Kelly's gameplan was terrible

[wizards8507]

That's not necessarily true. The expectation is not that line will beat six or seven with five. The expectation is that the line will block and beat the five most dangerous defenders. Scan front to back from defensive line to linebacker to secondary and side to side from play side to weak side. The sixth or seventh man will be beaten by play design, receivers reading blitz and adjusting routes and a QB that can stand and deliver to the spots vacated by the blitzers.

Perfect! We ran boot right a couple of times and it worked brilliantly. Then we abandoned it.

 

[tko]

a 2.0 version of this thread will exist on Sunday, mark it.

 

[ickythump1225]

Oh great the return of people who want to run the ball 65 times a game regardless of effectiveness or game situation. I so enjoyed that sentiment the first few weeks of the season.

 

[Wild Bill]

Perfect! We ran boot right a couple of times and it worked brilliantly. Then we abandoned it.

A boot is slow developing and even if executed perfectly can get blown up by a heavy edge blitz team. I'm guessing Kelly knew they'd be blitzing and if they guessed right, he'd be calling plays from 2nd or 3rd and more than ten. Wasn't worth it to him. They ran sprint out a couple time and Lombard got beat at the snap.

 

[ickythump1225]

That's kind of my point. Confusion indicates poor preparation and planning. If we were just physically missing guys or getting beat with speed, I'd agree that it was primarily poor execution. However, when we look like we don't even know what we're supposed to do, that comes back to what we did Monday through Friday.


Or three? With split backs and jet motion from a third, the defense wouldn't know what the heck we're going to do. The jet guy could be a Fuller/Prosise/Hunter WR, or it could be the third guy of Cam, GB, and Folston.


Maybe the argument is we shouldn't necessarily be a pass-first spread. I'd love to see even a sniff of read option every once in awhile. We've run the look a few times, but I don't know if it's ever a true option in the sense of EG making a read and choosing what to do. They always look like half-ass play action where the give/keep call is predetermined in the huddle or at the line.

We have run the read option and the reason it looks half ass is because Golson doesn't know how to run it. Golson has little to no feel for when to run and pull the ball back. That speed option against FSU on 4th and 1 failed because Golson pitched it too quickly. The read option isn't a revolutionary idea that BK has never heard of before. It's been tried but Golson isn't that type of QB. If you're going to complain at least know what you're talking about.

 

[Hammer Of The Gods]

For the same reason you don't see Clemson, Baylor and aTm doing it. Multi-RB sets don't make much sense in a pass-first spread.



We do. Koyack has lined up as an H-back occasionally.

Thats fine if we are a pass-first spread, but aren't we allowed to adjust? We were getting smashed by the blitz, bring in some help, you're telling me that having Cam and Folston both in the backfield wouldn't of Made ASU rethink a few things?


It needs to more consistent in my opinion. It adds another dimension.

 

[wizards8507]

We have run the read option and the reason it looks half ass is because Golson doesn't know how to run it. Golson has little to no feel for when to run and pull the ball back. That speed option against FSU on 4th and 1 failed because Golson pitched it too quickly. The read option isn't a revolutionary idea that BK has never heard of before. It's been tried but Golson isn't that type of QB. If you're going to complain at least know what you're talking about.

What!? We're saying the same exact thing.

We don't run the read option because Golson doesn't know HOW to run the read option. How is that NOT a reflection on the coach? Are you implying that Golson is somehow incapable of learning the read option? I find that highly unlikely (the chief intellectual of his generation, Cam Newton, was able to pull it off).

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Thats fine if we are a pass-first spread, but aren't we allowed to adjust? We were getting smashed by the blitz, bring in some help, you're telling me that having Cam and Folston both in the backfield wouldn't of Made ASU rethink a few things?

It would have made it even easier for ASU to load the box. Kelly's looking to spread opposing defenses out both horizontally and vertically. Multi-RB sets do the exact opposite.

It needs to more consistent in my opinion. It adds another dimension.

Kelly's offense has plenty of options for slowing down the blitz and adding misdirection-- Zone Reads, Jet Sweeps, Counters, Draws. etc.-- that don't involve abandoning core principles of the Spread.

Unfortunately, Golson is terrible at reading defenders (to the point where he's barely been asked to do it this season), and ASU came up with a great defensive scheme against him-- heavy pressure, but also with DEs sitting on the edge, keeping him in the pocket, and disrupting his quick passing game (which is how we dealt with heavy blitz from Syracuse).

 

[ickythump1225]

What!? We're saying the same exact thing.

We don't run the read option because Golson doesn't know HOW to run the read option. How is that NOT a reflection on the coach? Are you implying that Golson is somehow incapable of learning the read option? I find that highly unlikely (the chief intellectual of his generation, Cam Newton, was able to pull it off).

The read option isn't a really big part of BK's offense to begin with. So I don't think he's set aside tremendous amounts of time practicing it, add in a QB who didn't run in it HS, never ran it in 2012 and I just don't feel like it's a big priority. Cam Newton is nothing like Everett Golson and it is possible that he ran the read option in HS and it was probably a big part of Auburn's offense. I just don't get the feel from EG that he is a "running QB" nor do I want EG running a lot potentially get hurt or fumbling the ball.

I don't understand how you think taking a small stature QB with ball security issues and make him take a lot of punishment and carry the ball a lot is a good idea.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

What!? We're saying the same exact thing.

We don't run the read option because Golson doesn't know HOW to run the read option. How is that NOT a reflection on the coach? Are you implying that Golson is somehow incapable of learning the read option? I find that highly unlikely (the chief intellectual of his generation, Cam Newton, was able to pull it off).

Occam's Razor-- Golson's simply not good at making the reads quickly and accurately enough.

The Zone Read is a crucial aspect of almost all spread rushing attacks. If Golson was capable of executing it, I'm sure we'd be seeing more of it. Would certainly help with our current OL struggles.

 

[wizards8507]

It would have made it even easier for ASU to load the box. Kelly's looking to spread opposing defenses out both horizontally and vertically. Multi-RB sets do the exact opposite.

The problem wasn't loading the box to defend the run, the problem was speed blitzes and rushers keying on the passer for lack of any other threat. How do you beat a defense with their ears pinned back? Misdirection, screens, and draws. The playbook for "misdirection, screens, and draws" is much thicker in a multi-back set than it is in single back shotgun.

 

[Hammer Of The Gods]

Occam's Razor-- Golson's simply not good at making the reads quickly and accurately enough.

The Zone Read is a crucial aspect of almost all spread rushing attacks. If Golson was capable of executing it, I'm sure we'd be seeing more of it. Would certainly help with our current OL struggles.

I totally agree, and although you have a valid explanation as to why we don't have multi back sets. I want to know how a major aspect ( zone read) of a spread offense can be discarded because Golson doesn't do it well. But, multi back sets can't be implemented because, well, its not what we do. Just doesn't make much sense.

 

[Wild Bill]

The problem wasn't loading the box to defend the run, the problem was speed blitzes and rushers keying on the passer for lack of any other threat. How do you beat a defense with their ears pinned back? Misdirection, screens, and draws. The playbook for "misdirection, screens, and draws" is much thicker in a multi-back set than it is in single back shotgun.

If you can run it through a two back set, I'll find a way to run it from the spread. The only draw you can't run from a one back backfield is a draw with a lead block. And if you really want a draw with a lead block, run cam's ass up to block and draw golson.

You beat a team with their ears pinned back by not going down four scores in the second quarter. They would have blitzed half as much if they had any reason to believe we'd be running a balanced attack. It's easier to create pressure and play defense when you KNOW it's either pass or run.

And you don't need any of that to beat the defense. You slow down a blitz with a draw/screen. You beat it by hitting your receiver in the spot vacated by the blitzing man. You toast a team a couple times they'll think long and hard before sending someone again.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The problem wasn't loading the box to defend the run, the problem was speed blitzes and rushers keying on the passer for lack of any other threat. How do you beat a defense with their ears pinned back? Misdirection, screens, and draws. The playbook for "misdirection, screens, and draws" is much thicker in a multi-back set than it is in single back shotgun.

That's probably true, but it ain't who we are. 'Bama doesn't shift into 00 personnel when LSU is stonewalling their power rushing attack, and we don't shift into 23 personnel when ASU is blitzing the crap out of us.

Every scheme has weaknesses. Stanford has been one of the only teams to regularly beat Oregon in recent years by crowding the box and being super aggressive. That's what ASU did to us. And it's not like spread teams don't have answers for it. If our blockers had won more of their 1-on-1 matchups, if Golson was able to run the Zone Read competently, if Golson had just held onto the damned football...

It's always tempting to blame the scheme, but ASU won due to our poor execution. Simple as that.

I totally agree, and although you have a valid explanation as to why we don't have multi back sets. I want to know how a major aspect ( zone read) of a spread offense can be discarded because Golson doesn't do it well. But, multi back sets can't be implemented because, well, its not what we do. Just doesn't make much sense.

It's not that we can't implement multi-back sets, so much as we won't; they would be an awkward way to gain benefits which can be achieved through other means within the framework of Kelly's spread.

We haven't discarded the Zone Read. If and when Zaire finally gets some game snaps, I expect we'll see plenty of it. Golson's arm talent, elusiveness and ability to improvise more than make up for his inability to run the Zone Read, but it has definitely limited our running attack this year. We've rushed well when Folston is in a groove and we've had favorable #s in the box. But when either of those factors has been missing, our ground game seizes up. I'd attribute a lot of that to our QBs inability to option off a defender and gain a numerical advantage at the point of attack.

 

[irish1958]

The read option isn't a really big part of BK's offense to begin with. So I don't think he's set aside tremendous amounts of time practicing it, add in a QB who didn't run in it HS, never ran it in 2012 and I just don't feel like it's a big priority. Cam Newton is nothing like Everett Golson and it is possible that he ran the read option in HS and it was probably a big part of Auburn's offense. I just don't get the feel from EG that he is a "running QB" nor do I want EG running a lot potentially get hurt or fumbling the ball.

I don't understand how you think taking a small stature QB with ball security issues and make him take a lot of punishment and carry the ball a lot is a good idea.

Especially if you also have a mediocre offensive line.

 

[anarin]

a 2.0 version of this thread will exist on Sunday, mark it.

Of this thread exactly?

I'll take that bet

 

[tko]

Of this thread exactly?

I'll take that bet

I'm calling for more Kelly game plan bashing after we play mediocre offensive football against NU, version 2.0. My faith in him is fading.

 

[Guest]

DeMarco Murray's worst game(s) this year, he has averaged 4.2 yards per carry. That's a full 2+ yards better, per carry, than ND was averaging. ASU was averaging 35+ points per game. That's a pretty good offense. You can't go 3 and out, just to set something up. You have to move the ball. And ND did that, through the air. Golson threw for almost 450 yards. I would have liked to see a better adjustment after the initial spate of turnovers, as well. But you can't switch to something that isn't working, just to make a change.

kmoose,

It is easy to make that argument based on the stats. But ND also lost the game.

As a Cowboys fan, we have been tormented in recent years by pass happy offenses that led to Romo having big yards but the team ends up 8-8 several years in a row. When the Cowboys started pounding the ball this year, they started winning. Romo's interception and fumble percentage is also down.

The result of the changes are a more balanced offense that keeps the defense off the field and keeps the QB from making too many mistakes. Sound familiar from a ND perspective?

Romo and Golson have a lot in common in that they tend to street ball a bit (Romo is known as a 'gunslinger' in Dallas) and both are very creative QB's, but also very turnover prone. From watching the change in Romo and the Dallas offense, I cannot help but wonder if some of the same changes would help this team and Golson also.

 

[dublinirish]

kmoose,

It is easy to make that argument based on the stats. But ND also lost the game.

As a Cowboys fan, we have been tormented in recent years by pass happy offenses that led to Romo having big yards but the team ends up 8-8 several years in a row. When the Cowboys started pounding the ball this year, they started winning. Romo's interception and fumble percentage is also down.

The result of the changes are a more balanced offense that keeps the defense off the field and keeps the QB from making too many mistakes. Sound familiar from a ND perspective?

Romo and Golson have a lot in common in that they tend to street ball a bit (Romo is known as a 'gunslinger' in Dallas) and both are very creative QB's, but also very turnover prone. From watching the change in Romo and the Dallas offense, I cannot help but wonder if some of the same changes would help this team and Golson also.

Is the ND OL good enough to run the ball consistently though?

 

[Guest]

Our pass protection was all kinds of confused. We looked absolutely silly at times. I didn't HATE the game plan at all, just like anything else. We execute we will be fine, we don't, we are in for a disaster. My only consistent complaint, and I have had it all year. why can't we have two running backs in the backfield? why can't we use a tight end as a lead blocker? those two things blow my mind.

The other way to look at it is the defense always has an extra blitzer if they want to use one, because of the QB. ASU's defensive scheme is predicated on having one extra guy than you can block. Regardless of how good your man is, when the other team has an extra one and sends him, someone is going to come free. I find it hard to blame the offensive line after watching ASU send extra guys on 70+% of plays and ND failing to keep in extra blockers. ASU's rushers got there before the play could be executed, which is the whole point of their defense. To counter that, you keep in extra blockers and play man on man football, and/or pound the football where your B will get past a blitzer and score a big run.

 

[dublinirish]

The other way to look at it is the defense always has an extra blitzer if they want to use one, because of the QB. ASU's defensive scheme is predicated on having one extra guy than you can block. Regardless of how good your man is, when the other team has an extra one and sends him, someone is going to come free. I find it hard to blame the offensive line after watching ASU send extra guys on 70+% of plays and ND failing to keep in extra blockers. ASU's rushers got there before the play could be executed, which is the whole point of their defense. To counter that, you keep in extra blockers and play man on man football, and/or pound the football where your B will get past a blitzer and score a big run.

On two of EG's sacks BK said the O was in max protect and twice a player just got whipped and gave up the sack. Not much BK can do about that.

 

[Guest]

Is the ND OL good enough to run the ball consistently though?

Good question. At times they have been. Overall they are a good line but not great, in my opinion. However, if you see my post right above, the defense that blitzes always has an extra guy if they want it. As an offense, either you counter that with keeping an extra blocker in and playing man on man passing, or you run the ball. When you run into a blitz, you may have 2-3 plays of short gains. But then you hit a couple of long runs because your RB found a hole and lots of open field. This is exactly the way the Cowboys are playing this year on offense, and it has worked most of the time. It has also reduced Romo's turnovers and made the offense much more potent (see my other post explaining this also above).

If you want to just spread the field and play that game, then you have to get the ball out faster than the blitz. It's a live or die mentality, and ND died by it this weekend.

 

[Guest]

On two of EG's sacks BK said the O was in max protect and twice a player just got whipped and gave up the sack. Not much BK can do about that.

Ok 2 plays against how many did the Irish run the other way? Your point? ND lived and dies by their spread, and they died by it this weekend against ASU blitz. If you want to play stubbornly that way without flexibility then you have given the other team a blueprint to beat you if they have the guys to do it. ASU obviously did.

 

[Wild Bill]

Ok 2 plays against how many did the Irish run the other way? Your point? ND lived and dies by their spread, and they died by it this weekend against ASU blitz. If you want to play stubbornly that way without flexibility then you have given the other team a blueprint to beat you if they have the guys to do it. ASU obviously did.

You should check out the link whiskey just posted in the post game thread.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

You should check out the link whiskey just posted in the post game thread.

You rang?

Final Thoughts

So why did things go so wrong for the Irish? Skittish quarterback? Poor play calling? Good scheme by ASU? Good play by ASU defenders? Bad luck? The answer is yes. All of these elements played a role in the Irish defeat. ASU had a very good game plan and executed it. Overload to one side, play soft on the other side. The Irish figured it out. They started to throw to the blitz side instead of away from the blitz. This resulted in a number of big plays and helped get Notre Dame back in the game. Unfortunately, it was too little too late. Tough pill to swallow.

I'd attribute most of the blame to Golson misreading a lot of obvious blitzes and failing to throw toward the blitz. That's QB 101 stuff. A lot of the other issues-- missed blocks, anemic rushing attack, etc.-- were all ancillary to that.

 

[GoldenDome]

On two of EG's sacks BK said the O was in max protect and twice a player just got whipped and gave up the sack. Not much BK can do about that.

How about moving the pocket? Golson seems much more comfortable outside the pocket where he can survey the field more. There was also plays where max protect was successful. I think ASU slanting their rush gave ND lots of problems though.

 

[GoldenDome]

You rang?



I'd attribute most of the blame to Golson misreading a lot of obvious blitzes and failing to throw toward the blitz. That's QB 101 stuff. A lot of the other issues-- missed blocks, anemic rushing attack, etc.-- were all ancillary to that.

It seemed like ASU was keen to our play calls though because they knew his first read and disguised their blitzes from it. And knowing the sleeze ball Graham he was probably stealing signs. Just a guess but it sure seems like they had the right blitz on for a lot of the plays, especially in the first half.

 

[wizards8507]

I'd attribute most of the blame to Golson misreading a lot of obvious blitzes and failing to throw toward the blitz. That's QB 101 stuff.

And here we run into the crux of the dilemma. Did Golson misread those plays because he just did (Golson's fault), or because he was poorly prepared (Kelly's fault)? Since none of us were at practice, there's no way of knowing.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

It seemed like ASU was keen to our play calls though because they knew his first read and disguised their blitzes from it. And knowing the sleeze ball Graham he was probably stealing signs. Just a guess but it sure seems like they had the right blitz on for a lot of the plays, especially in the first half.

I could certainly buy Graham stealing calls, though Kelly was apparently aware of that possibility and took extra precautions ahead of the game. But after rewatching the game (ugh) and reading Larz's breakdown linked above, ASU didn't seem to do much disguising. It was pretty obvious which edge they'd be blitzing from, but in the first half Golson never checked into a run away from it, scrambled away from it, or threw to the area vacated by the blitzers. More often than not he either scrambled into the f*cking blitz or passed away from it (and into double coverage). Sometimes both. I'm not sure how that can be pinned on anyone but the QB.

And here we run into the crux of the dilemma. Did Golson misread those plays because he just did (Golson's fault), or because he was poorly prepared (Kelly's fault)? Since none of us were at practice, there's no way of knowing.

No, we can't know for certain. But we can infer plenty from Kelly's post-game comments, and from the adjustments made at half-time. The QB bears a lot of responsibility in Kelly's offense for making reads. The simplest explanation--based on Kelly's assertion that ASU didn't do anything they hadn't prepared for, and on the film breakdown linked above--is that Golson simply sh!t the bed in the first half. Terrible reads and atrocious ball security put us in a deep hole we couldn't climb out of.

 

[wizards8507]

No, we can't know for certain. But we can infer plenty from Kelly's post-game comments, and from the adjustments made at half-time. The QB bears a lot of responsibility in Kelly's offense for making reads. The simplest explanation--based on Kelly's assertion that ASU didn't do anything they hadn't prepared for, and on the film breakdown linked above--is that Golson simply sh!t the bed in the first half. Terrible reads and atrocious ball security put us in a deep hole we couldn't climb out of.

With all that said, aren't you walking dangerously close to the "put in Malik" crowd? After all, you described the missed reads as "Quarterback 101," and I'd add "ball security" to that list of most basic football principles. Why would you stick with a quarterback who can't execute the fundamentals when you have two stud recruits warming the bench behind him? If he can play that poorly and he's still the best option available to us, then again it comes back to the coach. If Golson can't run the read option, identify the blitz, or hold on to the football, that's on him. Choosing to stick with a quarterback who can't run the read option, identify the blitz, or hold on to the football is on Kelly. After 20 games, Golson either needs to "get it" or "get out of the way."