Sid: Fleck said Tanner Morgan’s starting spot at quarterback is far from guaranteed.

[MNVCGUY]

Come on. No one said that. It was an example of PJ not playing his best option for other reasons. No one said anything about wanting to get him hurt or these other tangents you are now promoting. Did you forget your argument.

It also isn’t an anti-PJ take, even tho some see any challenge at all as so. PJ himself said Wins/losses didn’t matter that year so why is it ripping him when someone points out an example of him practicing what he preached?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The assumption some of you are working off of is that Durr wasn't the best option and that is based on how he looked during the one series, my contention is that is way over simplifying things.

As to the part in bold....I really don't know if there are some that can't understand what Fleck meant or if they are just pretending not to get it. The players and coaches were working hard to win the games each week, Fleck's point was that wins/loses were not what they were using to evaluate the team and where things were at because that was not the most important thing in those first few years.

Fans get caught up in the record and once a coach has been at a school for a while the team's record will be the driving force behind whether or not that coach keeps his job. But in those first few years the record is not the most important thing to the people within the program. The biggest area that most likely came into play was in not trying to recruit a bunch of JC players to fill holes and not burning redshirts on some players in an all out effort to win an extra game or two.

For whatever reason though there still seem to be some that think those comments meant they were not trying to win the games. The players and coaches work way to hard to not give it their best effort on gameday.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Oh man can we go down the rabbit hole where folks seemed to wonder if he was playing the bet players regarding red shirts and such the first year?

 

[zman]

Why isn't she eating?

 

[Spoofin]

...I really don't know if there are some that can't understand what Fleck meant

This tired line. I am grateful there is always someone here to explain what Fleck actually meant - no matter what was said. Either agree or you just don’t get it, right?

Wins/losses don’t matter doesn’t mean you are trying to lose. No one said it did. It could mean, however, play a kid coming off an ACL that still has a limp for a single series so we don’t have to burn the redshirt of a player who gives us a better chance - even if it means that player will get burned right away for a TD - maybe costing us the game - and then spend the rest of the year on the bench. Your arrangement sounds nicer tho, so I must not get it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MNVCGUY]

What is that from? Trying to figure out what could lead to that particular scenario....

 

[PMWinSTP]

Why isn't she eating?

Is that a young(er)Richard Pitino?

 

[John Galt]

The one time when the "best players will play" thing isn't always in full effect is during the first few years of a coaching staff. Some coaches will do whatever they can to win fast, I would say Brohm falls into this category for the way he managed the roster at Purdue. Others will take the longer view and make some short term decisions that might not be in the best interest of winning fast but will hopefully set the team up for more sustained success later. Fleck definitely falls in this category, Kill did as well to a lesser degree.

As for playing guys like Durr or Annexstad when they were not at 100%, only the coaches can answer that question. If I had to guess, it was probably because they still felt that even in their current state those guys were the best available playable option but I have nothing concrete to base that on other than time around coaches and the game.

Starting with this year for sure and moving forward I would fully expect them to put their focus on winning now as opposed to looking to the future. They will almost certainly make some mistakes along the way personnel wise but there is no real reason at this point to hold a player back who can help you win now.

This bleeds into the redshirt discussion that always surfaces at some point in the season. There may very well have been some guys the staff chose to redshirt who could have helped the team the past few seasons. I would not expect that to be the case anymore, if a kid is the best available option at their position I would expect to see them play.

I agree with most of what you are saying. However, what steps did PJ take that showed he wasn't interested in winning right away?

This is largely a myth promulgated by the "cupboard was full" crowd. Even though we ended up with 1 player drafted in the last 2 years and some of the worst QB'ing in the history of Gopher football PJ's 1st year.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

Back to the QB's - (the original subject of the thread.)

Look - on the eye test, Morgan looked more effective than Annexstad when he got to play. BUT - let's remember, we are judging a healthy Morgan against an injured Annexstad. Annexstad really only played about 2 games when he was 100% healthy. Putting aside the question of whether he should have been playing, we are judging a true FR versus a RS FR. Morgan, by definition, has more experience and should be expected to look better than a true FR.

So - once again - assuming the coaches are playing the 'best' players, or the players who give the team the best chance to win - that means Fleck and Kirk C believed Annexstad was #1 on the depth chart to open the season.

if they are competing against each other now, Morgan has more (or better) game experience in his favor, but we can't forget that, when the coaches made their choice at the start of 2018, they chose Annexstad.

So - I do not believe Morgan is the favorite to start. I put it 50-50 right now, and I believe Annexstad could very well be the opening-game starter this fall.

for me, the biggest question is how much rope do they give the starter? If, let's say, Annexstad starts game #1 but has a bad 1st half, does he play the whole game, or would the coaches put Morgan in? that is going to be one of the most interesting things to watch this fall.

 

[Lakeville Goldy]

Back to the QB's - (the original subject of the thread.)

Look - on the eye test, Morgan looked more effective than Annexstad when he got to play. BUT - let's remember, we are judging a healthy Morgan against an injured Annexstad. Annexstad really only played about 2 games when he was 100% healthy. Putting aside the question of whether he should have been playing, we are judging a true FR versus a RS FR. Morgan, by definition, has more experience and should be expected to look better than a true FR.

So - once again - assuming the coaches are playing the 'best' players, or the players who give the team the best chance to win - that means Fleck and Kirk C believed Annexstad was #1 on the depth chart to open the season.

if they are competing against each other now, Morgan has more (or better) game experience in his favor, but we can't forget that, when the coaches made their choice at the start of 2018, they chose Annexstad.

So - I do not believe Morgan is the favorite to start. I put it 50-50 right now, and I believe Annexstad could very well be the opening-game starter this fall.

for me, the biggest question is how much rope do they give the starter? If, let's say, Annexstad starts game #1 but has a bad 1st half, does he play the whole game, or would the coaches put Morgan in? that is going to be one of the most interesting things to watch this fall.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on ZA vs. TM. And that is a great question about rope, and one of the hardest parts of having two QB's of similar quality - resisting the temptation to switch. Kill fell for it with Leidner and Nelson. As soon as one struggled - switch to the other. Ended up both had moments but neither wowed. Had no consistency at the position. I'd hate to see something like that. Though I think that might have been part of why he didn't switch sooner than he did last year, which may have also hurt the team.

 

[PMWinSTP]

Back to the QB's - (the original subject of the thread.)

Look - on the eye test, Morgan looked more effective than Annexstad when he got to play. BUT - let's remember, we are judging a healthy Morgan against an injured Annexstad. Annexstad really only played about 2 games when he was 100% healthy. Putting aside the question of whether he should have been playing, we are judging a true FR versus a RS FR. Morgan, by definition, has more experience and should be expected to look better than a true FR.

So - once again - assuming the coaches are playing the 'best' players, or the players who give the team the best chance to win - that means Fleck and Kirk C believed Annexstad was #1 on the depth chart to open the season.

if they are competing against each other now, Morgan has more (or better) game experience in his favor, but we can't forget that, when the coaches made their choice at the start of 2018, they chose Annexstad.

So - I do not believe Morgan is the favorite to start. I put it 50-50 right now, and I believe Annexstad could very well be the opening-game starter this fall.

for me, the biggest question is how much rope do they give the starter? If, let's say, Annexstad starts game #1 but has a bad 1st half, does he play the whole game, or would the coaches put Morgan in? that is going to be one of the most interesting things to watch this fall.

They both looked very good in the two practices and the Spring game. I would put them at where they were at the end of Fall practice last year, or a little ahead of that point, so I expect them to be much better than last season by the opener this year. Excited to see the full playbook opened for whoever is the starter. IMO Annexstad will need a lot more separation this year to be the starter Game 1. He certainly has that potential.

I do think Fleck will again have a long leash for the starter.

 

[MNVCGUY]

I agree with most of what you are saying. However, what steps did PJ take that showed he wasn't interested in winning right away?

This is largely a myth promulgated by the "cupboard was full" crowd. Even though we ended up with 1 player drafted in the last 2 years and some of the worst QB'ing in the history of Gopher football PJ's 1st year.

I agree with that sentiment. I have been in the camp that felt 2017 was going to be rough no matter who was in charge but I know there are those that believe that team was primed for another great year with Demry Croft at the helm....yep.

To the other part, really the main thing was not going after a bunch of JUCO guys or transfers in order to try and quickly plug some of the gaping holes in the roster. Another might have been letting Morgan redshirt as opposed to throwing him out there as a true freshman when he wasn't ready and had very little around him.

The flipside of that is what Brohm did at Purdue where he brought in a ton of JUCO guys and transfers. Now this year they are looking at replacing a big chunk of their offense because of it.

 

[STPGopher]

I agree with that sentiment. I have been in the camp that felt 2017 was going to be rough no matter who was in charge but I know there are those that believe that team was primed for another great year with Demry Croft at the helm....yep.

To the other part, really the main thing was not going after a bunch of JUCO guys or transfers in order to try and quickly plug some of the gaping holes in the roster. Another might have been letting Morgan redshirt as opposed to throwing him out there as a true freshman when he wasn't ready and had very little around him.

The flipside of that is what Brohm did at Purdue where he brought in a ton of JUCO guys and transfers. Now this year they are looking at replacing a big chunk of their offense because of it.

Before I start, I'll say that although I wasn't a fan of how the transition came about, I like coach Fleck and support the program and him as well.

The bold part of the post is something we will never know for sure. The defense would have most likely been better. I base this assumption on coach Claeys working the magic he did against Washington State. Maybe Croft would have been better running the offense that was in place at that time. We won't know. I thought he was a more elusive runner than Mitch Leidner and his play action/ ball fakes were up there as well. Do I believe that there would have been a drop off? Of course. Mitch was an underated leader and most of the time his experience and pose showed. Again we will never know.

I think that it is fair to say that coach Fleck felt it was best for the program to not only instill the culture stuff right away, but the offensive and defensive schemes right away. I do like the direction that the program is headed. With a little luck (our program will most likely have to make their own) I think some big things are on the horizon. Whether it is Annexstad or Morgan, I believe that it will happen.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Team Doctor's, training staff, and coaching staff all work really closely together on a daily basis in regards to the players and their status for practices and games.

He may not have been 100% (few players are after the season starts) but if he was suited up it means the various parties involved felt he was fine to play. It is very likely that he did tweak it right away, that is far more plausible then his injury was just ignored by a large number of people.

Health is major factor in determining who plays but it is not the only factor. Annexstad was clearly not 100% but still played over a presumably healthy Morgan. What that says to me is that they felt that even with the limited mobility he was a better option than Morgan at the time. Maybe he had a better grasp of the play calls or gameplans, could have been any number of things.

Same probably applies to Durr. There most likely was a healthier option on the roster at the time but that doesn't necessarily mean there was a better option in the opinion of the coaches.

They absolutely may have made the wrong decision in the case of Annexstad, Durr or any other player, but these decisions are not taken lightly and they are not made by just one person. In the end, they look at the whole picture and go with what they feel is the best option at the time based on the information they have available.

So you’ll allow sometimes the best players aren’t playing, and sometimes the coaches can be wrong. Fine, we’ve come full circle to the original statement.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Back to the QB's - (the original subject of the thread.)

Look - on the eye test, Morgan looked more effective than Annexstad when he got to play. BUT - let's remember, we are judging a healthy Morgan against an injured Annexstad. Annexstad really only played about 2 games when he was 100% healthy. Putting aside the question of whether he should have been playing, we are judging a true FR versus a RS FR. Morgan, by definition, has more experience and should be expected to look better than a true FR.

So - once again - assuming the coaches are playing the 'best' players, or the players who give the team the best chance to win - that means Fleck and Kirk C believed Annexstad was #1 on the depth chart to open the season.

if they are competing against each other now, Morgan has more (or better) game experience in his favor, but we can't forget that, when the coaches made their choice at the start of 2018, they chose Annexstad.

So - I do not believe Morgan is the favorite to start. I put it 50-50 right now, and I believe Annexstad could very well be the opening-game starter this fall.

for me, the biggest question is how much rope do they give the starter? If, let's say, Annexstad starts game #1 but has a bad 1st half, does he play the whole game, or would the coaches put Morgan in? that is going to be one of the most interesting things to watch this fall.

Neither had played a single snap of college ball to that point. Annexstad played 8 games or so at IMG and his Sophomore year in MN. The experience angle favors TM2 who was a heralded and productive high school QB and he’s proven he can play in the Big Ten. We have no proof of that from ZA5 although he could certainly prove to be as good or better with time.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I agree with that sentiment. I have been in the camp that felt 2017 was going to be rough no matter who was in charge but I know there are those that believe that team was primed for another great year with Demry Croft at the helm....yep.

To the other part, really the main thing was not going after a bunch of JUCO guys or transfers in order to try and quickly plug some of the gaping holes in the roster. Another might have been letting Morgan redshirt as opposed to throwing him out there as a true freshman when he wasn't ready and had very little around him.

The flipside of that is what Brohm did at Purdue where he brought in a ton of JUCO guys and transfers. Now this year they are looking at replacing a big chunk of their offense because of it.

Demry wasn’t great or even good but even Kirk said he had virtually zero receiving options - nobody could get off or get open. Nobody could catch the freaking ball when it did arrive. His protection was as bad or worse as we saw early in the 2018 season. He didn’t have the support of the staff or the HC. All that leads to the worst statistical season since....?

 

[MNVCGUY]

Demry wasn’t great or even good but even Kirk said he had virtually zero receiving options - nobody could get off or get open. Nobody could catch the freaking ball when it did arrive. His protection was as bad or worse as we saw early in the 2018 season. He didn’t have the support of the staff or the HC. All that leads to the worst statistical season since....?

The stuff in bold would have been true if Claeys had still been the coach yet there are still those that maintain 2017 would have bee a good year without the coaching change. The defense might have been fine under Claeys that year but that offensive trainwreck was easy to see coming from a mile away.

 

[MNVCGUY]

So you’ll allow sometimes the best players aren’t playing, and sometimes the coaches can be wrong. Fine, we’ve come full circle to the original statement.

Coaches absolutely make mistakes, but I am still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt about personnel decisions over the opinion of fans. Not sure how my Annexstad comment supports the idea that the best players aren't playing since I believe the coaches felt ZA was the best option which is why they stuck with him even when he was not at full speed. We don't have any way of knowing what all their reasons were for not turning to Morgan sooner.

 

[PMWinSTP]

The stuff in bold would have been true if Claeys had still been the coach yet there are still those that maintain 2017 would have bee a good year without the coaching change. The defense might have been fine under Claeys that year but that offensive trainwreck was easy to see coming from a mile away.

Apples/Oranges. TC ran a different offense and would have had a different starting QB.

 

[fan of Ray Williams]

Apples/Oranges. TC ran a different offense and would have had a different starting QB.

Exactly. You can tell them it a hundred times, but they will keep going back to Croft being his QB.

 

[RememberMurray]

Exactly. You can tell them it a hundred times, but they will keep going back to Croft being his QB.

I think Seth Green would have at least had a shot to start if Claeys was still coach. I always thought Seth's game, as seen in his high school highlights, looked similar to Mitch Leidner's style — and both Kill and Claeys loved, loved, loved Mitch.

Like Mitch, Seth's a big, strong guy who can run. Also like Mitch, he appears to be kind of erratic at times throwing the ball, yet with a fairly strong arm.

