Souhan: Gophers should give Croft a look at QB

Donate To GopherHole
I don't particularly like or dislike Souhan, and I surely haven't seen much of Croft, but it doesn't take a genius to see that Mitch isn't very good. Sure he "brought" the Gophers back and won it, but don't forget, his terrible play was what put them in the hole in the first place. So why not try to see what we have in the other QBs? Even the Coaches will never know how someone will react in a real game as opposed to practice. Start Leidner, but make sure we get someone else in there, if the game is in hand, to develop them. And I'm not talking about running Streveler 20 times.
 

XMan said:
.

Exactly. We couldn't run the ball at all. Plus mitch was under fire all game. The o line was by far the biggest concern in my book. Mitch didn't play well and made some really poor throws, but the o line was the biggest problem. Some dropped passes that should have been caught didn't help either.
Click to expand...
We rushed for 144 yards even though they had nine men in the box much of the time. The O line has had problems but our QB is hurting us. Along with accuracy problems he has no pocket presence and fumbles too often.
 

FireDaveLee said:
The same people demanding Croft start in 2015 are the same people that were demanding Christian Ponder start in 2011.

The same people demanding Croft start in 2015 are the same people that will be demanding Tony Poljan start in 2017.

There is no greater sports love than that for the backup QB.

I do agree that the Streveler experiment needs to either stop or the play calling needs to expand.
Click to expand...
This is 100% true when the quarterback play is terrible.

How many Viking fans are calling for the backup this year?



As for the play calling I agree. I don't know if it matters who plays quarterback when the play calling is that horrendous. Prime example, we score first possession of the second half...finally get some rhythm...next possession team goes wildcat for 2/3 plays. Just stupid.
 

Problem is this: we don't know if Croft is ready. The coaches evaluate him every day in practice and the meeting room. If you run a young QB out there before he's ready - with a shaky o-line situation, you run the risk of getting the QB beat up, and causing him to lose confidence.

As Tom Kelly used to say with the Twins, his job was to put players in a situation where they have the highest chance of success and the lowest chance of failure.

As I've said multiple times: If Croft is clearly better than Leidner, and the coaches are not playing him, then either A. the coaches are incompetent, or B. they are deliberately trying to lose.

I think the answer is a lot simpler: Leidner is the best QB for the team AT THIS TIME. Some people don't like hearing answers they don't like. But that's part of life.
 

And a word on play-calling. I've watched sports most of my life. I've covered sports for radio stations and newspapers. I've interviewed hundreds, if not thousands of coaches.

So, here is my take on fans complaining about play-calling. If a play works, it was a good call. If a play doesn't work, it was a bad call. And, complaining about play-calling often ignores a basic fact that there are two teams on the field. The OC calls a play and the DC for the other team sets his defense. The offense wins some and the defense wins some. Yet, I almost never see threads complaining about the defensive play-calling. Why is that?
 


Some guy said:
This is 100% true when the quarterback play is terrible.

How many Viking fans are calling for the backup this year?



As for the play calling I agree. I don't know if it matters who plays quarterback when the play calling is that horrendous. Prime example, we score first possession of the second half...finally get some rhythm...next possession team goes wildcat for 2/3 plays. Just stupid.
Click to expand...

I was pissed after that. Made no sense to me.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Problem is this: we don't know if Croft is ready. The coaches evaluate him every day in practice and the meeting room. If you run a young QB out there before he's ready - with a shaky o-line situation, you run the risk of getting the QB beat up, and causing him to lose confidence.

As Tom Kelly used to say with the Twins, his job was to put players in a situation where they have the highest chance of success and the lowest chance of failure.

As I've said multiple times: If Croft is clearly better than Leidner, and the coaches are not playing him, then either A. the coaches are incompetent, or B. they are deliberately trying to lose.

I think the answer is a lot simpler: Leidner is the best QB for the team AT THIS TIME. Some people don't like hearing answers they don't like. But that's part of life.
Click to expand...

Your response is accurate, precise, realistic, and spot on. As you said, folks don't like the answer and will immediately label you as a Liedner Apologist. I'm firmly in the camp that he isn't very good, but the best option at this time. You know, the accurate, precise, realistic, and spot on opinion. It is a shame tho.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
And a word on play-calling. I've watched sports most of my life. I've covered sports for radio stations and newspapers. I've interviewed hundreds, if not thousands of coaches.

So, here is my take on fans complaining about play-calling. If a play works, it was a good call. If a play doesn't work, it was a bad call. And, complaining about play-calling often ignores a basic fact that there are two teams on the field. The OC calls a play and the DC for the other team sets his defense. The offense wins some and the defense wins some. Yet, I almost never see threads complaining about the defensive play-calling. Why is that?
Click to expand...
Because you don't pay attention?
Last year people complained about the man coverage and our corners not seeing the ball all the time.
Remember Everett withers? People didn't complain about him?



Are you saying fans can never be right to complain about play calling? Is the offensive coordinator at any point responsible for the offense being successful?


Did you really just say "the defense is trying to stop the offense, so you really can't complain if the offense gets stopped"
Because that's basically what it sounded like you are saying.
 

Some guy said:
Because you don't pay attention?
Last year people complained about the man coverage and our corners not seeing the ball all the time.
Remember Everett withers? People didn't complain about him?

Are you saying fans can never be right to complain about play calling? Is the offensive coordinator at any point responsible for the offense being successful?

Did you really just say "the defense is trying to stop the offense, so you really can't complain if the offense gets stopped"
Because that's basically what it sounded like you are saying.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that play-calling is a lot more complicated than the average fan understands. IMHO, a large % of the fans who complain about play-calling are basing their complaint on a very simplistic premise - i.e., if a play works, it was a good call. That takes execution out of the equation, and, as I tried to point out, it takes the defense out of the equation.

If the offense does not execute, and the defense does execute on a play - does that mean it was a "bad" play call? No - it means the defense was better than the offense on that play. If a RB runs the wrong way, was it a bad play call? If a WR runs the wrong route, or slips and falls down, was it a bad play call? If a defense makes a great individual play, was it a bad play call?

Any call can be a good call if the offense executes better than the defense. The Green Bay Packers under Lombardi ran the power sweep over and over again, and it worked because of execution (and good athletes).
 



So what happens when offensive plays continually not work over the course of a quarter, game, season, tenure, Etc


at what point can fans start complaining in your opinion?
 

Soupcabbie drove the truth home today. Leidner looked like he had gum on his shoes. Uffda. What a mess. If leidner wasn't the 4th quarter hero, what a mess he would be in today. Yeah, baby, the wheels on the bus didn't go "round and round." And, whatever Soupcabbie writes about Leidner is just...
 

bemidjigopher said:
Perra sucks there's a reason him and Rhoda were walkons Leidner was way better than both in high school
Click to expand...

I watched all three quite a bit in high school and Perra was the best by a wide margin. That doesn't mean he'll be effective in college but there should be no argument who the best HS QB of the three was.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
I'm saying that play-calling is a lot more complicated than the average fan understands. IMHO, a large % of the fans who complain about play-calling are basing their complaint on a very simplistic premise - i.e., if a play works, it was a good call. That takes execution out of the equation, and, as I tried to point out, it takes the defense out of the equation.
Click to expand...

Well, you would hope that is the case with our coaches, but what if... what if.. Limegrover just isn't very complicated? He's a highschool OC at best.

Streveler comes into the game... wow, so complicated. I bet the defense is shaking in their boots at the complexity of what's about to happen. I bet the average fan knows what's going to happen.
 



RolGnav said:
Streveler comes into the game... wow, so complicated. I bet the defense is shaking in their boots at the complexity of what's about to happen. I bet the average fan knows what's going to happen.
Click to expand...

Or the other team did their homework and are hoping mr one for seven tries to throw

I just want the qb that played for us in the Iowa game last year. Where did he go?
 

RolGnav said:
Well, you would hope that is the case with our coaches, but what if... what if.. Limegrover just isn't very complicated? He's a highschool OC at best.

Streveler comes into the game... wow, so complicated. I bet the defense is shaking in their boots at the complexity of what's about to happen. I bet the average fan knows what's going to happen.
Click to expand...

He was a good enough OC to make the Gophers look like a high school team 6 years ago.
 



Some guy said:
As for the play calling I agree. I don't know if it matters who plays quarterback when the play calling is that horrendous. Prime example, we score first possession of the second half...finally get some rhythm...next possession team goes wildcat for 2/3 plays. Just stupid.
Click to expand...

Run the same plays=too predictable=stupid.
Change it up=stupid.
Some of the highest paid coaches in America (NFL) put an obvious non-passing threat in the game to run a play called Wildcat because it can work if executed. short ornery norwegian hits the nail on the head: if it works it's great, if it doesn't it's stupid. lol
 

Fuzzy Rumpton said:
If he is truly taking snaps with the #2 offense, absolutely burn the shirt vs Kent State. What happens if we are in a grinder of a conference game and Mitch gets hurt? Do you take away the passing game by putting in Streveler or Croft with 0 experience? Give him a few packages to focus on this week, hope the offense gets enough distance in score and let Croft run the 4th Q offense.
Click to expand...

I don't see Croft (possibly) taking snaps with the 2's as a reason to automatically burn his redshirt. It is possible that the coaches are doing this with Croft because they believe he will be the best option to start at QB next year, and they want to get him as many reps as possible in practice to help him develop more quickly. On top of that, since Streveler is our current #2 QB and already has experience running the offense and has even started for us, the coaches may feel they know what they have with him.

Of course, this is all pure speculation in response to a tweet that may or may not be accurate. Assuming it's true, I see the pros of keeping Croft's redshirt in place outweighing the cons, at this point.

Pros:
- 4 more years of eligibility available
- 1 full year under his best in the S&C program
- 1 full season to learn the offense
- 1 full season of observing B1G football, where the coaches can help him learn from the successes and mistakes of the other QB's
- Assuming he is taking snaps with the 2's, he'll have a lot reps under his belt from practice to create and solidify his chemistry with at least some of the WRs and TEs, and maybe even OL, who would be on the field with him next year if he takes over the starting role

Cons:
- His body may not be ready to take the beating in the B1G, especially if our OL continues to be inconsistent
- It's possible that putting him in too early may actually stunt his overall development if he struggles or get's pounded early on. We don't know his mental makeup, and it's a major risk to put him in as a true Freshman when we have a QB who has been at the helm for part or all of two 8-win seasons (even if we can all agree that he's been inconsistent). Unless Mitch gets injured, there's enough blame to go around on offense between inconsistent OL play and too many WR drops of passes that were on target where it doesn't warrant demoting a winning QB.
- The best case-scenario is to have Mitch start this year, with Croft pushing him for the starting job next year as a redshirt-Freshman, which would allow the incoming QB recruit(s) to redshirt, evening out our classes a bit.

All that being said, if we do end up using Croft as the starter this year AND he helps us win games, then I'll be glad to accept that and move on. :)
 


The question has been posed several times already so I'll ask it again: "What does Lediner offer us that Croft can't as well?"

Leidner:
-knows the playbook
-is a tough competitor and leader
-is a sub par athlete
-is below average thrower

We complain that Mitch has looked bad in the beginning of games but then we are encouraged with the way he has finished games, specifically his last drive at CSU on Saturday. The issue with that is we will never get a full game out of Mitch that is like that last drive. He simply isn't a good enough QB for that. The good players, whether it be in college or the NFL, are marked by their consistency. Mitch just isn't good enough and consistent enough. His ceiling is going to be that 50-55% completion rate.

Add on top of that he simply can't make anyone miss in space when he runs and he makes terrible decisions when pressured. There is yards left on the field because of how slow he is.

Even if he does know the playbook he isn't executing it well and he is still make mistakes a freshman QB would make. (Play clock, fumbling a 4th& inches snap, checking down to Rodrick in the middle of the field vs TCU with no timeouts)

So again...What does Mitch offfer that Croft couldn't give us as well? If we have to shrink the playbook for Croft it really doesn't make much of a difference because we are so predictable anyways. This will be the best defense we've had in a long time here and it be a shame to waste it on a QB who limits the offense and puts the D in bad positions.
 

Here's my feelings. If the coaching staff does not believe Croft is ready to play in 2015, keep the redshirt. However, if they actually are on the fence about him and think he could play right now, I'd vote to pull the redshirt. As others have said, we could then give him work against Kent State and Ohio. That way he is ready to play as a back-up in the Big 10 schedule. Again, as others have said, if Streveler can not be trusted to pass the ball, he is just not a Power5 back-up we can proceed with.

And if Poljan is a good prospect, Croft playing this year would be a positive to Poljan on his signing here next February (I've read he is squishy on his commitment), knowing his potential playing time would move up a year.

I'm not losing sleep about the Croft decision, because I'm trusting the coaching staff knows what it is doing (knock on wood). This is why I had trouble choosing what to vote on in the poll. I wish there had been the third option that Gopher in Iowa had mentioned.
 

GO4INLALALAND said:
I mean this with no disrespect, but have you seen Croft play in person. .
Click to expand...

Have you seen him in person? He looks so thin that I would be afraid for his safety if he got hit. He needs a year in the weight room.
 

goldy93 said:
Have you seen him in person? He looks so thin that I would be afraid for his safety if he got hit. He needs a year in the weight room.
Click to expand...

Teddy Bridgewater was not very big coming out of high school, and was still not very big his first year in the NFL. Same goes for Mariota although he redshirted. Those are obviously two very good QBs, but they are examples of slight framed QBs who succeeded early in their careers.
 

gophers141 said:
The question has been posed several times already so I'll ask it again: "What does Lediner offer us that Croft can't as well?"
Click to expand...

A chance to win close games by being just enough better than Croft to get the job done. If coaches thought Croft gave us a 5% better chance to win he would be in there. I trust their judgement and don't buy loyalty, seniority or any other prejudice as why Mitch has the job. JK moved on Shortell, Nelson and Leidner to make things better, he would not have stopped changing at Leidner unless he had doubts that the next guys were better. Next two games will show where JK is on the issue. IF he wants a look at someone else because it's time, he will and I'd support it, if he thinks there is no reason to take a look then he has seen enough to give him pause. No one cares less about preserving redshirts than JK. People thought he was preserving red shirts by keeping those three receivers off the field last year, in hindsight it's clear he knew they weren't ready and could not help.
 

I haven't seen any of the first two games but it seems like Liedner isn't running as much as he used to. Are we not using some form of the read option? Because that is much more effective than the wildcat.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom