We Are a Young Team

Donate To GopherHole
cjcarter8 said:
How about this? If Kill starts next season 1-6 and his team looks like a flaming pile of crap, they fire his @$$.
Click to expand...

The scenario would be that they'll lose-out the rest of this season and then only get one win out of these seven games? Five of which are at TCF? You're either very cynical or trying to set the bar below sea level.

Date Opponent Location
Thurs, Aug 28 Eastern Illinois TCF Bank Stadium
Sat, Sep 06 Middle Tennessee State TCF Bank Stadium
Sat, Sep 13 at TCU Fort Worth, Texas
Sat, Sep 20 San Jose State TCF Bank Stadium
Sat, Sep 27 at Michigan Ann Arbor, Mich.
Sat, Oct 11 Northwestern TCF Bank Stadium
Sat, Oct 18 Purdue TCF Bank Stadium
 

Iceland12 said:
The scenario would be that they'll lose-out the rest of this season and then only get one win out of these seven games? Five of which are at TCF? You're either very cynical or trying to set the bar below sea level.

Date Opponent Location
Thurs, Aug 28 Eastern Illinois TCF Bank Stadium
Sat, Sep 06 Middle Tennessee State TCF Bank Stadium
Sat, Sep 13 at TCU Fort Worth, Texas
Sat, Sep 20 San Jose State TCF Bank Stadium
Sat, Sep 27 at Michigan Ann Arbor, Mich.
Sat, Oct 11 Northwestern TCF Bank Stadium
Sat, Oct 18 Purdue TCF Bank Stadium
Click to expand...

My point is how ridiculous it is to compare the 3rd season of Brewster and Kill and then conclude that if Kill doesnt do better he should be fired. Every time this is brought up, they fail to mention Brewster's horrific 4th season. I should have done something to denote sarcasm. My apologies.

That schedule looks pretty tough but I would hope for at least 4-3, maybe better with some bounces going the Gophers way.
 

I don't worship the Rivals star system, but here's a comparison of OLs

Iowa: Blythe 4*, Walsh 4*, Bofelli 3*, Scherff 3*, and Van Sloten 2*

Us: Campion 3*, Epping 3*, Lauer 2*, Bak w/o, Christensen w/o.
 


Costa Rican Gopher said:
Minnesotans are suckers for "Aw shucks" style humility. Kill inherited a much better situation than Brewster did & many of the same people saying Kill's team is "young" wanted Brewster gone by year two for not winning. Brew got 4 years, but people are willing to give Kill 7-10. I like Kill, I can see some of the good things he's doing, but the fact is we're no better than we were under Brewster or the end of the Mason regime. Next year no one can say "We're young", or the season after. The excuse at that time will be the schedule....and probably Brewster.
Click to expand...

what??? if we're still sitting at 6-6 every year in year 7 of Kill's tenure with no blips up into 9-3 territory, he sure as heck better not still be coaching us. and if you sincerely believe this team is as bad as at the end of Brew's tenure when we lost to USD, NIU, and Purdue in that 1-6 start, then you're just fooling yourself.
 


Our 0-line is young, but they have some starts.

O-line improves with age--yes. But only up to a point.
 

upnorthkid said:
what??? if we're still sitting at 6-6 every year in year 7 of Kill's tenure with no blips up into 9-3 territory, he sure as heck better not still be coaching us. and if you sincerely believe this team is as bad as at the end of Brew's tenure when we lost to USD, NIU, and Purdue in that 1-6 start, then you're just fooling yourself.
Click to expand...

No, you and Unregistered are right about that, except for how it ended. Horton finally threw-out what didn't work and fit the Offense around what he had, not what he wanted to have in his future. He didn't have a future here. That's the thing that worries me about Kill. He got his extension and he, probably rightly, keeps talking about rebuilding the program.

Saturday he said" "Could we have changed? You can say we could have done a lot of things differently because we didn't win the game. I'm OK to be questioned for that. But we don't have a big quarterback controversy. Philip comes back, and he's healthy and ready to go, so we play him," Kill said. "Then I get all these quarterback questions. That kind of amazes me."

People are questioning why he didn't do anything to try and change things up when they weren't working Saturday and he's okay with those questions but on why he didn't take a QB out who was having a pretty bad game? He was "amazed" by that. That's what bothers a lot of us. He seems to always be "playing for the future". We'd like him to "play for the now" once and awhile.

Coaches always tell players not to look ahead, to focus on what's in front of them now. Hope he takes the same advice.
 

Iceland12 said:
No, you and Unregistered are right about that, except for how it ended. Horton finally threw-out what didn't work and fit the Offense around what he had, not what he wanted to have in his future. He didn't have a future here. That's the thing that worries me about Kill. He got his extension and he, probably rightly, keeps talking about rebuilding the program.

