Yep, there are some people that just have to find something to complain about. Never quite understood the logic that we should take receptions away from Bateman/TJ in order to get more balls to the TE.
I love PJ. I am very happy with our play and outcome in 2019 (and 2021). So, I am not "complaining." But it is just a total logical fallacy that, for the Gophers to have thrown a bit more to TEs in 2019, the coaches would have to take away receptions away from Bateman and TJ. We might have had reasons not to throw much to TEs in 2019--didn't trust talent as receivers?--but it doesn't logically follow that throwing more to TEs would have decreased throws to the WRs. Offensive play calling isn't a zero sum game.
In In 2019, the Gophers attempted (per game average) 24.8 passing plays (36.5%) and 43.1 running plays (63.5%), for a total average of
67.9 plays per game.
One very simple way to increase TE opportunities without robbing the WRs is to run a few more plays instead of running the play clock down on every play. In 2019 Ohio State averaged 28.9 passing plays and 47.1 running plays per game--essentially the same run/pass ratio as the Gophers--but for a higher average of
76.0 plays per game. In 2019, the Gophers averaged 33:52 minutes time of possession; Ohio State averaged 31:46 minutes T/O/P. Speed up the pace a bit, run a few more plays, and you could have easily and significantly included Gopher TEs in the offense without robbing Bateman and TJ of passes. Of course, Ohio State runs a high-powered offense that beats you using prolific, quick-strike scoring rather than time of possession.
In 2019, Michigan and Penn State ran their offenses more like the Gophers, averaging respectively
69.3 and
67.7 plays per game. Each team, though running conservative offenses, passed more than the Gophers--by using a more balanced run/pass allocation. Michigan passed 31.5 times and ran 37.8 times per game. Penn State passed 28.4 times and ran 39.3 times per game. Using this model (essentially same conservative number of plays per game as the Gophers), several opportunities for TEs could have been found by moving to a slightly more balanced offense and borrowing a few running plays (not taking away receptions from Bateman or TJ). I concede that Michigan and Penn State, by de-emphasizing the run a bit, did lose some time of possession: Michigan had 29:31 and Penn State only 27:58 (you've got to complete some of those extra passes!) The Ohio State model--run more plays--is probably a better way to get some extra passes per game.
2019 worked well for the Gophers and I wouldn't change anything. The coaches used a run/pass allocation that suited our top-end talents and de-emphasized perceived weaknesses, and maximized time of possession by emphasizing running plays (clock doesn't stop) and by attenuating snap counts. But in 2019 we could
easily have used TEs more as receivers without robbing WRs of a single pass or reception. We just chose to utilize our TEs essentially as blockers, not receivers.
This year, I hope we throw a
lot to CAB, Dylan W and other WRs ... but hope we don't make the same choice to marginalize TEs as receivers that we did in 2019. BSF has too much talent as a tough match-up receiver to be marginalized, and we simply don't need to take throws from WRs to include BSM in the offense. It isn't a zero sum game.
