Thinking About Notre Dame's Offense: Where Are We and Where Are We Going?
I'm frustrated with the Notre Dame offense.
Maybe I shouldn't be, but after watching the team struggle to score points on Saturday against Pittsburgh, a bunch of questions came bubbling to the surface.
I really like the offensive line right now, and the running backs have been performing at a very high level as well. If you would have told me these two positions would be playing this great shortly after Brian Kelly was hired, I would have jumped through the roof.
Yet, outside of these two units there remain a lot of questions on offense in the second year of the Kelly era.
This is me trying to sort through it all.
Come with me on this journey through frustration, angst, and hope.
Have we progressed at all with the spread system?
This was the first question I started thinking about watching the game versus Pitt on Saturday.
I was sitting there thinking, "Do we even run a spread offense?"
Now, I know that technically Notre Dame is in fact running a spread offense, but if a spread offense is a car, we're rolling on three wheels, with a cracked windshield, and desperately in need of an oil change.
We also have a tail light out.
This isn't even about Rees' lack of running ability or even his physical limitations per se---but just think about what this offense looked like in the early stages of last year. I think you could argue there's been some decent improvement with some fundamentals, specifically with the running game, but there's hardly been the improvement that a second year jump usually brings.
Moreover, the playbook seems to have become even smaller than last year and even from late last season when Rees took over after Crist's knee injury. Isn't that a problem?
Okay, with Rees there is no quarterback running, and the ability to stretch the field vertically is severely limited. Those issues are bad enough, but where is the jet sweep? Why don't we ever move a playmaker like Theo Riddick around, try to confuse the defense, and get the ball in his hands in different ways?
I'm sitting there on Saturday watching Pitt---a team that is making a much harsher transition to the spread than we had to last year---and Notre Dame looks like the team in the first year of a new system. Pittsburgh was using all sorts of motion and deception to try and move the ball against the Irish, and it wasn't long into the game before the Panthers put two running backs in the backfield with QB Tino Sunseri, making it just a little more difficult for the Irish defense to key in on running back Ray Graham.
Why don't we do something like that?
It's been four full games, a complete third of a season, and I can't think of one new play, or even one that has made me say, "Oh, that was different."
I'm just lamenting because this offense is brutally vanilla right now and you would think with Rees' limitations that Kelly and the coaching staff would be doing more to make his life easier. Instead, we run the same handful of running plays out of the shotgun, mixed in with a limited passing game.
So, how much of a spread team is Notre Dame really? And if and/or when someone like Hendrix or Golson becomes the starter in South Bend, what kind of transition are we going to be looking at?
I can't imagine it will be particularly smooth. It still seems like we're in the first month or two of a new system right now (quarterback-wise), almost two full years after Brian Kelly took over at Notre Dame.
Did anyone think this would be the case when he was hired?
If Hendrix or Golson take over next season, is it going to be like starting over again because Kelly isn't installing his full playbook right now?
Are we making it easy for teams to defend us?
I know opposing defensive coordinators will gush about Michael Floyd, a big, strong line, and playmakers like Wood and Riddick---but aren't they secretly happy with how vanilla our "spread" really is?
This is what bothers me most about the offense.
Look at what Pitt did this past Saturday: they came out with a junk defense that they'd never used before this season, they took Floyd out of the game, and were able to stand up to Notre Dame's offensive line with a decent amount of pressure and penetration.
The result was that Rees and the offense looked completely lost.
After the game Kelly told the media of the fact that Pitt was running a weird junk defense and that they had to simplify matters in the second half to counter it. But before the game started Kelly mentioned that Pitt ran complicated schemes and that things would already be simplified for Rees.
What is going on out there? Things already seemed incredibly simple in the first half, how much simpler can this offense get? We already refuse to incorporate plays X, Y, and Z, etc. with Rees---at some point doesn't it reach a tipping point?
Does that tipping point come with two more losses this season?
