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

[Whiskeyjack]

Malik started in 1 game. Did he play well? Yes. But the offense and game plan was simplified for him big time. Golson has started for 2 years. 1 as a freshman. (led them to a national championship) and last year after taking an entire year off. There is a reason Golson started over Malik last year. He fits what Kelly wants to do.

We'll see if that's still the case with Sanford at the helm. I expect our offense to look much more like Zaire's run-first "power" spread against LSU than Golson's air raid going forward.

Which isn't to say that Zaire should be starting. A stronger ground game might help Golson make the jump from good to great. But I don't think we should assume that our 2015 offense will be business as usual.

 

[ulukinatme]

Why can't everyone see THIS guy has it?

Why do they cling to the past? Golson has proven over a 3 year period that he can not be trusted with the keys 100% of the time. Has he been my favorite player ever on occasion? Yes. But the QB position at Notre Dame requires you to play effectively 100% of the time. Not 90% or 80% or in Golson's case, less than 66%.

Yeah, I'm in this crowd. I was never that high on Golson, although I appreciate what he did to help us get through the 2012 season. He's just not a Quarterback, he's a baller. It's nice to have a talented athlete like that on your team, but to me he seems more like Denard Robinson and less like Brady Quinn. Golson can make plays when things break down, and occasionally he can sling the ball well, but he's just too turnover prone. You've got a major problem when you turn the ball over more than Tommy.

You absolutely have to be consistent at the QB position, and you have to be able to run the offense. Golson has struggled getting through his progressions at times, and he can't run the read option portion of the offense. Zaire has the read option down like no other QB we've had under Kelly. He can also throw some darts in the passing game. I like Zaire's leadership, he's much more vocal and energetic compared to Everett, and I think it's infectious. Golson is a roadblock in Zaire's maturation and development process, and I hope that Zaire secures the starting job in the Spring or at the least Golson winds up as "1b."

 

[FearTheBeard]

I love watching Malik play. He just seems like a leader. Golson looks lost and like hes not much of a leader, maybe its different down on the field or sideline but Malik has the Tebow type of "it" factor. Hes competitive as hell you can tell how bad he wants to win, not to say golson doesnt but it seems alot more evident in Malik.

I'm curious to see how our qb situation plays out; id like to see us shift to a more running based offense. Either way i feel pretty good about this year especially with Sanford bringing in fresh ideas.

 

[IrishLion]

I saw enough when I saw Zaire bust his ass to throw a block for Folston to get him in the endzone.

That's the type of effort play that signifies something greater on the way, at least in my opinion.

 

[ulukinatme]

I saw enough when I saw Zaire bust his ass to throw a block for Folston to get him in the endzone.

That's the type of effort play that signifies something greater on the way, at least in my opinion.

Boom, great hustle, loved that too
@2:46

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WrLKq7cIcVk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Crazy Balki]

Malik started in 1 game. Did he play well? Yes. But the offense and game plan was simplified for him big time. Golson has started for 2 years. 1 as a freshman. (led them to a national championship) and last year after taking an entire year off. There is a reason Golson started over Malik last year. He fits what Kelly wants to do.

The game plan was definitely not simplified. There's a difference between simple and run-oriented. What ND did against LSU was the latter. It involved running the ball more creatively, sticking to intermediate passes and letting the receivers do work. Guys like Fuller, Brown and Prosise can do wonders in space. Unless we plan on belting the ball deep 15-20 times a game, then Golson isn't our guy. He has a HUGE arm, but he doesn't go through his progressions, misses wide open receivers way too much and tends to lose awareness in the pocket at times. Most importantly, and it CANNOT be understated, he has a habit of spiraling out of control if he starts to struggle on the field. Whether he can overcome that remains to be seen, but we really cannot take that chance this year. This is a big year for ND, and simply put we can't put our National Title hopes in the hands of a guy who is going to go Jekyl/Hyde on us. Zaire may not be Golson level at his best, though you can argue that he very well could be, but Zaire isn't a risk to spiral out like Golson. He is composed, vocal and charismatic. He's also more accurate and goes through his progressions.

 

[Luckylucci]

The game plan was definitely not simplified. There's a difference between simple and run-oriented. What ND did against LSU was the latter. It involved running the ball more creatively, sticking to intermediate passes and letting the receivers do work. Guys like Fuller, Brown and Prosise can do wonders in space. Unless we plan on belting the ball deep 15-20 times a game, then Golson isn't our guy. He has a HUGE arm, but he doesn't go through his progressions, misses wide open receivers way too much and tends to lose awareness in the pocket at times. Most importantly, and it CANNOT be understated, he has a habit of spiraling out of control if he starts to struggle on the field. Whether he can overcome that remains to be seen, but we really cannot take that chance this year. This is a big year for ND, and simply put we can't put our National Title hopes in the hands of a guy who is going to go Jekyl/Hyde on us. Zaire may not be Golson level at his best, though you can argue that he very well could be, but Zaire isn't a risk to spiral out like Golson. He is composed, vocal and charismatic. He's also more accurate and goes through his progressions.

Yes it absolutely was. The designed run game is simplifying it quite a bit. All he has is two reads. Give or Keep. We weren't running an offense like Oregon where its Give, keep, or pass. It was very simple. Also, we rolled him out of the pocket a lot in order to give him better vision and a short field. Very few throws downfield, by design, make the game more simple as he doesn't have to worry about pressures, blitzes, or going through too many progressions. Malik was extremely effective and it was fun to watch as LSU really couldn't stop what we were doing but it was definitely more simple than the kind of game thats called for Golson and played to Malik's strength.

I actually stopped reading the rest of your post after that first sentence. Its pretty funny that your first statement completely contradicts the next few. Running the ball, intermediate passing game, and letting WR's do work is all a fantastic way of simplifying the game.

 

[BobbyMac]

The game plan was definitely not simplified. There's a difference between simple and run-oriented. What ND did against LSU was the latter. It involved running the ball more creatively, sticking to intermediate passes and letting the receivers do work. Guys like Fuller, Brown and Prosise can do wonders in space. Unless we plan on belting the ball deep 15-20 times a game, then Golson isn't our guy. He has a HUGE arm, but he doesn't go through his progressions, misses wide open receivers way too much and tends to lose awareness in the pocket at times. Most importantly, and it CANNOT be understated, he has a habit of spiraling out of control if he starts to struggle on the field. Whether he can overcome that remains to be seen, but we really cannot take that chance this year. This is a big year for ND, and simply put we can't put our National Title hopes in the hands of a guy who is going to go Jekyl/Hyde on us. Zaire may not be Golson level at his best, though you can argue that he very well could be, but Zaire isn't a risk to spiral out like Golson. He is composed, vocal and charismatic. He's also more accurate and goes through his progressions.

Welcome to my tribe. I'm a basketball guy, my C, PF, SF and SG can commit TO's, take bad shots from time to time, have mental breakdowns on D and even struggle from the line. My Point Guard cannot... at NO point in the game. He doesn't have to make a play that wins the game but he can NEVER be the reason we lose. He is the one constant, dependable leader on the court. In football, a QB is the same as my PG.

Being a Chicago Bears fan of 40 years has taught me it's not what your QB does to win games, it's what he does to lose games.

My sig says it all.

.

 

[Crazy Balki]

Yes it absolutely was. The designed run game is simplifying it quite a bit. All he has is two reads. Give or Keep. We weren't running an offense like Oregon where its Give, keep, or pass. It was very simple. Also, we rolled him out of the pocket a lot in order to give him better vision and a short field. Very few throws downfield, by design, make the game more simple as he doesn't have to worry about pressures, blitzes, or going through too many progressions. Malik was extremely effective and it was fun to watch as LSU really couldn't stop what we were doing but it was definitely more simple than the kind of game thats called for Golson and played to Malik's strength.

I actually stopped reading the rest of your post after that first sentence. Its pretty funny that your first statement completely contradicts the next few. Running the ball, intermediate passing game, and letting WR's do work is all a fantastic way of simplifying the game.

So, running the football results in a simple gameplan?....Well then, I guess practically every single team in the country runs a pretty simple offense. Those 3 elements are the basis of the spread offense. Establish the run to compliment the pass, get your receivers open in space and let them do work with wiggle room. If you can occasionally take a defense off the top, then sweet, more power to you. But this isn't an air-raid offense, or at least that's not what it should be. It wasn't about simplifying the game, but relying more on the run, playing to Zaire's strengths and protecting a weak and injury plagued defense. Call it simple if you wish, but it's no surprise that we ran the ball more effectively against one of the best defenses in the country than we did against North-f*cking-western. Simple offenses don't do that, unless you're Alabama and have 6'3 245 pound RB's at your disposal, and hell, it proved to work better than Bama's game plan (31 > 13).

 

[Crazy Balki]

Welcome to my tribe. I'm a basketball guy, my C, PF, SF and SG can commit TO's, take bad shots from time to time, have mental breakdowns on D and even struggle from the line. My Point Guard cannot... at NO point in the game. He doesn't have to make a play that wins the game but he can NEVER be the reason we lose. He is the one constant, dependable leader on the court. In football, a QB is the same as my PG.

Being a Chicago Bears fan of 40 years has taught me it's not what your QB does to win games, it's what he does to lose games.

My sig says it all.

.

I definitely agree with the idea that QB's need to not lose games, but I'd rather my OL, WR, TE and RB's not make those mistakes because it can result in the QB being put in a bad position.

I'm a Bears fan too, but honestly that QB philosophy hasn't really done us any good has it? Sure, when the Bears have had solid QB play, they've done rather well, but the problem is, more often than not, the QB play has been abysmal. Rex Grossman is the living, breathing incarnation of that thinking. When he was solid, the Bears dominated, and I mean flat out DOMINATED teams. If he played anywhere near respectable in that Super Bowl, the Bears beat the Colts by more than a few touchdowns. However, he also showed what horrible QBing can get you. Losses to the Dolphins, Packers (QB rating of 0...) and that downright pathetic display against the Colts in Miami.

 

[Luckylucci]

So, running the football results in a simple gameplan?....Well then, I guess practically every single team in the country runs a pretty simple offense. Those 3 elements are the basis of the spread offense. Establish the run to compliment the pass, get your receivers open in space and let them do work with wiggle room. If you can occasionally take a defense off the top, then sweet, more power to you. But this isn't an air-raid offense, or at least that's not what it should be. It wasn't about simplifying the game, but relying more on the run, playing to Zaire's strengths and protecting a weak and injury plagued defense. Call it simple if you wish, but it's no surprise that we ran the ball more effectively against one of the best defenses in the country than we did against North-f*cking-western. Simple offenses don't do that, unless you're Alabama and have 6'3 245 pound RB's at your disposal, and hell, it proved to work better than Bama's game plan (31 > 13).

Sorry but you have no idea what your talking about. Its very simple to understand that bringing in a TE and an Hback then essentially running a zone read scheme where all the QB is doing is reading the DE or LB is substantially more simplistic than say.... Going with 5 OL, 5 WR, no RB (empty set) and making the QB pick out who's rushing, who's dropping, then also going to his proper progression post snap.

 

[wizards8507]

Because he can quote an NBA player on Twitter?

Because he's got swagger.

 

[BobbyMac]

Sorry but you have no idea what your talking about. Its very simple to understand that bringing in a TE and an Hback then essentially running a zone read scheme where all the QB is doing is reading the DE or LB is substantially more simplistic than say.... Going with 5 OL, 5 WR, no RB (empty set) and making the QB pick out who's rushing, who's dropping, then also going to his proper progression post snap.

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.

 

[greyhammer90]

Because he's got swagger.

Golson had a lot of swagger 6 games into this season. Sorry if I'm not getting aboard the hype train with everyone else but its stupid to show Zaire quoting an athlete on twitter and say this is why MZ should start. Every college kid does this.

 

[GoIrish41]

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.

This

 

[ulukinatme]

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.

That's kind of my question. It always seems like we're running complicated offenses and defenses, or at least that's the excuse. I know we have bright kids on our roster, but when you have such a diverse and complicated playbook it also makes it harder to practice everything and be very good at it. Look at teams like Navy. While the Triple Option is a very tough offense to defend against, it's also somewhat simplistic as a playbook. Navy always executes well on offense because they run a smaller number of plays with greater repetition and it's simple. I'm not saying we have to be as simplistic as possible, but if dumbing down the offense is effective, why don't do what works? The offense was dumbed down in 2012 too, and we saw fewer turnovers and decent execution despite the fact we destroyed the clock with our slow pace.

 

[pkt77242]

Yes it absolutely was. The designed run game is simplifying it quite a bit. All he has is two reads. Give or Keep. We weren't running an offense like Oregon where its Give, keep, or pass. It was very simple. Also, we rolled him out of the pocket a lot in order to give him better vision and a short field. Very few throws downfield, by design, make the game more simple as he doesn't have to worry about pressures, blitzes, or going through too many progressions. Malik was extremely effective and it was fun to watch as LSU really couldn't stop what we were doing but it was definitely more simple than the kind of game thats called for Golson and played to Malik's strength.

I actually stopped reading the rest of your post after that first sentence. Its pretty funny that your first statement completely contradicts the next few. Running the ball, intermediate passing game, and letting WR's do work is all a fantastic way of simplifying the game.

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.

 

[greyhammer90]

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.

This

That's kind of my question. It always seems like we're running complicated offenses and defenses, or at least that's the excuse. I know we have bright kids on our roster, but when you have such a diverse and complicated playbook it also makes it harder to practice everything and be very good at it. Look at teams like Navy. While the Triple Option is a very tough offense to defend against, it's also somewhat simplistic as a playbook. Navy always executes well on offense because they run a smaller number of plays with greater repetition and it's simple. I'm not saying we have to be as simplistic as possible, but if dumbing down the offense is effective, why don't do what works? The offense was dumbed down in 2012 too, and we saw fewer turnovers and decent execution despite the fact we destroyed the clock with our slow pace.

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.

 

[PANDFAN]

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.

exactly...also the same stuff that was working earlier in the game wasn't later...i couldn't look at the game objectively because i am a fan, but my buddy watching it who could care less, either way stated he thought LSU looked completely disinterested and just going through the motions

 

[ulukinatme]

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.

Going back to my Navy analogy, they've been running the same offense essentially for...forever, with small variations from year to year. That doesn't stop them from running for 300+ yards and 30+ points against powerhouses. If we're struggling and turning the ball over on offense because it's too complicated, maybe we need something more simplistic week in and week out that will allow our athletes to execute.

 

[greyhammer90]

Going back to my Navy analogy, they've been running the same offense essentially for...forever, with small variations from year to year. That doesn't stop them from running for 390 yards against powerhouses. If we're struggling and turning the ball over on offense because it's too complicated, maybe we need something more simplistic week in and week out that will allow our athletes to execute.

Oh come now let's not do this. (1) Navy sucks. (2) The reason they run for so many yards is because that's all they do, whether they're down by fifty or up by three. If you don't think Navy gets a ton of rushing yards in garbage time you must only watch them when they play ND. (3) Navy doesn't play the same game as us at all. Navy doesn't have any realistic goal of winning 12 games a year. Their entire strategy is to put themselves in the best position to be a "giant slayer" once a year by running an exotic offense that attempts to close the athletic gap and by hoping that they catch a weak-link in the DC's strategy and/or a weak-link on the field that can't play assignment football.

It's completely silly to even compare us with them. We're so different in realistic goals, athleticism and ability that we practically play different sports.

 

[NDohio]

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.

Exactly. After having gone back and re-watched that game a few times, LSU looked better against the MZ run offense in the second half. Not after having watched a bit of film, just after seeing it for a half. That offense would not work over an entire season.

Going back to my Navy analogy, they've been running the same offense essentially for...forever, with small variations from year to year. That doesn't stop them from running for 300+ yards and 30+ points against powerhouses. If we're struggling and turning the ball over on offense because it's too complicated, maybe we need something more simplistic week in and week out that will allow our athletes to execute.

But there is a difference in running an simplified version of an offense and running the same offense forever. Navy's offense is a very advanced version of the option, not a simplified run offense. Can't compare the two.

I am excited about what our QB situation will be this year, but I am not going to jump completely aboard the MZ bandwagon based on the LSU game and some really cool tweets.

 

[wizards8507]

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?

Maybe not, but we sure as hell would have beaten Northwestern and Louisville and maybe Arizona State.

 

[clashmore_jon]

The goal is to win 12 games.

14!!

 

[Whiskeyjack]

But there is a difference in running an simplified version of an offense and running the same offense forever. Navy's offense is a very advanced version of the option, not a simplified run offense. Can't compare the two.

Yes. When an offense is described as "simple", that's usually in reference to the number of base plays utilized. And by that metric, both Navy and Oregon are simple. But each play involves multiple reads by the QB, and there are hundreds of variations on each of their base plays.

In the FBS and NFL, you either have a fat playbook with literally hundreds of different plays, or you have hundreds of variations on a smaller number of plays. Nobody gets away with being truly simple.

 

[ulukinatme]

Oh come now let's not do this. (1) Navy sucks. (2) The reason they run for so many yards is because that's all they do, whether they're down by fifty or up by three. If you don't think Navy gets a ton of rushing yards in garbage time you must only watch them when they play ND. (3) Navy doesn't play the same game as us at all. Navy doesn't have any realistic goal of winning 12 games a year. Their entire strategy is to put themselves in the best position to be a "giant slayer" once a year by running an exotic offense that attempts to close the athletic gap and by hoping that they catch a weak-link in the DC's strategy and/or a weak-link on the field that can't play assignment football.

It's completely silly to even compare us with them. We're so different in realistic goals, athleticism and ability that we practically play different sports.

I didn't say that Navy was a great team, or that they don't exclusively run the ball 90% of the time. Navy certainly doesn't suck though, otherwise we wouldn't be in a fight with them year after year, nor teams like tOSU that have found themselves behind against the Midshipmen more then once. My point is they essentially have been running the same plays more or less for eons, there's stacks and stacks of video out there on them, and you would think that would give DC's plenty of material to shut them down, yet they continue to run up plenty of yards and points on good teams. Do they plan on running the table? No, they physically can't given the rigors of cadet life and the fact they often lose athletes to turnover before they're seniors. That doesn't change the fact they can and will compete with just about anyone despite being outmatched.

I'm not saying we need to adopt the Triple Option, I'm suggesting that we always talk about how complex and mentally difficult our schemes are, and in recent years we've been tripping over our own feet in games where we should be dominating. We could cut the mental mistakes out if we simplified the offense a bit. Repetition is a great way to improve execution, diversification of the playbook just means there's more crap to perfect.

 

[BobbyMac]

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.

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

.

 

[Hammer Of The Gods]

I'm not saying we need to adopt the Triple Option, I'm suggesting that we always talk about how complex and mentally difficult our schemes are, and in recent years we've been tripping over our own feet in games where we should be dominating. We could cut the mental mistakes out if we simplified the offense a bit. Repetition is a great way to improve execution, diversification of the playbook just means there's more crap to perfect.

Obviously I don't have the playbook, but when it takes the coaches 15 minutes to get the play in from the sideline. There is either A. Way to much playbook to go through or B. The coaching staff as a little bit of paralysis by analysis

To get back on topic a little though. I'm up in the air at this point who I want at the helm in 2015. I like aspects of both MZ and Golson. It is confusing to me, why, Golson gets 5 wide empty backfield or single back sets, and is forced to be Peyton manning on every play. MZ gets double tight end and 2 back sets. That has nothing to do with Read Option in my opinion. just Scheme, why can't Golson get the "big" packages? The fumbles are absolutely inexcusable but I do put some of the interceptions on the coaching staff. But, if we are going to get the best viable option at QB I want to see apples to apples and oranges to oranges. If MZ gets read option this spring, give the same to Golson. If Golson gets 5 wide, give the same to MZ.

 

[bkess8]

Ohio State's offense couldn't of been too complicated and it worked for them. They just won the NC with their 3 string QB! Just saying.

 

[Wild Bill]

I thought we won that game b/c our offensive line decided to strap it up and whip someone's ass. They'll win a lot of games if they take that mentality into every match up. I don't care who is taking the snaps.