Let’s get the nasty part out of the way first. The two
losses that marred an otherwise incredible season for Minnesota shared a
handful of features in common. Minnesota was out-schemed by teams that
comprehended the Gopher’s strengths and weaknesses and schemed to put points on
the board quickly. Minnesota also called a conservative offensive game that got
away from many of the facets that made its offense so successful earlier in the
season, making uncharacteristic decisions (a 50-yard FG attempt against Iowa
and a punt from the 35 yard line against Wisconsin, both early in the game). Offensive
line injuries compounded the challenge of mounting a comeback and magnified the
effect of other mystifying decisions such as multiple running calls against
Wisconsin from 3rd and long. For whatever reason, whether the
intimidation of the big stage, distraction of national media attention, or
old-fashioned nerves, the Minnesota that owned most of the game against Penn
State was mostly absent.
Ironically, the seeds of these losses were sown in the first
three games on the Gopher’s schedule this season. The non-conference slate was
uncomfortably close against three teams that went a collective 19-17. I shared frustration
with many fans coming out of those games with the maddeningly conservative
offensive play calling that seemed to be calculated to not-lose and just barely
did enough. When the offense opened up in the Purdue game and led to five
straight conference thrashings it appeared clear that this had been a conscious
decision by our coaching staff. The streak continued into the Penn State game allowing
the Gophers to build a nice lead and positioned the defense to fend off a
late-game push. Ironically, when faced with the two most critical games on the
schedule, Minnesota returned to its non-con comfort zone and played not to
lose, with predictable results.
How you feel about things coming out of this depends in part
on your expectations for the program. The majority opinion that seems to be
developing is that the losses to Iowa and Wisconsin sting badly, but a 10-2
season is a huge accomplishment and the trajectory of the program appears to be
pointing up. However I’ve heard several people say they would be happy to go
2-10 if the 2 were Iowa and Wisconsin, or that a 10-2 finish is meaningless
when the losses are those teams. Both points of view are legitimate opinions; one
is mostly informed by the past, the other by the future. If you’re in the
latter group, I’m going to try to convince you to take a different view.
Defining our program’s success solely on the basis of
performance against our rivals is in my mind a tacit admission that those goals
are unobtainable and that holding a rivalry trophy for a while is the highest
achievement possible. Since 1962 that’s been largely true, so I understand why
people prioritize it. I think that it’s a point of view that’s focused on the
past, and just as likely to set yourself up for disappointment as focusing on
the future, if not more so.
Rivalry games are part of what makes college football great.
They build an important narrative and shared history that is part of what makes
me prefer the college game to the pros. But at the end of the day they’re still
a means to an end. That end is building a program with potential for sustained
success, consistent competition, and national recognition. In the lead-up to
the 2020 season our local media yokels might remember the Wisconsin game, but
the national media and recruits will remember 10-2.
Thing is, like it or not Iowa and Wisconsin are good. They
might not be at their peaks, but they also aren’t showing any signs of pulling
a Nebraska and fading to the rear of the pack. If you’re not building a program
for something beyond two specific games every year, the likelihood is that
those two games aren’t going to play out how you want them to as long as those
teams aren’t only focusing on you. If you want to beat them regularly, you’re
going to need to be beating other teams regularly too, so you might as well
start thinking about success holistically.
Given that, where are we now? We’ve got 10 wins and a chance
at 11. I’ve never ascribed to the “but 9 wins!” defense of Tracy Claeys, and I
can tell you that my level of confidence right now is multiple levels above
where it was at the end of 2016. We are witnessing the greatest quarterback in
Minnesota history, and he’s only a sophomore despite his CPA-like bearing. In
2019 he led the big Ten in passing yards (2,975), yards/attempt (10.3),
yards/game (247.9), and was second only in passing touchdowns (28). Rashod
Bateman and Tyler Johnson were first and second, respectively, in the Big Ten
in receiving yards (1,170 and 1,114) and touchdowns (tied with Chris Olave from
Ohio State at 11), and Bateman was second in yards/attempt at 20.5. We beat an
AP Top 10 team at home, took home 2* rivalry trophies (I still count The Chair…I
have *opinions*
on Nebraska) and didn’t drop any gimme games. We sniffed the Big Ten title for
the first time since 1967. These were all borderline unthinkable in 2016, let
alone for them all to happen together.
Despite rush game challenges, Rodney Smith finished third in
the Big Ten in yards at 1,094. Antoine Winfield Jr. led the Big Ten in
interceptions with 7. Minnesota still has opportunities for growth at the
linebacker and defensive line positions and needs more depth at offensive line,
notoriously one of the most difficult positions to build. Special Teams has been
the sole consistently bad spot.
This brings me to the coaching staff. The Iowa and Wisconsin
games were largely lost on coaching decisions. That they both came on the heels
of weeks filled with large publicity (post Penn State win and College Game Day
leadup) is probably not coincidence. In reflecting
on the first of those losses I noted P.J. Fleck’s apparent fatigue. Should
this lead us to question their fitness for the role or ability to overcome
these challenges?
Absolutely not. In 2018 P.J. Fleck proved his willingness to
make difficult coaching decisions to address a problem by firing long-time
friend Robb Smith when his defense was failing. Also in 2018 at Wisconsin and
again in 2019 vs. Penn State he proved that he does have the ability to win the big game even if he needs to add
some consistency. Our record progression from 5-7 to 7-6 to 10-2 (with 1 more
game to come) shows immense progress. Notably, only one Gopher coach since
Bernie Bierman has the same winning percentage in his first 3 seasons and that
was Murray Warmath. He’s
already won.
Why, then, would it be unthinkable that P.J. Fleck and his
coaching staff won’t be able to apply the lessons of the past several weeks
along with further player growth and strong recruiting in 2020 and beyond? Why
assume after decades of relative futility against Iowa and Wisconsin that a year
they represented our only 2 losses means the season is a failure? The conclusion
to me is opposite of that: Minnesota has developed immensely and it’s close…closer
than it’s been in living memory…to taking the next step. Trophy wins will be
part of that, but they’re not the only part.
I refuse to be disappointed by this season. The losses sucked
and winning either one of them would have placed us firmly in the Rose Bowl.
That said, it’s only the third time in my fanhood we’ve even been able to talk
with any seriousness about Rose Bowls, and technically that door
isn’t even closed yet. The closeness of this season is part of what makes that
so bitter, but I choose to focus on the promise of what’s coming. It’s another
lesson for our players and coaches that we need to be true to who we are and
not try to play to the opponent. Until proven otherwise, I believe it’s a
lesson we will learn.
No comments:
Post a Comment