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

[Irish Insanity]

Seems this thread has transformed in to a QB thread......
As far as Golson, I don't always think he was put in a position to be successful. Just my opinion.

 

[woolybug25]

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.

And he was a true sophomore, Golson redshirted and early enrolled. Completely different stage in his development than Clausen's 17 int season. Not to mention, Golson was playing on a significantly better team than Clausen.

 

[returnofthemack]

And he was a true sophomore, Golson redshirted and early enrolled. Completely different stage in his development than Clausen's 17 int season. Not to mention, Golson was playing on a significantly better team than Clausen.

You're both right, but my point was that Clausen made great strides his junior year and I think Golson can do the same in his third year of starting. He redshirted and should have been further along in his development, but I think he'll be better. But I don't have any undying loyalty to Golson, and if he doesn't show improvement, I think Zaire is very capable and will be great. I've already been referring to him as our black Tebow haha

 

[woolybug25]

I guess how I see it is that I want Malik to be the go-to guy with aerial support from Golson. He's an electric player that also has leadership qualities we haven't seen in a while. I don't disagree with Lucci's previous comments regarding the offense being "dumbed down" for him, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a gameplan predicated on the fact that we would be leaning on Malik to play lights out. Which he proceeded to do.

Ideally, I want a two QB system that we have seen BK be very successful at executing in the past. Ironically, I think the harder QB to sell on this will actually be Malik. He wants to be the guy, not one of the guys.

 

[wizards8507]

I guess how I see it is that I want Malik to be the go-to guy with aerial support from Golson. He's an electric player that also has leadership qualities we haven't seen in a while. I don't disagree with Lucci's previous comments regarding the offense being "dumbed down" for him, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a gameplan predicated on the fact that we would be leaning on Malik to play lights out. Which he proceeded to do.

Ideally, I want a two QB system that we have seen BK be very successful at executing in the past. Ironically, I think the harder QB to sell on this will actually be Malik. He wants to be the guy, not one of the guys.

When Wooly and I agree on a thing, there can be no further debate. It's like Ron Swanson co-sponsoring a bill with Elizabeth Warren.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

When Wooly and I agree on a thing, there can be no further debate. It's like Ron Swanson co-sponsoring a bill with Elizabeth Warren.

No, not really.

 

[wizards8507]

No, not really.

Not in a jokin' around mood this morning, eh Bogs?

 

[IrishLion]

Ideally, I want a two QB system that we have seen BK be very successful at executing in the past.

I'm gonna answer to this every time someone references BK and the 2-QB system that he ran in the past.

He did NOT run a 2-QB system in the past.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Not in a jokin' around mood this morning, eh Bogs?

Actually, I was trying to exorcise a picture from my mind of you dressed in pantyhose, with Elizabeth Warren's favorite shade of mascara and lipstick with that fetching hairdo, and those glasses . . .

 

[woolybug25]

I'm gonna answer to this every time someone references BK and the 2-QB system that he ran in the past.

He did NOT run a 2-QB system in the past.

Haha... wut? He has done it several times. Including twice at Notre Dame. How can you say that he didn't play a 2 QB system in the LSU game? I must be missing something. Is there some bizarre explanation that somehow makes his Pike/Colleros, Golson/Rees and Malik/Golson games disappear? He clearly game planned multiple QB games a ton of times in his career.

When Wooly and I agree on a thing, there can be no further debate. It's like Ron Swanson co-sponsoring a bill with Elizabeth Warren.

Like a unicorn ridden into victory by a leprechaun.

 

[Rocket89]

I'm gonna answer to this every time someone references BK and the 2-QB system that he ran in the past.

He did NOT run a 2-QB system in the past.

Haha, no kidding. Kelly has been here for 5+ years and the two quarterback system myth still lives on.

Not to mention we have one example of a 2-QB system actually working really well over the past quarter century and that included maybe the best college player ever in a glorified fullback role.

