Wow: Kirk Ciarrocca Takes OC Job at Rutgers

Donate To GopherHole

matt said:
Hmm, I don’t think that’s enough passing to satisfy many on this board.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but I don't think most have specified any amount other than to complain about service academy ajacent ratios. Except those teams get the benefits of the triple option, while the Gophers at their worst were lining up decoys at WR and not throwing the ball for entire quarters.
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
It was 7-0, then Tanner led them on a TD drive and PJ hit the breaks (in both halves).

On tanner’s first drive, we passed three times and ran once. It ended in a TD pass (14-0).

Tanner’s second drive was the weird one at the end of the second half where PJ tried to run out the clock.

Third drive was a 3 and out, we passed twice and ran once.

Fourth drive was after the KO return, ended with a TD pass.

Fifth and sixth drives were the ones at the end of the game where pj was trying to run out the clock.

I don’t think PJ is any less conservative at the end of half and game with Athan.
Click to expand...
People on this board have a really hard time differentiating effectiveness and aggressiveness


Just because you scored doesn’t mean you were aggressive
Just because you didn’t score doesn’t mean you were conservative.

I am not sure why people struggle with that so much.
 

Some guy said:
People on this board have a really hard time differentiating effectiveness and aggressiveness


Just because you scored doesn’t mean you were aggressive
Just because you didn’t score doesn’t mean you were conservative.

I am not sure why people struggle with that so much.
Click to expand...
honestly I think it is as simple as how people view running plays vs. passing plays. to a lot of fans running = conservative, passing = aggressive.
 


MNVCGUY said:
honestly I think it is as simple as how people view running plays vs. passing plays. to a lot of fans running = conservative, passing = aggressive.
Click to expand...
Generally that is true.

But if I start the game passing 8 times and running 12 in the first 20 plays
The last 20 plays we pass 7 but run 13.

I guess we went into a shell because we ran one extra time in a third and 1 situation
 

Some guy said:
Generally that is true.

But if I start the game passing 8 times and running 12 in the first 20 plays
The last 20 plays we pass 7 but run 13.

I guess we went into a shell because we ran one extra time in a third and 1 situation
Click to expand...
There are also fans that will never be ok with the shorten the game strategy when you have a lead by not calling a bunch of passing plays and instead running to keep the clock rolling.

Those fans will always counter with....well if you stay aggressive (translation - pass) and get more first downs you can keep the clock moving that way and end up with more points....or something to that effect. Ignoring that everytime you throw and don't get completions, you stop the clock allowing the other team more time to mount a comeback.

This was big in the playing to win vs. playing not to lose thread.....I asked in there for examples of all the times the playing not to lose strategy (that is apparently a massive problem) cost us a victory and shockingly the posters doing the most complaining seemed very short on any actual examples.
 

MNVCGUY said:
There are also fans that will never be ok with the shorten the game strategy when you have a lead by not calling a bunch of passing plays and instead running to keep the clock rolling.

Those fans will always counter with....well if you stay aggressive (translation - pass) and get more first downs you can keep the clock moving that way and end up with more points....or something to that effect. Ignoring that everytime you throw and don't get completions, you stop the clock allowing the other team more time to mount a comeback.

This was big in the playing to win vs. playing not to lose thread.....I asked in there for examples of all the times the playing not to lose strategy (that is apparently a massive problem) cost us a victory and shockingly the posters doing the most complaining seemed very short on any actual examples.
Click to expand...
I think the bigger issue is fans don’t understand game flow at all.

The gophers only ran the ball 10 times in the second half.
The gopher only ran like 47 plays in the game. That’s why we didn’t throw very much.
 

U2Gopher said:
I absolutely think you are correct in this thinking, and there is a part of me, a small part of me, that doesn’t mind this because I think we can consistently win 8-9 games a year with that thinking. However, there is another part of me, the larger part, that despises this line of PJ’s thinking, and much like with Mason, the fan base will eventually tire of not being able to get over the hump and win big, at least on occasion. PJ needs to eventually realize that even he has to change his best and open things up offensively. And I don’t mean go run and shoot. But the 3 yards and a cloud of dust and mostly only throwing when you have to is not going to be able to keep up with the elite offenses of Ohio State, USC, Micigan and others. And who know what Fickell and Rhule will build at Wisconsin and Nebraska
Click to expand...
MNVCGUY said:
There are also fans that will never be ok with the shorten the game strategy when you have a lead by not calling a bunch of passing plays and instead running to keep the clock rolling.

Those fans will always counter with....well if you stay aggressive (translation - pass) and get more first downs you can keep the clock moving that way and end up with more points....or something to that effect. Ignoring that everytime you throw and don't get completions, you stop the clock allowing the other team more time to mount a comeback.

This was big in the playing to win vs. playing not to lose thread.....I asked in there for examples of all the times the playing not to lose strategy (that is apparently a massive problem) cost us a victory and shockingly the posters doing the most complaining seemed very short on any actual examples.
Click to expand...
We play to shorten the game when we’re losing. Other than a couple of examples, it’s like PJ has been a one trick pony the last two or three years regardless of the game situation.
 



Gopherchase said:
We play to shorten the game when we’re losing. Other than a couple of examples, it’s like PJ has been a one trick pony the last two or three years regardless of the game situation.
Click to expand...

You're comment wasn't applicable this year except in the Penn State White Out where MN got behind right away and was never going to come back with them "protecting" AK in his first start. The Gophs were within one score or tied in the 4th quarter in all of the three other losses. Shortening the game had no impact in those losses except for helping to keep the score low.
 

U2Gopher said:
I absolutely think you are correct in this thinking, and there is a part of me, a small part of me, that doesn’t mind this because I think we can consistently win 8-9 games a year with that thinking. However, there is another part of me, the larger part, that despises this line of PJ’s thinking, and much like with Mason, the fan base will eventually tire of not being able to get over the hump and win big, at least on occasion. PJ needs to eventually realize that even he has to change his best and open things up offensively. And I don’t mean go run and shoot. But the 3 yards and a cloud of dust and mostly only throwing when you have to is not going to be able to keep up with the elite offenses of Ohio State, USC, Micigan and others. And who know what Fickell and Rhule will build at Wisconsin and Nebraska.
Click to expand...
Derek Burns has done a good job on a couple recent podcasts explaining his thinking that winning offense is now about manufacturing explosive plays rather than consistency. Fleck (and Rossi) know this and preach limiting explosive plays on defense. But on the other side, I think what frustrates people is that Fleck seems to value consistency on offense through churning out first downs, controlling the clock, protecting the ball, etc. rather than explosive plays.

Personally, I don't think it's an "either/or" for Fleck. My contention has always been that he wants to do exactly what's needed to win on offense and NOTHING more. So if he thinks they can win by running it 70% of the time and throwing short passes that move the chains, that's what they'll do. But we've also seen plenty of games (Auburn, PSU, OSU, Wisconsin, etc.) in which they're throwing deep more often, running more play action, scheming up screens and trick plays, etc. because they sense it's gonna be tough to stay consistent and they'll need more explosive plays. I think where Fleck has gone wrong has been misjudging what's needed to win certain games and placing too much confidence in his OL and RBs because they've been VERY talented. On top of that, he's slow to adjust when it's clear the "flow" has been disrupted for whatever reason -- a team winning in the trenches or having a good plan, the OL playing poorly, an injury to a Gopher, etc. I think that's where Fleck can change his best -- not necessarily by throwing the baby out with the bathwater and changing his whole philosopy.
 

Bayfieldgopher said:
In the ideal world of PJ Fleck, I believe he would like a 40 pass/60 pass ratio with the right personnel. Take a look at WMU stats. This year we saw a bit over 32%. But only about 37% in 2019. But Fleck hasn't had a Zac Terrell to work with.

The CFB playoffs have highlighted the passing game. But I don't expect PJ to go over the deep end and change his plan. Maybe AK will develop enough to get us to the point of a more balance offense within the framework of PJ's style.
Click to expand...
Agree with all of this, and wasn't advocating for wanting to go 70% pass. Just wanted to bring up the point that PJ dictates the "identity" and "style" of the offense.
 




Dave H said:
I dont like flawed logic...and well, you post a lot so it is much more noticeable ;)

It is nothing personal, I just think you are making circular arguments on this hire because you like your guy. I get it we all do stuff like that when we have our biases but if you are going to post the same thing 12 times and ignore all the arguments against it someone will point it out to you.

Plus you are an example of the "if you dont like the guy I like you are a hater!!1!" argument which is ridiculous. I question PJ doesn't mean I hate him. I am skeptical of a lot of people but I am not locking out the idea they might be right. My gf questions me all the time I doubt she hates me...wait...bad example :p
Click to expand...
OK. Appreciate this post.

Yes, when I get going, I post a lot. I know that turns some people off.

I was assuming you were in this bizarre thing where you thought I was some other poster and therefore you hated me. I don't even know what to say to those accusations, so I mainly just ignore them.
 

CoachBrewMotivator said:
According to 247sports Matt Simon is not listed as the primary, secondary, or tertiary recruiter for either of the Kaliakmanis brothers.
Click to expand...
I find it all but impossible to believe that the WR coach had no recruiting contact with a WR recruit.

CoachBrewMotivator said:
one could speculate Simon may not want to be a coordinator. We’ve seen him be fine with being passed over before.
Click to expand...
We have no idea what "deal" was made between Simon and Fleck when Fleck hired his buddy Sanford, or what was said.

Fleck promoted Simon to "co-OC", for whatever that was worth.

I highly doubt Simon was just like "aw shucks" after being passed over for the job, when he did a great job calling the Outback bowl vs Auburn and when Fleck had already done an internal hire with Rossi.
 

Six to Eight said:
Going to have to disagree. If it was a physically limited QB that had spent years in a particular system, there could be an argument. For all the possible reasons that AK chose to Row the Boat, I doubt that a run-heavy, hold the ball strategy was the deciding factor.

My guess is AK is quite adaptable and might actually prefer a different offense, though there is still the issue of how much time do they need to implement it.

As long as we're speculating, Kirk leaving would be more reason for AK to leave than Simon getting "denied".
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

I'm with you on all but the last sentence. If that were true, AK would be off to Rutgers by now. But we have the Tweet showing he's staying put.

I don't buy for a second that AK is Kirk's guy, as was well explained by another poster since Kirk left him once for PSU, and now is leaving him again.
 

MNVCGUY said:
honestly I think it is as simple as how people view running plays vs. passing plays. to a lot of fans running = conservative, passing = aggressive.
Click to expand...
* mid to long passes = aggressive.

Short dink RPO slants I don't think are "aggressive" to most.
 

MGGopher said:
Derek Burns has done a good job on a couple recent podcasts explaining his thinking that winning offense is now about manufacturing explosive plays rather than consistency. Fleck (and Rossi) know this and preach limiting explosive plays on defense. But on the other side, I think what frustrates people is that Fleck seems to value consistency on offense through churning out first downs, controlling the clock, protecting the ball, etc. rather than explosive plays.
Click to expand...
This is interesting.

What is Fleck's "formula", something about turnovers, explosive plays, and I think one other thing, you win 70% of the time? Can't quite remember how it goes.

But was the explosive play bit more about limiting (the other team's) explosive plays, or about generating them yourself. Both of course seem crucial.

MGGopher said:
Personally, I don't think it's an "either/or" for Fleck. My contention has always been that he wants to do exactly what's needed to win on offense and NOTHING more. So if he thinks they can win by running it 70% of the time and throwing short passes that move the chains, that's what they'll do. But we've also seen plenty of games (Auburn, PSU, OSU, Wisconsin, etc.) in which they're throwing deep more often, running more play action, scheming up screens and trick plays, etc. because they sense it's gonna be tough to stay consistent and they'll need more explosive plays. I think where Fleck has gone wrong has been misjudging what's needed to win certain games and placing too much confidence in his OL and RBs because they've been VERY talented. On top of that, he's slow to adjust when it's clear the "flow" has been disrupted for whatever reason -- a team winning in the trenches or having a good plan, the OL playing poorly, an injury to a Gopher, etc. I think that's where Fleck can change his best -- not necessarily by throwing the baby out with the bathwater and changing his whole philosopy.
Click to expand...
The explosive plays against Wisconsin this year won the game.

Those plays where they would do a stupid run fake, the Wisc defender would scream in there, and AK would still somehow chuck up a great ball while getting blasted. That one to Brockington was just beautiful. Such a huge play.
 

CoachBrewMotivator said:
According to 247sports Matt Simon is not listed as the primary, secondary, or tertiary recruiter for either of the Kaliakmanis brothers.

This feels like all speculation, which in turn one could speculate Simon may not want to be a coordinator. We’ve seen him be fine with being passed over before.
Click to expand...

It's totally possible. There are probably three possibilities. 1) Simon may want his next step to be O-Coordinator. 2) Maybe he wants to be a head coach someday and it's more important for his next step to be associate head coach instead of a coordinator (e.g., Kenny Burns). 3) Maybe he loves his current position as a position coach with quasi-coordinator responsibilities.

This isn't only about Simon/OC. Fleck needs to backfill not only the OC play calling job (KC) but also the associate head coach job (Burns) in addition to the position coaches. There's all kinds of ways he could rearrange the deck chairs. We'll find out soon.
 
Last edited:

MGGopher said:
Derek Burns has done a good job on a couple recent podcasts explaining his thinking that winning offense is now about manufacturing explosive plays rather than consistency. Fleck (and Rossi) know this and preach limiting explosive plays on defense. But on the other side, I think what frustrates people is that Fleck seems to value consistency on offense through churning out first downs, controlling the clock, protecting the ball, etc. rather than explosive plays.

Personally, I don't think it's an "either/or" for Fleck. My contention has always been that he wants to do exactly what's needed to win on offense and NOTHING more. So if he thinks they can win by running it 70% of the time and throwing short passes that move the chains, that's what they'll do. But we've also seen plenty of games (Auburn, PSU, OSU, Wisconsin, etc.) in which they're throwing deep more often, running more play action, scheming up screens and trick plays, etc. because they sense it's gonna be tough to stay consistent and they'll need more explosive plays. I think where Fleck has gone wrong has been misjudging what's needed to win certain games and placing too much confidence in his OL and RBs because they've been VERY talented. On top of that, he's slow to adjust when it's clear the "flow" has been disrupted for whatever reason -- a team winning in the trenches or having a good plan, the OL playing poorly, an injury to a Gopher, etc. I think that's where Fleck can change his best -- not necessarily by throwing the baby out with the bathwater and changing his whole philosopy.
Click to expand...

Fleck's philosophy definitely includes manufacturing explosive plays on offense, or at least it did in 2019 when he preached it constantly. That's what has made the offense so frustrating to watch the last few years.

I think the lack of explosive plays the last few years is more personnel related than philosophy related. As great as Mo is, he's not an explosive RB. We've lacked explosive WRs since TJ and Bateman, and Morgan has regressed.

I believe we'll get back to a more explosive offense next year with AK, an improved WR group, and freshman RBs with more explosive potential.
 

Panthadad2 said:
It's totally possible. There are probably three possibilities. 1) Simon may want his next step to be O-Coordinator. 2) Maybe he wants to be a head coach someday and it's more important for his next step to be associate head coach instead of a coordinator (e.g., Kenny Burns). 3) Maybe he loves his current position as a position coach with quasi-coordinator responsibilities.

This isn't only about Simon/OC. Fleck needs to backfill not only the OC play calling job (KC) but also the associate head coach job (Burns) in addition to the position coaches. There's all kinds of ways he could rearrange the deck chairs. We'll find out soon.
Click to expand...
Assistant head coach could also go to a defensive assistant.

I still like the idea of bringing in a young, high-energy QB position coach, a guy who played QB in FBS, and can help the younger QB's AK and Knuth out with decision making and throwing mechanics (if needed). That guy can focus on them, and doesn't have to also worry about coming up with the game-plan.
 


Gophers_4life said:
Assistant head coach could also go to a defensive assistant.

I still like the idea of bringing in a young, high-energy QB position coach, a guy who played QB in FBS, and can help the younger QB's AK and Knuth out with decision making and throwing mechanics (if needed). That guy can focus on them, and doesn't have to also worry about coming up with the game-plan.
Click to expand...

I've seen a lot of teams with a QB coach/passing coordinators. He wouldn't necessarily need to be young, either. For example, NDSU (I hate to even mention the Bison) has Randy Hedberg in that position who has done a great job with two QB NFL draft picks. He had several decades of coaching experience and NFL playing experience when they hired him. Hedberg is too old for the Gophs now, but somebody like him could be valuable too.
 


Gophers_4life said:
Fair enough.

I'm with you on all but the last sentence. If that were true, AK would be off to Rutgers by now. But we have the Tweet showing he's staying put.

I don't buy for a second that AK is Kirk's guy, as was well explained by another poster since Kirk left him once for PSU, and now is leaving him again.
Click to expand...
That was just a comment on which seemed the more likely of the two. The chances that AK leaves before 2023 for any reason, OC-related or otherwise, are low.
 

Panthadad2 said:
It's totally possible. There are probably three possibilities. 1) Simon may want his next step to be O-Coordinator. 2) Maybe he wants to be a head coach someday and it's more important for his next step to be associate head coach instead of a coordinator (e.g., Kenny Burns). 3) Maybe he loves his current position as a position coach with quasi-coordinator responsibilities.

This isn't only about Simon/OC. Fleck needs to backfill not only the OC play calling job (KC) but also the associate head coach job (Burns) in addition to the position coaches. There's all kinds of ways he could rearrange the deck chairs. We'll find out soon.
Click to expand...
Some are saying Simon and Harbaugh are named Co/Co's and Simon still coaching WR's and Harbaugh move to QB coach.
 

MNVCGUY said:
honestly I think it is as simple as how people view running plays vs. passing plays. to a lot of fans running = conservative, passing = aggressive.
Click to expand...

I think maybe it’s more aggressive than conservative to pass if the defense is crashing the run. Running eg into the teeth of a defense expecting a rush based on past habit - with very low odds of success with anyone other than Mo - of converting a set of downs in order to avoid putting the ball in the air and potentially stopping the clock is a debatable strategy, and also an indictment of the receiver corps, I suppose.
 

EG#9 said:
I don't think anyone would even mention Simon as a candidate for the OC job if he was from Michigan as opposed to Minnesota. The WR position was arguably the weakest link of an offense that was the reason this team wasn't in the Big Ten championship game this season. In reality, we've had one standout year on offense in PJ's 6 years at the helm. Sanford being a failure is not a reason to be afraid of going outside an offensive staff that hasn't produced at level that would make you want to stick with the status quo. Would Simon be a candidate for an OC job at another Big Ten school? We know that answer to that.
Click to expand...
The QB position was the reason for our lack of success until Tanner got hurt. He had hit his ceiling.
 

MNVCGUY said:
There are also fans that will never be ok with the shorten the game strategy when you have a lead by not calling a bunch of passing plays and instead running to keep the clock rolling.

Those fans will always counter with....well if you stay aggressive (translation - pass) and get more first downs you can keep the clock moving that way and end up with more points....or something to that effect. Ignoring that everytime you throw and don't get completions, you stop the clock allowing the other team more time to mount a comeback.

This was big in the playing to win vs. playing not to lose thread.....I asked in there for examples of all the times the playing not to lose strategy (that is apparently a massive problem) cost us a victory and shockingly the posters doing the most complaining seemed very short on any actual examples.
Click to expand...
And every time you run three times then punt the other guys have control of the clock. If they are trailing they will be throwing. The clock will stop on incompletes, out of bounds after completion, and briefly on first downs.

The only way to control and run out the clock is to make first downs. This means calling both runs and passes in most cases and not being crippled by a no matter what philosophy.
 

Dakota2 said:
And every time you run three times then punt the other guys have control of the clock. If they are trailing they will be throwing. The clock will stop on incompletes, out of bounds after completion, and briefly on first downs.

The only way to control and run out the clock is to make first downs. This means calling both runs and passes in most cases and not being crippled by a no matter what philosophy.
Click to expand...
Sure but if you used the whole playclock on the 3 and out then you took close to 2 minutes off the clock. Then you force them to take the risks with the ball and trust in your very good defense to make them run a lot of plays or stop them.

Again....show me where our philosophy has caused us to lose a game we were winning.....
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom