'13 OH QB Malik Zaire (Notre Dame Early Enrollee)

[Crazy Balki]

Running a dumbed-down version of an offense that your opponent doesn't have any film on is perfect for winning one game. Unfortunately that's not the goal. The goal is to win 12 games. Do you guys seriously think the LSU game would have had the same outcome if LSU had film of us running the same offense over the last 12 weeks?

Sometimes I feel as though there is a fundamental inability by fans to understand how competitive and complex football is at this level.

Believe it or not, yes. You can't simply think that 3-weeks of preparation would get them ready for the way our O-Line played in that game. Needless to say, Hiestand earned his pay in the days leading up to that game. It was an entirely different unit, that flat out dominated the line of scrimmage start to finish. In fact, I don't think LSU could handle Malik at all, so whoever mentioned that, I'd try watching that game again. I think when ND's offense stalled it was when Golson was in. It seemed like each time ND had momentum and Zaire was coming off a good drive, Golson would come in and kill it. That happened on at least a few occasions. Though both played well, Zaire definitely had the better game.

And the idea that LSU was "disinterested"?...So now teams are "disinterested" to play Notre Dame? What happened to the constant talk of "EVERYBODY GETS UP TO PLAY NOTRE DAME"? That logic doesn't work both ways. They were up for it, we were up for it, we outplayed them. End of story. You can say that LSU didn't have the film to prep for the new offense, well that logic does go both ways. ND only had 3 weeks to prepare an entirely new offense with an entirely new QB.

 

[NDohio]

No. If LSU would have been able to use the film of the first 12 games against us, that would have meant that Golson would've played the entire game and the outcome would have been an easy victory for them.

.

If LSU would have had game film of the offense we ran while MZ was behind center, they would have been more prepared to stop that offense.

Part of what made MZ successful was the surprise factor.

 

[Crazy Balki]

If LSU would have had game film of the offense we ran while MZ was behind center, they would have been more prepared to stop that offense.

Part of what made MZ successful was the surprise factor.

Part of, but the impact was minimal at best. While LSU had little ability to prep for Zaire, ND had little time to insert Zaire into the offense. It works both ways. What really made the difference was the offensive line. I don't care how prepared you are, the way they dominated up front, nobody is preparing for that.

 

[NCND]

I have to ask the million dollar question Lucky... If this is simple and it worked against LSU, why don't they want to line up and run this against every team in 2015? Every team will be less talented defensively than LSU's 2 deep.

TOTALLY AGREE.

 

[Luckylucci]

I have to ask the million dollar question Lucky... If this is simple and it worked against LSU, why don't they want to line up and run this against every team in 2015? Every team will be less talented defensively than LSU's 2 deep.

So I sure missed a lot and I'll start here. The question is who is it simple for? Its was simpler system for Zaire but not necessarily the defense. The defense doesn't know what's coming. Also, for a DE to play the edge with Folston/Bryant and Zaire (Zaire is an exceptional ATH at QB) is going to have to be a pretty special player. Lastly, as we saw in the game there were drives where LSU did a very good job of taking that away, Golson came in, hit a few passes, and defense backed off. It was really one of the best called games I've seen from an ND coach in I don't know how long. Almost perfect timing on when to call what, specifically putting Golson in. I personally do not believe you can have elite success running that type of offense against an entire schedule. Zaire ran the ball 20+ times, as I've mentioned in the past that is twice as much as the likes of Nick Marshall, Marcus M, etc. Teams will force you to throw over the top. If Zaire can effectively develop that part of his game then it will be scary to watch but that hasn't happened yet, at least not that we've seen.

Again, Zaire did what he was asked to do very very well, a big reason why we won. However, he clearly wasn't asked to run a system that gave him the same amount of responsibilities.

 

[Luckylucci]

While I agree with you that we did simplify our playbook for the LSU game (our passing game was much simpler then in previous games), if the read option is really that simple why can't Golson figure it out. Golson seems to really struggle with the read-option even though you keep telling everyone how simple it is.

A couple of reasons, mainly contact and fumbling. Golson has fumbling issues and he knows it. The defense can take that part of the game away by simply backing up the DE with a S for example (thats where throwing over the top comes into play). That way the DE crashes on the RB and S takes QB. In that situation the QB has to be comfortable taking contact and minimal gains. Golson doesn't like contact nor does he have the frame to take that many hits per game. With that said I don't believe Zaire could run the ball 20+ times/game for a 12 game season.

Also, keep in mind what we are talking about is a gameplan design. Think of this on your own. What would be harder for you to run? Empty set with 5 OL for a 7 or 8 man box and trying to figure out who is coming from where pre snap, then post snap going through your progressions quick enough that the 6th guy doesn't get to you first. (simple description I know but for the sake of time) Or running a give/keep system reading the DE/LB. What is one reason why NFL coaches are so skeptical of QB's that run those types of systems, because they are SIMPLE. Now some spreads add in a give/keep/pass which would be a step up in complication. Oregon will sometimes do this for example. You'll notice that their WR's are actually running routes when they're running the zone read, thats because the QB has the choice to throw the ball out of that play. We were not doing that against LSU.

 

[stlnd01]

Golson and Zaire are both competent quarterbacks who each have about one half of what it takes to be a truly great QB. Whoever develops more of their weak half this spring and summer will start, and should. Not a bad spot to be in.

 

[Luckylucci]

Believe it or not, yes. You can't simply think that 3-weeks of preparation would get them ready for the way our O-Line played in that game. Needless to say, Hiestand earned his pay in the days leading up to that game. It was an entirely different unit, that flat out dominated the line of scrimmage start to finish. In fact, I don't think LSU could handle Malik at all, so whoever mentioned that, I'd try watching that game again. I think when ND's offense stalled it was when Golson was in. It seemed like each time ND had momentum and Zaire was coming off a good drive, Golson would come in and kill it. That happened on at least a few occasions. Though both played well, Zaire definitely had the better game.

And the idea that LSU was "disinterested"?...So now teams are "disinterested" to play Notre Dame? What happened to the constant talk of "EVERYBODY GETS UP TO PLAY NOTRE DAME"? That logic doesn't work both ways. They were up for it, we were up for it, we outplayed them. End of story. You can say that LSU didn't have the film to prep for the new offense, well that logic does go both ways. ND only had 3 weeks to prepare an entirely new offense with an entirely new QB.

You're doing a very good job of convincing me that you literally never watched the game or you drink and post too much. Golson had probably 5 or more CRUCIAL first down throws in that game. Including 3 on the last drive that won us the game. Thats exactly what was so beautiful about the way the game was called.

 

[pkt77242]

A couple of reasons, mainly contact and fumbling. Golson has fumbling issues and he knows it. The defense can take that part of the game away by simply backing up the DE with a S for example (thats where throwing over the top comes into play). That way the DE crashes on the RB and S takes QB. In that situation the QB has to be comfortable taking contact and minimal gains. Golson doesn't like contact nor does he have the frame to take that many hits per game. With that said I don't believe Zaire could run the ball 20+ times/game for a 12 game season.

Also, keep in mind what we are talking about is a gameplan design. Think of this on your own. What would be harder for you to run? Empty set with 5 OL for a 7 or 8 man box and trying to figure out who is coming from where pre snap, then post snap going through your progressions quick enough that the 6th guy doesn't get to you first. (simple description I know but for the sake of time) Or running a give/keep system reading the DE/LB. What is one reason why NFL coaches are so skeptical of QB's that run those types of systems, because they are SIMPLE. Now some spreads add in a give/keep/pass which would be a step up in complication. Oregon will sometimes do this for example. You'll notice that their WR's are actually running routes when they're running the zone read, thats because the QB has the choice to throw the ball out of that play. We were not doing that against LSU.

There is no doubt that passing wise it is a simple offense but I don't consider the read-option play a "simple play", and in fact it is significantly less simple for the QB then a typical run play, that is more my disagreement with you. I already previously agreed that we simplified the passing plays for Zaire.

Also if I was running a 5 WR set and their was 7-8 men in the box, I would be throwing a bubble screen as I would have the numbers wide (I get the point that you are making, just answering the specific question).

 

[Luckylucci]

There is no doubt that passing wise it is a simple offense but I don't consider the read-option play a "simple play", and in fact it is significantly less simple for the QB then a typical run play, that is more my disagreement with you. I already previously agreed that we simplified the passing plays for Zaire.

Also if I was running a 5 WR set and their was 7-8 men in the box, I would be throwing a bubble screen as I would have the numbers wide (I get the point that you are making, just answering the specific question).

I guess I'm not sure what that has to do with what we're talking about. This conversation was started as did we make the gameplan simpler for Zaire and the LSU game.

Fair point, I actually mispoke 6-7. They man up the outsides which make that incredibly tough to do and you have to make reads and throws before the pressure gets to you.

I would just say go watch the ASU game and tell me what you'd be more comfortable running.

 

[Crazy Balki]

You're doing a very good job of convincing me that you literally never watched the game or you drink and post too much. Golson had probably 5 or more CRUCIAL first down throws in that game. Including 3 on the last drive that won us the game. Thats exactly what was so beautiful about the way the game was called.

I could say the same for you. You don't remember the swing where the defense forced the turnover right after Zaire had a great drive. Golson comes in, and then 3 and out. Not saying he was bad by any means, but there were moments of stagnation when he was in, more-so than Zaire. And don't even get me started on that horrible lob up in the air after getting bum rushed. That was about as bone-headed as it gets, and he was VERY lucky that wasn't picked off.

 

[Luckylucci]

I could say the same for you. You don't remember the swing where the defense forced the turnover right after Zaire had a great drive. Golson comes in, and then 3 and out. Not saying he was bad by any means, but there were moments of stagnation when he was in, more-so than Zaire. And don't even get me started on that horrible lob up in the air after getting bum rushed. That was about as bone-headed as it gets, and he was VERY lucky that wasn't picked off.

So to rebut me you bring up one example...... If you didn't realize that the D was starting to key on Zaire I'm not sure what to tell you.

 

[Crazy Balki]

I guess I'm not sure what that has to do with what we're talking about. This conversation was started as did we make the gameplan simpler for Zaire and the LSU game.

Fair point, I actually mispoke 6-7. They man up the outsides which make that incredibly tough to do and you have to make reads and throws before the pressure gets to you.

I would just say go watch the ASU game and tell me what you'd be more comfortable running.

I think it does have quite a bit to do with what we're talking about. He basically stating we got simpler in passing and more diverse and complex in our run scheme. Which I agree with. During the regular season, especially early in the year, we were so damn predictable with our run plays. Even worse, it was very apparent that we were passing to set up the run, instead of the opposite. This affects the O-Line greatly. I remember Coach D talking about this recently, and he stated that it's easier for OL to develop that forward, physical mentality when you've already somewhat established that physical edge by run blocking and getting at the defenders.

As for the ASU game, while I wasn't pleased with the idea of how we passed the ball, I was MUCH more displeased on how we handled the blitz, or didn't in this case. It was honestly the worst game the OL had last year. Whereas, LSU was definitely their best, which may solidify the argument that running to set up the pass is the way to go.

 

[Crazy Balki]

So to rebut me you bring up one example...... If you didn't realize that the D was starting to key on Zaire I'm not sure what to tell you.

Well Golson played in the 1st half too, so I'm not sure what to tell you. You're making it sound like I thought Golson played horribly, which I've already said wasn't the case. Malik just looked better. His passing was crisper, he was more efficient, he could run the ball with more speed and authority, and he seemed to jell with the other players a lot more. For you, here are the full examples that I saw.

2nd drive, Golson had 1 very good throw to Brown, but 2-3 others that weren't good at all. Folston bailed him out a few times. Zaire came in and took them the rest of the way, most with his legs.

3rd drive, Golson chucks up what could have easily been a pick. VERY lucky Fuller was there to make the catch. Zaire comes in and fires a laser to Fuller, gets another good run and puts in the block that gets Folston in the endzone.

1st drive of the 2nd half, Zaire comes in fires a laser to Brown to convert on 3rd down. Golson takes over, 2 inaccurate throws, drive stalls.

Golson comes in and does well in the final drive. Surprisingly Zaire had the only bad pass of that drive (probably Zaire's only bad pass all game).

 

[Luckylucci]

This conversation has nothing to do with who played better. It's about the gameplan design. You guys think it was complicated and I gravely disagree. I believe it's pretty apparent they simplified the offense. We'll leave it at that.

 

[Rocket89]

The bar is set really high for Golson, which is fine. It should probably be that way for any ND quarterback. The criticisms often venture into some very harsh areas, but again, that's not unusual for most college fans who have seen a QB for a couple years.

In contrast, the bar as set right now is hilariously low for Zaire. That's not unusual either. The love of the backup QB and all that. Plus, Zaire signals more running which a lot of people love. And the near fainting from his inspired fist pumps and inspirational tweets!

Would more running and/or a more varied run game help the Irish? Maybe. But let's not act like it's an absolute proven way to win more games.

There will always be loud criticisms of the offense and play-calling--and it won't stop if Zaire is quarterback. With more variation there will be cries that we're "too fancy" and not "pounding it up the middle with the running back enough."

The LSU gameplan is not a guaranteed success maker. We all know this right? "We would have beat Northwestern with that gameplan." The same NW game we ran for 211 yards at 5.28 per carry? But we lost the game and the criticism flows down to the offense.

Pray to God we don't lose the opener against Texas with Zaire at quarterback. That would be a very harsh reality check.

 

[GoIrish41]

Maybe it was dumbed down, maybe it wasn't. I am not a football coach and not one of fans who rewatches games and breaks down each play. I love those kind of fans because I lean a lot from them without the time commitment. Some might call me a lazy fan but guys like me only have a couple things in our evaluations of players. To me it is as simple as this ... .Zaire just looks better on game day. He is not as eratic as Golson. He looks more confident and poised. Sometimes the game seemed to big for Golson and excuses about his height making it impossible to thrw down the middle seemed to become the excepted narrative with some. I always felt he was nervous about throwing down the middle because there are more bodies there and more chances to screw up. Fewer landmines at the sidelines. He seemed to be trying really hard not to fuck up and he started missing opportunities. I did not see that with Zaire. You might not get the occasional spectacular Golson play but you do get fairly consistent play. Even when Zaire has a bad play he moves on. Golson does not. A bad play can clearly affect him for a quarter or two.

 

[greyhammer90]

The bar is set really high for Golson, which is fine. It should probably be that way for any ND quarterback. The criticisms often venture into some very harsh areas, but again, that's not unusual for most college fans who have seen a QB for a couple years.

In contrast, the bar as set right now is hilariously low for Zaire. That's not unusual either. The love of the backup QB and all that. Plus, Zaire signals more running which a lot of people love. And the near fainting from his inspired fist pumps and inspirational tweets!

Would more running and/or a more varied run game help the Irish? Maybe. But let's not act like it's an absolute proven way to win more games.

There will always be loud criticisms of the offense and play-calling--and it won't stop if Zaire is quarterback. With more variation there will be cries that we're "too fancy" and not "pounding it up the middle with the running back enough."

The LSU gameplan is not a guaranteed success maker. We all know this right? "We would have beat Northwestern with that gameplan." The same NW game we ran for 211 yards at 5.28 per carry? But we lost the game and the criticism flows down to the offense.

Pray to God we don't lose the opener against Texas with Zaire at quarterback. That would be a very harsh reality check.

Preach brother preach

 

[BobbyMac]

What's better to the program? Golson winning the job, playing 90% of the time and going 11-2 with a bowl win or Zaire winning the job playing 90% of the time going 10-3 with a bowl win?

 

[greyhammer90]

What's better to the program? Golson winning the job, playing 90% of the time and going 11-2 with a bowl win or Zaire winning the job playing 90% of the time going 10-3 with a bowl win?

Serious? Wins are in son.

 

[ulukinatme]

Even when Zaire has a bad play he moves on. Golson does not. A bad play can clearly affect him for a quarter or two.

That was something we discussed late last season I think. Golson never really had to deal with a shitty season in high school, he just won, won, won. That's great, but you're going to face adversity in college at some point, and how you handle it defines what kind of player you are. I think Golson got progressively worse as the season went on, his turnover issues certainly didn't improve. He does seem to struggle when the going gets tough, he doesn't rise to the occasion.

What's better to the program? Golson winning the job, playing 90% of the time and going 11-2 with a bowl win or Zaire winning the job playing 90% of the time going 10-3 with a bowl win?

With the way Golson was playing late last season, it's more likely Zaire would be the one to go 11-2 and Golson would go 10-3 or worse.

 

[Booslum31]

Golson played well in the Bowl Game (LSU) we need him. Not a huge fan of the two QB platoon thing (because it's usually laden with tendancies) but I really think that gives us the best chance next year to have another breakout year like 2012.

 

[returnofthemack]

If Golson crumbled under adversity as much as you guys say he did, we would have been obliterated by Syracuse, UNC, and ASU. He absolutely made mistakes and played like shit at times - we can all admit that. But I don't know where this narrative came from that he can't come back from mistakes. Later in the season, especially when the depleted defense was playing horribly, there was more and more pressure on him to do something spectacular, but he was also worried about protecting the ball - which isn't a good combination - so he was more hesitant and played too tight. But take away the deflected INTs and the ridiculous fumbles (his fault, I'm not saying otherwise), and he had a pretty good season until his shoulder was injured. If he can fix the fumble problem and learn how to serviceably run the read option, he is our best option. Those of you clamoring for Zaire because he impressed you so much - in a bowl game running a completely different offense that a. LSU had no film of and b. was known to be LSU's weakness all year - are the same ones that'll be moaning about him not having enough touch on his passes or trying to force the ball into tight windows when he starts.

The best possible option in my mind, and what I'm really hoping that Kelly does, is to have a 2-QB system. Both QBs can do everything asked of them to enough of a level where the defense won't be able to easily guess what package we're running. Regardless of the QB, a commitment needs to be made to a powerful running game, and that'll help the offense considerably. Golson will be another year better, and the 3rd year of starting for a QB is typically when they show the most improvement. He needs to work on the option, improve his pocket presence, and make sure his passes aren't getting deflected at the LOS. A better line next season should help too, as well as dedication to the run - I really don't understand why running out of the pistol or I-formation has been abandoned. With RBs with as much talent as ours, why does every handoff they take have to start with them running parallel to the line of scrimmage instead of running downhill? I'm not saying it has to all be one or the other, but can we mix it up please?

 

[stlnd01]

If Golson crumbled under adversity as much as you guys say he did, we would have been obliterated by Syracuse, UNC, and ASU. He absolutely made mistakes and played like shit at times - we can all admit that. But I don't know where this narrative came from that he can't come back from mistakes. Later in the season, especially when the depleted defense was playing horribly, there was more and more pressure on him to do something spectacular, but he was also worried about protecting the ball - which isn't a good combination - so he was more hesitant and played too tight.

Bingo.
For much of the season, we put way too much pressure on Golson to carry the offense and make plays (after putting virtually none on him in 2012). He tightened up as a result, especially after the turnovers had become a Big Thing around the time of the Arizona State game. And he made a lot of mistakes.
But he's a very good quarterback who can make a lot of things happen, and he did, even in some of those games where he also made a lot of mistakes. If he can clean up his game and get better, he's probably still our best option in 2015, compared to a guy who's played a game and a half at a position where experience matters more than any other on the field. If not, Zaire has the potential to be just as good if not better.

 

[Crazy Balki]

If Golson crumbled under adversity as much as you guys say he did, we would have been obliterated by Syracuse, UNC, and ASU. He absolutely made mistakes and played like shit at times - we can all admit that. But I don't know where this narrative came from that he can't come back from mistakes. Later in the season, especially when the depleted defense was playing horribly, there was more and more pressure on him to do something spectacular, but he was also worried about protecting the ball - which isn't a good combination - so he was more hesitant and played too tight. But take away the deflected INTs and the ridiculous fumbles (his fault, I'm not saying otherwise), and he had a pretty good season until his shoulder was injured. If he can fix the fumble problem and learn how to serviceably run the read option, he is our best option. Those of you clamoring for Zaire because he impressed you so much - in a bowl game running a completely different offense that a. LSU had no film of and b. was known to be LSU's weakness all year - are the same ones that'll be moaning about him not having enough touch on his passes or trying to force the ball into tight windows when he starts.

The best possible option in my mind, and what I'm really hoping that Kelly does, is to have a 2-QB system. Both QBs can do everything asked of them to enough of a level where the defense won't be able to easily guess what package we're running. Regardless of the QB, a commitment needs to be made to a powerful running game, and that'll help the offense considerably. Golson will be another year better, and the 3rd year of starting for a QB is typically when they show the most improvement. He needs to work on the option, improve his pocket presence, and make sure his passes aren't getting deflected at the LOS. A better line next season should help too, as well as dedication to the run - I really don't understand why running out of the pistol or I-formation has been abandoned. With RBs with as much talent as ours, why does every handoff they take have to start with them running parallel to the line of scrimmage instead of running downhill? I'm not saying it has to all be one or the other, but can we mix it up please?

What!? ASU maybe, but are you kidding me? Those games shouldn't have been close, but were BECAUSE Golson crumbled under adversity. Just because he continues to have a good game in terms of yards and completions, doesn't negate the fact that he turns the ball over 4 times or 3 that results in 21 points. Golson was the soul reason ND didn't end up beating Syracuse by 50~. Either way, he shouldn't be putting us in these kind of situations in the first place. Something that would be minimalized or probably negated with Zaire in.

LSU didn't have film on Zaire, but Kelly had to implement an entirely different offense in 3 weeks time. That's a struggle for both teams. LSU's weakness is run defense? Since when? They ranked in the top 50 against the run, despite the fact that they went up against Wisconsin, Mississippi State, Auburn, Alabama and Arkansas, 5 of the best rushing teams in the nation. Not to mention LSU got considerably better over the course of the season. Hell, they held Yeldon and Henry, arguably the best RB duo in the country to 92 combined rushing yards and ZERO TD's. That's right Malik by himself, a QB, had more rushing yards than 2 of the best RB's in the country COMBINED against the Tigers.

 

[returnofthemack]

Bingo.
For much of the season, we put way too much pressure on Golson to carry the offense and make plays (after putting virtually none on him in 2012). He tightened up as a result, especially after the turnovers had become a Big Thing around the time of the Arizona State game. And he made a lot of mistakes.
But he's a very good quarterback who can make a lot of things happen, and he did, even in some of those games where he also made a lot of mistakes. If he can clean up his game and get better, he's probably still our best option in 2015, compared to a guy who's played a game and a half at a position where experience matters more than any other on the field. If not, Zaire has the potential to be just as good if not better.

I agree completely, I have nothing against Zaire and I can't wait to see him play again. But I'm getting irritated seeing the constant denigration of Golson as if he were some irredeemable scrub. The only major problem I saw with him last year was the fumbles - they were mostly unforced and horrible, he absolutely must improve in that aspect or he should be benched. in his third year he should be more relaxed and play like we saw him in the first half of the season (remember when we were all fawning over him after clutch drives against Stanford and FSU?). As I said before, if Kelly calls plays to our strengths and mixes in some power running instead of putting the entire brunt of the game on the QBs shoulders, I strongly believe the offense will be awesome no matter who is at QB.

 

[ulukinatme]

A lot of those close games we lost last season would have been wins likely if Golson hadn't turned the ball over so often. It's kind of funny to see Golson supporters come out of the wood work after last season. There were those of us that stuck by Tommy in 2013 not just because he was our starting QB and you had to support him at that time, but he was also the best option we had. Now Golson turned the ball over even more than Tommy last season, yet Golson has gotten more support than Tommy did despite the fact we have a capable backup in Zaire that we didn't have (yet) while Tommy was starting. Just funny how things work out.

 

[returnofthemack]

What!? ASU maybe, but are you kidding me? Those games shouldn't have been close, but were BECAUSE Golson crumbled under adversity. Just because he continues to have a good game in terms of yards and completions, doesn't negate the fact that he turns the ball over 4 times or 3 that results in 21 points. Golson was the soul reason ND didn't end up beating Syracuse by 50~. Either way, he shouldn't be putting us in these kind of situations in the first place. Something that would be minimalized or probably negated with Zaire in.

LSU didn't have film on Zaire, but Kelly had to implement an entirely different offense in 3 weeks time. That's a struggle for both teams. LSU's weakness is run defense? Since when? They ranked in the top 50 against the run, despite the fact that they went up against Wisconsin, Mississippi State, Auburn, Alabama and Arkansas, 5 of the best rushing teams in the nation. Not to mention LSU got considerably better over the course of the season. Hell, they held Yeldon and Henry, arguably the best RB duo in the country to 92 combined rushing yards and ZERO TD's. That's right Malik by himself, a QB, had more rushing yards than 2 of the best RB's in the country COMBINED against the Tigers.

He made mistakes, then brought us back. Nobody's disputing how bad the turnovers were, but a QB that according to some of you "doesn't have heart" wouldn't have done that. And I read many times on other college football sites that LSU greatly struggled with the read option. I'm on my phone right now and about to go to sleep or I'd try to find something. And I've seen you try to make the point a couple of times that Kelly establishing the read option was as much of a struggle as LSU developing a game plan without knowing the starting QB or the offensive style. I disagree - Zaire is a natural in that offense and Kelly most probably didn't make things too complicated for him. The RBs job isn't much different, so really, it's the linemen that had the toughest learning to do.

 

[returnofthemack]

A lot of those close games we lost last season would have been wins likely if Golson hadn't turned the ball over so often. It's kind of funny to see Golson supporters come out of the wood work after last season. There were those of us that stuck by Tommy in 2013 not just because he was our starting QB and you had to support him at that time, but he was also the best option we had. Now Golson turned the ball over even more than Tommy last season, yet Golson has gotten more support than Tommy did despite the fact we have a capable backup in Zaire that we didn't have (yet) while Tommy was starting. Just funny how things work out.

Rees was a senior QB making freshman mistakes with a weak arm playing in an offense Kelly stubbornly refused to adjust to his strengths. It was a completely different situation. Golson was in his second year and made some really bad mistakes while trying to do too much. My sophomore year at ND, Jimmy Clausen played an atrocious game against Boston College and ND lost 17-0. He made some awful decisions that year, trying to do too much. He improved and had a phenomenal junior year. Is Golson guaranteed to do the same? of course not- but it's certainly possible. If he continues to make the same mistakes with no sign of improvement, I doubt you'll find anybody who wouldn't advocate benching him for Malik. Also, I seem to be in the minority as far as not freaking out about his interceptions - Clausen threw 17 his second year. I can't handle the fumbles though, he needs to clean that up.

 

[MNIrishman]

Rees was a senior QB making freshman mistakes with a weak arm playing in an offense Kelly stubbornly refused to adjust to his strengths. It was a completely different situation. Golson was in his second year and made some really bad mistakes while trying to do too much. My sophomore year at ND, Jimmy Clausen played an atrocious game against Boston College and ND lost 17-0. He made some awful decisions that year, trying to do too much. He improved and had a phenomenal junior year. Is Golson guaranteed to do the same? of course not- but it's certainly possible. If he continues to make the same mistakes with no sign of improvement, I doubt you'll find anybody who wouldn't advocate benching him for Malik. Also, I seem to be in the minority as far as not freaking out about his interceptions - Clausen threw 17 his second year. I can't handle the fumbles though, he needs to clean that up.

Clausen never had an offensive line worth discussing though. The entire offense was on his shoulders. I don't know that the situations are directly comparable.