Video: Fleck on his critics: "People who want to be negative will always be negative"

[MNVCGUY]

Josh - my point is that people talk about going to the next level as if it was some simple equation: right coach + right players + facilities + admin support = Conference Champs, National Title contenders.

if it was easy, everyone would be doing it.

it's not easy. Most teams never do it. and if most teams never do it, that means that there is a possibility the Gophers will never do it. Of course, there is a possibility they will do it. I just don't see Fleck as the guy who makes it happen. I see Fleck as more noise than substance. Maybe I'm wrong. we'll see.

But for the Gophers to go to the next level, the recruiting would have to take a quantum leap forward. High 3* players aren't going to cut it. If the Gophers are going to become this college FB juggernaut, they will have to be able to consistently recruit multiple 4* and 5* players. Or the coaches would have to pull off one of the great coaching jobs in college FB history. if you believe Fleck is capable of that, more power to you. I don't believe.

We know for a fact that Kill/Claeys could not recruit those players. Whether or not Fleck can remains to be seen but I do think there is a chance that he will be able to. I for one want to see this program keep striving to be better then just middle of the pack. And we finally seem to have an administration that is interested in trying to move things forward by paying a better salary and upgrading the facilities. Recruiting in Minnesota will always be tough because the local talent base is not good enough, you need someone like Fleck who will go after top targets and isn't just focused on finding the under recruited guys that are not getting much attention.

Maybe he will succeed and maybe he won't but I am glad the administration made the move after last season and I am excited to see what the future might hold for this program under Fleck.

 

[Zeppelin Gopher]

Mason finished with a 9 win regular season. Kill and Claeys zero times.
They did a great job, but let’s not pretend that we had never seen it before.

Mason's 9 wins teams regular seasons were achieved with cupcake nonconference schedules.

Our 8 win team in 2014 played a top 5 ranked TCU team on the road. Not a good comparison.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Very well put. Really it all swings on the Purdue and Maryland games for a number of people. Win 1 or both of those and the complaining is probably far less. There is no guarantee what-so-ever that those games were wins with Claeys in charge given the holes on the roster. Sucks to take a step back but it was going to happen with this team this year no matter who was in charge.

I agree with you and Lakeville. People just hate having to wait for next year. The best bet for next year is to relax and hope that all coaches and players stick with the program. I honestly went into the year thinking 3-9 wins. Some may laugh at that range, but if you understand that no team stays the same. nor do opponents, it makes sense. Seeing what left the program after last year and that PJ came in speaking to blow up the culture, making a bowl was my hope. We look to be falling short.

 

[#2Gopher]

Agreed...negative people are always negative and no fun to be around. They have a different way behaving in society due to their actions.

 

[Iceland12]

I would hope every Gopher fan is disappointed by the current season. That is OK. I will not criticize anyone for wanting to see more wins. I didn't expect this team to be as good as last year and I'm very disappointed in how bad it's been.

That isn't the issue. The issue is how many people just assume the team would be better with Claeys....

Could be as simple as having to listen to many people on here constantly remind us how last year's 9-4 season wasn't really any good because they didn't beat anybody "who they shouldn't have beat". Conveniently ignoring the WSU victory, and setting the mindset that victories over underdog teams shouldn't be credited to the coach. Worse yet, zero credit was given even in toss-up games and any victory that wasn't won in a going away fashion. They were discussed on here by those same people as if the Gophers lost them.

Bullsheet? Sure it was, but that constant mantra can't be so easily thrown away when the new guy hasn't been able to even do that. We also heard for years that Kill and Claeys were vastly out recruited. That point was good, but then to hear that the new guy can't win because he always is facing better talent really sounds hollow. Those guys won a few games were that "lousy talent" of their's was outranked by the guys on the other side of the field.

This year? How many games have they won were the other guy had better talent

They were also heavily criticized by people for terrible game day decisions, me included. Though they were given credit for making adjustments on defense at halftime. Thought the new guys would be much better at making adjustments and decisions during the game and as good at making those halftime adjustments. That hasn't been the case and anybody pointed that out will get heavy criticism. Not because they are wrong, but because it shouldn't even be discussed. Oh, but it is outside of the board, and i't's hard to defend.

Still happy and hopeful with Fleck, know he'll be a much better recruiter, just wish he and his staff would have shown that they could run a team that faces 9-10 Power 5 teams a year, rather than 2-3.

They've got a chance to do better yet this season. Certainly hope they can still get it done.

The fact that most people defending them refuse to even address their game day performance, let along critique it, and instead talk about how good things will be 2,3 or 4 years down the road is frustrating but understandable. What else can they do?

 

[Zeppelin Gopher]

Yes, 2003 was easily a better season than any season under Kill/Claeys. Don't know how anyone with a brain could possibly dispute that. Pretending that Kill/Claeys did anything substantially better than Mason is delusional.

That's very debatable.

In 2014 we beat Michigan @ the Big House, dropped a 51 point dick against Iowa, and beat Nebraska in Lincoln. We also dropped very competitive games at home to Ohio State (eventual national champs) and should've won in Madison.

The 2003 team was immensely talented (offensively) and beat Wisconsin at the Dome and Oregon in the Sun Bowl in our only notable wins. That team also suffered the famous Michigan Meltdown, the nasty hangover loss to Michigan State the next week, and got absolutely shellacked at Kinnick.

Relative to expectations coming in to those respective seasons, I think 2014 was a better season than 2003 was.

 

[Word]

I don't think PJ was saying the bolded part either.

He said, "People who really want to be negative will always be negative."

 

[Iceland12]

Agreed...negative people are always negative and no fun to be around. They have a different way behaving in society due to their actions.

Yeah, last couple of years the people on here have been incredibly negative, much less in the stands, but certainly on here.

 

[OddStack]

How many excuses will folks make up for him there but NOT give the same leeway to Robb Smith?

This is why:

Have you seen Smith's record as a DC...the longer he was around, the worse they got.

He's been a DC 3 times: Maine 2006-08, Rutgers 2012, Arkansas 2014-16

Maine ppg: '06=11.1 '07=20.7 '08=21.1 GOT WORSE every year

Arkansas ppg: '14= 19.2 (10/128) '15= 27.4 (68/128) '16= 31.1 (85/128) GOT WORSE every year

Now, there are other factors that go into scoring defense such as offensive turnovers in minus field position, lack of a decent O, strength of oppositon etc. However, I think there is more than enough concern from the above stats, we have a legitimate reason to worry this could be as good as it gets with him!!!!!

 

[grumps]

I'm not sold on Robb Smith yet.
I'll wait a couple years, but his record at Arkansas wasn't very good.
But Arkansas isn't doing great this year without him either. (W's and L's wise)

 

[MNVCGUY]

Could be as simple as having to listen to many people on here constantly remind us how last year's 9-4 season wasn't really any good because they didn't beat anybody "who they shouldn't have beat". Conveniently ignoring the WSU victory, and setting the mindset that victories over underdog teams shouldn't be credited to the coach. Worse yet, zero credit was given even in toss-up games and any victory that wasn't won in a going away fashion. They were discussed on here by those same people as if the Gophers lost them.

Bullsheet? Sure it was, but that constant mantra can't be so easily thrown away when the new guy hasn't been able to even do that. We also heard for years that Kill and Claeys were vastly out recruited. That point was good, but then to hear that the new guy can't win because he always is facing better talent really sounds hollow. Those guys won a few games were that "lousy talent" of their's was outranked by the guys on the other side of the field.

This year? How many games have they won were the other guy had better talent

They were also heavily criticized by people for terrible game day decisions, me included. Though they were given credit for making adjustments on defense at halftime. Thought the new guys would be much better at making adjustments and decisions during the game and as good at making those halftime adjustments. That hasn't been the case and anybody pointed that out will get heavy criticism. Not because they are wrong, but because it shouldn't even be discussed. Oh, but it is outside of the board, and i't's hard to defend.

Still happy and hopeful with Fleck, know he'll be a much better recruiter, just wish he and his staff would have shown that they could run a team that faces 9-10 Power 5 teams a year, rather than 2-3.

They've got a chance to do better yet this season. Certainly hope they can still get it done.

The fact that most people defending them refuse to even address their game day performance, let along critique it, and instead talk about how good things will be 2,3 or 4 years down the road is frustrating but understandable. What else can they do?

Clearly the game day performance has not been great, but I don't fault the coaches entirely. Much of the blame goes to the available personnel. The bottom line is I don't think it is fair to evaluate the quality of the staff when they are dealing with some very real roster issues that they were not responsible for creating.

 

[Iceland12]

Clearly the game day performance has not been great, but I don't fault the coaches entirely. Much of the blame goes to the available personnel. The bottom line is I don't think it is fair to evaluate the quality of the staff when they are dealing with some very real roster issues that they were not responsible for creating.

