight ends could have made a difference in the loss to Wisconsin. Sorry.

But, as I've said before, I'm open-minded on this. Make your case, I'll listen. However, the few plays made in the Auburn game aren't enough (by themselves) to take me from 11-2 to 13-0. Maybe we just disagree on that.

Speaking of the victory over Auburn, did you happen to notice any of the plays the athletically-gifted wide receivers made in that game, or were you focusing on the tight ends (ahem) exclusively?

He was uncovered. It was an easy throw because he was uncovered. That’s the whole point.

 

[RememberMurray]

He was uncovered. It was an easy throw because he was uncovered. That’s the whole point.

Really? The WHOLE point is that tight end was wide open? Are they wide open often, in your experience? Every play? Sometimes? Once in awhile?

If your "whole point" is that you can sometimes run a play targeting a tight end and catch the defense napping, I agree with you. It works well as a change of pace. It breaks tendencies... as long as it's not over-used.

But if you're saying the success of the occasional gadget play to the tight end proves that we should throw to them more frequently, I disagree.

Seth Green sometimes has nice gains out of the wildcat. He even scores quite a few touchdowns from the wildcat. As a matter of fact, your 'wide open' play to the tight end was with Green running wildcat, and throwing a pass.

Did the success of that play convince you we should run more wildcat plays? Or that Seth should throw more often? To me, the fact that we rarely do those two things is precisely what made it successful.

I personally think we run wildcat just about the right amount. It serves as a change-up. It's another wrinkle. That's all it is, and all it's likely to be.

And I certainly don't want to see Seth throw more often. Do you? For me, once in awhile is perfect.

I feel the same about the way we utilize our big, strong, rather slow-footed tight ends. Great change of pace as a receiving option. Probably not a mainstay, though.

 

[PitinoFan]

^

“Big, strong, rather slow footed tight ends.”

Well, the one who made the plays in the Outback Bowl was down for a 4.7 40 in HS. Someone posted a highlight of him catching and running against OSU last year. He is legitimately fast. Having said that, speed isn’t always necessary for a mismatch to occur.

 

[RememberMurray]

^

“Big, strong, rather slow footed tight ends.”

Well, the one who made the plays in the Outback Bowl was down for a 4.7 40 in HS. Someone posted a highlight of him catching and running against OSU last year. He is legitimately fast. Having said that, speed isn’t always necessary for a mismatch to occur.

Look, I've presented my case in full.

It's pretty obvious that I disagree with the "I Heart Tight Ends" crowd on the matter of just how gifted our tight ends are as receivers, and how often we should throw to them.

Time to let it rest.

I'm going to step out of this one now. It's gone past the point of having any purpose.

 

[PitinoFan]

Look, I've presented my case in full.

It's pretty obvious that I disagree with the "I Heart Tight Ends" crowd on the matter of just how gifted our tight ends are as receivers, and how often we should throw to them.

Time to let it rest.

I'm going to step out of this one now. It's gone past the point of having any purpose.

The problem is, you’re mischaracterizing the motives of the people who are suggesting TEs might be able to help the passing game, with your “I heart tight ends” and other such nonsense. It doesn’t really need to be said again, but we’re not talking about a fundamental change in offensive philosophy. PJ talked about getting BSF more involved in the passing game last Fall, and they’re telling recruits that TEs will be more involved in the passing game in the future. Now that Kirk is gone, there’s a decent chance it will happen. I’m thinking we could go from 5% TE targets to something like 15% without changing the offense much.

 

[MplsGopher]

Neither of these two plays convinced me that our tight ends are fantastic receivers, and neither play had me screaming that we should be throwing more often to the tight ends.

Then nothing would convince you, I’m afraid.

 

[Spoofin]

Sure. No problem

First off:

I never said it "can’t improve things". I said I had grave doubts it could. There's a difference.

I never said I was "...quite sure this can’t help or be the difference between 11-2 and 13-0." I said I had doubts it could be that difference, and politely and simply asked the poster to give his rationale for that bold claim. I have an open mind on this. Heck, I'd love to be wrong! So... give some rationale. Convince me!

My rationale for having doubts about the wisdom of throwing more often to the tight ends (such as it is) is in my previous posts, but I'll say this again: Our tight ends appear (to me) to be mainly blocker-types, based on their physical builds and their apparent athletic ability (or lack thereof). They seem (to me) to be big and strong, but not particularly quick or nimble. Now, if I'm wrong, and if there's a budding Kittle or Kelce in the group just waiting to blossom, I'll be the first to admit it — when I see evidence of it.

If I'm wrong on this, well, that would be super-duper exciting news for all Gopher fans! Especially so for the "I Heart Tight Ends" crowd.

And you're correct in saying there's no need for me to email the coaching staff; judging by how they've been utilizing these guys in the offense they must see the same things I do.

OK. You have your opinion and disagree with MplsG on his. However, to say you “politely” asked him to give rationale is like saying I “politely” asked you for yours.

Personally, I think our Offense was great, but could still improve. I think involving the TEs more in the passing game could help as it is one more thing the Defense would have to worry about. I think that has been successfully done for generations in FB. I think things like that will become even more important when we don’t have 2 NFL WRs on the field. Although I am not part of the “I heart TEs” crowd, I’m also not part of the “how dare you question PJ” crowd.

 

[Gopherfan84]

Would you advocate for sending Bateman out as the lone route runner, and keeping the other nine players in to pass-pro?

Not with CAB available

On the flip side, would you prefer we just went 10 personnel as opposed to 11 or 12 and sending TE out on routes?

10, 11, and 12 packages should be rotated along with some 01 and 02. I do think the TE is more prevalent in our offense next year with Rodney, Shannon, and Tyler gone.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

underlying question - how much will the Gopher offense change under a new OC?

answer might be...."none"........."a little"........ or "a lot."

My gut tells me the answer is most likely going to be "a little." I think it's reasonable to suppose that the new OC has agreed in general to follow Fleck's offensive philosophy. but, when you bring in a new Coordinator, that person is usually going to want to put - at least - a little of their own philosophy into the offense.

ergo, the offense will look very similar, but potentially with a few tweaks or minor changes.

Those tweaks may - or may not - involve throwing a few more passes to the TE. we will learn more this fall.

 

[MplsGopher]

Not with CAB available


10, 11, and 12 packages should be rotated along with some 01 and 02. I do think the TE is more prevalent in our offense next year with Rodney, Shannon, and Tyler gone.

Yes we have to use all those packages, as we did this year. My question is about using 11,12 or even 01 and 02 (those much less likely though) and then sending the TE out on routes.

 

[Gopherfan84]

Yes we have to use all those packages, as we did this year. My question is about using 11,12 or even 01 and 02 (those much less likely though) and then sending the TE out on routes.

I'd guess they would considering our OC's background. I love how the NFL is using TE's now and would love to see us expand, but I understand the lack of it last year.

 

[MplsGopher]

The biggest value of the TE, by far, is the run/pass conflict. We didn’t have any conflict, at least until Auburn (a bit, but better than nothing)

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Really? The WHOLE point is that tight end was wide open? Are they wide open often, in your experience? Every play? Sometimes? Once in awhile?

If your "whole point" is that you can sometimes run a play targeting a tight end and catch the defense napping, I agree with you. It works well as a change of pace. It breaks tendencies... as long as it's not over-used.

But if you're saying the success of the occasional gadget play to the tight end proves that we should throw to them more frequently, I disagree.

Seth Green sometimes has nice gains out of the wildcat. He even scores quite a few touchdowns from the wildcat. As a matter of fact, your 'wide open' play to the tight end was with Green running wildcat, and throwing a pass.

Did the success of that play convince you we should run more wildcat plays? Or that Seth should throw more often? To me, the fact that we rarely do those two things is precisely what made it successful.

I personally think we run wildcat just about the right amount. It serves as a change-up. It's another wrinkle. That's all it is, and all it's likely to be.

And I certainly don't want to see Seth throw more often. Do you? For me, once in awhile is perfect.

I feel the same about the way we utilize our big, strong, rather slow-footed tight ends. Great change of pace as a receiving option. Probably not a mainstay, though.

Yes, they are wide open a significant percentage of the time. If they weren’t nobody would throw to the tight end. Why would they?

They are not open all the time. In fact Spann Ford helped clear out the boundary side IIRC by drifting into or across the back of the formation (started split out IIRC). So they did account for him, but not Witham coming loose off the end.

 

[RememberMurray]

Well, this has been a great discussion and I sincerely hope that throws to the tight ends are increased to whatever level it takes to make the Tight Ends Club happy... as long as it actually helps the team's offensive production, that is.

 

[PMWinSTP]

OK. You have your opinion and disagree with MplsG on his. However, to say you “politely” asked him to give rationale is like saying I “politely” asked you for yours.

Personally, I think our Offense was great, but could still improve. I think involving the TEs more in the passing game could help as it is one more thing the Defense would have to worry about. I think that has been successfully done for generations in FB. I think things like that will become even more important when we don’t have 2 NFL WRs on the field. Although I am not part of the “I heart TEs” crowd, I’m also not part of the “how dare you question PJ” crowd.

Gophs two losses had much, much more to do with the defense than anything that could have been improved on offense. Same can be said for the close non-con wins.

Gophs were 21st in the FBS in scoring offense and 3rd in B1G, behind OSU (#3 in FBS) and PSU (#15 in FBS). Possibly could have been higher in FBS and #2 in B1G had the defense performed better in those five games.

 

[MplsGopher]

as long as it actually helps the team's offensive production

There's no logical reason it wouldn't.

And no one has ever, not one single time, argued that we should be doing it even if it doesn't help our offensive production. That's something you made up out of thin air, so that you could go off on a rant against a windmill.

 

[MplsGopher]

Gophs two losses had much, much more to do with the defense than anything that could have been improved on offense. Same can be said for the close non-con wins.

This can be argued about any game, any time, under any system.

You can win a game in many, many, many different ways. If you always hold the opposing team to zero points, you only need a single safety or field goal to win.

By the way, writing this out made me immediately think of Burns' infamous rant about Schnelker after the win over the Falcons(?).

"we were hollerin' take time out ... we had a f__king trap play called ... and his f__king shoe comes off! That ain't Bob Schnelker's fault!"

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Schnelker was a tight end and tight end coach. I wonder if he believed in the pass.