Predict the 2013 season

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Ignore everything that was said to support my side, you just seem to not realize when your wrong. If an offense can't stay on the field, this gives your opponent the opportunity to make more plays... not sure how hard that is to realize.

Heh. Yeah. Our offense couldn't stop Minnesota's run game.

 

Anyways, we'll almost certainly see a similar season next season. The people who refuse to acknowledge reality will dwindle again . . . just like they did over this past season. Happy holidays. (carlfense is a little into the egg nogg . . . if you can't tell.)

 

I certainly don't dwindle. I enter every season cautiously optimistic that we can avoid the mistakes and take some steps forward on the good things that we saw the year before. Of course, I've been disappointed more so than elated, but it's whatever.

 

Regarding the whole idea that our offense couldn't stop Minnesota's run game:

 

I'm adamant that our offense was somewhat culpable in our second half collapse against UCLA. And while some people may have agreed with me on that case, it needs to be said that just because our offense was culpable for part of the defensive collapse against the Bruins doesn't mean our offense is culpable for part of the defensive collapses against other teams.

 

Minnesota is one of those teams. The Gophers had 2 drives spanning longer than 5 minutes. One of those drives happened in the 1st quarter, right after the offense just finished giving the defense a 3 minute and 20 second (plus TV timeout) break. On that drive, Minnesota ran the ball all but one time, accumulating 68 yards on 12 rushes, over 5 and a half yards per carry. That's a front 7 getting demolished right there. Against Minnesota.

 

The other drive came after the defense had been on the field for 2:20, allowing a rushing TD in 5 plays. The offense then went 3 and out in 1:08 and put the defense right back on the field. Surprisingly, the defense actually did better end result wise than that other drive, holding the Gophers to a FG. But they surrendered 44 yards on 7 carries, over 6 yards a carry.

 

The point trying to be made is that people need to understand interactions. Sometimes, the offense is culpable, sometimes the offense has no effect. It's not as simple as this is that because it is. The defense's job is to stop the other team, and that job is made easier or harder by what the offense does. Same thing goes for the offense.

[carlfense]

Ignore everything that was said to support my side, you just seem to not realize when your wrong. If an offense can't stay on the field, this gives your opponent the opportunity to make more plays... not sure how hard that is to realize.

Heh. Yeah. Our offense couldn't stop Minnesota's run game.

 

Anyways, we'll almost certainly see a similar season next season. The people who refuse to acknowledge reality will dwindle again . . . just like they did over this past season. Happy holidays. (carlfense is a little into the egg nogg . . . if you can't tell.)

 

I certainly don't dwindle. I enter every season cautiously optimistic that we can avoid the mistakes and take some steps forward on the good things that we saw the year before. Of course, I've been disappointed more so than elated, but it's whatever.

 

Regarding the whole idea that our offense couldn't stop Minnesota's run game:

 

I'm adamant that our offense was somewhat culpable in our second half collapse against UCLA. And while some people may have agreed with me on that case, it needs to be said that just because our offense was culpable for part of the defensive collapse against the Bruins doesn't mean our offense is culpable for part of the defensive collapses against other teams.

 

Minnesota is one of those teams. The Gophers had 2 drives spanning longer than 5 minutes. One of those drives happened in the 1st quarter, right after the offense just finished giving the defense a 3 minute and 20 second (plus TV timeout) break. On that drive, Minnesota ran the ball all but one time, accumulating 68 yards on 12 rushes, over 5 and a half yards per carry. That's a front 7 getting demolished right there. Against Minnesota.

 

The other drive came after the defense had been on the field for 2:20, allowing a rushing TD in 5 plays. The offense then went 3 and out in 1:08 and put the defense right back on the field. Surprisingly, the defense actually did better end result wise than that other drive, holding the Gophers to a FG. But they surrendered 44 yards on 7 carries, over 6 yards a carry.

 

The point trying to be made is that people need to understand interactions. Sometimes, the offense is culpable, sometimes the offense has no effect. It's not as simple as this is that because it is. The defense's job is to stop the other team, and that job is made easier or harder by what the offense does. Same thing goes for the offense.

+1

[Hunter94]

not hard to understand, if your offense goes 3 and out and the defense, as a result, gets no rest and goes back out on the field...plus their O runs 15- 20 more plays in the game.......yup, we are now down under.

[carlfense]

not hard to understand, if your offense goes 3 and out and the defense, as a result, gets no rest and goes back out on the field...plus their O runs 15- 20 more plays in the game.......yup, we are now down under.

That would be a better argument if our defense played well at the beginning and wore down as the game went on.

 

That was not the case in the Minnesota game.