Transcript from Coach Brewster's press conference - 10/20

GopherHole Staff

GopherHole Admin
Staff member
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
5,108
Reaction score
1,259
Points
113
Thanks to GopherSports.com for posting


University of Minnesota head coach Tim Brewster met with the media Tuesday to discuss last week's game at Penn State and this week's game at Ohio State. The following is a transcript of that press conference:

COACH BREWSTER: Going back and recapping Penn State, obviously we had a tough day on the offensive side of the ball. You know, never really established any continuity to get our offense going.

In large part, I feel like it was due to an outstanding Penn State defense. Statistically, they’re the No. 1 defense in the Big 10, and they played like it last Saturday. Just a really good defensive football team.

I was pleased with our defense. I thought allowing Penn State only 20 points was an excellent job by our defense. We played very physical. Going back and looking at the tape, we got Penn State in a lot of third and long situations. Our first and second down defense was excellent. We’ve got to continue to work to improve on third down, getting off the field on third downs defensively. We’ve got to continue to work to improve staying on the field offensively on third downs.

Third down, it’s the name of the game in football, staying on the field, getting off the field. We’ve got to continue to emphasize, continue to work to get better in those areas.

Our special teams I thought again was outstanding against Penn State. Blake Haudan averaging over 50 yards a punt. Our coverage units again knocking a ball loose. Just really pleased with our special teams. So we’ve really made some progress in those areas.

Again, an outstanding football team we played last week. This week we face a very similar type of opponent. Ohio State I think is very similar to Penn State, particularly on the defensive side of the ball. They’re an outstanding defensive football team. Present a lot of the same issues, a of the same challenges. They’ve got a good collection of athletes as what we’re going to see this season.

Obviously offensively you have a guy, Terrelle Pryor, who is just an amazing threat. He’s outstanding with the ball in his hands, both as a runner and as a passer. We’ve got to do a great job of trying to contain him.

I don’t think that you’re going to stop Terrelle Pryor. He’s too talented for you to stop. But you can try to contain him and try to limit the number of big plays in which he’s involved with. But he’s got some outstanding players to throw to. They have an excellent running game.

Special teams wise, you know, they’re excellent. They do a good job. Extremely well coached football team. Present a lot of challenges for us as we prepare.

As you look at our depth chart going into this game, there won’t be any changes as far as depth chart is concerned. D.J. Burris will stay as the starting center. Trey Davis will back up D.J. Burris and Matt Carufel at right guard. Everything else remains the same. I think that’s a positive for where we’re at at this point in the season, to not have dramatic depth chart changes from week to week.

Questions.

Q. Do you think Ohio State is a more vulnerable team going into this week after the way Purdue exploited some of their weaknesses or are they tougher?

COACH BREWSTER: A lot of people have asked me that same question. Ohio State is Ohio State. I think once you establish who you are as a football team, and what I mean by that is, you’re going to play hard every week, you’re going to get their best shot every week, and I don’t think that there’s going to be extended motivation because of the loss last week against Purdue.

I think it’s very simple: they turned the ball over. There is no magic to it, there is no science to it. They turned the football over a number of times against Purdue. That’s not how you win football games, particularly on the road in the Big 10.

I anticipate us seeing what we expect to see from Ohio State, and that’s an outstanding football team. They’re playing at home. They’re playing in front of 100,000 plus fans. They’re going to be motivated. They’re going to be excited. That certainly makes it a tremendous challenge for us.

But, you know, I don’t know that there’s going to be added motivation because they lost. I’ve said from the beginning, on any given Saturday, anybody can beat anybody in the Big 10. I think that’s how this thing is shaking down. Your mental makeup as a football team is really going to determine whether or not you’ve got a true chance to win every single Saturday.

Q. When the defense isn’t getting off the field on third down, holding opponents down points wise, does that make it more difficult for the offense because there’s fewer opportunities?

COACH BREWSTER: I think you answered the question yourself. Offensive football is about opportunities. When you limit the number of opportunities that you get to run an offensive play, that certainly hurts your chances of scoring and doing things offensively. I think that’s a pretty simple answer to that question, is you want to have numerous opportunities offensively, and you want to limit the number of opportunities that they have.

Q. (Question regarding Adam Weber.)

COACH BREWSTER: He’s run the ball. The last couple of games he’s had an opportunity to run the football, and he’s done some nice things. Adam Weber has proved to be a good runner with the football. What he did last week to avoid some sacks, to only give up one sack to that Penn State defense was pretty good by our group. In large part, it was due to Adam’s ability, his ability to move around in the pocket and run with the football.

Yeah, he’ll continue to have the ball in his hands. If there’s opportunities for us to allow him to run the ball, we’ll do that.

Q. In what ways can you see a benefit to a week after going to a ranked opponent, 100,000 plus, another ranked opponent 100,000 plus?

COACH BREWSTER: It goes from the beginning of the season to where we’re at right now. Every week we’ve played a very challenging opponent. We’ve played an extremely tough schedule. I think that everybody who understands football understands that we’ve played a very challenging schedule. And I think that’s very positive for our football team.

Again, I’ve used the term, we’re a ‘battle tested’ football team. We’ve been in battles against really good football teams, against outstanding football teams. And I think that’s a benefit for our team.

Q. How similar is the Ohio State defense to the Penn State defense?

COACH BREWSTER: I think they’re very similar. I think they’re similar in some of the concepts. I think Ohio State is a little bit more aggressive, they blitz a little bit more, they zone dog a little bit more, they try to do a little bit more defensively.

But from a personnel standpoint, I think they’re very similar. I think their fronts are both outstanding. I think their linebacker play is very good. Very sound with what they try to do in the secondary with coverage.

So, you know, like I said, I think it’s going to be a very similar type of situation as far as the type of defense that we’re gonna see this week.

Q. (Question regarding Kevin Whaley.)

COACH BREWSTER: You know, again, we’re going to play three backs. Kevin started the game. He really did some nice things against Purdue, had some very productive runs. He had a couple of runs in the Penn State game. So he’s going to continue to be a guy we give the ball to, along with DeLeon and Duane both.

Q. (Question regarding determining starters.)

COACH BREWSTER: I think it has more to do with what we’re trying to accomplish with a specific run. A lot of our running game is different. Each guy does different things well. So depending upon what we’re calling at that specific time, we may have a different guy in the game.

Each guy, each one of those three guys, does things differently, does some things better than others. So what we’re trying to do is accentuate the positive with all three guys.

Q. Bennett bounced back from the fumble, do you think?

COACH BREWSTER: Yeah, I certainly think so. Yeah, I think he’s fine. Duane is a good back.

Q. After watching the film, anything that jumps out as far as areas you need improvement?

COACH BREWSTER: No, I just think that, again, in large part, you know, Penn State was better than we were. You know, again, they’re a really good defensive football team. As we look back at it, what we try to do differently, we may try to do a few things differently. You always ask yourself that question after every performance, What would I do differently? There’s certainly some things we’d try to do a little bit differently. We’d try to do some things better. That’s how we felt about it coming out of the game.

We’re just going to continue to work to improve each week in specific areas. Third down is a big emphasis for us. We need to improve on third downs. We need to create manageable third downs. So that’s a huge part of what we’re trying to get done offensively as far as our improvement.

Q. Do you feel the number and the length of the replays interfered with the flow of the game?

COACH BREWSTER: I think it does. I really do. I think multiple timeouts, you know, you have a timeout before a kickoff, you have a kickoff, then you have another timeout. A lot of those things I think take away from the game.

It’s really unfortunate that, you know, the game has been so review oriented at this particular point. I think there was three overturned calls on Saturday. You know, again, I think it is unfortunate. Again, I don’t know what we can do to really make it better. I’m really excited about the involvement of Bill Carollo in the Big Ten officiating, taking over the Big Ten officiating. I think he’s taken some very positive steps in trying to improve the overall performance of our officials and also the review process.

Q. You have done a lot this year trying to make it difficult for other teams to double up, bring somebody over on top of Eric. Is there anything more you can do or a priority to try to figure out ways to get him involved?

COACH BREWSTER: You know, I don’t think he struggled to get open. I think he’s been open. We had some great opportunities against Penn State. We didn’t take advantage of all the opportunities that we had. We’ll go into every game with a plan of how we want to try to get Eric the ball, by formation, motion and shift, try to create space for him, try to create opportunities for him.

There were opportunities there against Penn State. He made a huge play down the middle of the field. We certainly anticipate him playing really well and having opportunities against Ohio State.

Q. Terrelle Pryor, Jim Tressel said earlier today, can’t beat experience. Playing him last year was a big help for him. You’ve taken a different approach with MarQueis. Can you talk about your approach in helping him develop.

COACH BREWSTER: Everybody has to go at it at the pace that they think or playing the guys that they think give you the best chance to win. Obviously we have a really good quarterback in Adam Weber, a very experienced quarterback in Adam Weber. We have a very talented young quarterback in MarQueis Gray. I think MarQueis in time is going to be a special player. I think he’s got special talents. We’re very fortunate to be in a situation where we think we have a guy that can allow us to win football games and help us win football games as MarQueis develops.

I think that that approach is the best approach in our situation. It’s a very positive approach for us. And I think it will serve MarQueis the best in the long run.

Q. What does a young guy like that learn sitting down and watching Adam Weber?

COACH BREWSTER: I think, again, it’s all about preparation. It’s all about learning how to prepare. Young guys don’t understand truly being a student of the game and teaching Adam Weber can take MarQueis under his wing and truly teach him how to study the game and how to prepare so that success isn’t an accident.

There’s so many more things that are involved with playing the quarterback position other than just being a talented young player. And I think that the most critical thing with young quarterbacks is, when they get an opportunity to play, are you giving them a chance to be successful, truly being successful, and not having a negative experience out of the gate that you got to recover from.

So I think that’s what really allows us, with Adam, to do with MarQueis.

Q. Besides the turnovers from the Purdue/Ohio State game, what else did Purdue do well that you can replicate next week?

COACH BREWSTER: Purdue did a lot of things well. I thought they really played really good defense. They did a great job rushing the passer, forcing Terrelle Pryor to make some decisions, some quick decisions, some decisions under duress. Purdue did a great job in their secondary. They really made some plays. And the game is about, you know, play makers, players making plays. Purdue had a couple of guys step up and make big time plays in that game to really help their cause.

So, again, from what we looked at there, you know, those are some of the things. Again, Purdue offensively really did a pretty good job of throwing the football. They had a lot of success throwing the football in the game.

It’s tough sledding trying to run the football against Ohio State’s defense. Their defense is very, very good. And so those are some of the things I thought that Purdue did well to give them a chance to win.
 

Q. When the defense isn’t getting off the field on third down, holding opponents down points wise, does that make it more difficult for the offense because there’s fewer opportunities?

COACH BREWSTER: I think you answered the question yourself. Offensive football is about opportunities. When you limit the number of opportunities that you get to run an offensive play, that certainly hurts your chances of scoring and doing things offensively. I think that’s a pretty simple answer to that question, is you want to have numerous opportunities offensively, and you want to limit the number of opportunities that they have.

Why are people this dumb? Unless there are TO's you get just as many opportunities as your opponent no matter what.
 

Usually there are two or three players at the press conference fielding questions at the end. Not the case this time?

I kind of hope that they are so focused on OSU that they don't want to spend time on the media this week.
 


Q. When the defense isn’t getting off the field on third down, holding opponents down points wise, does that make it more difficult for the offense because there’s fewer opportunities?

COACH BREWSTER: I think you answered the question yourself. Offensive football is about opportunities. When you limit the number of opportunities that you get to run an offensive play, that certainly hurts your chances of scoring and doing things offensively. I think that’s a pretty simple answer to that question, is you want to have numerous opportunities offensively, and you want to limit the number of opportunities that they have.

Why are people this dumb? Unless there are TO's you get just as many opportunities as your opponent no matter what.

If you run more plays, you have more opps. YOu never have the same. If we go 3-0, we just ran less plays.
 



Why are people this dumb? Unless there are TO's you get just as many opportunities as your opponent no matter what.

In referencing "opportunities" I don't think Brewster meant possessions. I think he meant total plays. In other words, if Team A runs 70 plays on 9 possessions in the game and Team B runs 48 plays in nine possessions in the game, then Team A almost always has more chances to score.

In other words, if the defense is forcing a lot of "3-and-outs" and your offense is moving the ball well, then that means your chances of scoring increase.

And, incidentally, the Gophers are last in the nation in number of offensive plays per game on average.
 

If you run more plays, you have more opps. YOu never have the same. If we go 3-0, we just ran less plays.

Maybe we're all this stupid then. The question alluded to getting the opponents offense of the field so we'd have more opps. So unless you can tell me how our defense caused our offense to go three and out, then I'm not following. It's about possessions. They get an opportunity to score, then we get one. It always goes that way, at least as long as I've been watching football.

They capitalized on four of their opportunities and we capitalized on zero. But we each had the same number of possessions.
 

This guy is out of touch with reality: "I was pleased with our defense. I thought allowing Penn State only 20 points was an excellent job by our defense. We played very physical. Going back and looking at the tape, we got Penn State in a lot of third and long situations."

Um, no he's not. We did get Penn State in a lot of third and longs. We did really well on first and second down. Then we'd get lit for 10+ yards on third down.

At the end of the day, the defense wasn't a problem against Penn State.
 



This guy is out of touch with reality: "I was pleased with our defense. I thought allowing Penn State only 20 points was an excellent job by our defense. We played very physical. Going back and looking at the tape, we got Penn State in a lot of third and long situations."

What's wrong with that statement? If we move the ball and score on offense, our defense is more rested and maybe we win the game. Take away the bad call on the TD late in the 1st half, the score may have ended 16-0.
 

Plus if we keep the ball a bit and score maybe they miss out on a scoring opp, and maybe their field position is a little longer and they miss out on a score there as well. The pieces are all so interconnected, I can't wait until we've got a balanced team again. It's been so long.
 

G-in iowa,I'm with you. the D was on the field a large portion of the game but held their mud.
 

Maybe we're all this stupid then. The question alluded to getting the opponents offense of the field so we'd have more opps. So unless you can tell me how our defense caused our offense to go three and out, then I'm not following. It's about possessions. They get an opportunity to score, then we get one. It always goes that way, at least as long as I've been watching football.

They capitalized on four of their opportunities and we capitalized on zero. But we each had the same number of possessions.

Yes, but not all possessions are equal.

PSU ran 75 plays on nine possessions. Minnesota ran 40 plays on nine possessions. You do understand that PSU had more opportunities to score because of that, correct? Urgo, had our defense forced a few extra 3-and-outs, PSU's number of opportunities lessens. They don't extend drives to the tune of 75 plays. If our defense forces some of those drives to a quicker end, then our offense gets it back with an opportunity.

And, yes, of course our offense needs to extend a few drives, too, to help with the chances. But, the offense gets more opportunity if the defense if getting off the field at a higher level.

In essence, this is the key to football. Brewster needs his team to get off the field defensively on 3rd down and stay on the field offensively on third down. We are currently terrible in both categories, and therefore our scoring opportunities are minimized. That is what he's saying and the point he's trying to make. It is the essence of football.
 



Yes, but not all possessions are equal.

PSU ran 75 plays on nine possessions. Minnesota ran 40 plays on nine possessions. You do understand that PSU had more opportunities to score because of that, correct? Urgo, had our defense forced a few extra 3-and-outs, PSU's number of opportunities lessens. They don't extend drives to the tune of 75 plays. If our defense forces some of those drives to a quicker end, then our offense gets it back with an opportunity.

And, yes, of course our offense needs to extend a few drives, too, to help with the chances. But, the offense gets more opportunity if the defense if getting off the field at a higher level.

In essence, this is the key to football. Brewster needs his team to get off the field defensively on 3rd down and stay on the field offensively on third down. We are currently terrible in both categories, and therefore our scoring opportunities are minimized. That is what he's saying and the point he's trying to make. It is the essence of football.

No they didn't have more opportunities. They had one opportunity for each possession. No matter how many plays they ran in each posession they could only score once. The same as us. Our offense did poorly with our possessions. End of statement. Our defense had no control over our offensive performance.

From your perspective we won the game because penn state failed more than we did. We only failed 40 times, they failed 71 times. I want the Bell, you should take your data and go demand they give it up.
 


No they didn't have more opportunities. They had one opportunity for each possession. No matter how many plays they ran in each posession they could only score once. The same as us. Our offense did poorly with our possessions. End of statement. Our defense had no control over our offensive performance.

From your perspective we won the game because penn state failed more than we did. We only failed 40 times, they failed 71 times. I want the Bell, you should take your data and go demand they give it up.

I 100% disagree.

You have an opportunity to score each play. The more plays you run per possession the more likely you are to have a scoring opportunity.

If the defense can limit the other team to less plays, they have less opportunities to score. At the same time we can get more possessions and hopefully more plays on offense.

So you may think the defense has nothing to do with offense, but the more they keep the other team off the field the more possessions/plays we get.

At the same time you could argue if our offense was moving, our defense would have limited PSU to even less points. They would have been more fresh etc.
 

that's insane. Our offense has the same opportunity as theirs.

if we could play with any sort of consistency we might be able to have a disussion about field position. But clearly, our offensive ineptitude was the cause of our inability to make the most of our posessions. It also would have been the cause of any field position problems.

It's just really bad logic. We averaged slightly more than four plays per possession, for you people with math problems that means we averaged three and out (the out being the punt, and or TO). We couldn't have used any less of the clock than we did. Maybe we could have created more possessions with some earlier defensive stops. But that's just another possession for them as well. I'm not sure how many three and outs it would have taken for you to be satisfied we had enough opportunities. But as long as we get one posession to their one possession our offense had all the opportunities they deserved. I hope they never change this about football.

It's just weird to say that we didn't have offensive opportunities. You create more plays by getting first downs. Extending drives making offensive plays. We have the same opportunity as the other team. That's just the way it is. That's called sport. When we can do our job on the offensive side of the ball. we can open up the discussion to the defensive impact of field position. Until then it's just an absurd argument.
It's sheer lunacy to put any of this on the defense.
 

I never put this on the defense, but defense directly effects our offense and vice-versa.

But in your first sentence you said our offense had the same opp as theirs... which is not true because we are not playing the same defense. :)
 


No they didn't have more opportunities. They had one opportunity for each possession. No matter how many plays they ran in each posession they could only score once. The same as us. Our offense did poorly with our possessions. End of statement. Our defense had no control over our offensive performance.

From your perspective we won the game because penn state failed more than we did. We only failed 40 times, they failed 71 times. I want the Bell, you should take your data and go demand they give it up.

Okay, let me try this a different way, because clearly you are not understanding that a team that runs 75 plays has a much better chance to score more points than a team that runs 40 plays. I'm not sure why anyone would need to explain that to you, but I guess someone does.

1 - Brewster never said if our defense would get the opponent off the field quicker that it would result in more scoring opportunities for us and fewer for the opposition. We all understand that the actual possessions is usually equal in a game. That is true no matter if you have 50 3-and-outs or none, so that is not what he's arguing. He is trying to say it would provide more scoring opportunities for our offense if our defense just got off the field better. In other words, if our defense forced a few more 3-and-outs then we might have had 12 possessions instead of 9. Thus, we have more scoring opportunities in the game.

Again, I'm sorry if you can't see the easy logic here. Our defense getting them off the field in a quick and timely fashion absolutely helps us get more scoring opportunities. It does. Now, it might give PSU more scoring opportunities, too, but it gets the ball into our offense's hands.

Brewster isn't making some claim that it would provide MN with more possessions than PSU. We understand that possessions are usually equal.
 

No they didn't have more opportunities. They had one opportunity for each possession.

I'm sorry were they one-play possessions??? No, every play they extended their drives was another scoring opportunity they got that possession. Every time our defense failed on third down to force them off the field, gave PSU another scoring opportunity. In other words, every time our defense allowed them to extend a drive by converting on third down allowed PSU with another chance to score. It isn't that hard to figure out. It is the key to football really. I can't believe I'm actually trying to explain to someone why it is vitally important for a defense to force punts.
 

I'm sorry were they one-play possessions??? No, every play they extended their drives was another scoring opportunity they got that possession. Every time our defense failed on third down to force them off the field, gave PSU another scoring opportunity. It isn't that hard to figure out.

One possession one score. But even if your logic wasn't so flawed. The offense creates their own opportunities by extending the drive. The orignial point was that the Defense was somehow denying the offense opportunities and was at fault.

No where do I see any evidence that the defense was the limiting factor.

The opportunity is the chance to score, that is what is squandered. Each play is a part of that opportunity, not the entire opportunity. The score is dependent on the number of posessions, not the number of plays. The defense obiligation is to limit their score per posession, and at best improve the offenses field position. It is not to get offensive first downs.
 

The offense creates their own opportunities by extending the drive.


Exactly! That is why Brewster is saying it is so important for his defense to get PSU's offense off the field on third down. Every third down that PSU converts is another chance for them to extend the drive! Every time they extend the drive gives them a better chance to end the possession in a score. That's the entire point. You get them off the field and give your team the chance to score. The fact that PSU's offense continually extended their drives to the tune of 75 plays and that our defense couldn't get them off the field was huge. The fact that PSU's defense was continually able to get out offense off the field was huge.

And, I'm not suggesting our offense was not to blame. It was. More than our defense. I'm just trying to get into your head that our defense MUST be better on third down. And, if they are, the total number of possessions will increase, thus our scoring chances will increase. PSU had the ball for 42 minutes! MN had it for 18. Our offense was to blame for much of that. But, our defense had to do a better job, too. That's all.

Simply put, every play PSU's offense runs is a play that MN's offense doesn't get to run. So, if the MN defense can't get off the field, the MN offense is going to have fewer scores. The same basic thing happened in the Wisconsin game.
 

It's really pretty simple Schnoodler. You are speaking in relative terms. Of course both teams will always possess the ball an equal number of times. Brewster (and everyone else in this thread) are speaking in absolute terms. The faster our defense gets the other team's offense off the field, the more times we will possess the ball, and thus, have more opportunities to score. This simply cannot be argued against.
 

One possession one score. But even if your logic wasn't so flawed. The offense creates their own opportunities by extending the drive. The orignial point was that the Defense was somehow denying the offense opportunities and was at fault.

The defense was denying the offense opportunities. If they get off the field we could have had more like 15 possessions/opportunities.
 

Focus on the real issues here!

Enough with the BS regarding the definitions of opportunities. It doesn't really matter.

I'm more concerned with 2 statements from Brewster

BREWSTER: "In large part, I feel like it was due to an outstanding Penn State defense. Statistically, they’re the No. 1 defense in the Big 10, and they played like it last Saturday. Just a really good defensive football team.

I was pleased with our defense. I thought allowing Penn State only 20 points was an excellent job by our defense. We played very physical. Going back and looking at the tape, we got Penn State in a lot of third and long situations. Our first and second down defense was excellent. We’ve got to continue to work to improve on third down, getting off the field on third downs defensively. We’ve got to continue to work to improve staying on the field offensively on third downs."


My analysis is this
1. The Defense did hold PSU to only 20pts, but if they don't get better at 3rd down, nobody should state that they are pleased. All through the game I was ticked-off that the D couldn't make a stop when it counted. It's been a problem vs Wisconsin, Purdue and now PSU. How can we expect it to be any better vs. OSU?

2. The offense was putrid . No matter how many "opportunities" we want to state, they were awful. Simply blowing it off to PSU being ranked #1 in defense is a sorry excuse. We managed a measly 138 net yards and only 7 first downs!!!! That is ridiculous. Even in our worst years, we still had teams that could move the ball. No matter how good a defense, you have to be able to move the ball in some manner. Nobody should be making any excuses, the offense completely stunk and hasn't been competent all season. the I don't hold much hope for it to be better next week.


As much as I appreciate Brewsters work so far in bringing in better talent and generating some excitement about the program, I still have concerns about his & his staff's ability to manage game preparation and making gameday adjustments. If Brewster can simply utter simple statements such as those above as an excuse for poor performance, I don't hold much hope for him being the guy who can get this program over the hump.
 

Like I said yesterday, "the guy is not in touch with reality." Visit the Big 10 site, our defense is ranked 7th or lower in nearly every category. He can take that "pleased with the defense and they played physical" and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

Haha, that made me laugh.

I'm pretty sure his comments were about Saturday's game and not as a whole. Either way, it's tough for a defense to not give up a lot of yards when your offense has only three drives that go 5 plays or longer. Fact is, they held a good team to 20 points on the road when our offense couldn't do a thing.
 




Top Bottom