Five Wide Fullbacks: 10 Words For Brian Kelly
by Mouth of the South on Jan 13, 2012 1:31 PM EST
Email
PrintGood Friday All. The Mouth goes with the dreaded "rush four, drop eight defense" to try to outscheme this week's Five Wide Fullbacks formation, and, in leaving, gives 10 words by which Coach Kelly is to live if he wants to get the Irish playing dominant football again.
You're an NFL GM looking for a quarterback with a top 5 pick in this April's draft. Do you take Robert Griffin III if he's available. Explain your decision.
Since NFL stands for No Fun League, I'm going to play it safe and go with Andrew Luck. Although according to the reflexive property of mathematics RGIII = RGIII, I'm still going with Andrew Luck. And as a professional prospect, Andrew Luck > RGIII. Times are tough, I need the work, and no one ever lost their job by playing it safe, right? If Luck isn't available and RGIII is still on the board, I'm taking him. I am not a fan of college-style mobile quarterbacks in the NFL. They just do not work out in the long term. They'll win some games by fourth-quarter heroics, they're a nice stopgap measure when your offense is struggling and you can't get a real franchise quarterback, and they'll get you to the playoffs occasionally, but they will not sustain success because they cannot pick apart NFL defenses with their arm alone.
Cam Newton's record-setting rookie season just showed everyone how to win with a mobile quarterback. Just make sure he's a deadly-accurate, pass-first quarterback who just happens to run like Usain Bolt. RGIII's senior numbers were better than Newton's. True, RGIII did play against the matador-training schools that are Big XII defenses, but if I'm an NFL GM, I'll take the chance that RGIII is more Cam Newton than Tim Tebow he who shalt not be discussed because honestly who wants to go down that road. But only if I'm all out of... wait for it... Luck.
You've been granted the power to push a button and make Notre Dame's football program closely resemble any other program in the country. Keeping in mind that this is a 50-year decision with steep ramifications, which school do you decide to resemble the most?
I hate to give those smug bastards the satisfaction, but I have to go with Stanford. They definitely have their troubles on defense, especially against the Ducks, but with the defensive and overall talent that Notre Dame is able to bring in, I would love for this program to emulate Harbaugh-Shaw-Era Stanford. The Harumph! Fullbacks! Crowd will love this answer. Stanford is physical, they're tough, they run the ball down everyone's throats, then they kill you with play action to 7-foot-tall nightmare-match-up tight-end-ish wide receivers. Or are they wide-receiver-ish tight ends? ND's academic standards don't restrict the Irish quite as much as Stanfords academic standards hamstring The Cardinal's recruiting efforts, and I would love to see what Harbaugh and Shaw could have done with Notre Dame's roster.
This is how you win with smot kids.
Predict Notre Dame's Outgoing Players' Combine Performances.
I'm thinking Floyd's height is a tad inflated and he doesn't quite get it up to where he wants it to be by the time the Combine rolls around. He has plenty of time to develop that aspect of his game in the pros. Doesn't blow anyone away with the 40, but does strong(ly) in the bench, and quite strong(ly) in the vertical leap.
(a) Height and Weight: 6'2.25", 223 lbs.
(b) 40-yard dash: 4.56 seconds
(c) 225-lb.-Bench : 19 reps
(d) Vertical: 39.5"
Dever, too, will struggle a little with his height. He chose to focus on speed and agility leading up to the combine, and his height struggled a little as a result. 40 time is pretty much pointless for an offensive linemen, he does respectably in the bench, and his vertical is in the mid-range.
(a) Height and Weight: 6'4.5", 295 lbs.
(b) 40-yard dash: 5.25 seconds
(c) 225-lb.-Bench: 27 reps
(d) Vertical: 26"
Smith is a combine freak. He trained with Floyd to get his height up, and who knows why these things happen, but Harry's training pays off and he beats his college numbers. His strength is on and his speed is poppin', though Blanton edges him by a nose-hair in the 40. He also shows his explosiveness in the vertical.
(a) Height and Weight: 6'2.46", 216.56 lbs.
(b) 40-yard dash: 4.63 seconds
(c) 225-lb.-Bench: 23 reps
(d) Vertical: 39.25"
R.J. Blanton:
R.J. Does well for a big cornerback. Height and weight are solid, and when combined with his bench, Blanton shows that he can bulk up and be physical enough to play safety. He's not a blazer (nor a suit coat), but he's got enough speed to play a physical Cover -2 corner.
(a) Height and Weight: 6'0.66", 196.5lbs.
(b) 40-yard dash: 4.61 seconds
(c) 225-lb.-Bench: 13 reps
(d) Vertical: 37.76"
Fleming just isn't able to get his height up where he wants it to be. He weighs in at a stout 247.5, and he's built like a tugboat. Not a speed freak, but extremely powerful and quick enough.
(a) Height and Weight: 6'1.45", 247.5
(b) 40-yard dash: 4.82
(c) 225-lb.-Bench reps: 26
(d) Vertical: 30.15"
With the caveat that I have no idea to what extent JG will be participating in running drills, I will predict that he dominates at the combine. Why should I eschew speculation now? JG has already made me look brilliant once this year.
(a) Height and Weight: 5'9.75", 223 lbs.
(b) 40-yard dash: 4.42
(c) 225-lb.-Bench reps: 30
(d) Vertical: 40.25"
#25 Jonas Gray: Notre Dame 79 yard TD run v PITT - 9/24/2011 (via KnuteSchoolFools)
Do you want to tell this guy that he can't do it?
Describe your confidence level with defeating Michigan next year and some general thoughts on the Wolverines after one year of Hokemania.
Confidence level should be divided into two categories: pregame and postgame. Like every year for the past 5 years, my pregame confidence level will be somewhere between 99.99 and 100. That inevitably comes crashing down postgame when I realize that Michigan has somehow stolen our Luck O' The Irish. We must have played them so many times that our luck has rubbed off on them. I have no idea how else to explain it.
General thoughts? Jealousy, envy, loathing, expectant schadenfreude. I loathe them for obvious, various and sundry reasons. I am jealous of their rapid turnaround and I envy them because they just won a BCS game and will have Denard Robinson on their roster for yet another year. I hope and expect that it will all come crashing down in two years, just as it did for Chuck Weis after his first two years of BCS bowling, and I will revel in their misery once their program is left in a smoldering, sulfurous, ashen wasteland. I would love to agree with the sage Frank Grimes:
But Brady Hoke reminds me of Charlie Weis. Doesn't it feel like his team totally overachieved, setting up unreasonable expectations for a roster that isn't suited for it? Michigan is still a couple recruiting classes away from fielding a good defense. You know Tommy Rees, that QB we all hate right now? He absolutely shredded that Michigan defense. The only thing that kept Notre Dame under 50 was him and Wood dropping the ball, plus a couple INTs. Point being...I imagine expectations will be sky-high for Michigan next season, and their talent level isn't up to it. Just like the 2006 Irish, who lacked players defensively but were a preseason #2.
There is a difference, though. Brady Hoke is a college head football coach. He's got experience building programs. He has not been wildly successful in College, but he is not some NFL guy who has no idea how to run a college program. I hope Frank is right, but I fear that he is not. I was looking to beating Michigan down for a few years before they turned it around, but it looks like we lost our chance to do that in '09, '10, and '11. Oh well. We'll have to do it the old-fashioned way--while they're good. Look at it this way: it will help out our strength of schedule and invigorate the rivalry.
I hate you. But I hate myself more for not beating you.
You have 10 words of wisdom to give Brian Kelly that he must follow while he's coach at Notre Dame. What do you say that will be the best for the short-term or long-term health of the program?
Don't sleep on EG. DON'T. SLEEP. ON. EG. DO NOT.
What did you expect me to say?
What 10 words of wisdom would our wise readers wish to whisper to Coach Kelly?
67 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Stanford has had two great seasons...
I wouldn’t emulate that, especially when you say it’s a 50 year decision. I wouldn’t change anything. Just make quality hiring decisions (like they did with Kelly) and it’s going to be fine. These things are cyclical, and you prolong that cycle when you miss so dramatically with a couple bad coaches.
I would just tell Kelly: Be the guy who went for it against Tulsa, fuck what everyone thinks, do your job your way. More than ten words, but if he coaches like an arrogant prick, he is probably going to succeed because he just comprehensively knows how to coach football teams.
by alstein on Jan 13, 2012 1:44 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
Two points:
(a) I was playing by the rules of the question. I guess I could have pulled out the time-honored and PLS-patented Premise Challenge, but I chose to willingly suspend my disbelief for the question. My answer was based on the premise that I was to choose to emulate a non-ND football program. My answer was not to be taken as an indictment on the current staff in any way. I do not wish to make any changes to our current coaching staff. Except that Kerry Cooks. I mean how many shiny-headed guys can you have on one staff? And that Bobby Diaco. He’s just too hansome and charismatic. I am strangely mesmerized when he speaks… I digress.
(2) Stanford’s two great seasons in two years are more great seasons than we’ve had in the past twenty years.
(d) Stanford is 31-8 over the past three years: 8-5 in ’09; 12-1 in ’10; and 11-2 in ’11. AND they have a great system in place and excellent program stability, such that their success appears to me to be sustainable. SUSTAINABILITY. CULMINATION.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 13, 2012 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with the Stanford choice, and I don't think it serves as a criticism of Kelly.
(#) I think Kelly’s headed in that direction. One of the best traits of this team this year was when they played Stanfordy, tough and nasty. Obviously that happened more defensively than offensively.
() Offensively, the Stanford does well is exploiting. But I think that once personnel catches up (or in other words, EG wins the job) the offensive will be exploitative in a way similar to Stanford.
(,) Basically, Stanford does a lot of the things that Ohio State does. But none of us here would want to follow Ohio State, even though they’re the ones who have won a championship and played in three title games. But how about the “Ohio State Model But Without Cheating”?
Clarify this, please:
Offensively, the Stanford does well is exploiting.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 14, 2012 5:17 PM EST up reply actions
Easy
All our base are belong to us.
Duh.
by Irishane on Jan 14, 2012 6:27 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
This grammar thingie got me beat.
But regarding Stanford exploiting on offense…meh, I suppose it’s not the most insightful thought. Any offense is designed to be exploitative. But I was mostly thinking of their unbalanced lines and the way they use their fullbacks/wings.
So they "take what the defense gives them"?
That’s a new term I just coined. Feel free to use it.
Stanford actually does more than exploit mismatches. They are able to line it up and pound the rock down your throat. This really has nothing to do with exploiting mismatches, it’s just them doing what they’re good and doing it well, despite that you know what they’re going to do. Then, after they establish the run, they split a 7-foot-tall tight end out wide and make you cover him, or they run the unbalanced front, or they beat you on the play-action to their massive tight ends or their one fast receiver. So I agree with you, but everything that they do to exploit mismatches comes after they’ve begun to crush your soul with the power running game.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 15, 2012 12:03 AM EST up reply actions
Right, I wasn't really speaking to mismatches and I agree that it's beyond just taking what the defense gives them
I mentioned the fullbacks/wings and unbalanced fronts too. I meant more that their style seems to be inherently exploitative of the current college football environment – even more than an offense like an option team, because it brings those additional elements. As you suggest, few teams have the personnel to be able to handle the types of players, formations, and style that they incorporate. It’s this unorthodoxy that makes them more consistent and sustainable. For that reason their offense does stand out to me as exploitative among their peers. So basically I was thinking the same thing you said.
One could say that UCS’s offense is the same way, with how they are able to establish such a strong running game then break off big passes behind the play action. But their style of “Get the most talented recruits at every position” is a bit tougher to maintain sustainability and less creative than what Stanford does.
So yeah. That’s the more expanded line of reasoning, although, like I said before, nothing particularly new and insightful there.
And since this point was rather unoriginal
As Stanford, who wouldn’t want to be them right now? National title contenders the past few years, the top pick in the draft while, staying out of trouble, and a tough team that’s enjoyable to watch? Sure, anyone would want to sign up.
But it seems to me Ohio State Without Cheating is closer to the style that we’re moving toward. I think this one’s a bit more interesting. How do folks feel about this? This was an ugly year for them and I’m sure we’d all enthusiastically prefer Stanford’s, but they did win 7 Big Ten championships in the past decade. Personally, I’m pretty good with it.
Man I don't know about tOSU.
I think of them as being fairly cumbersome, even when TP was playing QB there. They have been solid on defense but I have never considered them to be particularly explosive or uptempo on offense and I think that is the direction we are headed offensively.
I went and watched them play Texas in the Fiesta Bowl a couple of years back and the whole time I was thinking that tOSU looked slow compared to Texas. Nothing about that OSU offense was particularly fearsome. It was pretty basic and methodical. Stereotypically Big Ten really.
It actually turned out to be a good game but the whole time The Coach and I were sitting there talking to one another about how Texas should have been running away with it. They had a definitive athletic advantage at the skill positions.
Anyway, I think our offense is ultimately going to look more like Oregon’s. A better way to put it is probably to say that seems to be the direction that BK and the staff are attempting to go….
whiskey
www.onefootdown.com
Also, Al, I enjoyed your comment very much.
Here it is in 10 words: “Coach like an arrogant prick. You know how to coachfootball.” The last word is a new verb that I coined.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 13, 2012 3:46 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Answers
1. I’d take him.
2. Texas all day and every day.
3. I too have been training on my height.
4. Ugh, with a side of furk.
5. Hard to beat DSOEG as MotS pointed out. If I can’t say that I’d say, “Bring back the uptempo offense because it will work here.”
Sky rockets in flight.
Texas?
Do you get to emulate their wonderful advantage in in-state recruiting too?
Yes, that's part of the deal
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Jan 13, 2012 8:39 PM EST up reply actions
Then by all means
I am on board. I hear they have quite the jumbotron too…
Hey Mouth
“rush four, drop eight defense”
Hmmm don’t think this is the CFL…but other than that, great article. :)
I finally get to use this...
I know you’re really not new here, but damn this is one of our organic meme’s (rush 4 drop 8)! It will live on.
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Jan 13, 2012 3:03 PM EST up reply actions
He's a good sh!t, so don't bust his b@lls too hard, E.
It’s not Colts17’s fault he doesn’t know our inside jokes.
IC, this was from an e-mail chain in which a certain OFD head writer and founder, who shall remain nameless, but whose handle rhymes with “Briskey Bro-FD” said that Tommy Rees struggled mightily in attacking BC’s rush four, drop eight defense. So do with that little tidbit what you will.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 13, 2012 3:45 PM EST up reply actions
Hadn't we gone public with that meme already?
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Jan 13, 2012 8:39 PM EST up reply actions
I think we have.
In my defense it was late, I had been drinking and our offense sure as hell made it look like BC had 12 defenders on the field that day! Totally worth it, I love the meme.
whiskey
www.onefootdown.com
by whiskey OFD on Jan 14, 2012 12:24 PM EST up reply actions
Haha ok
I halfways wondered if it was on purpose, but I finally decided it was just a mistake. Oops.
by IrishColts17 on Jan 14, 2012 5:09 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks Mouth...
Glad to see we are on the same page
I don't tweet often--but when I do, you can be sure it isn't important.
@jemiesle
You know you can count on me to be there to kick you when you're down.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 13, 2012 4:52 PM EST up reply actions
While forcing me to wear a dunce cap
I don't tweet often--but when I do, you can be sure it isn't important.
@jemiesle
Nah, that takes repeated fudge-ups in a single comments section.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 13, 2012 7:52 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
Good to know...
the rules of winning the internet get a little clearer every day.
I don't tweet often--but when I do, you can be sure it isn't important.
@jemiesle
b/c I hit post too fast...
Anyway…
1. No, I don’t draft him. Even the most talented (Vick) find limited success. Like Mouth alluded to, you have to be pass-first, ala Young (Newton doesn’t have the history.
2. For reference (records only): http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=1961&end=2010&rpct=30&min=5&se=on&by=Win+Pct
I don’t think I would pick Stanford, but its not a bad choice based on the past three years. I think you will see a major decline in the fall. Not sure who I pick though…
3. Looks good, I think a few will be faster though…
4. I think Michigan regresses a bit next fall, since they got conceivable every break possible in 2011 on top of 8 true home games.
5. Try to ignore the pressure, just keep with the plan.
I don't tweet often--but when I do, you can be sure it isn't important.
@jemiesle
Vince Young? Pass first?
History or no, I take Cammy over Vince Young any day.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 13, 2012 4:53 PM EST up reply actions
I'll take Tebow
(Source, with additional lulz)
One Foot Down
On teh Twitterz
by burger23 on Jan 13, 2012 4:56 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Steve Young
Vince has been almost completely erased from my memory
I don't tweet often--but when I do, you can be sure it isn't important.
@jemiesle
My b. I thought we were keeping it 21st century.
Of course Steve Young is pretty much the gold standard for mobile qb’s.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 13, 2012 5:12 PM EST up reply actions
To quote Young Buc:
Everybody knows that gold is old
Tha ice in my teeth keep tha Crystale cold
by Mouth of the South on Jan 13, 2012 7:51 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
I was the most non-wrong, non-disputable, non-debatable thing he's ever written for sure.
It was also non, non-non, non heinous.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 13, 2012 4:53 PM EST up reply actions
So that is a quadruple negative?
I don't tweet often--but when I do, you can be sure it isn't important.
@jemiesle
Ask these guys:
You can’t argue semantics with Bill and Ted.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 13, 2012 5:15 PM EST up reply actions
These are fun...
1. I do take RG3. I think Luck and RG3 are better than any QBs taken in the draft since Stafford was drafted. Though I have been very impressed with Newton – more than I thought I would be – I didn’t think any QBs drafted last year would do much – Newton and Dalton have played well so far.
2. Stanford or Wisconsin. I like toughness. I like relying on defense first, a running game second. I think a team like ours currently relies too much on one player (the QB) such that there are more risks game to game and year to year. If you don’t have the right QB, you’re in trouble. It’s hard for me to back this up (maybe someone can help me) but it seems easier to be consistent year to year replacing cogs in a running game than it is breaking in a new QB who is expected to throw it 30-40 times a game. While I’m partial to that kind of offense I still think what we have can be very effective and get us where we need to be.
3. You underestimate what a good rack board can do for the height.
4. I still think Hoke’s Michigan will mimic Weis’ tenure (though not as bad). Next year Denard will keep their offense above water, defense will be ok again. But they end with 8 wins and after Denard leaves they become a consistent 6-8 win team. They were ridiculously lucky this year – they’ll regress to the mean.
5. Ignore the critics.
3.
by Irishane on Jan 13, 2012 8:47 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Rec'd. Good thoughts, all the way through.
I especially like how you ended with such on such a climatic note.
10 words for BK:
Find our Counardluckley QB, and get your height up, coach.
Or 17 syllables:
The ball is Rees’s?
Our offense is in pieces.
On EG? Irish dance.
by fishoutofwater on Jan 14, 2012 12:25 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
I like that you have us dancing on EG, as this is the opposite of sleeping on him.
But hold the haiku for next year’s haiku off, please. It’s the offseason and I can’t handle that much excitement before signing day.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 14, 2012 5:20 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry, Mouth.
Then again…did you mean…
“But hold the haiku
for next year’s haiku off, please.
It’s the offseason…”
“…and I can’t handle that much excitement before signing day.” 10 words.
I’m getting mixed signals.
by fishoutofwater on Jan 14, 2012 10:38 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
(Apologies – responding to Mouth above.)
by fishoutofwater on Jan 14, 2012 10:38 PM EST up reply actions
Okay...
1. I’ll pass on RG3. I think has more NFL potential and thought he should have won the Heisman.
2. Oregon.
3. Pretty much what everyone else has said.
4. Michigan will probably have a decent season in 2012. BCS bowl decent? I’m not so sure. I can easily see them going 9-3 and making a run for the Big Ten title. The Big Ten is pretty weak right now and Michigan is one of those rare programs with a lot of momentum and returning starters. I highly doubt they will beat Alabama to start the year, but by the time they face ND it’s anyone’s game.
5. Put on your rebuilding hat. Fundamentals. Quarterbacks. Make it happen.
*Andrew Luck
I think Andrew Luck has more NFL potential…
by Meager Reader on Jan 14, 2012 11:14 PM EST up reply actions
Damn. Everyone is prematurely postulating today.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 14, 2012 11:48 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on One Foot Down
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE ONE FOOT DOWN STORE