 

[PANDFAN]

Haha... wut? He has done it several times. Including twice at Notre Dame. How can you say that he didn't play a 2 QB system in the LSU game? I must be missing something. Is there some bizarre explanation that somehow makes his Pike/Colleros, Golson/Rees and Malik/Golson games disappear? He clearly game planned multiple QB games a ton of times in his career.




Like a unicorn ridden into victory by a leprechaun.

 

[IrishLion]

Haha... wut? He has done it several times. Including twice at Notre Dame. How can you say that he didn't play a 2 QB system in the LSU game? I must be missing something. Is there some bizarre explanation that somehow makes his Pike/Colleros, Golson/Rees and Malik/Golson games disappear? He clearly game planned multiple QB games a ton of times in his career.

The two QB system in the LSU game was the first time where BK obviously planned to use both QB's.

Golson/Rees was not a 2-QB system. That was Rees bailing Golson out, at least in my opinion. If Golson would have played well in those games in which he was pulled, Rees wouldn't have seen the field. That doesn't constitute a plan to use both, IMO.

However, the gif was a bit strong because of how much it irks me when people think Pike/Collaros was a 2-QB system at UC. IT WAS NOT. Callaros only played in garbage time, and then got his extended shot when Pike got hurt. There was never a revolving door/rotation at UC. It was dictated by injuries, not by differing skill sets.

 

[Rocket89]

The two QB system in the LSU game was the first time where BK obviously planned to use both QB's.

Golson/Rees was not a 2-QB system. That was Rees bailing Golson out, at least in my opinion. If Golson would have played well in those games in which he was pulled, Rees wouldn't have seen the field. That doesn't constitute a plan to use both, IMO.

However, the gif was a bit strong because of how much it irks me when people think Pike/Collaros was a 2-QB system at UC. IT WAS NOT. Callaros only played in garbage time, and then got his extended shot when Pike got hurt. There was never a revolving door/rotation at UC. It was dictated by injuries.

The 2011 Champs Sports Bowl was another game using a two QB system, too. So that's two games for Kelly, both bowl games, over his 25+ years of coaching. Not much of a system is it?

The 2009 Cincy-West Virginia game is basically where the myth started. Two ranked teams, Kelly was on our radar, and a bunch of ND fans tuned in to watch. Pike finished the first drive of the game with one pass attempt (a touchdown) and then threw 3 more passes to open the second half (the last again another TD) and otherwise didn't play the rest of the game. For the remaining 3 games of he season Pike started and Collaros went back to the bench.

I can understand wanting Zaire to start, but a two quarterback system is not going to work. Although, it could provide justification for Kelly "ruining" Zaire which might be a set up subconsciously by some folks.

Not to mention, Kelly has repeated many times he prefers to play one quarterback over the length of a season. If both play this year, shuffling in and out every game, for the whole season it'll certainly be uncharted territory for Kelly.

 

[Old Man Mike]

One factor, not I believe mentioned yet in this thread, and not obviously at this moment favoring Golson or Zaire:

Coach would like to run a fast-paced offense quite a bit during games, and has not yet been able to get up to speed with Everett. Who gives him a better chance to run fast-pace?

I think that this, plus turnover/ball security concerns, will be the deciding grounds for who starts. Coach believes that his offense is already fairly simple, IF a QB can make it go fast [both in terms of snaps-in-seconds and rapid read-and-deliver]. My view of the QB conundrum is: can Everett make the offense speed up both ways, and can he stop turning it over? If he cannot do these things, I believe that Kelly will go with Malik. If Malik turns out not to be able to do these things either, then we're in for another year of nail-biting and occasional cursing.

One line of thought might be: does the more run-heavy "Malik Offense" lend itself to less turnovers and faster potential pace? It may not, but if it does, then Malik may have an advantage going into this competition.

 

[woolybug25]

The two QB system in the LSU game was the first time where BK obviously planned to use both QB's.

Golson/Rees was not a 2-QB system. That was Rees bailing Golson out, at least in my opinion. If Golson would have played well in those games in which he was pulled, Rees wouldn't have seen the field. That doesn't constitute a plan to use both, IMO.

However, the gif was a bit strong because of how much it irks me when people think Pike/Collaros was a 2-QB system at UC. IT WAS NOT. Callaros only played in garbage time, and then got his extended shot when Pike got hurt. There was never a revolving door/rotation at UC. It was dictated by injuries, not by differing skill sets.

Am I in bizarro world right now? Are you telling me that the only times he put in Rees for Golson was because of injury? It was situational, it was by design, it was a plan that in certain scenarios (flow of the game, change of pace, etc) certain players offered different things.

The same for his time at Cinci. Colleros came in as a change of pace in the Illinois game in '09 after Pike returned from injury. When asked about the future (which ironically never happened, as BK came to ND), Molnar said the following.

Cincinnati passing game coordinator Charley Molnar, though, said packages involving Collaros remain in the game plan and that "it would not be a reach" to see him in the Allstate Sugar Bowl against Florida.

BK has a long string of not only playing multiple QB's in a season, but specifically game planning for them. This has sometimes been because of necessity (ie Golson/Rees) and sometimes for effectiveness (Malik/Golson).

But somehow you two keep claiming "IT NEVER HAPPENED". It makes zero sense.

 

[ulukinatme]

I could see where a two QB system could work. I'm in the camp with Lion that believes we really haven't run one prior to the LSU game I guess. When you think two QB system you think a 1a and 1b QB, like Chris Leak and Teebus. Here's been the QB situation each year:

2010: Crist was the only prepared QB, the others weren't ready until Tommy had to take over full starting duties after Tulsa
2011: We stuck with Crist to start the season which turned into an awful first half against USF, Tommy came in and finished the season.
2012: Golson struggled in games and once again Tommy came in at times to bail him out. Not really a two QB system since Tommy didn't come in every game, he was "the closer" when we needed one. This would have been fairly close to a two QB system, but Kelly reiterated all season that Golson was the guy, it wasn't a 1a and 1b scenario.
2013: Tommy was our QB, no one else on the roster was ready yet or could execute.
2014: It was the Golson show, in good and in bad, until we got to see what Zaire could do.

For the first time in Kelly's history at ND we have two QBs that we could be successful with at the same time. Arguably behind that defense and strong running game I imagine Tommy could have gotten us to the title game in 2012, but the result would have been the same. The fact remains we didn't have two complete QBs in 2012, we had something closer to two partial QBs.

 

[IrishLion]

Am I in bizarro world right now? Are you telling me that the only times he put in Rees for Golson was because of injury? It was situational, it was by design, it was a plan that in certain scenarios (flow of the game, change of pace, etc) certain players offered different things.

Not for injury, but for Golson being ineffective. That was Rees saving the day, not planned ahead of time. There is a difference between "two QB's prepared to play" and an actual "two-QB system."

The same for his time at Cinci. Colleros came in as a change of pace in the Illinois game in '09 after Pike returned from injury. When asked about the future (which ironically never happened, as BK came to ND), Molnar said the following.

Another instance that was dictated by injury. I think that quote was just lip-service to appease the masses because Collaros had played so well when Pike was injured. The Cincy faithful were clamoring for Collaros to remain the starter when it was announced that Pike would be back. And Collaros didn't play against Florida, as was hinted at, which I think is telling about their actual plans, especially considering that quote isn't from BK, and because BK didn't coach against Florida.

BK has a long string of not only playing multiple QB's in a season, but specifically game planning for them. This has sometimes been because of necessity (ie Golson/Rees) and sometimes for effectiveness (Malik/Golson).

But somehow you two keep claiming "IT NEVER HAPPENED". It makes zero sense.