Saturday he said" "Could we have changed? You can say we could have done a lot of things differently because we didn't win the game. I'm OK to be questioned for that. But we don't have a big quarterback controversy. Philip comes back, and he's healthy and ready to go, so we play him," Kill said. "Then I get all these quarterback questions. That kind of amazes me."

People are questioning why he didn't do anything to try and change things up when they weren't working Saturday and he's okay with those questions but on why he didn't take a QB out who was having a pretty bad game? He was "amazed" by that. That's what bothers a lot of us. He seems to always be "playing for the future". We'd like him to "play for the now" once and awhile.

Coaches always tell players not to look ahead, to focus on what's in front of them now. Hope he takes the same advice.
Click to expand...

i can agree fully with what you're saying. very frustrating to watch a team with no real spark in front of a huge crowd just lay a brick. something needed to change in that game and it left a pretty bitter feeling in my mouth that we didn't even try change something to make a spark possible whether it was playing a new qb, dialing up some extra blitzes, throwing a reverse pass, whatever. almost like we felt content to lose since we are still building towards being good
 

Studwell55 said:
Our 0-line is young, but they have some starts.

O-line improves with age--yes. But only up to a point.
Click to expand...

Let's just take part of that equation into consideration; If the two Juniors (Bak and Epping) don't improve much next year but the Sophomores continue to improve noticeably, and then the RS FR Ben Lauer takes a sizable leap forward next year? To me, that would be a pretty formidable line for 2014.

No, age doesn't necessarily make things better, you are correct. But it also only takes one, maybe two, not pulling their weight (pardon the pun) to make a HUGE difference in the outcome of games. Starting LT Ben Lauer getting manhandled on Saturday definitely had a major impact, along with Nelson being somewhat rusty in his return.

Starting one underclassmen in the B1G on the O-Line is doable; starting two of them is probably acceptable, provided they are both SO (preferably RS SO); starting THREE underclassmen just isn't going to cut it. This year had better be the last year we see that. I expect it will be.
 




Ogee Oglethorpe said:
Let's just take part of that equation into consideration; If the two Juniors (Bak and Epping) don't improve much next year but the Sophomores continue to improve noticeably, and then the RS FR Ben Lauer takes a sizable leap forward next year? To me, that would be a pretty formidable line for 2014.

No, age doesn't necessarily make things better, you are correct. But it also only takes one, maybe two, not pulling their weight (pardon the pun) to make a HUGE difference in the outcome of games. Starting LT Ben Lauer getting manhandled on Saturday definitely had a major impact, along with Nelson being somewhat rusty in his return.

Starting one underclassmen in the B1G on the O-Line is doable; starting two of them is probably acceptable, provided they are both SO (preferably RS SO); starting THREE underclassmen just isn't going to cut it. This year had better be the last year we see that. I expect it will be.
Click to expand...

if we're starting 3 underclassmen next year (given we are healthy), something is seriously wrong with the players being developed
 

upnorthkid said:
if we're starting 3 underclassmen next year (given we are healthy), something is seriously wrong with the players being developed
Click to expand...

99 times out of 100 I would agree, but ONE possible scenario that this wouldn't be bad is that it will have meant that experienced and proven starters have been overtaken by some combination of Pirsig, Hayes, Mayes, or whomever. If by next August, one or more of those has overtaken a player like Bak, Christenson, and/or Lauer, etc, would it be THAT bad?

I don't see any way that happens but it's not out of the realm of possibility.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe said:
99 times out of 100 I would agree, but ONE possible scenario that this wouldn't be bad is that it will have meant that experienced and proven starters have been overtaken by some combination of Pirsig, Hayes, Mayes, or whomever. If by next August, one or more of those has overtaken a player like Bak, Christenson, and/or Lauer, etc, would it be THAT bad?

I don't see any way that happens but it's not out of the realm of possibility.
Click to expand...

true. just feel that a guy with more years in the weight room that had the ability to even make a B10 college roster should still be able to outcompete them. but that is a valid point
 



Iceland12 said:
Close, but the problem is for nearly 2 seasons now "hope it means success" translates into "hope he can hit that Receiver."
Click to expand...
More like "I hope he can catch that pass" But he can't. Because he is in the worst tandem of WR's in BCS (and possibly FCS) football.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
Our starting O line:
Campion - So
Bak - So
Christiensen - So
Epping - Jr
Lauer - Fr

In what football universe would this not be considered a young offensive line...much less in the big ten? Please read below and take this one opportunity to remove your head from your arse!

For comparisons sake, here are some starting O-lines for some of our future/past big ten competitors. Only Iowa, who is not considered a top echelon team this year has anything near our starting line and they still have years on us. The rest, we aren't even close.

Iowa:

Schaff - Jr
Boffeli - Sr
Blythe - So
Walsh - So
Slater - Sr

Sconnie:
Marz - So
Gray - Sr
Lewallen - Jr
Costiga - Jr
Haverston - Jr

OSU:
Mewhart - Sr
Norwell - Sr
Linsley - Sr
Hall - Sr
Decker - So

scUM:
Lewan - Sr
Glasgow - Jr
Miller - Sr
Kalis - So
Schofield - Sr

Nebraska:
Sirlas - Sr
Cotton - Jr
Pesick - Sr
Long - Sr
Rodriquez - Sr

Good Big Ten teams start Juniors and Seniors on their offensive line. Maybe one young guy filling in for an injury or a top recruit, but typically, 3, 4 of 5th year players across the front. It has been this way for as long as I have been watching football and I don't expect it to change.

You can keep ranting about how this isn't a young team, but where it counts, up front in the trenches, we are babies compared to the top teams!
Click to expand...

An excerpt from a recent strategy session for the Gophers vs. Iowa Game:

Limegrover: Jer', we're young, undersized, and relatively inexperienced up front;
Kill: I realize that Matt, what are you trying to tell me?
Limegrover: Well, we need an offensive strategy for Saturday. Their front 7 is big and strong.
Kill: What do you suggest Matt?
Limegrover: Play to our strengths.
Kill: I like that plan. So, what's it going to be?
Limegrover: Run off center, guard and tackle as much as we can.
Kill: I love it. "Gopher" it Matt!

And you wonder why fans are frustrated?
 

BreakTheGopherCurse said:
An excerpt from a recent strategy session for the Gophers vs. Iowa Game:

Limegrover: Jer', we're young, undersized, and relatively inexperienced up front;
Kill: I realize that Matt, what are you trying to tell me?
Limegrover: Well, we need an offensive strategy for Saturday. Their front 7 is big and strong.
Kill: What do you suggest Matt?
Limegrover: Play to our strengths.
Kill: I like that plan. So, what's it going to be?
Limegrover: Run off center, guard and tackle as much as we can.
Kill: I love it. "Gopher" it Matt!

And you wonder why fans are frustrated?
Click to expand...

You should post this in multiple threads. Oh wait....
 

Mick Turition said:
More like "I hope he can catch that pass" But he can't. Because he is in the worst tandem of WR's in BCS (and possibly FCS) football.
Click to expand...

Honestly, how the hell would anybody know Mick? If you're talking about getting open or getting separation maybe, but that wasn't the problem Saturday. Maybe they run some bad routes, but we don't know that in the stands either. We do know that Nelson like Shortell and Gray before him throw a "catchable" pass about what? 30-40% of the time? Last year it got to the point that people were so eager to take the side of one QB over the other that ANY pass that a Gopher could possibly touch, maybe even hear, that wasn't completed was called a drop.

Unless it was the QB they DIDN'T want. Then it was a lousy throw. :rolleyes:

I'm way more old-fashioned than that. If the Pass is heading one way and the Receiver's momentum is carrying him the other way, it's not a drop. If that Wideout has to try and strip the Interception away from the Defender, it's not a drop either.

Heck, would have preferred that the Gopher QB's going back to Weber, wouldn't insist on always stretching their Receivers "up" when they head over the middle. They're going get somebody killed that way, but I'll even take that if it works once and awhile.

Would love to see the Wideouts that San Jose State had last year. Guys that were open and could make an extraordinary catch on occasion. Gopher Fans now seem resigned to the fact that those catches need to be made on nearly every possession.
 

Iceland12 said:
Honestly, how the hell would anybody know Mick? If you're talking about getting open or getting separation maybe, but that wasn't the problem Saturday. Maybe they run some bad routes, but we don't know that in the stands either. We do know that Nelson like Shortell and Gray before him throw a "catchable" pass about what? 30-40% of the time? Last year it got to the point that people were so eager to take the side of one QB over the other that ANY pass that a Gopher could possibly touch, maybe even hear, that wasn't completed was called a drop.

Unless it was the QB they DIDN'T want. Then it was a lousy throw. :rolleyes:

I'm way more old-fashioned than that. If the Pass is heading one way and the Receiver's momentum is carrying him the other way, it's not a drop. If that Wideout has to try and strip the Interception away from the Defender, it's not a drop either.

Heck, would have preferred that the Gopher QB's going back to Weber, wouldn't insist on always stretching their Receivers "up" when they head over the middle. They're going get somebody killed that way, but I'll even take that if it works once and awhile.

Would love to see the Wideouts that San Jose State had last year. Guys that were open and could make an extraordinary catch on occasion. Gopher Fans now seem resigned to the fact that those catches need to be made on nearly every possession.
Click to expand...

Just watch football. All teams, even the best, drop passes. It's a given. Our receivers drop no more than others. Probably about average or even a little better. We haven't had a decent throwing QB in many, many years.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom