Trust

[Iceland12]

Recall Chad Spann running over the Goph D at TCF like he was Adrian Peterson 2012? That game is a perfect example of how ClayLimeKill want the O to operate.

Good point. The real question is how often will the Gopher Offense have such a talent advantage over a Big Ten opponent the way the UNI Offense did over those Gophers?

 

[Maverick]

Once the players show the type of execution limegrover and kill demand, then they'll throw more wrinkles in. We still have many underclass men starting, if there's a talented kid not executing, he won't play for kill. Look at Cobb, perfect example. Edwards likely would bring juice to the O also, but missed too much practice to execute the plays like they expect.
We have a soph qb and a fresh qb, we have 3freshmen wr's, a freshman te is our best playmaker, we have a few ol that are 2nd year players, this will take time to develop.
The other thing I've noticed is that once the o clicks under limegrover, the play book will still vary a lot game to game depending on match ups. I saw NIU stat lines where the qb ran 15 times then 3 the next game, where the wr fly sweep was ran 5 times, with a pass mixed in, then not once the next week, etc.
This o is more complicated than I think most realize, and it's all execution and technique based. It will click eventually, maybe not until the players have 3 years under their belts though. It absolutely rolled at NIU once they got all they're starters executing like they demand.

This!!^^^^ One of the best explanations I've seen. 2014.5 and on we will be unstoppable!

 

[diefirma]

Good point. The real question is how often will the Gopher Offense have such a talent advantage over a Big Ten opponent the way the UNI Offense did over those Gophers?

I don't think NIU had a talent advantage over the Gophers. NIU executed better and was better coached.

 

[stocker08]

If you pay closer attention, the Gophers do try a few trickier plays and a few long passes per game. The reason why it looks like we aren't is because they are not converting at a decent rate. As of right now......the goal is to control the clock and keep the games low scoring. If we can do that, we should be able to stick in most games. I expect that we see a more potent passing game against Indiana, as they have a pretty bad defense and we will need to put up most than 20 points to win.

One of the things I will complain about is our lack of attack to end the half. Three games in a row now that we have looked content to run the clock down. We need to be willing to take advantage of those drives, and attempt to put points on the board. Could be the difference between a win and a loss.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Since I'm brand new here, I don't want to step into the middle of a long term battle over the offensive game plan. However, couldn't you argue that one of the reasons the passing game was efficient Saturday was because the Gophers had some success running the ball between the tackles?

A team which runs the ball well (especially in controlled, grinding offense) should see defensive schemes which will allow for efficient passing numbers. If you go away from the run and allow the defense to cover your somewhat over-matched pass catchers, you may be biting off your nose to spite your face.

You're 100% right. The OP and cncmin can't wrap their heads around this simple notion.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

If you pay closer attention, the Gophers do try a few trickier plays and a few long passes per game. The reason why it looks like we aren't is because they are not converting at a decent rate. As of right now......the goal is to control the clock and keep the games low scoring. If we can do that, we should be able to stick in most games. I expect that we see a more potent passing game against Indiana, as they have a pretty bad defense and we will need to put up most than 20 points to win.

One of the things I will complain about is our lack of attack to end the half. Three games in a row now that we have looked content to run the clock down. We need to be willing to take advantage of those drives, and attempt to put points on the board. Could be the difference between a win and a loss.

Yep, we had bad execution on a reverse that would have went for a lot of yards. We overthrew Maxx Williams on a sure big gain. Wolitarsky dropped a big gain and we had a TD taken off the board on another long pass.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Good point. The real question is how often will the Gopher Offense have such a talent advantage over a Big Ten opponent the way the UNI Offense did over those Gophers?

Are you implying that you can only succeed in run dominated offense if you have a dramatic talent advantage?

 

[Iceland12]

Are you implying that you can only succeed in run dominated offense if you have a dramatic talent advantage?

Hardly.

Are you implying that a team with a well coached Defense, that has a massive advantage in size and talent will always be beaten be a much lesser team, as long as that team runs the ball 75-80% of the time? Is that what you're implying?

 

[Iceland12]

I don't think NIU had a talent advantage over the Gophers. NIU executed better and was better coached.

That would be a distinctly minority opinion around here. Or have you missed all the "Brewster left Kill with nothing" and "Kill left UNI with plenty of talent threads?

 

[drinks at Northpoint]

The offense opened up against because we had a physical advantage against a team for the first time in a few weeks.

 

[highwayman]

If anything, the efficiency of that passing game that you lament could actually be labeled a success, and one of the main reasons the game resulted in victory. The rushing game accomplished almost nothing other than the two game-clinching first downs on the final drive, the latter of which was actually a trick running play (bootleg), not a typical "inside the box" Limegrover running play...At the very least, the team needs to start setting up some simple RB or WR screen plays or other higher-percentage passing plays; along some deep attempts mixed in every once in a while, just to keep the other team's defense honest

1. I think Minnesota passed as many times as they needed to. That's an efficiency success.

2. The long screen play to Cobb and the TD to Engel were exactly those, and very successful.

The result was victory.

 

[cncmin]

Since I'm brand new here, I don't want to step into the middle of a long term battle over the offensive game plan. However, couldn't you argue that one of the reasons the passing game was efficient Saturday was because the Gophers had some success running the ball between the tackles?
A team which runs the ball well (especially in controlled, grinding offense) should see defensive schemes which will allow for efficient passing numbers. If you go away from the run and allow the defense to cover your somewhat over-matched pass catchers, you may be biting off your nose to spite your face.

Of course you could...if the data bore that out and supported that argument. And that absolutely has not been the case at any point this year, save, perhaps, the SJSU game. The running game hasn't done much all year other than designed QB runs or QB runs off of pass plays.

 

[cncmin]

Ummmm.... I'm going to beg to differ. Whenever the Gophers run the ball 49 times, I'm going to venture to say they will win. In the two BT losses, they averaged running the ball 34 times and passing 23; in what many would consider their best two wins of the season (SJSU and NU), they averaged running it 58 times and throwing it 13.

As painful as it may be to watch at times, and whether we agree with it or not, this is the strategy they are rolling with this year. It may evolve more towards the end of the season but this is what they've elected to do with a couple of 19-20 year old QB's; minimize risk, shorten the game, wear down the opponent up front, and be in the game in the 4th quarter.

I think the injury to Nelson, while it helped the progression of Mitch, probably stalled the development of the offense for a good 3-4 weeks. Hopefully Nelson stays healthy for the rest of the way and the offense starts to hit it's stride down the stretch.

It's disingenuous to summarily dismiss the effectiveness and effects of the defense in those statements. The Gophers got to run 49 running plays largely because the defense kept the NU offense off of the field, resulting in more plays, and the passing game kept drives going by converting 1st downs.

 

[cncmin]

Yep, we had bad execution on a reverse that would have went for a lot of yards. We overthrew Maxx Williams on a sure big gain. Wolitarsky dropped a big gain and we had a TD taken off the board on another long pass.

Bob Loblaw, you make some great examples here. How many of these big play opportunities were RB calls off-center? I count zero, but somehow I must be mistaken.

 

[FanSinceTheFifties]

Ummmm.... I'm going to beg to differ. Whenever the Gophers run the ball 49 times, I'm going to venture to say they will win. In the two BT losses, they averaged running the ball 34 times and passing 23; in what many would consider their best two wins of the season (SJSU and NU), they averaged running it 58 times and throwing it 13.

As painful as it may be to watch at times, and whether we agree with it or not, this is the strategy they are rolling with this year. It may evolve more towards the end of the season but this is what they've elected to do with a couple of 19-20 year old QB's; minimize risk, shorten the game, wear down the opponent up front, and be in the game in the 4th quarter.

I think the injury to Nelson, while it helped the progression of Mitch, probably stalled the development of the offense for a good 3-4 weeks. Hopefully Nelson stays healthy for the rest of the way and the offense starts to hit it's stride down the stretch.

I don't think it's painful at all to see the ball advanced steadily with low-risk, relentless running attack -- as long as it's my team doing the advancing. It's demoralizing to the defense to be steadily facing 2nd and 4, 3rd and 2. It's not the play that's called that usually makes the difference. It's the execution of the play. My other favorite college FB team, UMD Bulldogs, wins games and championships with a run-dominant offense and it's fun to watch. As to the effectiveness of passing, I opine that when you pass is more important than how much you pass. I don't understand why more teams don't pass on 2nd and 2 or even 3rd and 1 on their end of the field. Anyway, interesting to read the ongoing debate here.

 

[littlebigboy]

Indi1006 an idiot born every minute

 

[hungan1]

Trust is not the operative word. Seasoning is.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Bob Loblaw, you make some great examples here. How many of these big play opportunities were RB calls off-center? I count zero, but somehow I must be mistaken.

Well, you should have counted zero, they were examples of plays where Limegrover "opened it up" and we lacked execution. Why on earth would you have counted any runs up the middle in that list?

However, to discuss your fumbled point. We've certainly had more big plays in our running game this year than in our passing game.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

1. I think Minnesota passed as many times as they needed to. That's an efficiency success.

2. The long screen play to Cobb and the TD to Engel were exactly those, and very successful.

The result was victory.

And. . . the deep pass to Wolitarsky, the reverse, the play called back and the Maxx Williams overthrow. We did mix in some potential big plays, we called them at the right time. Some of them worked perfectly (like the ones you mentioned) an others did not.

 

[Maximus]

The running game hasn't done much all year other than designed QB runs or QB runs off of pass plays.

The running backs have the same number of 100 yard games that they had in 13 games last year. Two more 100 yard games than the running backs had in all of 2011.

Cobb - 6 carries for 72 yards (11.5) vs. UNLV
Williams - 16 for 148 (9.2) vs. NMSU
Cobb - 9 for 56 (6.2) vs. NMSU
Williams - 10 for 56 (5.6) vs. WIU
Cobb - 25 for 128 (5.0) vs. SJSU
Cobb - 20 for 106 (5.2) vs. NW

Yards gained by a quarterback count the same as yards gained by a running back.