Very true and nor do I and it misses the point of the post. It's just that it's hard to escape the feeling that if the Gophers were 6-3 rather than 4-5 it's doubtful that people would be saying "don't give the coaching staff any credit. They just got here".

The problem is many people on Gopher Boards can't or refuse to see any faults or mistakes made by the coaching staff, no matter how minor those mistakes may be. That doesn't help the people saying that, or the coaching staff. Just makes people doubt them when they keep saying things are gonna get better.

Their credibility is always in question.

 

[joshvanklomp]

Very true and nor do I and it misses the point of the post. It's just that it's hard to escape the feeling that if the Gophers were 6-3 rather than 4-5 it's doubtful that people would be saying "don't give the coaching staff any credit. They just got here".

My outlook for the future wouldn't be any different if we were 6-3. Just like how 9-4 didn't make me feel any different about last year's staff than if we were 7-5.

My thoughts on these coaches go far deeper than 1 or 2 games or even 1 season. This is a longterm vision.

 

[GFBfan]

Clearly the game day performance has not been great, but I don't fault the coaches entirely. Much of the blame goes to the available personnel. The bottom line is I don't think it is fair to evaluate the quality of the staff when they are dealing with some very real roster issues that they were not responsible for creating.

Wasn't it PJ who said that they wouldn't be having as many injuries this year because of how he does things and how their strength coaches do things?
I know injuries aren't the only reason for some of the personnel issues, but it is a big one.
The coaches most certainly should not get all the blame for the losses, but they do deserve quite a bit of criticism for their game plans in those losses and not making adjustments to put their players in better positions to win. Running a play on offense unsuccessfully over and over again in the same game is not good coaching. Watching a defense line up to stop a certain play and not having things to counteract and take advantage of that defensive alignment is not good coaching.
Iceland12 makes some very valid points.

 

[joshvanklomp]

Wasn't it PJ who said that they wouldn't be having as many injuries this year because of how he does things and how their strength coaches do things?
I know injuries aren't the only reason for some of the personnel issues, but it is a big one.

Have there been 20 season-ending injuries? I doubt it. The injuries have just happened at spots where we are already critically low in depth.

 

[dpodoll68]

There was never much drive or attention put on trying to achieve something greater.

Based on what?

 

[GFBfan]

So should they not even try to go to the next level? The feeling for many was that Kill/Claeys were content to just win 6-9 games on a yearly basis. There was never much drive or attention put on trying to achieve something greater. Which is fine, but for folks who hoped for the potential of something more, it was a letdown.

You can call this year a letdown too. But it was never about reaching those heights in the first season. It's a process. They aren't going to sway too far from the plan they had when they got here. This probably won't be another panic move to change all systems in the offseason like other coaches have done.

As for coach telling us what bad shape the program is: do you disagree? If Big Ten titles and even competing for national titles are the goals this program is striving for, did we come into the season with a roster that was ready to compete on that level? How about now, with all our injuries? He's saying those things because they're true. We don't have the roster to compete on that level yet, and it's not going to happen overnight either.

That's why some of us predicted 5 to 7 wins this summer. We knew what we were talking about, maybe...

Don't agree with your first paragraph. Kill/Claeys were NOT content to win 6-9 games. They understood that it was going to take time to build from a low level BIG team to a middling BIG team and it was going to take time to go from a middling BIG team to even higher levels. They got us to that middling level and I believe that in the next few years would have been able to start recruiting a few more talented players that would have pushed our program to better things. They were still trending up.

This year has been a let down. There is no other way to describe it. The year wasn't about reaching new heights this season, but it also didn't need to be about dropping back to end of Brewster era and 1st year Kill levels either.

Your third paragraph is in direct contradiction to paragraph 2.

I predicted 8 wins to start the year based on a decent core group returning AND because of our new offensive coaching staff. I thought the Off. would be so much better this year, because they had a system and were going to be more creative. I have not seen that so far. I also thought the D would be similar but was worried about the secondary. So far they have played about the same with the exception of last week. The results though have not been the same, although there are still 3 games left to make some things happen yet. Very hopeful that they can put it all together here in at least one of the last three games, starting Saturday. If they only play well in one of the last three, then I would like for that to be against Vadgers to knock them out of CFP contertion.

 

[Iceland12]

My outlook for the future wouldn't be any different if we were 6-3. Just like how 9-4 didn't make me feel any different about last year's staff than if we were 7-5.

That's a pity but looking at what they've actually done this year what else can you say?

 

[PMWinSTP]

Could be as simple as having to listen to many people on here constantly remind us how last year's 9-4 season wasn't really any good because they didn't beat anybody "who they shouldn't have beat". Conveniently ignoring the WSU victory, and setting the mindset that victories over underdog teams shouldn't be credited to the coach. Worse yet, zero credit was given even in toss-up games and any victory that wasn't won in a going away fashion. They were discussed on here by those same people as if the Gophers lost them.

Bullsheet? Sure it was, but that constant mantra can't be so easily thrown away when the new guy hasn't been able to even do that. We also heard for years that Kill and Claeys were vastly out recruited. That point was good, but then to hear that the new guy can't win because he always is facing better talent really sounds hollow. Those guys won a few games were that "lousy talent" of their's was outranked by the guys on the other side of the field.

This year? How many games have they won were the other guy had better talent

They were also heavily criticized by people for terrible game day decisions, me included. Though they were given credit for making adjustments on defense at halftime. Thought the new guys would be much better at making adjustments and decisions during the game and as good at making those halftime adjustments. That hasn't been the case and anybody pointed that out will get heavy criticism. Not because they are wrong, but because it shouldn't even be discussed. Oh, but it is outside of the board, and i't's hard to defend.

Still happy and hopeful with Fleck, know he'll be a much better recruiter, just wish he and his staff would have shown that they could run a team that faces 9-10 Power 5 teams a year, rather than 2-3.

They've got a chance to do better yet this season. Certainly hope they can still get it done.

The fact that most people defending them refuse to even address their game day performance, let along critique it, and instead talk about how good things will be 2,3 or 4 years down the road is frustrating but understandable. What else can they do?

Solid....and the subsequent posts on this thread have pretty much followed the bold part. Posted this on another thread...FLeck's whole persona is based on the "Too" and "Crack" attitude he laid out in his introduction presser. Where has that gone? I hear a lot of "Too's" from him...but in the opposite way he laid it out.

 

[Some guy]

Mason's 9 wins teams regular seasons were achieved with cupcake nonconference schedules.

Our 8 win team in 2014 played a top 5 ranked TCU team on the road. Not a good comparison.

Give them a cupcake game in their place and now you have a 9-win regular season. Which, to my point, is not something we had never seen since the 60s.

 

[Some guy]

That's very debatable.

In 2014 we beat Michigan @ the Big House, dropped a 51 point dick against Iowa, and beat Nebraska in Lincoln. We also dropped very competitive games at home to Ohio State (eventual national champs) and should've won in Madison.

The 2003 team was immensely talented (offensively) and beat Wisconsin at the Dome and Oregon in the Sun Bowl in our only notable wins. That team also suffered the famous Michigan Meltdown, the nasty hangover loss to Michigan State the next week, and got absolutely shellacked at Kinnick.

Relative to expectations coming in to those respective seasons, I think 2014 was a better season than 2003 was.

Did you really just give Kill credit for “should have beat” Wisconsin while at the same time insulting Mason for having a “Michigan Meltdown”

To me those are pretty much the same thing. Games that should’ve been won that weren’t.

Mason wasn’t necessarily better than Kill. Nor was Kill better than Mason. To me they were about the same. Above average.

 

[Some guy]

This year that would mean that they'd win more than 1 Big Ten game. Something you don't care about I guess.

Saying that Kill was not as good as many think he was is not the same discussion as how good this season is.

 

[Some guy]

IMO, it is quite obvious PJ is bothered by the high level of skepticism directed towards him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When he is asked a question about people who are skeptical, what is he supposed to say to make you feel good?

 

[Spoofin]

When he is asked a question about people who are skeptical, what is he supposed to say to make you feel good?

Something about a nekton would make me feel good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Some guy]

Something about a nekton would make me feel good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So what you’re saying is that nothing he could respond to that question with would make you happy?

You may not want to read his responses then, unless your goal is to get angry.

 

[Spoofin]

So what you’re saying is that nothing he could respond to that question with would make you happy?

You may not want to read his responses then, unless your goal is to get angry.

Am I angry? I simply said in my opinion PJ is bothered that folks are skeptical of him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Some guy]

Am I angry? I simply said in my opinion PJ is bothered that folks are skeptical of him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You seem angry. Are you okay?

My opinion is that you are angry and it has just as much validity as your opinion that PJ is bothered

 

[Dano564]

Could be as simple as having to listen to many people on here constantly remind us how last year's 9-4 season wasn't really any good because they didn't beat anybody "who they shouldn't have beat". Conveniently ignoring the WSU victory, and setting the mindset that victories over underdog teams shouldn't be credited to the coach. Worse yet, zero credit was given even in toss-up games and any victory that wasn't won in a going away fashion. They were discussed on here by those same people as if the Gophers lost them.

Bullsheet? Sure it was, but that constant mantra can't be so easily thrown away when the new guy hasn't been able to even do that. We also heard for years that Kill and Claeys were vastly out recruited. That point was good, but then to hear that the new guy can't win because he always is facing better talent really sounds hollow. Those guys won a few games were that "lousy talent" of their's was outranked by the guys on the other side of the field.

This year? How many games have they won were the other guy had better talent

They were also heavily criticized by people for terrible game day decisions, me included. Though they were given credit for making adjustments on defense at halftime. Thought the new guys would be much better at making adjustments and decisions during the game and as good at making those halftime adjustments. That hasn't been the case and anybody pointed that out will get heavy criticism. Not because they are wrong, but because it shouldn't even be discussed. Oh, but it is outside of the board, and i't's hard to defend.

Still happy and hopeful with Fleck, know he'll be a much better recruiter, just wish he and his staff would have shown that they could run a team that faces 9-10 Power 5 teams a year, rather than 2-3.

They've got a chance to do better yet this season. Certainly hope they can still get it done.

The fact that most people defending them refuse to even address their game day performance, let along critique it, and instead talk about how good things will be 2,3 or 4 years down the road is frustrating but understandable. What else can they do?

I'm a Fleck defender of course.
No, he's not perfect.
I have a few criticisms too if we all just want to pile on. I'm not sure what positive it will produce, but here goes.

1. I hate marketing. I think most of the time it's mostly fluff. In business people are paid tons of money, and big contracts are awarded to market products, and 9 times out of 10, the marketing fails. It's a total waste of money. However, it's necessary, and he 1 time out of 10 that it works, it might pay for itself 100 fold. The way Fleck is marketing all of the time in everything he says is too much for my taste, but at the same time it's probably absolutely necessary. I think he does a find better communicator when he goes off-script, but for what he's being paid to do, I think he's doing a great job overall with marketing even though it's not my style. If I look at any other program that was average that turned into something solid, Oregon is the only one I can think of that really transcended it's status, and that was very largely done through marketing.

2. On the field performance. I'm not fond of running the same play 30 times a game. Maybe instead of running it 30 times they could throw a screen pass. Would the end results change? Possibly, but I don't know if at this stage if it would be a positive or a negative. Would Croft throw a good pass to the RB or would it get picked off. I have no previous sample size to say, "Hey, that play will work 60% of the time, where our run up the gut failed.
To me, the on the field decisions at this point are splitting hairs. It's not perfect by any means. But getting us to great isn't going to be done by play-calling. It will be done by faster, stronger, more skillfull (or talented?) players.
I think out-play calling someone might win you 1 out of 30 games. Talent will win you 20 out of 30.

 

[Dano564]

You seem angry. Are you okay?

My opinion is that you are angry and it has just as much validity as your opinion that PJ is bothered

My opinion is he is upset / disgruntled more than angry.
He wouldn't be rhetorically asking "Am I angry?" with the non-response answer if he wasn't upset.

That's my opinion that he is upset / disgruntled.


My opinion also is that PJ is "amused" by the criticism. That's my opinion that he's seen this type of stuff before and it "amuses" him because he gets paid a lot of money and it's amusing rather than aggravating at this point.

 

[Spoofin]

My opinion is he is upset / disgruntled more than angry.
He wouldn't be rhetorically asking "Am I angry?" with the non-response answer if he wasn't upset.

That's my opinion that he is upset / disgruntled.


My opinion also is that PJ is "amused" by the criticism. That's my opinion that he's seen this type of stuff before and it "amuses" him because he gets paid a lot of money and it's amusing rather than aggravating at this point.

Honestly, I don't even know what I would be angry or upset about? I am annoyed by virtually everything PJ says. I see through him and he annoys me. I haven't really made that a secret, have I? But upset? Angry? About what exactly?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk