Who— leidner or Morgan as your QB ?

Donate To GopherHole


FredCoxRocks said:
Tune in tomorrow when our question is "What's your fav...Lutefisk or Grilled Salmon?"
Click to expand...
Is grilled Lutefisk an option? I've often wondered how good Lutefisk would be if it was in a good preparation system like Salmon...
 

60's Guy said:
I think Leidner was very good. He absolutely did not get the same offensive coaching as Tanner received the last couple years.
Hopefully, the new OC doesn't screw up Morgan....talking about fixing/improving his throwing motion. Wanting to assert himself as the show by changing things versus letting the players get the accolades. Don't fix what ain't broke. Time will tell.
Throwing to the tight ends and backs would improve things. Some of the other stuff could submarine us. Hopefully, the offense is best ever.
Click to expand...
‘Very good’. Everything you have just said has made everyone dumber.
 

STPGopher said:
Is grilled Lutefisk an option? I've often wondered how good Lutefisk would be if it was in a good preparation system like Salmon...
Click to expand...
Then you wouldn't have lutefisk. Lutefisk is a process. A process by which you take some whitefish, usually cod, and wrap each in some newspaper and throw them in a barrel with water and lye. Then you put the barrel out in the sun for at least a week. When you feel the time is right you open up the barrel, throw out the fish and eat the newspaper. Crazy Norwegians.
I suppose you could grill lutefisk if you wanted, but I am sure it would corrode your steel grates and/or turn your neighbors against you.
 


this thread absolutely deserves more than 2 pages. this is a very close debate.

Mitch career stats (47 games): 7287 yards, 36TD to 32 Int, 56.4% completion %, 33 Rush TDs, rivalry game (MI, WI, IA, PSU) record 2-8 + Nebraska is 4-10
Tanner career stats (22 games): 4654 yards, 39TD to 13 Int, 63.6% completion %, 2 Rush TDs, rivalry game record 2-2 + Nebraska is 3-3

See look how close it is.

In all seriousness, Mitch played very hard and loved this school. He battled through injury and adversity. He was a solid player. But he is not who you'd want as "quarterback" unless you're designing a wildcat driven offense or one you're running the ball 90% of the time with QB runs being 1/3 of them

For context on people saying its a "system" thing. Would expect Annexstand, the presumed front runner at QB previously, to have some reasonably similar stats if it is more system based. Here are his for comparison.

Zach career stats (7 games): 1277 yards, 9 TD to 7 Int, 51.9% completion %, 0 Rush TDs, rivalry game record 0-1 + Nebraska is 0-2.

Tanner is a baller who has grown into this offense and reads his progressions well. Still has occasional brain farts that you see with a young QB that Mitch never grew out of. We're lucky to have him at QB. This offense needs a QB to have ability to go through progressions and to deliver with timing and accuracy, two things that Mitch wasn't able to do in his time here. If you're trying to make the debate about leadership or being a "gamer" or leading a team to victory, go watch Tanner's several comeback drives and find me where we did that with Mitch. Some people loved praise Mitch as the "Tundra Tebow", but if you even remotely think that, go take a look at his stats and see why that's not even remotely close to true.
 
Last edited:

Mitch will forever be that QB that is good enough that there's a good chance that any other QB will be worse and likely not much better ... and yet that's not enough for some fans and to them that means most any QB would be better and they seem irrationally upset by the whole thing.

For me with Mitch, you knew what you were going to get and IMO he was always a play or two from dramatically changing how some floks perceived him, but I guess that's life as a QB.

What I was always suprised by was going into 2017 we had a disturbing number of folks who were all "Finally without Mitch ..." ...
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
Mitch will forever be that QB that is good enough that there's a good chance that any other QB will be worse and likely not much better ... and yet that's not enough for some fans and to them that means most any QB would be better and they seem irrationally upset by the whole thing.

For me with Mitch, you knew what you were going to get and IMO he was always a play or two from dramatically changing how some floks perceived him, but I guess that's life as a QB.

What I was always suprised by was going into 2017 we had a disturbing number of folks who were all "Finally without Mitch ..." ...
Click to expand...
Finally without Mitch would’ve been a better statement if the whole quarterback situation wouldn’t have been botched from the day Marquis Gray walked on campus until the day they decided to redshirt Morgan even with not great options in Rhoda and Croft.

redshirt Morgan was the first step on the road to quarterback recovery.
 

FredCoxRocks said:
Then you wouldn't have lutefisk. Lutefisk is a process. A process by which you take some whitefish, usually cod, and wrap each in some newspaper and throw them in a barrel with water and lye. Then you put the barrel out in the sun for at least a week. When you feel the time is right you open up the barrel, throw out the fish and eat the newspaper. Crazy Norwegians.
I suppose you could grill lutefisk if you wanted, but I am sure it would corrode your steel grates and/or turn your neighbors against you.
Click to expand...

Maybe I could move next to some Badger fans.;)
 



Some guy said:
Finally without Mitch would’ve been a better statement if the whole quarterback situation wouldn’t have been botched from the day Marquis Gray walked on campus until the day they decided to redshirt Morgan even with not great options in Rhoda and Croft.

redshirt Morgan was the first step on the road to quarterback recovery.
Click to expand...
The thing is the "finally without mitch" type comments just assumed that we somehow had to be better at QB because Mitch wasn't there.

Everyone loves the backup but man I don't know how much any of those folks watch football, but they must only watch teams with outstanding QBs or something.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
The thing is the "finally without mitch" type comments just assumed that we somehow had to be better at QB because Mitch wasn't there.

Everyone loves the backup but man I don't know how much any of those folks watch football, but they must only watch teams with outstanding QBs or something.
Click to expand...

Said it before and will say it again. The people who didn't like Mitch were directing their frustration and anger at the wrong person/people. Mitch was a good kid, doing the best he could, in a poorly designed offense with very few WR of any skill level to work with.

Anyone that was paying attention could see his limitations as a QB. Not his fault that Kill and his staff failed to find a better option. All Mitch could do was go out and do the best he could with what he had. Sad that so many chose to blame Mitch for something that was not his fault.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Said it before and will say it again. The people who didn't like Mitch were directing their frustration and anger at the wrong person/people. Mitch was a good kid, doing the best he could, in a poorly designed offense with very few WR of any skill level to work with.

Anyone that was paying attention could see his limitations as a QB. Not his fault that Kill and his staff failed to find a better option. All Mitch could do was go out and do the best he could with what he had. Sad that so many chose to blame Mitch for something that was not his fault.
Click to expand...
Really don't understand the hate that some have for Leidner. His stats are probably top 5-ish all time for the Gophers (believe it or not his completion % is right up there with other Gopher QBs remembered more fondly). Was by all accounts a good team guy who played injured for half his career. A better runner than passer but after his sophomore year they didn't run him as much due to injuries and lack of a viable backup.
 
Last edited:





Someone here put it correctly in a way me (never a qb) saw it. They said ML couldn’t read defenses.
 

PMWinSTP said:
I think walleye or grilled salmon is a closer analogy.
Click to expand...

Found this online:

We have a variety of fish all across the state, but fried catfish is something you can find almost anywhere. Kentucky catfish is a meal you'll want often after you have it right. There are secrets to good catfish other than the breading being just right, and Kentuckians have it down to a science.

So maybe a better analogy would be Minnesota Walleye some imperfections vs. Kentucky Catfish done right.
 

STPGopher said:
Is grilled Lutefisk an option? I've often wondered how good Lutefisk would be if it was in a good preparation system like Salmon...
Click to expand...

I'm no culinary expert, but am pretty sure even attempting to grill Lukefisk is just asking for trouble...?
 

MNVCGUY said:
Found this online:

We have a variety of fish all across the state, but fried catfish is something you can find almost anywhere. Kentucky catfish is a meal you'll want often after you have it right. There are secrets to good catfish other than the breading being just right, and Kentuckians have it down to a science.

So maybe a better analogy would be Minnesota Walleye some imperfections vs. Kentucky Catfish done right.
Click to expand...
Do they catch them by hand in KY?
 


Some guy said:
I bet he would throw less than 4 second half interceptions against Wisconsin in any offense
Click to expand...

I don't think that Morgan would last an entire game in that offense. Much less 4 years.

Leidner was asked to run through opposing linebackers regularly.

It's a dumb comparison because they really weren't put in there to play the same game.
 

Leidner does not get the credit he deserves for what he accomplished here. I would have loved to have him here for one more year while Morgan RSed. Obviously was much better than the Croft/Rhoda disaster.

But Morgan is in rarefied air for Gopher QB's. He could pretty much rewrite the record book completely if he stays 4 years.
 


I dont think it’s a fair comparison, honestly. Morgan has had better talent around him (especially at receiver), he’s benefited from far better positional coaching (as have his pass catchers), and has played in a much more balanced offensive scheme. Limegrover offenses and P5 football just do not mix.

Morgan still has work to do if he wants to start on Sundays, and I hope Sanford can help get him there. He struggles when he doesn’t have a clean pocket, he can sometimes become attached to his first read, and while he’s a great touch passer, he has to be an elite one because of his arm strength limitations.
 

hello-world said:
I don't think that Morgan would last an entire game in that offense. Much less 4 years.

Leidner was asked to run through opposing linebackers regularly.

It's a dumb comparison because they really weren't put in there to play the same game.
Click to expand...
For sure it’s dumb to compare quarterbacks from the same program in the same decade....


You know you are on a message board right?
I guess we can never compare players ever
 

Lakeville Goldy said:
Leidner does not get the credit he deserves for what he accomplished here. I would have loved to have him here for one more year while Morgan RSed. Obviously was much better than the Croft/Rhoda disaster.

But Morgan is in rarefied air for Gopher QB's. He could pretty much rewrite the record book completely if he stays 4 years.
Click to expand...
I think liedner gets the exact amount of credit.
People see him as a record holder and a battler but an average quarterback.

people see him as playing in an offense that wasn’t quarterback friendly.

people wish we had a better quarterback when he was here.

people are appreciative of him giving a great effort in his career.
 

Nothing against Mitch, by all accounts he is a good guy and his durability was commendable, yet it could be painfully frustrating at times.

That being said, did you ever watch a college football game in the the past few decades involving teams of all levels (P5, MAC, Conference USA, or even D2...it didn't matter) and there would be a QB who is lighting it up and you'd ask yourself, or anyone within earshot, "how come we can never get a guy like that!?"?

I feel like we finally have a guy like that.
 

Morgan is obvious answer.

I would take Leidner over Weber however.
 

WinLoseOrTy said:
Morgan is obvious answer.

I would take Leidner over Weber however.
Click to expand...

I liked both Leidner and Weber even though they both could be frustrating to watch. Both of those guys could have been assisted by better (and, in the case of Weber, more consistent) coaching and scheming.
 


Spaulding!No! said:
Someone here put it correctly in a way me (never a qb) saw it. They said ML couldn’t read defenses.
Click to expand...
ML never had a high football qb iq for game day. When ya think back it did look like street football on many many plays. Which is dumb at the bcs level.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom