2014 Fall Camp Thread

[Whiskeyjack]

ND begins so many running plays with lateral runs by the RB behind the line of scrimmage, I think that even with excellent OL and an excellent OL coach, success can be difficult sometimes. This isn't like the Colts running the slow developing stretch play where the RB needed time for the holes to open, as he was still running somewhat forward while getting to the edge. ND RB's seem to literally be running sideways behind the line of scrimmage, THEN make their move up. Even runs up the middle sometimes have this sideways/lateral movement before planting and moving upfield.

A lot of this is unavoidable in a spread offense, no? RBs are trained to run laterally until they see an open lane. If there aren't any open lanes-- say, because your weak-armed QB can't adequately threaten the boundary or deep zones, so defenses are cheating inside and stacking the box-- then you'll see a lot of lateral runs going nowhere.

But based on BK's time at ND, I'd say that lack of success running the ball may have more to do with scheme and the playbook, rather than the specific OL coach, specific QB, etc.

Those aren't unrelated. BK had to work with a very limited and often ineffective playbook because he was saddled with a very limited and often ineffective QB. BK's offense is predicated on Four Verticals in the passing game and Read Option in the running game. Rees couldn't do either of those, so Kelly had to build a gimpy Franken-offense to win games.

As it stands, people are already checking off a great running game for the foreseeable future because EG, MZ, and DK are on the roster as QB's. Me? I'll believe it when we actually see it.

All of those guys: (1) can run the Read Option; and (2) have the arm strength to actually keep defenses honest. So, assuming basic spread offense principles, our running game is almost guaranteed to be significantly better than it was under Rees.

 

[Emcee77]

I can't believe that I get sucked into these conversations. The coach of our football team has stated these things publicly many times. I'm not just making this stuff up. Why does Tommy check at the line of scrimmage into run plays because they are giving him a favorable run look. So, yes the numbers of players in the box or what the defense is doing certainly dictates how Tommy is going to play. BK used the term "call it and haul it". You can call the play and role with it if your QB is able to do multiple things. Also, the defense can't load up on any specific strategy therefore the offense can dictate the terms more. This isn't really rocket science, its common knowledge. How much does it dictate it, well enough for our HC to publicly speak on it. If by the end of this you still don't agree I understand but the thing you can do is go back and listen to Kelly's interviews from last year. He was constantly asked about why we aren't producing more of a ground game and the answers were simple. Its tough to run with 7/8+ in the box no matter how good your OL is. We have to do things to get them out of the box and for Tommy he struggled with that.

Right, I agree, Kelly has been clear about this.

And it just makes sense. An immobile QB means there is always a tackler unaccounted for, because nobody has to be responsible for the QB in that scenario. Using a lead blocker may help, but Kelly doesn't use a fullback, so getting a lead blocker into the play is going to tip the D off right away. So your only means of spreading the D out is by relying on the arm-strength of your QB, and, well, we had Tommy. So things are going to be pretty clogged for your running backs. I'm not a math wizard, but doesn't this make sense, if you count the blockers and tacklers?

 

[ryno 24]

Its not just that he is not mobile its also that he had very little to no arm strength. Because of this safeties could play closer to the box and the offense became very compact.

 

[irishog77]

A lot of this is unavoidable in a spread offense, no? RBs are trained to run laterally until they see an open lane. If there aren't any open lanes-- say, because your weak-armed QB can't adequately threaten the boundary or deep zones, so defenses are cheating inside and stacking the box-- then you'll see a lot of lateral runs going nowhere.



Those aren't unrelated. BK had to work with a very limited and often ineffective playbook because he was saddled with a very limited and often ineffective QB. BK's offense is predicated on Four Verticals in the passing game and Read Option in the running game. Rees couldn't do either of those, so Kelly had to build a gimpy Franken-offense to win games.



All of those guys: (1) can run the Read Option; and (2) have the arm strength to actually keep defenses honest. So, assuming basic spread offense principles, our running game is almost guaranteed to be significantly better than it was under Rees.

With the saturation of the spread offense, I'm not exactly sure what the spread offense is anymore.

When Oklahoma played Florida for the title several years ago, Oklahoma had a record-breaking, lights out spread offense. Oklahoma was a pioneer in the spread offense in the major college ranks, and this was perhaps the greatest product the had ever produced. OU's record breaking spread offense is what got them to the title game. But I'll also say their spread offense was what caused them to lose that game. Their putrid performance near the goal line lost them the game. If OU and Bradford were able to legitimately line up under center and run a "conventional" running play, they would've scored 2 more TD's.

The point being that despite all the records, honors, accolades, and yards OU churned out, their scheme is what likely cost them a title.

Again, if ND decides to telegraph plays with personnel, not be able to operate with efficiency both under center and out of the shotgun, use slow developing lateral run plays, AND then has a consistent and dominating running game, THEN I'll change my tune that scheme may be a part or the main factor as the culprit.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Best. Goalline package. EVAR!!!

Line

Stanley. Elmer. Martin. Nelson. Hegarty. McGlinchey (eligible)

Offset receiver

Robinson and Daniels next to one another, no blocking, just quick diagonals rub pattern

Backfield

Folston. Golson. Zaire.


Golson reads the left side of the line, if they are crashing he can keep and pitch it for the TD or he can flip it to Zaire for the rush/pass opportunity. McGlinchey is holding his block for 3 seconds then releasing. If the defense drops two to cover he can handoff to Folston who starts 3-5 yards back and comes rumbling down hill.

Yep, I enjoy my make believe Madden world. You could of course flip Zaire and Folston but I like the problems this theoretically creates in my mind

 

[PANDFAN]

With the saturation of the spread offense, I'm not exactly sure what the spread offense is anymore.

When Oklahoma played Florida for the title several years ago, Oklahoma had a record-breaking, lights out spread offense. Oklahoma was a pioneer in the spread offense in the major college ranks, and this was perhaps the greatest product the had ever produced. OU's record breaking spread offense is what got them to the title game. But I'll also say their spread offense was what caused them to lose that game. Their putrid performance near the goal line lost them the game. If OU and Bradford were able to legitimately line up under center and run a "conventional" running play, they would've scored 2 more TD's.

The point being that despite all the records, honors, accolades, and yards OU churned out, their scheme is what likely cost them a title.

Again, if ND decides to telegraph plays with personnel, not be able to operate with efficiency both under center and out of the shotgun, use slow developing lateral run plays, AND then has a consistent and dominating running game, THEN I'll change my tune that scheme may be a part or the main factor as the culprit.

now this is something i can get on board about....when a fan can see the package coming in and diagnose it....much like how barrett jones said our defense would always telegraph w/ certain checks due to the look of the offense

 

[Whiskeyjack]

When Oklahoma played Florida for the title several years ago, Oklahoma had a record-breaking, lights out spread offense. Oklahoma was a pioneer in the spread offense in the major college ranks, and this was perhaps the greatest product the had ever produced. OU's record breaking spread offense is what got them to the title game. But I'll also say their spread offense was what caused them to lose that game. Their putrid performance near the goal line lost them the game. If OU and Bradford were able to legitimately line up under center and run a "conventional" running play, they would've scored 2 more TD's.

Weakness at the goal line has long been cited as a major drawback of the spread. But the "Power Spread" run by Auburn and Clemson seems to do much better in the red zone. And as Irish19 noted above:

We do not need a bag of tricks to score. Mobile QB, huge O-line, big targets and a stable of backs. Use them all. Run the ball, use play action, boot off the run and throw to the height in favorable coverage.

The point being that despite all the records, honors, accolades, and yards OU churned out, their scheme is what likely cost them a title.

It's also what got them to the title in the first place. Malzahn's spread won a title four years ago (against another spread team), and almost won him another this year. And FSU utilizes a lot of a spread concepts, too, doesn't it?

 

[pkt77242]

you don't think having at least 1 less man in the box equates to better match ups for running the ball? planned qb runs out of the shotgun wouldn't create any better advantage ? when tommy was in shotgun formation--no planned qb run, the defense wasn't on their heels and knew damn well it was a pass or handoff to rb....fast fwd to this year, golson has 2 options running or passing but then the 3rd option could be handoff to rb....more options create more for defenders to think about and increases the risk of mistakes which lead to big runs..to further support having a mobile qb increasing the run game, take a look at last years top 10 teams in rushing Rushing Yards Leaders
RK TEAM ATT YDS YDS/A LONG TD YDS/G
1 Auburn 729 4596 6.3 75 48 328.3
2 Ohio State 635 4321 6.8 70 45 308.6
3 Navy 775 4230 5.5 67 50 325.4
4 Northern Illinois 655 4161 6.4 61 39 297.2
5 Georgia Tech 713 3891 5.5 65 46 299.3
6 Army 693 3717 5.4 96 34 309.8
7 New Mexico 604 3706 6.1 80 40 308.8
8 Wisconsin 557 3689 6.6 93 35 283.8
9 Oregon 568 3556 6.3 71 42 273.5
10 Brigham Young 664
all the bold teams had a qb who could run....i understand some of the teams are based on running the ball but it keeps the defense honest

Some of those teams?
Here are those teams passing rankings
Auburn 100th
Ohio St. 74th
Navy 2nd to last
N. Illinois 52nd
Georgia Tech 120th
Army Dead last
New Mexico 123rd
Oregon 20th
BYU 67th

All your stats tells us is that a team that runs a lot will finish with lots of yards rushing. Sorry. Oregon is the only team to truly buck that pattern.

 

[pkt77242]

Weakness at the goal line has long been cited as a major drawback of the spread. But the "Power Spread" run by Auburn and Clemson seems to do much better in the red zone. And as Irish19 noted above:





It's also what got them to the title in the first place. Malzahn's spread won a title four years ago (against another spread team), and almost won him another this year. And FSU utilizes a lot of a spread concepts, too, doesn't it?

Not really, well not the QB running part. Winston had 88 carries for 219 yards. Since college football counts sacks as carries, FSU was sacked 33 times (lets call 30 of them Winston's) which puts him at about 58 carries over 14 games. Not even five carries a game and most of those were on scrambles. They run some spread concepts but they aren't a spread team like Oregon or Auburn more like ND during 2012.

Here are the redzone percentages for last year. Clemson came in at 54th.
College Football Stats - College FB Team Red Zone Scoring Percentage (TDs and FGs) on TeamRankings.com

 

[Irishbounty28]

Some of those teams?
Here are those teams passing rankings
Auburn 100th
Ohio St. 74th
Navy 2nd to last
N. Illinois 52nd
Georgia Tech 120th
Army Dead last
New Mexico 123rd
Oregon 20th
BYU 67th

All your stats tells us is that a team that runs a lot will finish with lots of yards rushing. Sorry. Oregon is the only team to truly buck that pattern.

He was arguing that a mobile quarterback assists in the run game, and using those teams as an example. He wasn't talking about the pass game I don't think.

 

[PANDFAN]

Some of those teams?
Here are those teams passing rankings
Auburn 100th
Ohio St. 74th
Navy 2nd to last
N. Illinois 52nd
Georgia Tech 120th
Army Dead last
New Mexico 123rd
Oregon 20th
BYU 67th

All your stats tells us is that a team that runs a lot will finish with lots of yards rushing. Sorry. Oregon is the only team to truly buck that pattern.

He was arguing that a mobile quarterback assists in the run game, and using those teams as an example. He wasn't talking about the pass game I don't think.

correct.. this was the said text in which i was responding to I don't think the presence (or lack thereof) of certain QB's has as big of an influence on the running game as some claim. i was just pointing out that out of the top 10 teams in running last year 90% of them had a mobile qb..just a fact...wasn't talking about passing

 

[pkt77242]

There is no doubt that a mobile QB can help in the Redzone, but they also need a good line and usually some good RBs as well. Heck USC finished number 6 last year and no one is going to call their QB a dual threat. BC also did very well finishing number 3 with a non DT QB.

 

[pkt77242]

correct.. this was the said text in which i was responding to I don't think the presence (or lack thereof) of certain QB's has as big of an influence on the running game as some claim. i was just pointing out that out of the top 10 teams in running last year 90% of them had a mobile qb..just a fact...wasn't talking about passing

My point is that those teams just run the ball over and over. It isn't that a running QB helps but that if you run the ball so many times of course you are going to have tons of yards. I point out the passing stats to show how little those teams throw. If a team runs the ball 50 times a game (or 60 or 70) then of course they are going to have tons of yards, it has little to do with a running QB, more to do with the amount of attempts.

 

[Irishbounty28]

My point is that those teams just run the ball over and over. It isn't that a running QB helps but that if you run the ball so many times of course you are going to have tons of yards. I point out the passing stats to show how little those teams throw. If a team runs the ball 50 times a game (or 60 or 70) then of course they are going to have tons of yards, it has little to do with a running QB, more to do with the amount of attempts.

I would argue it has a lot to do with them having a mobile quarterback...

First of all, these teams recruited a specific quarterback that is a dual threat type. Why did they do this? Because they wanted their identity to be run first. There has to be a reason the teams that choose to run the most predominately have mobile or athletic quarterbacks. It obviously brings more to the table and allows more options to run the football.

Again, I don't think Pandfan was arguing that we will be running the football as much or anywhere close to those listed teams. I do believe that having a mobile quarterback will allow for more rushing opportunities, and lead to more big plays in the rushing game.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Not really, well not the QB running part. Winston had 88 carries for 219 yards. Since college football counts sacks as carries, FSU was sacked 33 times (lets call 30 of them Winston's) which puts him at about 58 carries over 14 games. Not even five carries a game and most of those were on scrambles. They run some spread concepts but they aren't a spread team like Oregon or Auburn more like ND during 2012.

Based on some brief research, it seems like Manuel did a lot more running than Winston. But FSU's running game in 2013 still consisted of Inside Zone, Outside Zone and Power O (just like ours). That's a spread offense.

Here are the redzone percentages for last year. Clemson came in at 54th.
College Football Stats - College FB Team Red Zone Scoring Percentage (TDs and FGs) on TeamRankings.com

So it looks like Clemson was a bad example, but there are still plenty of spread offenses with high rankings there. FSU (if the above is correct), Northwestern, Ohio State, Arizona State...

 

[irishog77]

Weakness at the goal line has long been cited as a major drawback of the spread. But the "Power Spread" run by Auburn and Clemson seems to do much better in the red zone. And as Irish19 noted above:

It's also what got them to the title in the first place. Malzahn's spread won a title four years ago (against another spread team), and almost won him another this year. And FSU utilizes a lot of a spread concepts, too, doesn't it?

I'm not sure about that. But that kind of goes to my point about what the "spread" even is anymore.

I think the mentioned formula can work. And I'll also freely concede that ND has had some success running the ball during BK's time. I'm just skeptical that we'll see a dominant run game...unless something in the entire scheme changes.

Auburn, Oregon, Clemson, Navy, FSU, ____, and whoever else runs the spread and/or is committed to a strong run game has had limits with their QB's as well. Granted they may not be limits like Rees or RF Golson had, but limits nonetheless. I'll say the first step to having a consistent, productive run game is a legitimate commitment to running the ball. How many times over the past 4 years, regardless of wether it was a win or loss, have we seen this board go on and on about why BK abandoned the run game or didn't run the ball more? It's been a constant theme among ND fans and followers.

Can ND do a better job running the ball? Absolutely. I think the lack of Rees and insertion of EG, MZ, ___ will be better overall for the offense's productivity and efficiency. I expect all of ND's offense to improve this upcoming season.

But because of the scheme/methods/personnel (all HC, OC decisions), I have some doubts as to how productive and effective it will be. Show me, don't tell me. Could the productivity and efficiency of BK's run game be the productivity and efficiency of Weis' defense or the productivity and efficiency of BK's punt return game? Things often talked about, but never actually changed. I have to at least think it's open to debate and not something we should accept because BK has said so. Again, show me...then I'll believe it.

 

[pkt77242]

I would argue it has a lot to do with them having a mobile quarterback...

First of all, these teams recruited a specific quarterback that is a dual threat type. Why did they do this? Because they wanted their identity to be run first. There has to be a reason the teams that choose to run the most predominately have mobile or athletic quarterbacks. It obviously brings more to the table and allows more options to run the football.

Again, I don't think Pandfan was arguing that we will be running the football as much or anywhere close to those listed teams. I do believe that having a mobile quarterback will allow for more rushing opportunities, and lead to more big plays in the rushing game.

I would argue that teams like GT, Army, Navy, etc don't have dual threat QBs, they have running backs playing QB.

The stats that Pandafan posted just show what volume of rushes can do (besides Oregon which is a great example of what a mobile QB in a great spread offense) instead of what a mobile QB can do. I don't doubt that a more mobile QB can help some but I would argue that it isn't as much as Pandafan believes. Yes a mobile QB can help a little but we are not going to be running Oregon or Auburn's spread anytime soon. I think the real improvement in our run game this year will be that our RBs should be better (and our O-line should be overall about as good and could be slightly better overall depending on injuries, development, etc).

 

[Irishbounty28]

I would argue that teams like GT, Army, Navy, etc don't have dual threat QBs, they have running backs playing QB.

The stats that Pandafan posted just show what volume of rushes can do (besides Oregon which is a great example of what a mobile QB in a great spread offense) instead of what a mobile QB can do. I don't doubt that a more mobile QB can help some but I would argue that it isn't as much as Pandafan believes. Yes a mobile QB can help a little but we are not going to be running Oregon or Auburn's spread anytime soon. I think the real improvement in our run game this year will be that our RBs should be better (and our O-line should be overall about as good and could be slightly better overall depending on injuries, development, etc).

I agree that the schools you listed have running backs playing qb, but they still add another dimension either way. They may not throw often, but they do have that option and teams still have to gameplan for it. For instance, Golson ran for 298 or so yards in 2012, which comes out to 20+ yards per game. That in and of itself is increasing the run game, and also could be the difference between 3 and 7 points somewhere in the game.

Coach Kelly won't ever be running the ball 50 or so times a game, but just having the option to utilize a quarterback, or a running back playing qb, in the offense will increase rushing yards. Maybe not a huge amount, but enough to make a difference.

 

[pkt77242]

Based on some brief research, it seems like Manuel did a lot more running than Winston. But FSU's running game in 2013 still consisted of Inside Zone, Outside Zone and Power O (just like ours). That's a spread offense.



So it looks like Clemson was a bad example, but there are still plenty of spread offenses with high rankings there. FSU (if the above is correct), Northwestern, Ohio State, Arizona State...

I would also point out that in the top 10 are Buffalo, BC and USC who aren't spread teams (or at least non-mobile QB spread teams. Their QBs are very little threat to no threat to run.

FSU is a "spread" team like ND was in 2012 but FSU is not a spread team like an Oregon, Auburn, etc where the QB is going to carry a significant amount of times. Does a mobile QB help around the goaline, sure, but it is just as important if not more important that he is an accurate passer, that the o-line wins their battles and that you have good running backs.

 

[pkt77242]

I agree that the schools you listed have running backs playing qb, but they still add another dimension either way. They may not throw often, but they do have that option and teams still have to gameplan for it. For instance, Golson ran for 298 or so yards in 2012, which comes out to 20+ yards per game. That in and of itself is increasing the run game, and also could be the difference between 3 and 7 points somewhere in the game.

Coach Kelly won't ever be running the ball 50 or so times a game, but just having the option to utilize a quarterback, or a running back playing qb, in the offense will increase rushing yards. Maybe not a huge amount, but enough to make a difference.

I am not sure how many yards really matter, it is the ypc. If the QB is adding 20 yards a game but averaging 3.5 ypc, and the running back is averaging 4.5 ypc, wouldn't you be better off giving the carries to the RB. While I am simplifying the argument because there is a chance that the QB runs are opening up the RB runs but I would point out that unless the QB is tearing off nice chunks of yards then chances are that the defense isn't going to worry as much about him.

 

[Luckylucci]

I am not sure how many yards really matter, it is the ypc. If the QB is adding 20 yards a game but averaging 3.5 ypc, and the running back is averaging 4.5 ypc, wouldn't you be better off giving the carries to the RB. While I am simplifying the argument because there is a chance that the QB runs are opening up the RB runs but I would point out that unless the QB is tearing off nice chunks of yards then chances are that the defense isn't going to worry as much about him.

Yes, YPC is the best way to measure the efficiency of the running game.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I would also point out that in the top 10 are Buffalo, BC and USC who aren't spread teams (or at least non-mobile QB spread teams. Their QBs are very little threat to no threat to run.

FSU is a "spread" team like ND was in 2012 but FSU is not a spread team like an Oregon, Auburn, etc where the QB is going to carry a significant amount of times. Does a mobile QB help around the goaline, sure, but it is just as important if not more important that he is an accurate passer, that the o-line wins their battles and that you have good running backs.

I never argued that a mobile QB is necessary to run a spread offense, though being able to utilize option concepts tends to give the spread ground game a big boost. BK himself has stated that he doesn't need a mobile QB. See Tony Pike at Cincinnati. But if your QB can't run, he damned well better have the arm strength and accuracy to keep defenses honest. Conversely, as the academies prove, you can still run a spread offense without much of a passing threat if your QB is mobile and you're damned good at running the option.

Our problem in 2013 was that Rees didn't have the arm or the mobility to make either aspect of the spread work. So I don't see how one can argue that our recent QB woes can somehow be separated from the rushing production. Everything-- our play-calling, opposing defensive schemes, etc.-- revolved around Rees' very limited skillset.

 

[Luckylucci]

I never argued that a mobile QB is necessary to run a spread offense, though being able to utilize option concepts tends to give the spread ground game a big boost. BK himself has stated that he doesn't need a mobile QB. See Tony Pike at Cincinnati. But if your QB can't run, he damned well better have the arm strength and accuracy to keep defenses honest. Conversely, as the academies prove, you can still run a spread offense without much of a passing threat if your QB is mobile and you're damned good at running the option.

Our problem in 2013 was that Rees didn't have the arm or the mobility to make either aspect of the spread work. So I don't see how one can argue that our recent QB woes can somehow be separated from the rushing production. Everything-- our play-calling, opposing defensive schemes, etc.-- revolved around Rees' very limited skillset.

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes. Very well said

 

[Wild Bill]

A lot of this is unavoidable in a spread offense, no? RBs are trained to run laterally until they see an open lane. If there aren't any open lanes-- say, because your weak-armed QB can't adequately threaten the boundary or deep zones, so defenses are cheating inside and stacking the box-- then you'll see a lot of lateral runs going nowhere.

It is avoidable, even in a spread. The offensive line needs to be better at the point of attack and the running backs need to do a better job at pressing the line of scrimmage.

It starts with the offensive line, in my opinion. If they re-set the line of scrimmage at the snap, even a half yard, it makes running the ball that much easier. If the offensive line can get any push a natural back has the innate ability to read/react very quickly, sense the movement and push the ball up the field while moving laterally.

Last year, we had a technically great and disciplined offensive line. The whole was greater than the sum of its parts and it's clear they are coached very well. However, they did not blow any of their opponents off the ball. Even if they had, the backs were not good at pressing the line of scrimmage, GAIII in particular. Fix these two problems and we will run the ball with greater consistency.

Backs should be much better at pushing the line of scrimmage this year. Folston did a decent job last year and improved throughout the season. He needs to improve his decision making after he gets through the line of scrimmage. He relied too much on his natural ability and didn't trust his blockers (completely different conversation). Nobody knows with Bryant but I think he's an upgrade from GAIII and Amir. We all know what we get with Cam, and I think it's safe to say he put the work in to get better during the off season.

I'm not sure if the offensive line will be better at run blocking. Heistand is a great coach but he's more of a technician than a drive block your defender kind of coach. I've never watched him coach and I'm basing my opinion solely on the way his linemen play - they are neutral in their stance as opposed to slight forward lean, they have great feet and utilize body position to screen defenders from the play rather than driving defenders out. I realize the system dictates blocking scheme but every scheme in football is better when your hogs can drive block someone down the field. Spread, power spread, whatever...some things never change. If my line can kick the shit out of your line, I'm going to run the ball effectively and probably win the game. I'm being overly critical, but I'd like to see a line with a healthy mix of technique and aggression.

We need someone on the line with a mean streak to be a leader. Zach was the unquestioned leader last year but he was a cerebral player. A technician. The best offensive linemen I've watched at ND. You need a guy like him to have a great offensive line. You also need a nasty pig who picks fights with teammates at practice, steps on hands on his way back to the huddle, needlessly punches guts and embraces the role of being a goon. He's going to impose his will on someone. The rest of the guys will see it and match his intensity. It's contagious.

Golson will help keep a defense honest provided he hits his target consistently. A nasty offensive line and a running back committed to gaining positive yardage is more important, in my opinion. Great teams can run against an eight man box. It's not impossible.

 

[Irish#1]

I would argue it has a lot to do with them having a mobile quarterback...

First of all, these teams recruited a specific quarterback that is a dual threat type. Why did they do this? Because they wanted their identity to be run first. There has to be a reason the teams that choose to run the most predominately have mobile or athletic quarterbacks. It obviously brings more to the table and allows more options to run the football.

Again, I don't think Pandfan was arguing that we will be running the football as much or anywhere close to those listed teams. I do believe that having a mobile quarterback will allow for more rushing opportunities, and lead to more big plays in the rushing game.

I see where you're coming from, but I would disagree. I would say the biggest reason to have a DT QB is so the defense doesn't know if the QB is going to pass or run. I don't think it identifies a team as run first.

 

[Irish#1]

It is avoidable, even in a spread. The offensive line needs to be better at the point of attack and the running backs need to do a better job at pressing the line of scrimmage.

It starts with the offensive line, in my opinion. If they re-set the line of scrimmage at the snap, even a half yard, it makes running the ball that much easier. If the offensive line can get any push a natural back has the innate ability to read/react very quickly, sense the movement and push the ball up the field while moving laterally.

Last year, we had a technically great and disciplined offensive line. The whole was greater than the sum of its parts and it's clear they are coached very well. However, they did not blow any of their opponents off the ball. Even if they had, the backs were not good at pressing the line of scrimmage, GAIII in particular. Fix these two problems and we will run the ball with greater consistency.

Backs should be much better at pushing the line of scrimmage this year. Folston did a decent job last year and improved throughout the season. He needs to improve his decision making after he gets through the line of scrimmage. He relied too much on his natural ability and didn't trust his blockers (completely different conversation). Nobody knows with Bryant but I think he's an upgrade from GAIII and Amir. We all know what we get with Cam, and I think it's safe to say he put the work in to get better during the off season.

I'm not sure if the offensive line will be better at run blocking. Heistand is a great coach but he's more of a technician than a drive block your defender kind of coach. I've never watched him coach and I'm basing my opinion solely on the way his linemen play - they are neutral in their stance as opposed to slight forward lean, they have great feet and utilize body position to screen defenders from the play rather than driving defenders out. I realize the system dictates blocking scheme but every scheme in football is better when your hogs can drive block someone down the field. Spread, power spread, whatever...some things never change. If my line can kick the shit out of your line, I'm going to run the ball effectively and probably win the game. I'm being overly critical, but I'd like to see a line with a healthy mix of technique and aggression.

We need someone on the line with a mean streak to be a leader. Zach was the unquestioned leader last year but he was a cerebral player. A technician. The best offensive linemen I've watched at ND. You need a guy like him to have a great offensive line. You also need a nasty pig who picks fights with teammates at practice, steps on hands on his way back to the huddle, needlessly punches guts and embraces the role of being a goon. He's going to impose his will on someone. The rest of the guys will see it and match his intensity. It's contagious.

Golson will help keep a defense honest provided he hits his target consistently. A nasty offensive line and a running back committed to gaining positive yardage is more important, in my opinion. Great teams can run against an eight man box. It's not impossible.

I agree with most of what you said, but I would say they are coached to be in a neutral to avoid giving the D any clue to whether the play is pass or run.

 

[adsnorri]

I think there is a major point being missed here.

The QB runs are not exactly measured by only ypc. Here's my take; The effectiveness of the qb runs in our offense and FSU should also be taken into account for the timing and importance of the run. Most of our qb runs came at a time when we needed a first down or a big play. The big passing plays also have an inherent risk of qb runs because of the timing of the drop of the quarterback and the drop coverage of the defense(normally).

So all in all, 20 yards may not seem like a lot per game but if it kept 3 or 4 drives going because the qb scrambled on 3rd and 5, that is very important. This is the aspect that most try to allude to with the difference between Tommy and an athletic qb.

We don't have to force throws on 3rd down because the qb can scramble and create throwing lanes and/or pickup the 5 yards for the 1st.

 

[GoIrish41]

I think there is a major point being missed here.

The QB runs are not exactly measured by only ypc. Here's my take; The effectiveness of the qb runs in our offense and FSU should also be taken into account for the timing and importance of the run. Most of our qb runs came at a time when we needed a first down or a big play. The big passing plays also have an inherent risk of qb runs because of the timing of the drop of the quarterback and the drop coverage of the defense(normally).

So all in all, 20 yards may not seem like a lot per game but if it kept 3 or 4 drives going because the qb scrambled on 3rd and 5, that is very important. This is the aspect that most try to allude to with the difference between Tommy and an athletic qb.

We don't have to force throws on 3rd down because the qb can scramble and create throwing lanes and/or pickup the 5 yards for the 1st.

Read option may actually be a thing at ND -- and not just a thing the D has to be ready for. With Folston and Bryant that play could become the go to play on offense.

 

[adsnorri]

Read option may actually be a thing at ND -- and not just a thing the D has to be ready for. With Folston and Bryant that play could become the go to play on offense.

Not sure what that has to do with my post. I am only talking about what we have seen from our offense so far. There has been very little read option involved.

 

[Luckylucci]

II Summer Defense Notes

-Trumbetti and Cage have impressed. Sampson expects him to challenge for a lead pass rushing role (3rd and long scenarios). Cage being able to challenge for 5-10 snaps per game would benefit the DL depth a lot. We know what we have in Sheldon and Jarron. Jarron seems to have matured quite a bit. Everything is fine with Hayes as he's just getting used to censoring his social media habits a bit.

- Joe Schmidt is more than just a place holder and leader. They expect him to surprise people. The staff expect Grace to contribute this fall. In what fashion remains to be seen but positive vibe coming from program. Not a prediction but will interesting if Elijah Shumate gets a look at SAM LB. (I've thought for some time that Elijah seems to fit the hybrid LB that BVG likes in his sytem)

-Not much on CB he'll be adding to this but Watkins seems to be the real deal. Riggs is comfortable within the program and feels good about being here.