IT NEVER HAPPENED was strong, but it's still a misconception. BK did not run a prevalent 2-QB system at UC, nor at ND. The first time it was clear that he gameplanned to use two QB's specifically was UC vs Louisville in 2008. Dustin Grutza was coming off of injury, and Pike had been starting, and playing well. Grutza was used twice in the game as a running QB. The next time was Collaros playing against Illinois in 2009, which you mentioned, but again that was more of throwing a bone to Collaros because of how he had played in Pike's absence. At ND, the best example of planning to do it was the bowl against FSU in 2011. And IMO, that game made it more clear than ever that BK wasn't comfortable with an ACTUAL 2-QB system, because he pulled Hendrix out at the worst possible times.

Four instances of planning to use 2 QB's in a game over 11 years does not make a coach a master of the 2-QB system.

 

[woolybug25]

Haha, no kidding. Kelly has been here for 5+ years and the two quarterback system myth still lives on.

Not to mention we have one example of a 2-QB system actually working really well over the past quarter century and that included maybe the best college player ever in a glorified fullback role.

False. Completely false. Here are some examples.

Duke 2013:

Duke has proven the dual-quarterback system is not just a gimmick, but rather a gameplan that can be exercised to perfection in 2013. The two signal-callers for the Duke—redshirt juniors Brandon Connette and Anthony Boone—have led the Blue Devils to their first 10-win season in program history and notched signature victories against then-No.16 Virginia Tech, then-No. 24 Miami and North Carolina to clinch the ACC Coastal Division.

Duke football thrives in 2-quarterback system | The Chronicle

Wisconson 2013:

MADISON, Wis. -- When Wisconsin's coaching staff opted to implement a two-quarterback system halfway through this season, none of the players appeared to have any idea how it would work. Least of all, it seemed, quarterbacks Joel Stave and Tanner McEvoy.
"I've never been in a two-quarterback system before," Stave said this week. "I'd seen Northwestern do it a little bit last year and stuff like that. So I guess just the uncertainty of how we were going to be used, how it was going to be split up, I wasn't sure about that."

Wisconsin Badgers buying into two-quarterback system | FOX Sports

Northwestern 2012:

The Wildcats won 10 games last season while rotating Kain Colter and Trevor Siemian at quarterback. Although Colter started 12 of the 13 games and finished second on the team in both carries (170) and rushing yards (894), Siemian had more completions (128), pass attempts (218) and pass yards (1,312).

"I believe we have two quarterbacks who can lead us to a Big Ten championship," Fitzgerald told ESPN.com before spring practice.

Why Northwestern's 2-QB system works - Big Ten Blog - ESPN

ULM 2013 (upset top ten Ark):

The secret to such a system is dexterity. Browning throws left-handed, Wells right-handed. Both quarterbacks run only to their throwing sides. And ULM head coach Todd Berry said that while both players appear to be making calls, the snap and read responsibilities are determined by which hash the ball is on; the left-handed QB snaps on the left hash, the righty on the right. For maximum effectiveness in personnel groupings as well as clarity for quick substitutions, all of ULM's quarterbacks are trained at running back and wide receiver.

Berry said that he's used the system since his days as an offensive coordinator at UNLV, and that the plays against Baylor were noticed only because it was a national broadcast.

This one not only was effective in keeping them in games against much better opponents, but a crazy system that had both QB's on the field AT THE SAME TIME.

Utah 2013:

EUGENE -- It is the philosophy of Oregon head coach Mark Helfrich that if a team has two quarterbacks who are similar in talent but markedly different in skill set, a two-QB system can work.

You don't have to take his word for it, though.

No. 20 Utah, who the fifth-ranked Ducks will attempt to beat on the road this Saturday, is running, throwing proof that quarterbacking-by-committee isn't an oxymoron.

Travis Wilson entered his junior season as the Utes' incumbent who, at 6-foot-7, 233 pounds, is a tailor-made passing threat who can also escape on the run when necessary. When he was hurt in late September against UCLA, Oklahoma transfer Kendal Thompson, a 6-2, 192-pound junior, led the Utes to a road win against the Bruins with 95 passing yards and 83 rushing yards and led many to wonder, why not use both?

That's just a quick search of recent success with a multiple QB approach being successful. You two can keep saying the same stuff over and over until you turn blue in the face. But two facts remain 1) BK has had success with 2-QB gameplans & 2) Other teams have too.

 

[IrishLion]

I think part of our debate is a difference in belief when it comes to "what constitutes a 2-QB system?"

To me, even when it was "planned" to use 2 QB's at UC (two instances of limited plays in two games over 3 seasons), it wasn't an actual 2-QB system, because it was not a revolving door situation, nor was it dictated by BK (an argument can be made that he did dictate the situation in the Illinois game, but is using Collaros for 3 plays really representative of a system?)

I don't think Rees/Golson was a 2-QB system because that was dictated by Golson being injured or ineffective, and BK never came into a game saying "we will play both."

The best examples were FSU 2011 (which he botched badly, IMO), and LSU 2014, which worked fantastically.

But I don't think it is accurate to say he has effectively run a 2-QB system in the past, unless you consider the 2014 bowl game "the past."

 

[BobbyMac]

Just Curious...

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 says Golson.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

I'm just throwing this out there: I asked for a 2-QB system last year and was quickly denounced and pronounced, anathema to all things ND football.

I doubt people's opinions will change. I like an intended 2-QB system that can be abandoned if one QB is playing lights out but in college, with our offense, I want two QBs getting time under or around center. I doubt I'll change my tune until 1 QB can prove he has what it takes to lead the team by himself: minimize turnovers, don't miss open receivers, keep the run game churning and don't routinely make bad decisions.

 

[Rocket89]

False. Completely false. Here are some examples.

That's just a quick search of recent success with a multiple QB approach being successful. You two can keep saying the same stuff over and over until you turn blue in the face. But two facts remain 1) BK has had success with 2-QB gameplans & 2) Other teams have too.

Oh no, not the dynamic duo of Boone and Connette! Touche, but how many examples can you find of an elite program having a great season (winning a major bowl, etc.) while playing two quarterbacks?

And you have your facts incorrect up above. Collaros only played garbage minutes against Illinois, and despite Molnar's quote, never played in the Sugar Bowl.

As I've said, just a few games using a 2 QB system out of 295 career contests for Brian Kelly. You're convinced that is a track record of success. Good for you, I wish I was so easily convinced about such things based off a ridiculous small sample size.

The odds are extremely small that Notre Dame actually runs a 2 quarterback system this year and it is effective for the whole year. I really truly hope you're not getting your hopes up.

 

[IrishLion]

My favorite example of a 2-QB system was Northwestern with Colter and Siemian, as listed above. THAT was a good example of consistently rotating QB's to take advantage of differing skill sets (Tebow and Leak was good too).

BK lacks the whole "consistent" aspect when it comes to using two quarterbacks, which is essential to running it as an actual system.

 

[IrishLion]

Just Curious...

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 says Golson.

I say Zaire. Zaire will be around for another two seasons after the above hypothetical, so the one extra loss pales in the grand scheme of getting Zaire a season's worth of reps.

Golson would be gone after the season, so if the difference is one extra loss, but still a double-digit win season with a bowl win, I'd rather see the guy who has two years of eligibility remaining get the nod.

 

[woolybug25]

I think part of our debate is a difference in belief when it comes to "what constitutes a 2-QB system?"

To me, even when it was "planned" to use 2 QB's at UC (two instances of limited plays in two games over 3 seasons), it wasn't an actual 2-QB system, because it was not a revolving door situation, nor was it dictated by BK (an argument can be made that he did dictate the situation in the Illinois game, but is using Collaros for 3 plays really representative of a system?)

I don't think Rees/Golson was a 2-QB system because that was dictated by Golson being injured or ineffective, and BK never came into a game saying "we will play both."

The best examples were FSU 2011 (which he botched badly, IMO), and LSU 2014, which worked fantastically.

But I don't think it is accurate to say he has effectively run a 2-QB system in the past, unless you consider the 2014 bowl game "the past."

In your version of a "2 QB System" the only way it would qualify is if every play was scripted. Have BK's use of multiple QB's been situational? Of course they have. Hell... arent most plays? Just because you come into a game expecting to run the ball, doesn' mean that you don't change when you see an opening. If a coach goes into a game knowing that he will pull a QB for another if he is ineffective, that is a 2 QB system. The coach literally has a gameplan that includes both QB's. I'm not what more you want to see.

Oh no, not the dynamic duo of Boone and Connette! Touche, but how many examples can you find of an elite program having a great season (winning a major bowl, etc.) while playing two quarterbacks?

We could have easily lost to Duke in '13 (hell... probably last year too), are you kidding me? Make fun of Boone and Connette if you will, but they played a hell of a lot better than our QB's. They also had a better season and beat better opponents than we did. So i'm not sure what your smart ass comment was supposed to mean. Those two deserve more respect than that.

Secondly, you were the one that said that it's never been successful. All of those teams have had success and that's just recently. Your argument for why we don't see a ton of elite programs using it is silly since a) we have in FL and b) there are a bunch of systems we don't see elite teams win titles with. Look at "Air Raid" teams that throw 50-60 times a game. How many elite teams have won a title with that? Doesn't mean that it's not possible or that teams don't have success with it?

 

[IrishLion]

In your version of a "2 QB System" the only way it would qualify is if every play was scripted. Have BK's use of multiple QB's been situational? Of course they have. Hell... arent most plays? Just because you come into a game expecting to run the ball, doesn' mean that you don't change when you see an opening. If a coach goes into a game knowing that he will pull a QB for another if he is ineffective, that is a 2 QB system. The coach literally has a gameplan that includes both QB's. I'm not what more you want to see.

To the first bolded: Not every play needs to be scripted, but both QB's have to actually see consistent playing time for it to qualify, in my opinion.

To the second: There is a difference between having two QB's prepared to play, and actually using them in a system. I don't think BK using Rees in relief of Golson was indicative of a gameplan or a system. It was indicative of Rees being a solid veteran presence that could operate the same playbook Golson was running, just without the QB run plays being called.

 

[Henges24]

I like the 2-QB system but it would make me worry about Zaire's development. He would mainly be included in run situations so he wouldn't be able to see a ton of different coverages.

I agree with the statement made about wanting Zaire to be QB if ND would go 10-3 with a bowl win compared with a 11-2 season with a bowl win in Golson.

 

[ulukinatme]

Just Curious...

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 says Golson.

I would rather start Zaire in that scenario, but honestly I think Zaire gives us a better chance to win because he's more consistent, he's less turnover prone, and he can bring the read option to the table which is difficult to defend for many defenses. Golson is a gamble at this point, there's no guaranteeing he'll clean up his turnovers and we absolutely need to play mistake-free if we want a shot at the playoff.

 

[woolybug25]

To the first bolded: Not every play needs to be scripted, but both QB's have to actually see consistent playing time for it to qualify, in my opinion.

To the second: There is a difference between having two QB's prepared to play, and actually using them in a system. I don't think BK using Rees in relief of Golson was indicative of a gameplan or a system. It was indicative of Rees being a solid veteran presence that could operate the same playbook Golson was running, just without the QB run plays being called.

So there has to be a 50/50 split for it to count as a system in your book? K, agree to disagree there.

Also, you don't believe having Rees come in was a "system", just something that BK specifically planned for and utilized throughout the season?... How if he a) planned it b) prepared for it & c) executed two QB's is that not a "system"?

I feel like you two wouldn't call it a system unless it was a 50/50 split with designed plays scripted for the games. Neither of you can grasp the idea that gameplans by nature of situational. There are no two person systems for anything under that guise. We dont run a multiple RB system under that same understanding.