Where we are now.

Donate To GopherHole
O

Ole

Active member
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
2,554
Reaction score
0
Points
36
I've got a few thoughts to toss around.

1)A passing game is overrated in college football, and so is a passing QB. This isn't the NFL, some of the best players ever in this game were run first type guys.

2)I fully believe Kill and Limegrover have juiced the running game early to establish an identity. This is who we are if we can choose who we are.
Leidner by most accounts was a pass first QB in HS, did he suddenly forget to throw?
Our wideouts are certainly limited, but I fully expect a more wide open attack as the season goes on. I remember an interesting trend when I was looking into Kill/Limegrover at NIU. They really would change the emphasis of the O depending on the opponent. Lots of running by the QB one week, lots by the runningbacks the next, lots of quick passes one week, lots of deep strikes the next. It will get better.

3)Things can turn now quickly either way. Beat Iowa and the town will be buzzing. Lose and it's another Mason like NC creampuff schedule fooling everyone.
The Vikings circling the drain helps too, the cynics will smell blood soon enough, and if the Gophers go into their bye undefeated and the vikes go into theirs defeated, there's just no other way to spin the gophers than a surprise and a success.
Even the vikings payroll media will have to talk up Kill and his squad.

4)The fear of a letdown is palpable.
I have it too, but this is a team built on a running attack, a solid and versitile D, good special teams(-kicker last week), and eliminating penalties. That formula wins most of the "matchup" games when talent is even, and also is a good one for springing upsets.
Do we really fear Iowa's passing attack? Is it better than San Jose's?
Do we really fear Weisman? Maybe, but I've been impressed by the tackling and angles we've taken this year vs last.
Do we really think all this running will end in B1G play? Why? Because we're not going against NC opponents? Maybe those 10 yard QB smashes turn into 4 or 5, and the 7 yard runs turn into 3, that's ok.
Another card in our favor is the letdown last year going into the Iowa game. This team won't be thinking they're invincible like I think they did last year. All the coaches have to do is show game footage of Iowa in the first half to squash that.

5) I'm convincing myself more and more that Kill may be "the" guy. He's shown an incredible amount of determination in turning this program around. He just doesn't seem to fall into the normal TC sports formulas.
He may end up becoming a transformative figure for the U and gopher football before he's done here. We'll know more as the seasons go on, but the signs are positive.
 


Ole said:
I've got a few thoughts to toss around.

1)A passing game is overrated in college football, and so is a passing QB. This isn't the NFL, some of the best players ever in this game were run first type guys.

2)I fully believe Kill and Limegrover have juiced the running game early to establish an identity. This is who we are if we can choose who we are.
Leidner by most accounts was a pass first QB in HS, did he suddenly forget to throw?
Our wideouts are certainly limited, but I fully expect a more wide open attack as the season goes on. I remember an interesting trend when I was looking into Kill/Limegrover at NIU. They really would change the emphasis of the O depending on the opponent. Lots of running by the QB one week, lots by the runningbacks the next, lots of quick passes one week, lots of deep strikes the next. It will get better.

3)Things can turn now quickly either way. Beat Iowa and the town will be buzzing. Lose and it's another Mason like NC creampuff schedule fooling everyone.
The Vikings circling the drain helps too, the cynics will smell blood soon enough, and if the Gophers go into their bye undefeated and the vikes go into theirs defeated, there's just no other way to spin the gophers than a surprise and a success.
Even the vikings payroll media will have to talk up Kill and his squad.

4)The fear of a letdown is palpable.
I have it too, but this is a team built on a running attack, a solid and versitile D, good special teams(-kicker last week), and eliminating penalties. That formula wins most of the "matchup" games when talent is even, and also is a good one for springing upsets.
Do we really fear Iowa's passing attack? Is it better than San Jose's?
Do we really fear Weisman? Maybe, but I've been impressed by the tackling and angles we've taken this year vs last.
Do we really think all this running will end in B1G play? Why? Because we're not going against NC opponents? Maybe those 10 yard QB smashes turn into 4 or 5, and the 7 yard runs turn into 3, that's ok.
Another card in our favor is the letdown last year going into the Iowa game. This team won't be thinking they're invincible like I think they did last year. All the coaches have to do is show game footage of Iowa in the first half to squash that.

5) I'm convincing myself more and more that Kill may be "the" guy. He's shown an incredible amount of determination in turning this program around. He just doesn't seem to fall into the normal TC sports formulas.
He may end up becoming a transformative figure for the U and gopher football before he's done here. We'll know more as the seasons go on, but the signs are positive.
Click to expand...

I think the bold is spot on. There was a lot of excitement last year after starting 4-0, the Bank was rocking for Syracuse, then we got hammered by Iowa, everyone rolled their eyes and said "here we go again." If we go to 5-0 with a conference win and a trophy, it starts to create the impression that we are for real. If we lose to a weak Iowa team at home, it gives everyone a chance to say "congrats, you can beat up on a weak OOC schedule."
 

I agree with a lot of what you say, but strongly disagree that a run based team is better positioned to upset. A running team is more of a 'machine', and it should be reliable and work all game. When playing a team better than you, it's more likely that sooner or later it will break (or, to be more accurate, the stronger opponent will eventually break it given enough chances).

Basically, I believe you need a least a legit threat to pass the ball. Doesn't need to be great. Just good enough to keep it as a viable option if you find yourself behind.

My thinking is this: with a running game, against a good team, even if you play great, you are unlikely to be up by a lot. You simply don't score fast enough. Most likely your success will because you've held the ball for long drives and stopped your opponent. Good job, but the problem is the other team is always 'in it'. If they are better than you, and they have an effective passing attack and the ability to score a couple TDs in a matter of a few minutes they always have a chance. I think a team like San Jose St. is more likely to upset because they would come in and light it up and be up by a couple scores quick, or conversely, hang around and then score a load of points when the other team fails to get first downs late in the game.

Moreoever, if you are a running team and you get behind by 2 scores in the second half against a better opponent, it is highly unlikely you will come back and upset. Because again, you simply can't score fast enough if needed.

I think this is why over the decades the game has moved to more passing. The ability to score quickly at times is crucial.
 

tato2001 said:
I agree with a lot of what you say, but strongly disagree that a run based team is better positioned to upset. A running team is more of a 'machine', and it should be reliable and work all game. When playing a team better than you, it's more likely that sooner or later it will break (or, to be more accurate, the stronger opponent will eventually break it given enough chances).

Basically, I believe you need a least a legit threat to pass the ball. Doesn't need to be great. Just good enough to keep it as a viable option if you find yourself behind.

My thinking is this: with a running game, against a good team, even if you play great, you are unlikely to be up by a lot. You simply don't score fast enough. Most likely your success will because you've held the ball for long drives and stopped your opponent. Good job, but the problem is the other team is always 'in it'. If they are better than you, and they have an effective passing attack and the ability to score a couple TDs in a matter of a few minutes they always have a chance. I think a team like San Jose St. is more likely to upset because they would come in and light it up and be up by a couple scores quick, or conversely, hang around and then score a load of points when the other team fails to get first downs late in the game.

Moreoever, if you are a running team and you get behind by 2 scores in the second half against a better opponent, it is highly unlikely you will come back and upset. Because again, you simply can't score fast enough if needed.

I think this is why over the decades the game has moved to more passing. The ability to score quickly at times is crucial.
Click to expand...

Perhaps sticking with the running game was hammering in nothing but execution. Perhaps all of the game plans for the Non-con were to stick with the run and wear down all of our opponents. I don't really know, but to me that is what it looked like. The run was working, so why divert away from it?

I agree with you that the deep threat will keep you in the game, and San Jose proved they could have a deep threat. But we also scored 20 points in the first half last week and kept rolling. The more impressive thing was the defensive adjustment we made at half. TDG put it perfectly. Fales threw for 294 (!) yards in the first half. But in the third we had the ball for 13 minutes and he went 1/6 for 9 yards. That. Is. Impressive. To me, that meant the game plan called for sticking with the run and keeping Fales off the field.

We have been able to claw back when we were behind, and I haven't seen any sign of this team giving up yet this season. I have no idea what this Saturday is going to bring. Perhaps a ton of running by both teams and maybe a pass or two. Perhaps our D plays a lot like they did against UNLV and backs off to prevent the big play. I don't know. All I know is that I am excited and am hoping it will be an entertaining game all around. BRING FLOYD HOME!
 


tato2001 said:
I agree with a lot of what you say, but strongly disagree that a run based team is better positioned to upset. A running team is more of a 'machine', and it should be reliable and work all game. When playing a team better than you, it's more likely that sooner or later it will break (or, to be more accurate, the stronger opponent will eventually break it given enough chances).

Basically, I believe you need a least a legit threat to pass the ball. Doesn't need to be great. Just good enough to keep it as a viable option if you find yourself behind.

My thinking is this: with a running game, against a good team, even if you play great, you are unlikely to be up by a lot. You simply don't score fast enough. Most likely your success will because you've held the ball for long drives and stopped your opponent. Good job, but the problem is the other team is always 'in it'. If they are better than you, and they have an effective passing attack and the ability to score a couple TDs in a matter of a few minutes they always have a chance. I think a team like San Jose St. is more likely to upset because they would come in and light it up and be up by a couple scores quick, or conversely, hang around and then score a load of points when the other team fails to get first downs late in the game.

Moreoever, if you are a running team and you get behind by 2 scores in the second half against a better opponent, it is highly unlikely you will come back and upset. Because again, you simply can't score fast enough if needed.

I think this is why over the decades the game has moved to more passing. The ability to score quickly at times is crucial.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying and don't disagree with a lot of it. However, I do feel a big disadvantage of the quick scoring teams is that they don't know how to grind out the clock late in a close game.
 

tato2001 said:
I agree with a lot of what you say, but strongly disagree that a run based team is better positioned to upset. A running team is more of a 'machine', and it should be reliable and work all game. When playing a team better than you, it's more likely that sooner or later it will break (or, to be more accurate, the stronger opponent will eventually break it given enough chances).

Basically, I believe you need a least a legit threat to pass the ball. Doesn't need to be great. Just good enough to keep it as a viable option if you find yourself behind.

My thinking is this: with a running game, against a good team, even if you play great, you are unlikely to be up by a lot. You simply don't score fast enough. Most likely your success will because you've held the ball for long drives and stopped your opponent. Good job, but the problem is the other team is always 'in it'. If they are better than you, and they have an effective passing attack and the ability to score a couple TDs in a matter of a few minutes they always have a chance. I think a team like San Jose St. is more likely to upset because they would come in and light it up and be up by a couple scores quick, or conversely, hang around and then score a load of points when the other team fails to get first downs late in the game.

Moreoever, if you are a running team and you get behind by 2 scores in the second half against a better opponent, it is highly unlikely you will come back and upset. Because again, you simply can't score fast enough if needed.

I think this is why over the decades the game has moved to more passing. The ability to score quickly at times is crucial.
Click to expand...

A grinding running game can keep a lesser team "in it" longer and allow the better team to F up on special teams or turn it over. This is the wisky way in essence.
I do believe we pass more as the season goes on, and we pull out a trick play here or there. KJ Maye fly sweep pass anyone?
 

tato2001 said:
I agree with a lot of what you say, but strongly disagree that a run based team is better positioned to upset. A running team is more of a 'machine', and it should be reliable and work all game. When playing a team better than you, it's more likely that sooner or later it will break (or, to be more accurate, the stronger opponent will eventually break it given enough chances).

Basically, I believe you need a least a legit threat to pass the ball. Doesn't need to be great. Just good enough to keep it as a viable option if you find yourself behind.

My thinking is this: with a running game, against a good team, even if you play great, you are unlikely to be up by a lot. You simply don't score fast enough. Most likely your success will because you've held the ball for long drives and stopped your opponent. Good job, but the problem is the other team is always 'in it'. If they are better than you, and they have an effective passing attack and the ability to score a couple TDs in a matter of a few minutes they always have a chance. I think a team like San Jose St. is more likely to upset because they would come in and light it up and be up by a couple scores quick, or conversely, hang around and then score a load of points when the other team fails to get first downs late in the game.

Moreoever, if you are a running team and you get behind by 2 scores in the second half against a better opponent, it is highly unlikely you will come back and upset. Because again, you simply can't score fast enough if needed.

I think this is why over the decades the game has moved to more passing. The ability to score quickly at times is crucial.
Click to expand...

You certainly crafted a solid argument around your thesis, but the opposite could also be true. A weaker team that relies on the pass is a machine that relies on timing. The stronger defense will inevitably disrupt that timing, and when the timing of a passing attack is disrupted a lot worse things than ineffectiveness occurs - interceptions happen at a much higher rate than fumbles. Also, a running attack tends to 'shorten' games, while an ineffective passing offense tends to 'extend' them. Assuming the 'weaker' team has a weaker defense, they will be more exposed in an extended game (a perfect example would be the 2nd half of the SJSU game). Gophers aren't playing 'pretty' football, but I believe they are playing the sort of style that best lends itself to upsets.
 

Ole said:
A grinding running game can keep a lesser team "in it" longer and allow the better team to F up on special teams or turn it over. This is the wisky way in essence.
I do believe we pass more as the season goes on, and we pull out a trick play here or there. KJ Maye fly sweep pass anyone?
Click to expand...

Yep, I have to believe a trick play of some sort is coming. Kill likes to take risks (fake field goals, onside kicks, etc.) and we have been extremely vanilla so far. I'm also wondering if Kill is keeping one of the true freshmen in his back pocket. He's said Jones needs to keep learning and that Edwards might redshirt, but I wouldn't be surprised to see one of them quite a bit against Iowa. I expect Jamel Harbison to see some passes thrown his way as well. I just think we need some more speed/athleticism on the outside to go with our power running attack.
 



Being able to run the football and manage the clock, not making mistakes, turning the ball over or giving up big plays on special teams will keep us close in all our games this year. Let the other team make the mistakes and we capitalize.

The biggest issue is can we stop the run. If we can stop the run effectively on first down, we put teams into passing situations and can take advantage. SJSU was throwing on first down in the first half and killing us with big plays...the halftime adjustment that mattered most was coming out in nickel on first down and playing man under two deep zone and daring them to run on first down...then our LBs made plays and our line got TFLs and SJSU was looking at 2 and 8-14 instead of 2 & 2 or worse, another first down 30 yards down the field.

I don't think we will see many teams throw on first down as much as SJSU did in the first quarter...and I am guessing we were so much behind them in the first half because this was out of character from their previous two games and something they put in during their bye week.

Almost worked too.
 

tato2001 said:
I agree with a lot of what you say, but strongly disagree that a run based team is better positioned to upset. A running team is more of a 'machine', and it should be reliable and work all game. When playing a team better than you, it's more likely that sooner or later it will break (or, to be more accurate, the stronger opponent will eventually break it given enough chances).

Basically, I believe you need a least a legit threat to pass the ball. Doesn't need to be great. Just good enough to keep it as a viable option if you find yourself behind.

My thinking is this: with a running game, against a good team, even if you play great, you are unlikely to be up by a lot. You simply don't score fast enough. Most likely your success will because you've held the ball for long drives and stopped your opponent. Good job, but the problem is the other team is always 'in it'. If they are better than you, and they have an effective passing attack and the ability to score a couple TDs in a matter of a few minutes they always have a chance. I think a team like San Jose St. is more likely to upset because they would come in and light it up and be up by a couple scores quick, or conversely, hang around and then score a load of points when the other team fails to get first downs late in the game.

Moreoever, if you are a running team and you get behind by 2 scores in the second half against a better opponent, it is highly unlikely you will come back and upset. Because again, you simply can't score fast enough if needed.

I think this is why over the decades the game has moved to more passing. The ability to score quickly at times is crucial.
Click to expand...

You're not looking at the whole picture. Teams that run the ball also place a high priority on a strong defense that eliminates big plays so that they don't get down by a lot. Big play offenses are unreliable when they are forced into 8 - 10 play drives.

No system is foolproof and all it takes is a few mistakes for a game-plan to go to $hit, but what the gophers have built is a team that should be in every game so long as they don't beat themselves.
 

one of the most cogent threads of 2013.
Please do not expect the gopher game strategy to change much. The ball will be thrown when the game pattern (we are losing by 2 scores)requires it but otherwise the game plan will be what you have seen.
 

What's exciting to me is that in Kill's first year, we got blown out of the water several times, plain and simple. Last year, with the exception of the Nebraska and Iowa game (which we just were not ready for), we were within 1-2 scores of every opponent until we got physically worn down as we got deeper into the second half (Wisconsin, Michigan, MSU). This year, I don't see us getting worn down like that (strong running game!); I see us keeping the games close and pulling off an upset or two, especially if we stay away from penalties and turnovers like we have so far.

Ole, your comment about how public opinion of the Gophers hinges greatly on this Iowa game is spot on, especially since we will have very tough games on the road against Michigan and Northwestern and then a home game against Nebraska; we could find ourselves 4-4 before we know it if we don't take advantage of a home game against a not-top-echelon Iowa team and keep the positive momentum going.
 



yes and no

I agree with points 2 through 5.

1. Some of the best dual threat QB's still passed the ball decently: couch, Tebow, Major White, etc. Those top teams relied on many very quick and skilled position players to put up big points. It wasn't necessarily a ball control, kill the clock type teams.

This team looks a little different. San jose st was without their best wideout and a starting te and their 2nd best receiver killed us. If those two played and it was at San Jose St. I am not sure we win. Only stating this as a healthy San jose st. is potentially a bit like northwestern with their ability to throw the ball. They could beat some big ten teams.

We should still be able to run the ball against quality big ten opponents, but probably not get over 200 yards rushing per game in those matchups. A running qb is a big asset. But i would have rather seen us try to pass a ton more in the non-conference. It won't be getting easier to throw the ball. Max W. looks like a good young te and he should be used more. We should also use more wr and te screens. Leidner looks better than nelson to me. In a small sample he is hitting a higher % and for a longer distance.
 

As a fan base I would think we would understand what a team with a dominant run game looks like because we watched one for many years under Mason. However you have to be able to pass enough to keep defenses honest in the Big Ten. Running was always the focus of the offense under Mason but those teams could also throw when needed.

Fast forward to 2013 we have seen a running game to date that has the look of being very effective but I have seen little to nothing from the passing game that makes me think Big Ten defenses will take us seriously at all on the outside. That means they will stack the box, spy on the QB, and make it far harder to run the ball. They will also be doing it with guys that are as big or bigger than ours in most cases.

A strong run game and solid defense will take you a long way and will even let you beat some teams but to really be dangerous as an offense you need to be able to pass some as well. Lot of references have been made to this playbook we plan to open in the weeks ahead that will make our passing game more productive, I have my doubts about a quick fix to a passing attack that looks very below average but I guess we will find out in the weeks ahead.
 

Couple thoughts. To win a lot of games in college football you need the ability to both run and pass. The Gopher running game was strong in the non conference against pretty bad defensive teams that lacked the bulk and talent on the D-line to hold up over the course of the game. The Big Ten is going to be very different and the Gophers will need the ability to pass to get big first downs. I would be shocked if the Gophers don't see a ton of blitzes this year until they prove they can make teams pay.

I think what is more important in football at any level isn't the run or the pass its the tempo you want to play. Good teams can set a tempo against just about anyone which could be speeding a game up like Oregon or slowing it down and taking time. Scoring fast or slow isnt as important as being able to score one way or the other. For the Gophers controlling the clock on offense becomes important because it is probably what they have to do to be effective. It also allows the defense to rest. The Gophers can say what they want about depth but they are playing a large number of younger players on defense so keeping them off the field and well rested for when they are on the field is important. Tired players make more mental errors so keeping them as fresh as possible is big.

Gophers are going to face a big change in quality of competion Saturday and that is even with Iowa not being great. They have to be ready to play and establish their offense and they must tackle well. They also must be able to pick up first downs through the air because they will face far more third down plays than they have had all year. Against the Big Ten we will see far more 3rd and 5's or 6's than we did in the non-conference. If we can pass well enough to convert on those plays the Gophers will have turned a corner and will be able to win more than 2 games.
 

Jury is totally out until we play a physical football team.

I expect our conference opponents will think we're very soft upfront on defense.
 

We need to be able to pass competently. Otherwise, expect 8 and 9 man boxes on top of D-lines and linebackers that will be much better than the competition we've already faced. It will look a lot like the Vikings.

If we cannot pass decently, we aren't going anywhere.
 

Clark W. Griswold said:
You're not looking at the whole picture. Teams that run the ball also place a high priority on a strong defense that eliminates big plays so that they don't get down by a lot. Big play offenses are unreliable when they are forced into 8 - 10 play drives.

No system is foolproof and all it takes is a few mistakes for a game-plan to go to $hit, but what the gophers have built is a team that should be in every game so long as they don't beat themselves.
Click to expand...

This. Kill is betting on the big picture. This system will keep us close in most games and we may win 2 or 3 that we're not supposed to. The nasty side effect is that if we have an off game and get down by 3 scores, we are probably out of it. Lose the battle. Win the war. There is a cumulative effect over the course of the year.
 

march madness said:
I agree with points 2 through 5.

1. Some of the best dual threat QB's still passed the ball decently: couch, Tebow, Major White, etc. Those top teams relied on many very quick and skilled position players to put up big points. It wasn't necessarily a ball control, kill the clock type teams.

This team looks a little different. San jose st was without their best wideout and a starting te and their 2nd best receiver killed us. If those two played and it was at San Jose St. I am not sure we win. Only stating this as a healthy San jose st. is potentially a bit like northwestern with their ability to throw the ball. They could beat some big ten teams.

We should still be able to run the ball against quality big ten opponents, but probably not get over 200 yards rushing per game in those matchups. A running qb is a big asset. But i would have rather seen us try to pass a ton more in the non-conference. It won't be getting easier to throw the ball. Max W. looks like a good young te and he should be used more. We should also use more wr and te screens. Leidner looks better than nelson to me. In a small sample he is hitting a higher % and for a longer distance.
Click to expand...


We were without our starting QB, starting RB, and one of our starting CB's.
 

throw to maxx williams. Passing game solved.
 

Good post Ole and it's generated a lot of good discussion.

Only things I would add: (1) There are different types of running games and Kill's seems to be based more on flat-out pounding than the Mason approach that highlighted very mobile linemen and slashing backs. Mason didn't have the QB run this much either (except in the case of Khaliq and even then, not to this degree). I think Kill's type of running game can really take the starch out of a defense when it's effective because the physical pounding can be draining. But (2) we still have to have some semblance of a passing game. I actually think Leidner's mechanics are a bit better than Nelson's (but that is only part of the equation). I wrote yesterday that I don't think we can get an accurate read on either of these guys as passers because the receivers just don't get much separation (or adjust to the ball that well) and that puts a tremendous amount of pressure on the QB to throw perfect passes.

I'm looking forward to the game.
 

I honestly have NO idea what to make of this football team. I could see our score against Iowa ranging from 37-13 us, to 37-13 them, and everything in between. I did NOT feel good about our squad after the first three games. I felt GREAT about our squad after the fourth game. But I can't just make myself forget the first three games. But maybe those teams are better than we thought? Well, probably not...I mean WIU got crushed by UNLV, and NMSU has gotten crushed by, well, everyone. Yeah, but we were keeping it "vanilla" in those games--trying not to tip our hand. Yeah, but don't you think the staff was seriously alarmed when we were losing DEEP into the 3rd quarter against an FCS team? No, they probably knew we were wearing them down and would pull it out. And just LOOK what we did against SJSU last week! Yeah, that was cool...but maybe they're not very good either? I mean, they're only 2 years removed from losing 11 games! Yeah, but they have an NFL-type QB though. And on paper it was a pretty impressive win. Hard to say.

Well, at least we'll know a LOT more after the Iowa game. Maybe. I mean, they lost to a MAC team...but a pretty good MAC team...well last year, anyway. And they struggled against an FCS team too. But they beat a BCS team (which we haven't done yet)...but probably a very bad BCS team...
....
...
...
...
I guess what I'm saying is that I'll tell you how good our team is at the end of the year.
 

I get what you're saying and don't disagree with a lot of it. However, I do feel a big disadvantage of the quick scoring teams is that they don't know how to grind out the clock late in a close game.
Click to expand...

The second disadvantage is how quickly you put the defense back on the field.

And passing teams in the red zone with a shortened field have more trouble scoring touchdowns.
(See UNLV, SJSU, WIU)
 

Hard to say. The team looked good this past saturday.....but we still didn't see much of a passing game. Leidner looks like he will give Big Ten teams some problems. Big, mobile QB that looks to have been under-recruited. Very impressed. I assume that the team isn't handed over to Leidner quite yet.....I assume Kill and Limegrover will use a timeshare. It's the best route at this point, and will keep opposing defenses on their heels.

San Jose was a better team than the final score showed. Kill had a gameplan that worked. Run the ball and use superior size in order to control the line and time of possession. Fales was as advertised. Kid is very accurate and looks like he has an NFL future. We had a few breakdowns in the secondary which allowed for a few big plays. Shabazz had a rough day.

Anyways.....props to the Spartans. I think the officiating could have been a little better, and quite frankly.......they didn't have much of an answer for Leidner and the rushing game. They will be a factor in the MWC. The Gophers simply executed their plan. For this team to take the next step.....they will need to find a passing attack. Hopefully it has been suppressed due to the competition......but I am a little concerned at this point.
 


50PoundHead said:
Good post Ole and it's generated a lot of good discussion.

Only things I would add: (1) There are different types of running games and Kill's seems to be based more on flat-out pounding than the Mason approach that highlighted very mobile linemen and slashing backs. Mason didn't have the QB run this much either (except in the case of Khaliq and even then, not to this degree). I think Kill's type of running game can really take the starch out of a defense when it's effective because the physical pounding can be draining. But (2) we still have to have some semblance of a passing game. I actually think Leidner's mechanics are a bit better than Nelson's (but that is only part of the equation). I wrote yesterday that I don't think we can get an accurate read on either of these guys as passers because the receivers just don't get much separation (or adjust to the ball that well) and that puts a tremendous amount of pressure on the QB to throw perfect passes.

I'm looking forward to the game.
Click to expand...

The separation issue may be by design, since they are often used in second level blocking for the backs.
 

Great thread.

We do have one more element to consider. Crowd noise on Iowa possessions can make a difference.

Coach noted after SJSU that the 2:30 start should allow for some tune-up for greater crowd participation.

It did make a difference in 2010 and 2011.

Challenge for all is if the Hawks do get an early 10 or 14 point edge in the game...vocal enthusiasm drops like a rock when that happens. GH'ers will need to be leaders here.

We need the hostile crowd to add a little edge for the Gophers. The 12th Man can make the difference...

Beat the Hawks!
 

Iowa game is so crucial... win & this season is up for grabs... lose & it's here we go again...
 

thailleagle said:
Iowa game is so crucial... win & this season is up for grabs... lose & it's here we go again...
Click to expand...

But,but but what about the players? Like any fricken scandal, the players or coaches who did the wrongdoing usually aren't at the program anymore. Coaches covering up coaches molesting kids worse than someone taking $1000 for an autograph/free tattoos.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom