2014 Fall Camp Thread

Veritate Duce Progredi

A man gotta have a code
Messages
9,358
Reaction score
5,352
I am dying to see a old school jumbo offense on goal line situations

Stanley Elmer. Nelson. Martin mustipher. Lombard. McGlinchey

Golson


Bryant. Cam. Folston


This would be amazing. I wish we could Montelus in there somewhere. I just want our biggest dozers. Every once in a while, sprint Folston up the middle as a fake and run GB to the right for the option play.
 

IrishLion

I am Beyonce, always.
Staff member
Messages
19,127
Reaction score
11,075
A little full house backfield to keep things interesting? I like it.

Triple option out of the full house look, with the potential for a lead blocker? I would be in video-game-gone-real heaven.

However, as someone else mentioned, I'd simply settle for more split backfield looks. Golson/Malik in the gun with GB/Cam on one side and Folston on the other? Pick your poison for the defense.

Load the box? Motion one of the backs out of the backfield and burn a LB. Keep the defense back? Jam it down their throats.

Not to mention the advantages that might exist in putting a TE or two out wide to accompany the split backfield. Pass-catching ability, but a bit of a run blocking advantage against the DBs.
 

Hammer Of The Gods

Well-known member
Messages
1,355
Reaction score
189
Triple option out of the full house look, with the potential for a lead blocker? I would be in video-game-gone-real heaven.

However, as someone else mentioned, I'd simply settle for more split backfield looks. Golson/Malik in the gun with GB/Cam on one side and Folston on the other? Pick your poison for the defense.

Load the box? Motion one of the backs out of the backfield and burn a LB. Keep the defense back? Jam it down their throats.

Not to mention the advantages that might exist in putting a TE or two out wide to accompany the split backfield. Pass-catching ability, but a bit of a run blocking advantage against the DBs.
Im with you here. I'm dying to see 2 of 3 backs in the backfield at the same time.
 

GoldenDomer

preferred walk on
Messages
3,160
Reaction score
166
Triple option out of the full house look, with the potential for a lead blocker? I would be in video-game-gone-real heaven.

However, as someone else mentioned, I'd simply settle for more split backfield looks. Golson/Malik in the gun with GB/Cam on one side and Folston on the other? Pick your poison for the defense.

Load the box? Motion one of the backs out of the backfield and burn a LB. Keep the defense back? Jam it down their throats.

Not to mention the advantages that might exist in putting a TE or two out wide to accompany the split backfield. Pass-catching ability, but a bit of a run blocking advantage against the DBs.

I say run some Wing-T out of it! Greg at fullback, Cam and Tarean at either tailback or wing. That oughta make the tradition nazis happy
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
A little full house backfield to keep things interesting? I like it.

I'd just be happy with a fullback....
Never-gonna-happen-gif.gif
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
What really excites me is we only lose Lombard after this year and if Nelson is really that good to compete now, he should fill in for Lombard next season with ease. Making next years line probably even better as everybody will have a year to develop under HH.

Rumors I just saw have the Mighty "Q" competing for a starting position this year!

Not far fetched rumors, either.
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,518
Reaction score
3,262
I love tough running on the goal line, but I absolutely hate the jumbo package. It limits the offense and linemen act like they're in outer space when they line up two steps outside of the tackle. I don't know why. I think it's a combination of the having to quickly assess an unorthodox defensive alignment and figuring out the path to a linebacker - the angle is different.

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.
 
Last edited:
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
Is that the world in Toledo? :)

No, not a peep in Toledo about it. Someone talking about summer workouts talked about "Q's" brolic! I think they said that the real question is whether or not he doesn't challenge for one of the interior line positions this year. It may have been tending toward hyperbole, but the point is that he came in more massive and impressive than expected.

And as far as a massive offensive line, it would be so cool to have all of the guys mentioned on the line with McGlinchey on the end as tackle eligible. He has quite good pass catching skills as regularly reported; I bet Everett or Malik could get the ball to him!

I love tough running on the goal line, but I absolutely hate the jumbo package. It limits the offense and linemen act like they're in outer space when they line up two steps outside of the tackle. I don't know why. I think it's a combination of the having to quickly assess an unorthodox defensive alignment and figuring out the path to a linebacker - the angle is different.

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 and boot off the run and throw to the height in favorable coverage.

Two words : wedge blocking!
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,518
Reaction score
3,262
Two words : wedge blocking!

You can wedge block without a jumbo package. An extra offensive lineman 10 feet from the center won't make a difference.

That's exactly my point. Bring in a jumbo to run down the middle over and over and defenses will simply pinch hard and fly backers and safeties through A gaps. A traditional offense keeps them honest.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
I am dying to see a old school jumbo offense on goal line situations

Stanley Elmer. Nelson. Martin mustipher. Lombard. McGlinchey

Golson


Bryant. Cam. Folston

Last year with Everett out, I was talking about that on here often. Plenty of beef up front, talented RBs, limited QB...why not look like Stanford and just pound the shit out of teams? I love it.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
You can wedge block without a jumbo package. An extra offensive lineman 10 feet from the center won't make a difference.

I was just teasing you about your comment. You had a correct observation, in my opinion, about big men lost in space!
 

PANDFAN

Look Down
Messages
16,770
Reaction score
2,278
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>We will open 2014 training camp at <a href="https://twitter.com/CulverAcademies">@CulverAcademies</a> on Monday, Aug. 4. Full details here--><a href="http://t.co/E87zHqTME2">http://t.co/E87zHqTME2</a> <a href="http://t.co/8Toh1IF7Ee">pic.twitter.com/8Toh1IF7Ee</a></p>— Notre Dame Football (@NDFootball) <a href="https://twitter.com/NDFootball/statuses/492685288288706561">July 25, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

PANDFAN

Look Down
Messages
16,770
Reaction score
2,278
Irish Will Open Training Camp At Culver Military Academy - UND.COM - University of Notre Dame Official Athletic Site


NOTRE DAME, Ind. - The University of Notre Dame announced today that the football team will open its 2014 training camp on Monday, Aug. 4 in Culver, Ind., at Culver Military Academy. The Irish will go through their acclimatization portion of training camp. Notre Dame will ultimately conduct five practices on site before transitioning to its customary LaBar Football Practice Fields on Saturday, Aug. 9.

"Culver Military Academy will provide a unique and rewarding opportunity for our football program as we embark on the 2014 season," said fifth-year head coach Brian Kelly. "Culver holds a special place in my heart as my family has participated in camps on the grounds for years. We were able to initiate a successful program last year at Shiloh Park Retreat and Conference Center. Culver will significantly help improve the experience for our team this fall."

"We are happy to welcome Notre Dame back to Culver," Head of Schools John Buxton said. "Culver and the Irish have enjoyed a great relationship through years dating back to Knute Rockne and Bob Peck. Lou Holtz brought his teams here in 1995 and 1996. Our teams have played at ND on several occasions and Notre Dame teams have used our facilities over the years. This exchange gives our coaches and student-athletes the opportunity to see in action the ideals we aspire to with our programs."

DID YOU KNOW? Notre Dame's Knute Rockne and Culver's Bob Peck played for the Massilion Tigers in 1917. Rockne gave the dedication speech for the Culver Recreation Building in 1924. He also gave a pep talk to Peck's team prior to the Eagles' game against St. John's Military Academy, which was played at Soldier Field on Nov. 8, 1930. Rockne (ND) and Peck (Pitt) are in the College Football Hall of Fame.

"I believe that the great value of athletics lies in keeping the student body physically fit. I know of no place, with the possible exception of the United States Military Academy, where the athletic program is handled as well or where they get the results that they do at Culver." - Knute Rockne, University of Notre Dame Football Coach, at the dedication of the Culver Recreation Building April 21, 1924

ABOUT CULVER: Located 45 minutes south of the University of Notre Dame, Culver Academies features a 1,700-acre campus nestled on the north shore of Lake Maxinkuckee. Athletic facilities include a new athletic turf field, sod practice field, indoor/outdoor tennis complex, hockey rink with two sheets of ice, rowing facility with rowing tanks, team weight room, general fitness center, swimming pool, wrestling room, indoor track, racquetball courts, and five basketball/multipurpose courts.

Culver graduates have played/are playing for the Fighting Irish in fencing, football, hockey, men's lacrosse, rowing, and softball. Others have played/are playing in the NHL, NFL, and Major League Lacrosse, and have represented the United States in the Winter and Summer Olympics.

The wireless main campus provides housing for 800 students. The Lay Dining Center can seat 850 people, Eppley Auditorium offers 1,492 seats, and Eilleen Dicke Theater has 132 seats. Additional meeting space is available in the Roberts Hall of Science and the Dicke Hall of Mathematics.

Culver Academies is a coeducational college preparatory boarding school for grades 9-12. Culver Military Academy was founded in 1894 and Culver Girls Academy was founded in 1971. The enrollment is comprised of a student body from 38 states and 23 countries. Split between two campuses, Culver Summer Schools & Camps enrolls 1,400 boys and girls from 40 states and 38 countries.

Alumni include Oscar-nominated actor Hal Holbrook, author Jon Scieszka, Weather Channel founder Frank Batten, New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner, Brooklyn/LA Dodgers owner Walter P. O'Malley, Cincinnati Reds owner Lou Nippert, Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright/producer Josh Logan, movie critic Gene Siskel, Abbott Laboratories Chairman and CEO Miles D. White, Cummins Inc. Chairman and CEO James A. Henderson (retired), and NHL stars Gary Suter (retired), Ryan Suter, and John-Michael Liles. For more information, visit culver.org.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
We need real football to start so we have real football things to discuss. We've turned a little punch-drunk to the point that we're semi-seriously talking about running a Rockne-Navy hybrid offense out of Stanford's Ogre Package. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it but it ain't gonna happen with this regime.
 

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2025!
Messages
31,509
Reaction score
17,369
We need real football to start so we have real football things to discuss. We've turned a little punch-drunk to the point that we're semi-seriously talking about running a Rockne-Navy hybrid offense out of Stanford's Ogre Package. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it but it ain't gonna happen with this regime.

How about 10 offensive linemen on the field and a direct snap to a fullback?
 

ResLife Hero

Well-known member
Messages
6,737
Reaction score
190
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>All 81: Today's camp preview: Atkinson, <a href="https://twitter.com/NickyBaratti">@NickyBaratti</a>, Bivin, Brent, <a href="https://twitter.com/kylebrindza">@kylebrindza</a> , Brown x2, <a href="https://twitter.com/GB6for6">@GB6for6</a> , and Butler. <a href="http://t.co/sDM7iCcVZx">http://t.co/sDM7iCcVZx</a></p>— Tim O'Malley (@timomalleyND) <a href="https://twitter.com/timomalleyND/statuses/492690902712721408">July 25, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

Irishbounty28

Beastmode
Messages
1,122
Reaction score
280
I cannot wait for camp to start. I always feel bad wanting the summer to go by faster because I love the weather, but there is nothing like the fall. Plus I have more to post about when the season is underway.
 

irishog77

NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
Messages
7,441
Reaction score
2,206
I was strictly going by stats. Between 2011 and 2012 we picked up 370ish yards in the running game, most of which were contributed by Golson so the numbers are somewhat artificially bolstered. To me, the 440 extra yards in the running game we picked up between the 2010 and 2011 seasons was more impressive since that was with Tommy at the helm the entire season. Given that Crist was somewhat more mobile than Tommy and he played most of 2010, that kind of defeats the Rees argument.

In any case, the fact the running game suffered in 2013 does have something to do with the way defenses approached us with Rees in the pocket, but it also has to do with the play calling. If we could have actually called some screens and executed them it might have kept defenses more honest. The play calling was just as much at fault, if not more so because we allowed the defense to dictate what we were going to do offensively instead of burning them for stacking the box.

I'm with you. 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.

Obviously a QB's physical (and mental) abilities influence the play calls and overall offense. But I think the lack of success in the running game has been an overall issue of play calling and scheme.

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.

So I can see ND having a somewhat mixed bag of results in the overall running game until this aspect of the scheme changes. Of course having good talent all over the field on offense can (and should) improve every component of the scheme, but I'm still a bit skeptical of any running game dominance until I actually see it.
 

Luckylucci

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
27,769
Reaction score
10,145
I'm with you. 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.

Obviously a QB's physical (and mental) abilities influence the play calls and overall offense. But I think the lack of success in the running game has been an overall issue of play calling and scheme.

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.

So I can see ND having a somewhat mixed bag of results in the overall running game until this aspect of the scheme changes. Of course having good talent all over the field on offense can (and should) improve every component of the scheme, but I'm still a bit skeptical of any running game dominance until I actually see it.

The last thing I'll say on this topic is BK disagrees with you.
 

PANDFAN

Look Down
Messages
16,770
Reaction score
2,278
I'm with you. 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.

Obviously a QB's physical (and mental) abilities influence the play calls and overall offense. But I think the lack of success in the running game has been an overall issue of play calling and scheme.

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.



So I can see ND having a somewhat mixed bag of results in the overall running game until this aspect of the scheme changes. Of course having good talent all over the field on offense can (and should) improve every component of the scheme, but I'm still a bit skeptical of any running game dominance until I actually see it.

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
 
Last edited:

irishog77

NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
Messages
7,441
Reaction score
2,206
The last thing I'll say on this topic is BK disagrees with you.

Well be sure to define the amount of influence.

These are vague and ambiguous terms.

I'll contend that BK and virtually all established offensive coaches run their "system" more than they change their playbook yearly and weekly to specialize to certain players' specificities.
 

irishog77

NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
Messages
7,441
Reaction score
2,206
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

No, I definitely think that stuff matters.

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.

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.
 

Luckylucci

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
27,769
Reaction score
10,145
Well be sure to define the amount of influence.

These are vague and ambiguous terms.

I'll contend that BK and virtually all established offensive coaches run their "system" more than they change their playbook yearly and weekly to specialize to certain players' specificities.

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.
 

irishog77

NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
Messages
7,441
Reaction score
2,206
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.

Of course the number of defenders in the box can influence the success of the running game. Nobody here (to my knowledge) has disputed that.

The specific play called, the audible(s) called, the RB(s) in the backfield, the OL on the field, the TE(s) on the field, the WR(s) on the field, the design of the play, the time of the play, the down and distance, the field position, specific personnel (Daniel Smith) etc., etc, also matter.

When ND does this differently and consistently, then we can eliminate any type of coaching scheme/philosophy as a problem.
 
Top