Selling the "Big Dream" to Gopher Nation......

Donate To GopherHole
N

NewEngland_Gold

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
616
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Unless Brew is oblivious to the obvious, he has to have gotten the message that the Gopher Nation natives are getting restless and expect his GGs to win games where they have at least similar BT talent and home field advantage: P, IL, MSU.

Holy cow...the beaten-down GN...actually expects him to out-coach the opponent in terms of game prep, player motivation, game plan strategy, play calling, in-game adjustments, game/clock management, personnel rotation, penalty-avoidance coaching etc.

TB is a great, enthusiastic salesman...just look at the terrific recruiting results...and all the great ones can sell the dream and the "sizzle"...Lou Holtz was the best, but Brew is a close second in the lore of Gopher-dom. He has to be smart enough to know that GN is no longer satisfied with an illusionary dream in the trophy case...especially since he has been the main cheerleader pumping up the dream for the assault up Mount Big Ten.

It has to be clear that GN wants some tangible results now: a trophy of some sort, wins for obvious winnable games and the chance for some bragging rights to heal the wounds of decades of Dome-bound pain. If this doesn't develop, I think the "Big Dream Bubble" is in danger of popping and that won't be good for the Chief or GN as a whole.

For those reasons, I believe the Chief/Staff will be lighting a BIG FIRE at Bierman under the Gs for the rest of the season and expecting...not hoping...for positive results in line with their talents and abilities. I would be surprised if fans and GHers expect anything less.
 

I agree with most of what you said but if the staff didn't light a big fire under the players prior to Wisconsin I doubt that they ever will.
 

I've been told that we can't judge Brewster until 2011.
 


I don't think lack of fire was the issue either. I was just making the point that there was no reason for the coaches to hold anything back prior to the Wisconsin game.
 


as a fan, all I ask and expect is that you beat teams that you should beat and once in a while win a few games you shouldn't. how to define what teams you should beat? those with an approx equal talent level for coaches and players. I certainly think WI fits these criteria.
 

I'm not sure wisconsin does fit that profile yet. We're getting there but we're not there yet. We'd like them to fit that profile. But that doesn't make it so.
 

some of the local media rubes have been running a campaign to blast Brew out of town. The latest gambit was to convince as many people as they could that the gophers should have swept the current three game stretch that we're on. Many people bought it. It's embarassing to me a gopher fan to see how sheep like our fans are. The odds against such an outcome was incredibly low, even if you believed we were the better team in each of the match ups. Yet the gambit was bought hook line and sinker.

The reality is you're generally about .500 against toss up opponents. Interesting that we are just that.

Bottom line is that we're performing just where this team is expected to. When the team is more talented we'll win more.
 

Do you think our talent level is congruent with Brewsters 4-14 Big Ten record? I understand talent is most important and he has challenges on that front but still is 4-14 with zero quality wins what we are supposed to be? Would any coach in the country have a worse record?
 



Yes I do. The teams that have beaten us have more talent. The teams we have beaten aren't as talented. The teams that are more talented than us will probably beat us. When we are more talented we will probably win. Do you get the correlation?? Occasionally a team plays above its' talent level and occasionally one plays below. Last year Northwestern played above theirs and Michigan played below, otherwise they all pretty much finished where their talent level was.

Because our talent is underclassmen, we are still overall less talented than all but NW, Pur, and Indiana. We don't want to believe it but it is the reality of the situation. The gap is closing but we are still sitting with the 8th best talent in the B10. If we win anymore B10 games other than Purdue we will have beaten a more talented team.
 

Do you make these talent determinations before, during or after the games? Because if you do it after - obviously you generally are able to say the more talented team won. If you do it before please tell me which games you think we will win this year going forward.
 

So if we end the year 2-6 in the Big Ten bringing Brews record to 5-19 you are OK with that and will support keeping him as coach? Not me.
 

Nope, I did an analysis of the rivals rankings in the off season. i took the numbers from the last four years, weighted the classes based on senior, junior, etc. and added it up. Interestingly enough the finishing positions were within one spot of the rankings with the exception on Nw and Michigan. This year we closed the gap but are still towards the bottom. That begins to change next year.
 



Yes, I will support the coach because he will be right on track, and I would expect his teams to contiune improving with the talent level. If they diverge I'll be less inclined to support him. As the team does better i would expect the recruiting to improve thus enabling the trend to continue until he can compete with the big three.
 

Schnoodler - you are right on with your analysis of the talent level on this team. the players that are starting now in the majority of positiions make this team a lower level B10 team in that regards.

where brewster should get credit is the base of talent he is building in the sophs & freshmen classes that will ultimatley be starting for this team and provide depth at positions that hopefully will allow this program to compete at a higher level in the future. nothing against the current LB core but k cooper looks like he has the making of being a stud and the kind of player that we will see more of being recruited on the defensive side of the ball.

though brewster has or at least seems to have increased the overall talent for the coming years the question still remains if he can become a decent head coach and not just a good recruiter who happens to be a head coach.
 

Interesting perspective on GG talent level vs Brew's BT record as HC. 4-14 so far.

At this point in TB's 3-year tenure, would 9-9 be considered "on-track" by most reasonably knowledgeable fans and GHers given the player talent/ability level he had/has to work with? I suspect it would, but others might differ. For example, 7-11 or 6-12 might be OK for some given the talent GH he found himself in to start his tenure. From my distant view, 4-14 seems at the very low end of acceptability unless I've been sipping too much "talent KA".

In any case, how many points/game for that five game differential (for a theoretical 9-9) actually separate the GGs from a 9-9 record? If it's low...I suspect so, but I haven't done the math...3 & 3 points most recently vs Wisky for example...does that mean anything and does it give us reason for non-delusional optimism looking ahead?

Also, how many points/game separate the GGs from a 10-8, 11-7 or 12-6 records? Any math majors out there?

Does this tell us anything about how Brew is progressing? If so what?
 

I like some of the thougtfulness you are bringing to this debate but I could care less how many pts seperate us from 9-9 because the counter is how many points seperate brew from 0-18? Not many. We are 4-14. End of story on our record.
 

All that matters is today and the coming tomorrows. At this point, we are 1-1 in the BT and 3-2 overall. I consider that "on track" considering what he has to work with. Mason last three poorly ranked recruiting classes, what is left, are what we are working with.

Brewster was hired to put a more successful team on the field than we saw year in and out with Masonball. The keys are to recruit better players and then get them to play to their potential.
 

So you bring in a new head coach, with no prior head-coaching experience, give him an empty cupboard and expect him to win significantly in two years?

Or you bring in a head-coach, with no experience, give him an empty cupboard and allow him to graduate at least one class?

The later makes the most sense to me and what I thought Maturi wanted. If you pick the former, I think you're dumb and have no vision. Brewster is making progress as a coach. He's doing great for recruiting. How people can't see that we're making progress is beyond me. I say give Brewster at least two classes of his own to graduate (three more years), then we decide about the state of the program.
 

You say you can't see how people can't see progress. I am sorry, I can't. Maybe I am stupid but since he has been our head coach I have seen almost nothing but losses. Literally I have only witnessed only 2 Big Ten wins in person and I have attended 11 Big Ten games. I also saw us lose to Cal and Kansas by about 17 pts each - not road games. So 2-11 in BCS games. Who in the country is worse than us? Help me here. Where is the progress? What is the starting point?
 

What's alarming is that the Gophers are by the standards espoused on this thread a bad Big 10 team in a bad Big 10, at least on paper and apparently on the field as well. Bringing in talent is one part of the equation. Coaching that talent is another. Brewster hasn't shown much in the way of coaching ability (not knowing rules, lack of discipline, etc.). And part of that coaching ability is getting the best out of the talent you have. Maybe some of the inherited is sub-par, but hopefully a quality coach could get the most out of even lesser talent (as Kirk Ferentz seems to do). There is also the question of whether some of the talent he's bringing in will be around based on the less than stellar academic records of these fellows. We are at or near the bottom of the Big 10 in graduation rate and we may be sacrificing academic integrity for what?

Give him to the end of the year, but the questions are definitely there.
 

I've had season tickets since 1993 and I've seen a lot of bad football. I'm not going to panic with this season. 2007 was pretty rough, but I think Brewster is coaching at the same level that Mason did, and he's not making terrible decisions on the field. Mason made some terrible decisions and never, ever could adjust during the game. Brewster's staff has done a much better job of adjusting, but I'm not going to give them an A.

Do you think we're a better team then Wisconsin, Cal or Kansas? Wisconsin owned our lines Saturday. There was a reason most national sports writers picked the Badgers over us. Brewster went from rough in 2007 to holding his own this year for coaching. Everybody keeps bringing up his overall record, they don't look at the gameday coaching in 2007, 2008 and 2009 individually because that's what counts.
 

Swede - Ferentz is getting paid a billion dollars because he's a really good coach. He's been a really good coach for a long time. While in a few recent years, his recruiting is down, but it appears to have been very short lived and they have a good class coming in. Their talent level in upperclassmen is much, much better then ours.
 

Iowa has had decent talent. They've finished pretty much where they've recruited up or down a position most years. It would be incorrect to compare our talent level to theirs, and from extension our record with theirs.
 

Schnoodler....

I don't know if you've posted your BT/Rivals team talent level analysis vs BT finish results for the past two or three years or your 2009 BT/Rivals team talent analysis.

If you have, could you please repost it to quantify how big the gap is between the GGs and the top tier of the BT because I seem to have missed it. If you haven't posted your analysis, please do so....it would give us some benchmarks to determine how much work the GGs have yet to accomplish in this area and what the timing might be...especially for our border rivals.

Thanks much.
 

GoldInDirt said:
So you bring in a new head coach, with no prior head-coaching experience, give him an empty cupboard and expect him to win significantly in two years?

Or you bring in a head-coach, with no experience, give him an empty cupboard and allow him to graduate at least one class?

The later makes the most sense to me and what I thought Maturi wanted. If you pick the former, I think you're dumb and have no vision. Brewster is making progress as a coach. He's doing great for recruiting. How people can't see that we're making progress is beyond me. I say give Brewster at least two classes of his own to graduate (three more years), then we decide about the state of the program.
Click to expand...

First, I don't hire someone without experience to be a big ten coach, but that boat has sailed.

Second, I understand we had talent issues, but the on the field performance goes far beyond any talent issues we've had.

Third, Brewster will get his 5 years. The roster will get better. We will still lose games because we get outcoached. I'm not sure what light switch we think is going to go on and change the nature of his teams.

In another thread, a number of coaches were discussed along with their horrible starts as head coaches. The poster child of that lot for me was Kirk Firentz. In his first year, they were terrible, had no talent, and struggled on the field. BUT, if you look at that team, you could see exactly what he was trying to do. The foundation for year 3 and 4 where evident on that team. Tough, strong fundamentals, focus, and discipline, and a commitment to defense.

What are the hallmarks of Brewster's teams to date?
  • Undisciplined play
  • Stupid Penalties
  • An ever changing offensive philosophy
  • Consistent poor clock management and use of time outs
  • Improved Recruiting classes in February (but not necessarily August)
  • Hyperbole from the head coaches mouth (When he said 'Kill Shot' I didn't realize he was aiming at our offense)

Recruiting has improved. We will win more games with better talent, but Brewster has not proven anywhere near the ability to be a head coach. In three years, none of the issues unrelated to our "lack" of talent have improved. This concerns me greatly and takes away any hope that his "increased" talent will translate into anything significant.
 

NewEngland_Gold said:
Schnoodler....

I don't know if you've posted your BT/Rivals team talent level analysis vs BT finish results for the past two or three years or your 2009 BT/Rivals team talent analysis.

If you have, could you please repost it to quantify how big the gap is between the GGs and the top tier of the BT because I seem to have missed it. If you haven't posted your analysis, please do so....it would give us some benchmarks to determine how much work the GGs have yet to accomplish in this area and what the timing might be...especially for our border rivals.

Thanks much.
Click to expand...

the link you posted to Buck bravo pretty much did just what i did. I don't know how his weighting system deviated from mine. But when I messed with the weighting it didn't change order at all anyway. So go with his anaysis, it's well presented.
 

Rotundo said:
You say you can't see how people can't see progress. I am sorry, I can't. Maybe I am stupid but since he has been our head coach I have seen almost nothing but losses. Literally I have only witnessed only 2 Big Ten wins in person and I have attended 11 Big Ten games. I also saw us lose to Cal and Kansas by about 17 pts each - not road games. So 2-11 in BCS games. Who in the country is worse than us? Help me here. Where is the progress? What is the starting point?
Click to expand...


There's a thread that was just started here pointing to a post today on the Daily Gopher. Check it out.
The analysis in the piece only takes into account the last few years, but look at the last chart, where he breaks down the value of the recruiting classes over the last 5 or so years. You'll notice that we're decidedly in the bottom of the Big 10 using this metric to measure skill level. Basically exactly there you'd guess a team with a conference record like ours.

Now look at the levels in Brewster's recruiting classes. Those numbers, which represent our freshmen and sophmores, are at the level of programs like Wisconsin and Iowa. When these players are our seniors and juniors, so in TWO YEARS, we will be, on paper, an average Big Ten team. When that happens, I will fully expect us to win some of these games. Right now, we're beating the teams we should be beating, and, unfortunately, losing to the ones who are more talented. As much as we might like to think we're at Iowa/Wisky/MSUs level, we're just not there yet. Give it time.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom