Minnesota Football: What can we take away from a 29 pt loss to Wisconsin
by JDMill on Nov 14, 2011 2:07 PM CST
in Gopher Football
Email
PrintSaturday was not fun. The Badgers did essentially whatever they wanted to do to our Gophers on both sides of the ball. They moved the ball at will, and they stuffed our offense all day long.
Not good times.
We're supposed to be highly against moral victories, and I get that, but with what this team has been through in the last few years, I think it's okay to look at areas where we've improved.
Jerry Kill said it numerous times in interviews last week, and he's completely right: Wisconsin is a team that is two plays away from being undefeated and a top 3 BCS team. They are a damn good football team, and they showed it to us on Saturday.
And that, I think, is something we can take away from the loss to Wisconsin. Keeping in mind that I realize this was a completely ugly game to watch, but what was ugly about this game was different than what has been ugly in the past.
Think about the Michigan game... this was a game where we got absolutely trounced on the score board and all over the field. But a good amount of the problem with the Michigan game was that we made a boatload of mistakes. Michigan is a good, solid, talented team, and certainly are better than the Gophers right now and should beat them.
What you saw against Michigan was a good football team that beat a poor football team that was making a ton of mistakes. But Michigan is not 58 points better than Minnesota... at least not 58 points better than the Gopher team we have right now.
By comparison, what I saw on Saturday in a 29-point loss to Wisconsin, wasn't a football team that didn't know what it was doing and that was making a lot of costly mistakes, but instead a team that is still immature that was beaten by a team with superior talent that executed nearly flawlessly for 4 quarters.
In other words, this game, and the 29-point difference in score, had more to do with how good and disciplined Wisconsin is, not how bad and undisciplined the Gophers are.
Although Wisconsin scored a touchdown on its opening drive, and rent-a-QB completed every pass he threw, the Gophers did an admirable job slowing down the Badgers on that drive.
MarQueis Gray did not have a great day as a QB, completing just 14 passes and throwing an interception. But off the top of my head I can think of at least 3 balls that Q threw that should have been caught. Additionally, the interception that he did throw, could, at least in part, be blamed on John Rabe for not adjusting.
From a rushing standpoint we just could not get any momentum because Wisconsin is just to big, talented and disciplined.
From a defensive perspective, we were victim to the Russell Wilson show. (And by the way, how much do the B1G announcers and studio hosts LOVE Wilson? Good heavens am I glad he's only around for a year because the love-fest rivals the old John Madden/Brett Favre infidelities.) His accuracy is sick. His play-action fake destroyed us, and the sideline was open every single time he wanted it. Besides all of that, and outside of the opening series, his offensive line gave him all day to throw the ball, and when he ran out of time he found enough room to get yards to keep the ball moving.
This is a Minnesota football team that is getting better, and they are showing signs of life in all aspects of the game (I didn't even touch on special teams which accounted for all of our points), but they ran into a team that was hitting on all cylinders on Saturday, and could probably hang with any team in the country right now. (How much would you love to see Wisconsin's offense face LSU's defense?)
Moral victory? Sure. But at least it's something.
20 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The last few games
Have left me with something to be hopeful about. Believe it or not, I left the Nebraska game thinking I was beginning to see a defense that while lacking in talent, was showing some heart and some hustle. The Iowa game had that, plus a renewed running game in the backfield and on the line. Michigan State it was all that, but pass protection that gave Gray time to throw and the sudden reemergence of a passing attack.
Unfortunately, there wasn’t anything really to add this week (unless you want to argue for the kick return game). I agree that this was a team that was just outmatched, rather than a team that was incompetent, but there wasn’t the feeling of improvement that I had been enjoying recently. Pass protection either regressed or just faced talent they couldn’t handle. But I guess the defense did about as well as can be expected.
Anyway, I guess I agree with this analysis, and we just have to stick it out.
No, I felt the same way.
The team that came out after the bye week has fought through every minute of every game, though they’ve been badly outclassed for two of those four games.
We didn’t get Indiana’d. So there’s that.
Agreed.
The big difference is that it was easy to see where the game could have been much different. Not Minnesota wins different. But I feel like if they play like they did against Iowa (which seemed like it would fall halfway between the WI and MSU games in terms of execution) you’d see the Gophers lose by 14-21 instead of seeing WI cover the spread.
Agreed.
We had them technically 3rd and long several times in that first drive (at one point, 3rd and 13). Just one mis-fire and the game changes. They are too good to misfire. 3rd and 13 didn’t phase them one bit, they got 15 yards on a simple 15 yard in. Then we have Rabe wide open, and it just doesn’t work. Not only does it not work, but it gives Wisconsin the ball back and instead of 7 for us, they score again and now we’re talking about 28-6 instead of 21-13.
I agree that in this ass-beating, we got beat pretty well across the board, but we weren’t just out there embarrassing ourselves. Michigan, Nebraska, those games started too quickly..Purdue? We just got steamrolled and couldn’t even get our pants tied by the time we were down 28-0. This game was against the best of any of those teams, and we hung in there.
We got a break or two, and we beat Iowa. We’re the kind of team this year who needs to play nearly perfectly, AND get a break, to win. USC, no breaks. Came close. MSU, not enough breaks, made some bad throws at bad times, didn’t win. Iowa, got some breaks.
NW and Illinois now….it’s gut check time. Wondering how bad Gray’s back pain/injury is. wondering what our game plan is heading to Evanston. Game is winnable, but they are fast and throw a bunch of different looks at you. Will be interesting.
I know this…your opposing QB hits on 94 FUCKING percent of his throws….you are done. Toast. He was just sitting back there shooting fish in a barrel. Sure, we sacked him a couple times…but only because he felt like holding th ball for 5-6 seconds. That statistic shows us how far we are from having a competitive defensive line. 94%!!!!!!!
Or was it McGarry?
also, Lair needs to come back on the first play from scrimmage and he had scoring potential…..
So I agree JDMILL, a lot could have been different with some simple executions. Instead of a HUGE play, Lair doesn’t adjust to the ball in flight (it was terribly underthrown, in his defense), so we go 2nd and 10, now we are fucked…and we go 3 and out. We fold.
To be nitpicky...
…Gray attempted 14 passes. He completed 6. Your point about it not all being on him remains valid. =)
You're right
I looked at the overall passing stats, not Q’s only. My mistake.
"We're talking about unchecked aggression here, Dude."
Off Tackle Empire
The Daily Gopher
@jdmill
This optimistic approach might work in the NFL
…but not here in the rich-get-richer NCAA.
If you win (like Wisconsin has been doing for years), recruits (aka: talent) will come to your program. If you lose (as we’ve been doing for years), the talent stays away.
You keep saying that your optimistic because right now, we’re only losing due to lack of talent. Well, sorry to burst your bubble but without wins, that is likely to continue.
by Jayrome007 on Nov 15, 2011 11:18 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
There are other ways
To attract talent. In particular the talent that has issues that make programs who attract a lot of talent wary. But Maturi doesn’t allow us to take any chances at all, so that door is closed to us too.
That said, if you’re old enough, you remember when Wisconsin was terrible too. Somehow they broke out of that and attracted talent and have now done so consistently for nearly two decades.
MSU was terrible for decades....
….Wisconsin was a DOORMAT playing on a concrete field. NW was a joke. Illinois was a joke. Half empty stadiums…hell..NW is still always half empty unless the visiting team fills it.
Sure, our dry spell is longer…but the fact is, all these programs needed a coaching staff and a few recruits to play above their recruited status, buying into a system, to turn around a program. The great teams are consistent. The others are average at best…then suddenly, they are playing on New Year’s Day (like Illinois, or NW).
Rarely is it a 5 star guy who turns around a program. It’s 1 star or 2 star guys who over-achieve, along with good coaching and a little bit of luck….that’s what turns around a program. It’s also lack of turnover that helps. A “one-hit wonder” won’t get it done…need stability.
So my optimism is giving this particular coaching staff more recruiting tools than they’ve ever had (U of M, Big 10 conference, new stadium, up and coming city, clean program, etc.), along with their proven successful track record and CLEAR respect from the entire coaching community (how many times have we heard other coaches, even our rivals, say “if he can’t do it, nobody can?”)…
Look at Rutgers even…turned the world upside down in 2008 with 8 wins. Ranked. Storming the field, all that good shit. 2009, 9 wins I think. 2010? 4 wins. Doormat city. 2011? 7 wins so far, decent. Rutgers was SHIT their entire existence….until one season….now they are building a level of consistency. Mason built a level of consistency, until it got boring and he pissed off too many in the administration. He dropped his guard in a bowl game, lost a record-breaking collapse-game, and they pounced on the opportunity to fire him. But it’s not like we’ve sucked balls forever….and we’ll be back to respectable in a few years.
by jimipig on Nov 15, 2011 12:06 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
And experience
You get those 2-3 star guys and they get some playing time and good coaching and four years later they are great players.
See TCU
and a guy named Ladanian Tomlison
by DallasGopher on Nov 15, 2011 7:02 PM CST up reply actions
On the subject of talent
I have to agree with both jimipig and Jayrome007. There is reason for optimism, but don’t go crazy. Kill’s staff is proven and loyal. That’s why he’s able to turn program around consistently.
If you win (like Wisconsin has been doing for years), recruits (aka: talent) will come to your program. If you lose (as we’ve been doing for years), the talent stays away.
You keep saying that your optimistic because right now, we’re only losing due to lack of talent. Well, sorry to burst your bubble but without wins, that is likely to continue.
This is generally true, but college football isn’t what I’d call a Catch-22. Otherwise you’d never have instances like Boise St., Houston, or TCU, or even San Diego State. There is enough talent in the country where one school (or all the big schools) can’t have a monopoly on it.
However, it’s easier to sell a program that’s winning than one that’s not. Programs suddenly get better when they start tasting success, and that’s because recruits are suddenly interested. The trick then becomes maintaining that success.
Rarely is it a 5 star guy who turns around a program. It’s 1 star or 2 star guys who over-achieve, along with good coaching and a little bit of luck….that’s what turns around a program. It’s also lack of turnover that helps. A "one-hit wonder" won’t get it done…need stability.
100% agree. Not only is there the possibility that a five-star guy will be a complete bust, but five-star recruits rarely come to losing programs. The key for the coaching staff is to focus on the players they have and develop them. For Kill, this should be doable, since he did it at Northern Illinois. Kill has said that Minnesota is more akin to his situation at Southern Illinois, where he had to build that program from the ground up, but NIU certainly taught him how to utilize talent when he had it.
I guess the question becomes: how do you develop players? Well, first, you focus almost entirely on fundamentals. The Basics. Teach these guys how to block, how to tackle, how to catch, and (for the QBs) how to throw. When you’re executing fundamentals, you might not be flashy, but you’ll do pretty well in a game. For one, turnovers will be limited, and that will go a long way.
I look at Michigan State as an example. Kirk Cousins was a two-star quarterback coming out of high school. The coaching staff developed him, he eventually gained experience, and now he’s one of the best quarterbacks in the Big Ten. Yet when Cousins committed he didn’t raise any eyebrows or make headlines. That just shows what can happen when you develop players.
Rent-a-quarterback?
Seriously guys. The kid wanted to play his final year of eligibility but his NC State coach booted him from the team due to his splitting time with baseball. He’s stated numerous times he wanted to finish his career at NC State, but that option wasn’t available. So what did he do? He took advantage of one of the rules the NCAA has gotten right: he transferred with no penalty thanks to the fact that he managed to graduate in four years (redshirted freshman year), something a fair number of students can’t manage to do even without football to suck up their time.
Maybe you’re looking for a outlet to vent your frustrations that the Gophers haven’t competed in almost any game, so this style of reference toward what appears to be a fine football player and an even better person is the only way to console yourself that he didn’t come to your school? I don’t know. What I do know is that it’s old. We’re 10 weeks into the season, only a couple weeks from the CCG. And you’re still resorting to this low brow commentary?
Sensitive Much?
Wilson is the definition of a rent-a-quarterback. It is nothing negative, just a statement. Will he be around next year, no. Did he choose Wisconsin straight from High School, no. Will he only play one year with Wisconsin, yes. It does not make him a bad person, he did not break any rules in doing so, nor did the article above make the statement that he is or he did. I do not believe that we recruited him from NC State, for multiple reasons, tops amongst those reasons is that their is no way that he would have come to MN as we are still trying to form our own team and identity so no hard feelings that he did not come to MN. Wisconsin was a perfect place for Wilson to come in and play, but the fact remains that he is a rent-a-quarterback.
by MNSportsGuy on Nov 16, 2011 12:41 PM CST up reply actions
Only a gopher fan...
Don’t even know how calling the the kid “rent-a-QB” before using his actual name can be construed as anything but negative. It’s not an evil term, but it’s certainly not an endearing one when used in this context. It’s perfectly acceptable to call my Jewish friend Jewish in some contexts, while in others it would be construed as an affront, even if the simple fact of saying “He’s Jewish” is the truth.
I looked around a bit for senior transfers to the Gopher football program, but it turns out no one has transferred to Minnesota in their senior year in quite a while, so I branched out to other sports. I came across a few volleyball players (Taylor Carico and Megan Wilson)and a soccer player (Alex Pafko) that have transferred for their senior year. Care to wager what term was never used about these individuals on the University of Minnesota and Minnesota fan sites I visited? Ding ding ding! “Rent-a-player”! Now why would journalists and bloggers use “rent-a-player” or its derivatives frequently with regard to a rival player, yet fail to use the term even once for their own players who meet the same criteria? Ah, of course, it must be because the term’s got a negative connotation. I know it, JDMill knows it, and (whether you admit it or not) you know it. This is not the NBA or NFL, where player contracts are bartered and “rent-a-player” is just a definition of certain contractual situation. This is the NCAA, where athletes make their own decisions where to play, assuming the team will have them, being called a “rent-a-player” comes with insinuations of frowned-upon-yet-legal decisions made by the player and university.
He's the Badger QB...
…and you expect folks here to be endearing towards him? C’mon! I agree that pretending it isn’t a negative comment like MNSports did is silly, but that’s as reasonable a response to your “boo-hoo, please think of Russell Wilson’s feelings” nonsense as you’ll get. Especially when you start trying to bring “Jewish” into it thereby insinuating that folks are doing is remotely anti-Semitic (really? That’s the example you picked? I suppose we should be glad you didn’t use his race I suppose).
You want to know why those UM players were never called “rent-a-players”? Because they were volleyball and soccer players.
I guess we see things differently
Granted we got more than one season out of Mbakwe, but if he would have come in for one season I would have had no problem with a rent-a-forward remark. If I followed Soccer or Volleyball closer, or if it was covered on the site I would have no issues with any sort of rent-a-player remarks, not saying we would use it but I would not be offended if it was. Hell it has become expected that a portion of our hockey recruits will be one and done and I believe that I have heard the term before for some of our Freshman when they were high recruits and thought nothing of it.
by MNSportsGuy on Nov 17, 2011 11:25 AM CST up reply actions
What about this
Makes him not a rent-a-quarterback? Defensive much?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on The Daily Gopher
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