 

[fan of Ray Williams]

I think Seth Green would have at least had a shot to start if Claeys was still coach. I always thought Seth's game, as seen in his high school highlights, looked similar to Mitch Leidner's style — and both Kill and Claeys loved, loved, loved Mitch.

Like Mitch, Seth's a big, strong guy who can run. Also like Mitch, he appears to be kind of erratic at times throwing the ball, yet with a fairly strong arm.

TC said as much in an interview, but water over the dam. Seth does a superlative job doing what he does when he comes in. All the credit in the world to the kid. Could have easily packed it in. I always sing his praises.

I am optimistic with both TM and ZA. Exciting year coming up.

 

[Spoofin]

I agree with most of what you are saying. However, what steps did PJ take that showed he wasn't interested in winning right away?

This is largely a myth promulgated by the "cupboard was full" crowd. Even though we ended up with 1 player drafted in the last 2 years and some of the worst QB'ing in the history of Gopher football PJ's 1st year.

What steps? He said so. Are you calling him a liar? Did you watch the games and some of the decisions made? He was true to his word. Why question what PJ says?

You will never know what QB would have looked like - it would have been a different offense run by a different QB that appears to be a pretty good runner. Talk about promulgating a myth....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[John Galt]

I agree with that sentiment. I have been in the camp that felt 2017 was going to be rough no matter who was in charge but I know there are those that believe that team was primed for another great year with Demry Croft at the helm....yep.

To the other part, really the main thing was not going after a bunch of JUCO guys or transfers in order to try and quickly plug some of the gaping holes in the roster. Another might have been letting Morgan redshirt as opposed to throwing him out there as a true freshman when he wasn't ready and had very little around him.

The flipside of that is what Brohm did at Purdue where he brought in a ton of JUCO guys and transfers. Now this year they are looking at replacing a big chunk of their offense because of it.

If a coach truly isn't interested in winning right away, it will usually manifest itself in 2 ways. (1) - the coach will basically ignore Jucos and grad transfers in the recruiting process to focus exclusively on high school recruits. (2) Players on the team that were starters will be benched in favor of younger guys, i.e. the new coach's recruits. Neither of these happened under Fleck. People continue to falsely believe that PJ doesn't heavily recruit Jucos and grad transfers even though I would imagine he's averaged more per class than Kill ever did. I also can't think of a single upperclassmen who was expected to start or contribute heavily that was suddenly benched for someone who didn't appear to be significantly better.


Morgan was a true freshman when we had to endure Rhoda and Demry. Even the best of freshmen might not be ready right away, so I wouldn't say that playing a 5th year senior and 3rd year sophomore was sacrificing the season. As for Brohm, I have no idea what he's brought in for Jucos and transfers.

 

[John Galt]

Demry wasn’t great or even good but even Kirk said he had virtually zero receiving options - nobody could get off or get open. Nobody could catch the freaking ball when it did arrive. His protection was as bad or worse as we saw early in the 2018 season. He didn’t have the support of the staff or the HC. All that leads to the worst statistical season since....?

Demry!

I'm confused, I thought Claeys left PJ a "full cupboard." But now we didn't have anyone on the roster who could catch? And we were going to run the wildcat with Seth Green 50 times per game and win 10 games...

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Demry!

I'm confused, I thought Claeys left PJ a "full cupboard." But now we didn't have anyone on the roster who could catch? And we were going to run the wildcat with Seth Green 50 times per game and win 10 games...

The offense was never that great or dynamic under Kill/Claeys. However I do believe it would have been better under Claeys in 2017 than under PJ in 2017. That’s not saying much. There’s no question the offense looks poised to have a breakthrough year in 2019 due to recruiting and development and I’m excited to see it. If the defense stabilizes/improves and special teams is good we could have a special year.

None of that affects what was discussed in the prior posts.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

The stuff in bold would have been true if Claeys had still been the coach yet there are still those that maintain 2017 would have bee a good year without the coaching change. The defense might have been fine under Claeys that year but that offensive trainwreck was easy to see coming from a mile away.

I agree offense wasn’t that staff’s forte but as others pointed out different personnel and scheme may have resulted in somewhat different results. I agree the offense under PJ is trending in a better direction than what we saw over the prior regime and looks ready to take a big step forward.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

If a coach truly isn't interested in winning right away, it will usually manifest itself in 2 ways. (1) - the coach will basically ignore Jucos and grad transfers in the recruiting process to focus exclusively on high school recruits. (2) Players on the team that were starters will be benched in favor of younger guys, i.e. the new coach's recruits. Neither of these happened under Fleck. People continue to falsely believe that PJ doesn't heavily recruit Jucos and grad transfers even though I would imagine he's averaged more per class than Kill ever did. I also can't think of a single upperclassmen who was expected to start or contribute heavily that was suddenly benched for someone who didn't appear to be significantly better.


Morgan was a true freshman when we had to endure Rhoda and Demry. Even the best of freshmen might not be ready right away, so I wouldn't say that playing a 5th year senior and 3rd year sophomore was sacrificing the season. As for Brohm, I have no idea what he's brought in for Jucos and transfers.

It’s early but Claeys and Kill seemed to have good connections in the JUCO arena and brought in some talented heavy hitters and contributors that played well for us, mostly on defense. I’m a bit tired tonight and struggling to come up with any impact jucos under PJ to date although he’s had success with transfers like Williamson and Smith. Schad has some hype, Dickson looks the part. Excited to see what happens with these guys.

 

[STPGopher]

The offense was never that great or dynamic under Kill/Claeys. However I do believe it would have been better under Claeys in 2017 than under PJ in 2017. That’s not saying much. There’s no question the offense looks poised to have a breakthrough year in 2019 due to recruiting and development and I’m excited to see it. If the defense stabilizes/improves and special teams is good we could have a special year.

None of that affects what was discussed in the prior posts.

This! Different goals/ expectations. Kill/ Claeys looked to run a more conservative offense to control the clock and limit turnovers. They emphasized special teams, field position and a solid defense. They also realized that for them it was best to control the tempo and try to keep the defense fresh.

This isn't saying that Fleck isn't trying to do similar things. Just that it was what Kill/ Claeys tried to do.

 

[gopherall]

The offense was never that great or dynamic under Kill/Claeys. However I do believe it would have been better under Claeys in 2017 than under PJ in 2017. That’s not saying much. There’s no question the offense looks poised to have a breakthrough year in 2019 due to recruiting and development and I’m excited to see it. If the defense stabilizes/improves and special teams is good we could have a special year.

None of that affects what was discussed in the prior posts.

P.J. ran 8-9 total plays in 2017. He ran 3-4 route combinations and 4-5 running plays. We ran the inside zone read (read portion questionable) 80 percent of the time we ran the ball. He stripped down his playbook and took the Ls as they came.

 

[MNVCGUY]

This! Different goals/ expectations. Kill/ Claeys looked to run a more conservative offense to control the clock and limit turnovers. They emphasized special teams, field position and a solid defense. They also realized that for them it was best to control the tempo and try to keep the defense fresh.

This isn't saying that Fleck isn't trying to do similar things. Just that it was what Kill/ Claeys tried to do.

The unanswerable question of course is was the conservative offense they ran by design or was it more due to a lack of ability to find/develop playmakers on the offensive side of the ball? They did a solid job of finding RBs but their track record with QBs, WRs and to a lesser degree OL was not good. As a staff their recruiting strength was clearly on the defensive side of the ball where they found a number of solid under the radar guys.

They didn't really have the option of trying to run a dynamic offense because they simply didn't have the personnel to do it. Contrast that against what we are seeing develop right now in regards to an offense with playmakers all over the place working behind what looks like it could be a really good offensive line.