If we continue using such a simple gameplan, what are the advantages of keeping Rees in as quarterback? And assuming Rees becomes more comfortable as this year moves on, how much more can Notre Dame add to the playbook?
Where is the offense headed the rest of the year?
Here's something else to think about that really makes you scratch your head with this offense.
Are we a fast-paced offense or not?
Before the season started I commented that it would be nice to be able to jump into a hyper-speed offense and also slow things down if the situation and score necessitated doing so.
Now, we seem stuck in some crazy no-man's land.
We don't huddle, but it's taking forever for the plays to come in and for the team to get to the line of scrimmage.
We're nowhere near the fast-paced offense that Kelly is known for and the team often looks confused about what their supposed to do---usually never set and ready to snap the ball with more than 10 seconds left on the play clock.
Again, we look like a team that is in the first month of a new system.
Is there some disconnect between Kelly and Charlie Molnar upstairs in the booth? I hate to sound like Marvin Gaye, but what is going on?
So, to quickly summarize so far: Notre Dame is running a half-assed spread offense, at a half-assed tempo, all while having a quarterback who doesn't fit the system. Worse yet, there are very few, if any, wrinkles designed to open up the offense and move the ball more effectively.
So where does this leave us for the rest of the season and the immediate future?
When we're talking about this year, it's becoming painfully obvious that Hendrix and Golson are not going to see any significant minutes, barring major injuries of course. So, we're left with Rees and Crist.
It's also pretty obvious that Kelly favors Rees at this point, and as Whiskey pointed out, mental toughness is likely playing a large role in that decision. But is there anything deeper going on behind the scenes?
I think Kelly sees Rees as the more accurate passer with a quicker delivery and believes that this will help the team win now at the QB position. A lack of mobility and a propensity to turn the ball over are clearly a concern, but I am sure Kelly believes there is a higher ceiling with Rees in his ability to shake off bad moments and continue moving the offense.
He's also banking on Rees cutting down on the turnovers as he becomes more experienced. God willing, he will.
It's funny because many of us assumed that the ceiling is higher with Crist, but it may not be so in the eyes of Kelly.
I truly believe that Kelly thinks he can mold Rees into a top-notch passer, and that Rees is a more pure and natural passer than Crist. Add Rees' calm demeanor and his tendency to NOT get rattled, and these positives trump any of his other negatives.
Kelly's thinking, "I have to get Tommy comfortable throwing the ball in any situation, and this offense needs him to be effective to open up the run game, move the offense, and put points on the board."
This season so far has proven to me that Rees will never be a game-manager. The quarterback in Kelly's system is going to be the focal point of the offense regardless of who is back there.
I would argue that it might be smarter to gravitate towards a more college-type spread system like schools such as Oregon and TCU run, because I believe it would make Rees' life easier to have opponents focusing on a lot of other running plays. Instead, what we're seeing right now is a very pro-style spread offense not that much different than what the New England Patriots use.
But we don't have Tom Brady, do we?
What's the long-term plan for the offense?
I'm not really sure how much Kelly is thinking about the long-term aspect of the offense because he is concentrated on winning games in the here and now, but it's very interesting to think about.
I've talked a little bit about why Kelly prefers Rees at this moment, but what does the future hold for Hendrix and Golson? Are we ever going to see Crist back as a starter too?
There are a lot of tough questions involved here, and very few answers.
One of the other main reasons why I'd like to see more jet sweeps, two-backs flanking the quarterback, and even some QB keepers from time to time, is not only because I think this can help the Irish win right now, but because it would appear that this is the offense of the future with Hendrix or Golson.
Maybe Kelly is planning on a much more pass-oriented offense than we all believe, but it seems pretty likely that we're headed toward a more Oregon-type of offense. Why create two different systems now? Why have that divide there?
Some may say Rees can't run that kind of offense and that defenses will shut it down. I agree, but only to a point.
I think we can incorporate a lot more of those Oregon-type principles that don't necessarily center around the quarterback going out and making plays with his feet.
The problem I have right now is that I just don't think the offense, as it is set up right now, is that hard to stop. We saw what happened to the offense against Pitt when Michael Floyd isn't involved. We're 8 to 9 games away from that being a cold hard reality forever.
Obviously the offense isn't terrible, and there is plenty of talent available that has made it look very good at times, but I also think we're wasting a lot of that talent too.
Let's go back to the running game for a minute.
It has looked really good this year, and a lot of that has a lot to do with the great job the line has done in blocking and finally getting a superstar in the making like Cierre Wood in the backfield. As a backup running back, Jonas Gray has been great too.
But the running game could be better.
It could be better because the spread offense is built heavily around deception with the QB option, and without that deception teams have adjusted and been able to slow the Irish running game down as the game goes on. Some teams like Oklahoma can get away with running the ball effectively without much of that deception because they have a Heisman candidate in Landry Jones at quarterback, but we don't have Landry Jones.
As a result, Notre Dame has rushed for 15 yards in the fourth quarter this year.
15 yards in a full game's worth of fourth quarters.
Opponents don't respect our play action because there's very little threat of going deep down the field. And by the time the fourth quarter rolls around, the linebackers are hitting gaps and the defensive end is crashing down on Cierre Wood because there's no threat of Rees taking off around the edge.
At the snap of the ball opposing defenses only have to worry about 3 or 4 options, instead of 5 or 6, and this makes Notre Dame less explosive on offense. It's as though the Irish go into every game with handcuffs on.
What could things be like with a running QB?
I think about this often, as I know many other Irish fans do.
When I think about this quarterback situation and how Kelly has handled it, I think of two main points:
1.) Using a change of pace quarterback was likely never an option this year.
2.) I'm not sure Kelly had any inclination to play anyone but Crist or Rees in 2011.
The first point seems obvious after Kelly's teleconference on Sunday in which he said another quarterback could come in when the team has a big lead. That means we're doubtful to see any Tebow packages and certainly no one coming to take over for Rees for a full series or two.
On the second point, I think a little bit of coach psychology inevitably comes into play.
As much as some of us want to believe it, there is no way in hell that Kelly is going to start a third quarterback this year without major injuries occurring.
I don't want to sound too conspiratorial, because I do believe Kelly when he says that Hendrix (and obviously Golson) aren't ready to play yet. But at the same time, Kelly would be inviting a ton of criticism if he were to introduce a third quarterback into this quasi-competition.
Understandably, a three-way QB controversy sounds like a disaster and could be an enormous distraction for the team, and from a coach's standpoint you can understand that this has to be prevented no matter what the costs.
The result is that Tommy Rees is the unquestioned starter. I believe it will now take a mountain of poor play from Tommy for that to change any time soon.
But oh, the mobile quarterbacks.
The mobile quarterbacks sit and wait.
I know many people will point out that this offense can be successful without a mobile quarterback or one that doesn't run very often. Like Oklahoma, there are plenty of examples out there that you can cite to make that case.
But still, we're not doing ourselves any favors are we? I mean, you CAN win in college football without much of a passing game too (Hi LSU!), but it does make things harder. You're playing with one hand tied behind your back---some teams can get away with it, and some don't.
I'm not exactly elated that Tommy Rees is the Irish quarterback right now, but I'm a lot more comfortable with the decision today than I would have been a month ago. It is clear that he's the guy right now and I'm rooting for him to improve---and he does has to improve quite a bit.
Nevertheless, that doesn't stop me from imagining what this offense could look like right now with someone like Hendrix at quarterback.
The passing numbers and production from the quarterback position are down across the board from last year, and worse still, the turnovers are way up. Rees has a very average 133.6 QB rating and 7 touchdowns so far this season---is it too far fetched to think that Hendrix can't produce something along those lines? And how much easier would Hendrix' job be as a passer if his running opened up the offense?
Here's another thing---would Notre Dame even have to throw the ball that much with Hendrix and a run-based spread offense?
Do you think Brian Kelly is ever going to run an offense where the QB runs 15 times and only throws 20 times in a non-blowout game?
Is it a pipe dream to think that could happen?
Back to reality
For now and what seems like the foreseeable future, this is Tommy Rees' team. Daydreams of agile and rocket arm quarterbacks aside, this is the reality.
Not all hope is lost because Rees had one crappy game and has the same stats as last year. He is still young and has time to grow and improve. We've seen some bad play from Rees, but we've also seen some really clutch play and some bright spots that might point to a successful future.
However, there are still a lot of questions regarding the quarterback position, especially in the long term.
For the rest of this season it would be nice if the offense could become a little more multi-dimensional, take some pressure off of Rees, and slowly move towards one that utilizes more of the playbook.
I doubt we'll ever see Gray and Wood in the backfield at the same time, but it has the potential to be a beastly combination. Why not try Riddick with Gray?
Riddick on some form of jet sweeps, even if as a decoy most of the time, should be happening once in a while.
And we have this guy, Michael Floyd---you might have heard of him. Would it hurt to get the ball in his hands on a reverse?
There's a lot more this offense can be doing out of the spread that doesn't mean overloading Rees with more responsibility or forcing him to use athleticism that isn't really there.
Can this offense get it together?
41 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Worth reviewing
Chris Brown’s analysis of Brian Kelly’s offense
Put yourself in the position of the secondary: This pass concept looks exactly like the four verticals play up until the moment the receivers break into their respective routes. Kelly’s quarterbacks, whether Tony Pike or Zach Collaros, often release the ball while the receiver is still running straight downfield, before he has made his break. And, particularly with the mobile Collaros, there is an ancillary benefit to making just about every pass pattern look like all verticals: The retreating secondary opens up room for the quarterback to scramble.
Kelly has the horses in the OL to pass protect for the time it takes for the receivers to run their routes. But are the QB and the receivers on the same page? Is the QB making the quick decisions with the ball, throwing it even before they break? Neither of our QBs provides the mobility that Collaros did. Clearly there is still a lot of teaching being done.
Plus mistakes at the most inopportune times have turned this into a 2-2 record from a potential 4-0 record. His red zone performance at Cincy was much better than so far this year at ND. 14 attempts with 8 scores (7 TDs and 1 FG). 57% total or 50% TDs.
Cincy in 2009 was 87.93% scores in the Red Zone with a 72.41% of TDs to all attempts.
by Michael Collins on Sep 26, 2011 11:58 PM EDT reply actions
I remember reading that Brown piece
And something much more in depth in the MSP preseason magazine before Kelly took over. They both definitely showed me the more complicated side of this offense, particularly in the passing game.
As far as I’m aware, the hardest thing in this offense is getting the receivers on the same page with the QB on those vertical routes they run with all the different stems added to them. That takes a smart QB, and receivers who know what they are doing. It’s no surprise that we often see the receivers on a disconnect with the QB a couple times a game is it?
With that said, I don’t think the throws that are to be made are particularly difficult, and I think there’s a balancing effect there. I am sure Hendrix is struggling with his decision making and getting on the same page with the receivers as they run these routes, but if you watch our QB on Saturday, I just see many throws that even the modest passers should be able to complete.
I often wonder if we put Hendrix in there and ran those vertical routes, what things would like look for the offense as a whole. It’s very enticing.
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Sep 27, 2011 8:20 AM EDT up reply actions
...
After the game Kelly told the media of the fact that Pitt was running a weird junk defense and that they had to simplify matters in the second half to counter it. But before the game started Kelly mentioned that Pitt ran complicated schemes and that things would already be simplified for Rees.
I have a lot to say about this tomorrow. #foreshadowing
One Foot Down
On teh Twitterz
Great article, Eric.
It’s not hard to believe that Golson and Hendrix simply aren’t close to being competitive with Rees and Crist when it comes to running the offense. Between Crist and Rees, I think Whiskey’s “mental toughness” theory is probably the only plausible explanation for why Crist is sitting on the bench. Thus, Rees is our guy by process of elimination.
As for why Kelly is stubbornly maintaining a vanilla offense, I would guess he’s doing the same thing with Rees that he’s been doing with Riddick; gritting through an awkward lack of productivity until they both feel comfortable in the offense. And to be fair, we’re averaging ~400 yards a game with that vanilla offense.
In Purdue and Air Force, we’re going up against a couple defenses that we should be able to hang some points on. My hope is that BK is forcing Tommy to be “the guy” in order to improve his ball security and ability to find the 1-on-1 matchups. We know he’s got a lot more up his sleeve; here’s hoping he’s saving it for USC, Stanford, etc. with a savvier Rees at the wheel.
Good points W-jack
I am sure Kelly is saving some things for USC. Last year he brought out the jet sweep against Army to give them something to think about.
The ~400 yards is nice, certainly there are some really good things with this offense. But we can be better, much better. Particularly in our scoring.
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Sep 27, 2011 8:24 AM EDT up reply actions
I can understand Golsen not being ready
But what’s up with Hendrix?
by Chris Schumerth on Sep 27, 2011 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions
It's been hard for me to keep my expectations in check with Hendrix
But we do have to remember that he has not played quarterback for very long. If I remember correctly, he was mostly a baseball player growing up. I don’t know if he didn’t play football or whatever, but I thought I read he didn’t play quarterback until he was at Moeller.
In any event, he started for a year and a half at Moeller in a very run-heavy offense, so his experience with systems and reads what probably severely limited when he showed up at Notre Dame. I bet this is the biggest problem—-he’s still playing catch up. Golson probably had more experience as a QB by the time he played a few games as a sophomore in high school.
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Sep 27, 2011 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions
In this week's Power Hour
Mike Frank said that Golson had more yards passing in his sophomore year than Hendrix had in his entire career, and he didn’t sound like he was joking or exaggerating.
by Mouth of the South on Sep 28, 2011 8:25 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I believe it
Golson had gaudy numbers from a very early age.
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Sep 28, 2011 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions
Let's take that vanilla offense thought one step further
Is BK just trying to get Tommy comfortable? or could he possibly be setting up situations where Tommy has to “think the offense” very quickly?
As Eric mentioned in the article, ND rarely snaps the ball before 10 seconds on the play clock, yet they were able to move much more quickly against USF. Since they were playing from behind, the following idea just doesn’t apply to that game.
Is BK deliberately sending in the “wrong” call most of the time so Tommy has to check out of it and call the correct play? Could this be BK taking a huge risk to develop his QB in time for a much improved performance later in the year (USC certainly comes to mind)? Our opponents don’t audible anywhere near as often as we do, and we didn’t in the past either. The past two games it seems like nearly every play, Tommy changes the play, gives the OL a new blocking scheme or cadence and adjusts the RB.
Please give me some thoughts on this one, especially those of you who understand more about reading defenses than i do (which truly is very little).
I think opposing defenses are starting to play games with Kelly, Rees and the offense
That seemed very apparent to me during the Pitt game. Faking a lot of blitzes and forcing Rees to audible at the line.
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Sep 27, 2011 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Pitt did do quite a few things to disguise their true intentions,
but if it were just that i’d think BK would be doing more to settle Tommy down and get him to trust the play call a bit more. i know i’m proposing something that doesn’t get past Occam’s Razor, but if it continues the next two weeks i’ll be watching a bit more closely that i’m used to when the game is live.
So many good discussion points.
-You all obviously know why I think Rees is “the guy” for 2011. But I also think that he is still on a very steep learning curve as are all receivers not wearing #3. Without going back to scour all the post game pressers I am fairly certain that Kelly has flat out said that at least 2 of Tommy’s picks were the fault of receivers running the wrong routes etc. This also probably explains the lack of PT for the backups as the starters are still struggling with some of this.
-Now we could discuss whether or not that should still be happening at this point for days but we would all probably come to the same conclusion. Maybe but it needs to start getting better ASAP. I think we will see that over these next few games.
-Whisk3yjak has a couple of great points. The offense is still moving the ball pretty well. It has been turnovers, specifically red zone turnovers that have been the tragic flaw. Eliminate those team is 4-0 and we are probably having slightly different conversations.
-I’m with you on the running QB. There isn’t a bigger fan of a running QB than me and I really do wish Hendrix was ready to go. At this point I would prefer to save Golson for 2012-2015. But I hope that as the offense settles in we start seeing some of that change of pace action from #12. He needs it and I think it could really benefit the offense. If nothing else opponents have to start spending some time preparing for it. That is goodness.
-As for Jim’s last comment I did see one wrinkle on Saturday. On one play we lined up with Cierre in the slot and Riddick at RB. Pitt immediately called timeout and we never lined back up in that formation. I think there are some wrinkles coming. I just think Kelly is trying to get the basics running as they are supposed to before he jumps too far into that stuff.
-Still a work in progress. We’ll get there.
whiskey
www.onefootdown.com
I hadn't noticed that play with Riddick in the backfield
I wonder what we would have run if there wasn’t a timeout?
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Sep 27, 2011 8:25 AM EDT up reply actions
We did actually run a play with Theo in the backfield
Theo ran a wheel route out of the backfield, hoping to catch Pitt off guard. They weren’t fooled, but Theo stopped and came back to catch the ball for a modest 5 yard gain. So nothing flashy.
One Foot Down
On teh Twitterz
You are the video wizard
Was Wood split out wide then?
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Sep 27, 2011 8:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Man, I hope you're right that the wrinkles are coming
because we are so frustrating to watch right now! Wow, the 15 yards rushing the the forth quarter is so disturbing
by Chris Schumerth on Sep 27, 2011 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions
Great article Eric and all your points on what "could be",and "what isnt", are
right on. This offense is showing a total lack of imagination and as far as getting better from last year, I dont see it, to me its regressed and has become stagnant. The only part of this team that has taken giant steps forward is the defense.
The offensive line and run game are improved for sure
The passing numbers are down from this time last year, as are other stats.
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Sep 27, 2011 8:27 AM EDT up reply actions
A dual threat QB is not an essential part of the spread
the primary thing a QB in BK"s offense must be able to do is make the right decisions and deliver the ball on time and on target. Rees, while he still needs to improve in all three areas, is better at all three than Crist, which is why Crist is out and Rees is in. The ability to run is a nice bonus but not essential. As Rees improves, BK will get deeper into his playbook.
Clearly BK does not believe Hendrix and Golson are ready for prime time. I assume that is because he does not believe they can make the right decision and/or make the throws on time and on target yet. Until he feels as if they can, they will not see the filed in any meaningful way. I would hope at this point Hendrix, who is in his second season, would be ready to at least run enough of the offense to make him available to back-up Rees. Golson should only be used if there is a catastrophic chain of injuries.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
Ok, wall o' text coming up
First, something that needs to be addressed is the fact that offenses and defenses do not exist in a vacuum. There’s a reason teams with strong defenses (Alabama, LSU, OSU) run slow, plodding, boring offenses. Their defense is so good, the goal of the offense is to kill the clock, avoid mistakes, and put a few points on the board while the defense slowly strangles the other team.
Meanwhile, teams that run a hurry-up spread (Oregon and Auburn being two good examples) tend to have poor defenses statistically. The offense gets off the field so quickly that it extends the game, leads to the defense being on the field more, and allows the other team the chance to put up more yards and points.
Now, this is speculation, but I think Kelly looked at this team during the offseason and saw a team with a veteran offensive line, an electric running back, solid depth at tight end, and the makings of a dominant defense. To run his up-tempo offense would almost be foolish. I think he decided to run a more ball-control oriented offense and let the defense make stops.
In theory, I love that plan. In practice, it hasn’t worked so well. First off, this offense isn’t built for that. Our TEs, while decent at run blocking (Ragone especially), are much better at catching the ball and we have no fullback (the collective ears of NDNation just perked up). I remember watching the Sun Bowl when Tyler Eifert lined up at FB in offset-I formations and saying to my roommate “I like this, but we can’t win playing like this all the time.” To Kelly’s credit, he made it work early on. I think his 2 TE sets caught USF off balance and we started pounding them with outside zone runs. Against UM, we continued running the zone and started mixing in iso runs. But then Ragone and Welch got hut and we had to move Eifert inside and play a true frosh next to him and the running game suffered. Meanwhile, the team hasn’t been very good at the whole “avoiding mistakes” part of the ball-control offense. The absurd amount of turnovers is well documented so I won’t say anything further on that.
So are we a spread? Yeah, I guess. We run plays primarily out of spread sets. But we’re trying to slow the game down and let our defense be the focus, not the offense. Here’s what I want to see going forward:
- Better decision making from Rees. This should be obvious. We can’t be ball-control if we keep turning it over.
- More creativity in the run game. I agree with what Murtaugh said. We appear to be stuck in neutral and there’s no creativity in the run game. We can run the ball, we just need to find new ways to do it.
- Get more players involved. I don’t just mean getting players like Toma on the field (which I do think we should do) but start letting TJ or Theo or the RBs catch the ball some more.
I’m fine with this offense playing keep-away with short passes and runs. We can be successful – we are very close to 4-0 right now. With this defense, we don’t need to score 35 points a game. If we simply stop making stupid mistakes, we’ll be ok. But, as we’ve seen, that might be a big if.
One Foot Down
On teh Twitterz
All tremendous thoughts
And I agree with just about everything.
I think Kelly does want to run more ball control, but as you said, it’s not really working perfectly.
I also think when the chips are laid down, Kelly continues to throw the ball a lot when he probably doesn’t have to. That signals to me that he’s not completely comfortable running a ball control offense, if in fact he does want to.
It worked out in the end, but in crunch time in the 4th against Pitt, we threw the ball and ran almost no plays on the ground. And Gray had 3 carries too.
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Sep 27, 2011 9:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Is it realistic to expect better decision making from Rees without any extra space?
I mean, if there’s not a dynamic element to the offense – being able to stretch the field with the deep ball or qb’s legs – won’t we run into a lot of issues like we saw this weekend with Ds able to key in on taking away Floyd, bring another defender in tight, and get a lot of bodies in on the 7-15 yard routes?
Great points in your post, curious as to your thoughts on this element.
It makes Rees' life hard there's no doubt about that
Is it me or does Rees consistently always want to find that 10-15 yard pass play?
He doesn’t throw deep, and a lot of people are on him for not checking down too.
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Sep 27, 2011 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions
Ball control favors the underdog.
Is it smart for us to play ball control when we have tons more talent, physicality, and athleticism than just about every team on the schedule? How is Navy able to compete with a top-15 SEC team? Why does Brey run the slow burn? Because shortening the game favors the ‘dogs. You might be able to tie Tiger Woods in one hole of golf—say a par 3—bit you’ll never beat him over 18 holes. Shouldn’t we want to draw games out?
by Mouth of the South on Sep 28, 2011 4:19 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Here's a really good article from my go-to source, Smart Football
Brown actaully agrees with you that underdogs should attempt high-variance strategies while also trying to shorten the game (though those two things typically don’t go hand-in-hand).
In my case, I’m talking about using a slower, ball-control offense to compliment a tough defense. Although it hasn’t worked out for us this season, the ball-control offense should reduce your variance on offense and give you a “steady” amount of points. Meanwhile, you rely on your defense to shut down the other team.
On one hand, you’re right – that favors the underdog by running the risk of them hitting the jackpot on a handful of plays early on. But at the same time, if your killing the clock on offense, your reducing the number of trials. You’re basically saying “Yeah, you might roll snake eyes a few times, but we’re going to limit the number of rolls you get, making it harder to get three in one game.”
I like this quote the most from the article:
To understand why, imagine that the Goliaths — the nickname of Philistine State’s basketball team — typically beat opponents by 10 points. They’re playing an average opponent in their next game. Strategy A, a low-variance strategy will, two out of three times, yield a Goliaths victory between 5 and 15 points (with the rest of hypothetical games played with that strategy falling outside that range, including a very small number of losses). But a high-variance strategy has a much wider range of outcomes, with two thirds of games ending somewhere between a five-point Goliaths loss and a 25-point rout. The second strategy, then, will lead to more games where the Goliaths lose.
That’s why I like the idea of a ball-control offense. We know this defense is nasty and the offense can move the ball, so why give the other team more bullets to shoot us with?
But all this talk about variance just reminded me that probability was my worst math class in college, so maybe someone can shoot down my theories with some well placed numbers.
One Foot Down
On teh Twitterz
Ball control favors the underdog.
Is it smart for us to play ball control when we have tons more talent, physicality, and athleticism than just about every team on the schedule? How is Navy able to compete with a top-15 SEC team? Why does Brey run the slow burn? Because shortening the game favors the ‘dogs. You might be able to tie Tiger Woods in one hole of golf—say a par 3—bit you’ll never beat him over 18 holes. Shouldn’t we want to draw games out?
by Mouth of the South on Sep 28, 2011 8:31 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
But we don't have Tom Brady, do we?
Thank goodness ND doesn’t.Brady threw 4 interceptions this past weekend.
But still 272 career touchdowns to just 108 career picks.
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Sep 27, 2011 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions
I heard an interesting stat yesterday
Rees has thrown a TD in 9 straight games. The only other ND QBs to do that are Clausen, Quinn, and Huarte. That probably speaks more to the fact that ND has never had a strong passing offense before Weis/Kelly took over, but still a nice peice of trivia.
One Foot Down
On teh Twitterz
Was this cathartic?
Because it certainly was to read. I think you captured many of the things that really have been bugging me the past few weeks about the offense to this point in the year.
It was a little bit for me
Glad I could help.
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Sep 27, 2011 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Not understanding...
I am confused as to why people are considering Kelly’s offense with a running quarterback. He runs a “spread” methodology, but that is different than a run/spread option. Looking at Tony Pike’s stats from 2008 (his one complete season) showed 324 passing attempts and 56 rushing resulting in 47 yards. That averages to be 4 rushes per game. While sacks are included in the rush yardage, the rush seems to have been used to keeps teams honest, but he had only one rushing touchdown. From what I have been able to piece together Kelly’s philosophy is more about creating space, having fundementally easy routes/concepts and simplifying things for the quarterback. Chris at Smart Football put together a nice piece while Kelly was a Cincinatti here Looking at tape from Cincinatti’s two seasons don’t yield much differences in terms of scheme, but perhaps more limitations in terms of variability. I for one like Tommy Rees if only for the reason that he didn’t look like Dayne Crist did on the sidelines during the USF game (ZOMBIE QB EAT BRAINS) Joking aside, it had to be tough for the kid to come back from a SECOND injury to be benched. Still he looked completely checked out, and I can’t say that is something I am looking for in a quarterback. I also think its interesting how quickly people forgot the pains of an unexperienced quarterback. Think back to 2004 with Brady Quinn, a true sophmore who had flashes of brilliance but could turn around and kill you with dumb mistakes…
Kelly's said many times that he wants a QB with mobility to be able to do some things he currently cannot.
I don’t think he’d ever run a Pat White/Steve Slaton WVU type spread, but the QB as a threat is important to his offense. Pike couldn’t to that, so he didn’t use it, but he sure did when Collaros was in.
"Oh....sorry about that....so....Absinthe Party?"
"ABSINTHE PARTY!!!!"
進者往生極楽 退者無間地獄
Notre Dame Fightin' Irish + Hawaii Warriors
The Japanese History Podcast
by Kelly's Gyros on Sep 28, 2011 12:30 AM EDT up reply actions

by 


















