Reading between the lines

[RememberMurray]

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?

40-80 yards on 2-4 receptions?

Wow.

Respectfully: do you really see Paulson, Spann-Ford & Co. averaging 20 yards per reception?

 

[noamfromm]

40-80 yards on 2-4 receptions?

Wow.

Respectfully: do you really see Paulson, Spann-Ford & Co. averaging 20 yards per reception?

The number was for the sake of argumentation in order to get JG to determine how many yards to the TE's would change his calculus. Realistically I think we could avg 15 yards to the tight ends seeing how we have high average depth of target already.

 

[PitinoFan]

My impression was that Kirk was being conservative (“adding a little more to the plate each week”) because of inexperience at QB and on the OL. Maybe he could have opened it up a little more against Wisc and Iowa, but we’ll never know if it would have made the difference. Going into the Auburn game, they had 4 weeks to prepare and implement more of the offense, and Auburn guessed wrong all game long. With the experience returning on offense, there are a lot of reasons to be excited for what’s ahead.

 

[RememberMurray]

Hmmm...

1) Average yards per catch: when I think of players who average 15+ yards per catch, I generally picture speedy guys — mostly wide receivers. To average that high a number and sustain it over a longer period — say, over an entire season — you'd probably have to catch quite a few deep passes as well as take some shorter throws to the house by making people miss and/or outrunning the defense. I don't have numbers in front of me, but I'd guess there aren't too many college tight ends averaging 15 yards per catch. I have a really, really hard time picturing the Gophers' tight ends doing it. I love our guys, but they aren't built for it. They're more blocking tight ends, in my opinion. Jim Kleinsasser types.

2) The concept of Ciarocca "opening it up": Maybe I'm missing your point, but when I think of opening up an offense, I definitely don't picture more throws to tight ends.

 

[PitinoFan]

Hmmm...
2) The concept of Ciarocca "opening it up": Maybe I'm missing your point, but when I think of opening up an offense, I definitely don't picture more throws to tight ends.

“Opening it up,” or as Kirk put it, “adding more to the plate” doesn’t have to be mean more 50 yard bombs, just more of the offense. That’s what Kirk was referring to.

Also...I didn’t even mention tight ends in that comment.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

The concept of Ciarocca "opening it up": Maybe I'm missing your point, but when I think of opening up an offense, I definitely don't picture more throws to tight ends.

Yeah I don't think of that either.

TE passes are great and I welcome them, but I feel like in college they're kinda a naeto thing to do but outside of an ultra talented TE and OL ... not necessarily / big part of the game. And if you've got good WRs you can do so much more with them than a TE.

In the NFL where defenses are more likely to actually shut down WRs from play to play TE passes seem like more of a necessity.

Of course all that goes out the window if you've got a Gronk on your team or something, but that's not common.

 

[Word]

I just think anything you can do to keep the defense guessing will help your offense.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

I just think anything you can do to keep the defense guessing will help your offense.

You also have to be able to make the play / protect the QB and etc

Just calling a different play IMO is often way overvalued by fans.

Kirk had a great quote that went something like: It's a players game, if I don't think they can make that play i'm not going to call it.

 

[Word]

You also have to be able to make the play / protect the QB and etc

Just calling a different play IMO is often way overvalued by fans.

Kirk had a great quote that went something like: It's a players game, if I don't think they can make that play i'm not going to call it.

So I assume next year if/when our tight ends catch more passes you will be criticizing it?

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

So I assume next year if/when our tight ends catch more passes you will be criticizing it?

Why is it all or nothing with people these days?

Nothing I said should indicate that.

 

[Word]

Why is it all or nothing with people these days?

Nothing I said should indicate that.

Maybe my comment wasn't directed as much at you as it was a couple others here.

 

[PitinoFan]

Why is it all or nothing with people these days?

Nothing I said should indicate that.

Because you’re trying to piggyback off of the “all or nothing” arguments in the thread, and I’m not sensing much conviction in what you’re saying.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Because you’re trying to piggyback off of the “all or nothing” arguments in the thread, and I’m not sensing much conviction in what you’re saying.

I don't even know what that means ...

 

[PitinoFan]

I don't even know what that means ...

Exactly.

 

[John Galt]

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?

Given that Bateman and Johnson both had games with more than 200 yards receiving, no, I don’t think a TE having a game with “40-80” yards receiving would make them rethink their entire game plan.

 

[John Galt]

Put yourself in the shoes of a DC. Who are young going to game plan to stop: TJ, Bateman, the 3 headed monster at RB, or Bryce Witham? This really isn’t that hard.

 

[Gopherfan84]

Given that Bateman and Johnson both had games with more than 200 yards receiving, no, I don’t think a TE having a game with “40-80” yards receiving would make them rethink their entire game plan.

Exactly! I still don't understand why people are so upset about not throwing the TE more. I love having the wrinkle but last years passing game is something I'd choose to not criticize heavily.

 

[MNVCGUY]

Exactly! I still don't understand why people are so upset about not throwing the TE more. I love having the wrinkle but last years passing game is something I'd choose to not criticize heavily.

The part in bold is what I have never understood either. I am all for incorporating the TE into the passing game but it isn't like we were struggling to move the ball through the air without them last year. We passed for nearly 3,300 yards with 31 TD and had 2 receivers with over 1,200 yards each.

I could understand the hand wringing over the lack of throws to the TE if we were putting up crappy numbers through the air the way we did during the years when the forward pass was a mystery to us. But the obsession some have with throwing to the TE is odd considering how strong our passing game was.

And to be clear. I have zero issue with the TE or RB becoming bigger parts of the passing game, can make for a really nice weapon when used right. I just don't see our lack of throwing to the TE up to this point as a significant issue either. As long as the offense is moving the ball and scoring points I really don't care how they are doing it.

 

[PMWinSTP]

My impression was that Kirk was being conservative (“adding a little more to the plate each week”) because of inexperience at QB and on the OL. Maybe he could have opened it up a little more against Wisc and Iowa, but we’ll never know if it would have made the difference. Going into the Auburn game, they had 4 weeks to prepare and implement more of the offense, and Auburn guessed wrong all game long. With the experience returning on offense, there are a lot of reasons to be excited for what’s ahead.

Yeah, Iowa game was really the defense caught off-guard, with how different Iowa started on offense, and very slow to adjust. Wisc also had just enough wrinkles that again caught the defense off-guard.

 

[KillmeNow]

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.

 

[OldBob53]

Reading between the lines is not allowed... That's why God gave us lines in the first place.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Reading between the lines is not allowed... That's why God gave us lines in the first place.

Lines are for betting.

 

[PMWinSTP]

Reading between the lines is not allowed... That's why God gave us lines in the first place.

So...most writing paper is lined.

 

[hungan1]

Reading between the lines is not allowed... That's why God gave us lines in the first place.

Lines are for Purgatory. You gray shirt until you get all the credits to be admitted to Heaven.

 

[RememberMurray]

My impression is that Fleck/Ciarocca's version of the RPO is built around a few key concepts. To me, the things that are stressed are:

— Run/pass balance, with more than a little emphasis on a strong running game. I don't think we'll see a day when Fleck's offense is called AirFleck. This means that...

— Recruiting efforts are geared toward building and 'coaching up' a huge, powerful offensive line. It also means that, in Fleck's RPO...

— The tight ends Fleck & Co. recruit are big, strong guys who can block really well in the run game. They're also frequently called on to help in pass protection.

This is what I've observed.

If my observations are accurate, I just don't see much hope that the I Heart Tight Ends crowd are going to see a big increase in throws to tight ends.

If they ever do decide to throw more to tight ends, I'll be fine with the decision... provided it works.

Let's be honest; the last time I looked, there's no one on the Gophers' roster who resembles Travis Kelce, George Kittle or Rob Gronkowski.

Or Maxx Williams, for that matter.

Therefore any increase in pass-catching by tight ends would likely be exactly what some posters have described: the occasional shorter toss to catch the defense off-guard. If that gets you to your happy place, well, keep the faith. It could very well happen.

It worked twice against Auburn.

Not so much against Nebraska, where a wide-open tight end failed to make a very easy play.

 

[MplsGopher]

there's no one on the Gophers' roster who resembles Travis Kelce, George Kittle or Rob Gronkowski.

If they threw them the ball more often, maybe there would!

 

[PitinoFan]

If that’s the case, they’ve been lying to recruits, because they told Geers and his family that TEs would be more involved in the passing game, going forward. He actually crossed some teams off his list that don’t throw to the TE enough. I can dig up the quotes if you need them.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

If they threw them the ball more often, maybe there would!

If they threw me the ball more I would not look anymore like Gronk.... probabbly less so.

In fact, by not throwing me the ball I probabbly look more like Gronk than if they did...

 

[Spoofin]

We all accept the notion that a run game can set up the pass - why do we debate if a short TE pass game can do the same? Aren’t more options better to keep the D guessing? No one thinks that we should use our WRs less, but it seems a fairly proven concept to give the D as much to think about as possible.

 

[MplsGopher]

Exactly! I still don't understand why people are so upset about not throwing the TE more. I love having the wrinkle but last years passing game is something I'd choose to not criticize heavily.

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