Post Game Observations (Syracuse '14)...

[blackirish]

Oh, the team that let up 41 points against NC St. and should've been beat by Clemson? Let's not act like they're the best team ever assembled. We may or may not win, but I would be surprised if we don't hang.

Not if we have 5 turnovers, because if we do I would be supprised if the Seminoles don't drop 50 on us, and although this D is not the D they had last year , The problem child/ crab thief on the other side of the ball can and will light us up if we don't tighten up

 

[NDdomer2]

Which guard?

was trying to find some video while not looking like im completely ignoring the training im in but no luck.

I thought it was the left guard (Martin)

 

[blackirish]

Same with me on the o line, its got to get better or my 8-4/7-5 prediction is going to be true. The feel and rhythm of this game was off , even the refs seemed a little out of sink not with the calls but just overall timing. Anyway a win is a win-Happy for Hunter Robinson and Fuller. Golson needs games like this to progress and if this is a bad one then we are asking too much-he's a fine college QB. Backs are running hard there was just not much room tonight. Syracuse has a good defense. I bet they play better against Stanford but I don't think we win. Gotta run the ball better to have any chance. Anyway 4-0 was my prediction for the start but 3-5/4-4 for the finish. By the way guys I hope I'm full of crap and dead wrong because this team is very admirable and smart intelligent football players. The defense is really in sync with BVG. I may not watch the FSU game it may be ugly. Go Irish!

Do you really think Syracuse has a good Defense ????. 8-4 reall y ????. Who will be the 5 losses ?

 

[Emcee77]

Yeah, it was the left guard, Martin. Two guys rushed off the edge from the right and nobody rushed at Martin.

But is the point that that was Martin's fault? I don't know if I get that. Is it his responsibility to see the rush coming from the other side of the line, while his hand is on the ground and there are a number of big uglies blocking his view? It seems to me that the QB is the one who has to see that.

 

[NDdomer2]

Yeah, it was the left guard, Martin. Two guys rushed off the edge from the right and nobody rushed at Martin.

But is the point that that was Martin's fault? I don't know if I get that. Is it his responsibility to see the rush coming from the other side of the line, while his hand is on the ground and there are a number of big uglies blocking his view? It seems to me that the QB is the one who has to see that.

Which I stated. Golson needs to change the play or slide the protection. But I'm saying, dont stand there with your thumb up your butt.

 

[kmoose]

But I'm saying, dont stand there with your thumb up your butt.

What was his responsibility on the play? Maybe his job was to protect against rushers from a specific zone, and he was doing exactly what he was supposed to do?

 

[Old Man Mike]

What happened on that play was that because the blitz on NMart's side was faked, he found himself with only air in front of him. No normal pass-blocking assignments that I know of ask the guards to try to chase rushers from the opposite side of the field, so he jiggled around trying to locate someone to hit.

On Elmer's side, there was a true blitz. Lombard and Elmer tried to pick it up, but there was also a loop with the faster blitzer looping inside. Steve did not locate this faster blitzer coming from behind a bigger man in time to block that path. Two guys then bracketed Golson and he had nowhere to go.

The point is that NO OLine can block more people than it itself has, and when Kelly calls a play that the DC has buffooned him on, he expects Everett to check off to something that gives the manpower numbers a fighting chance. Had Elmer been a clairvoyant Zack Martin, he could have picked up the looping blitzer in time, but that would probably only have lessened the blow Everett took by the other guy.

Another clairvoyant maneuver would have been if Everett signaled the Oline of an Elmer-side blitz [Think Peyton Manning walking up to the center/guard gap and pointing to a possibly blitzing linebacker] and then NMart might have slid to Hegarty's man, Matt to the looper, Steve stuck to the guy he began driving outside, and Christian to the most outside guy. THAT would have been one helluva play by the Big Boys, but Everett never gave even that a chance.

 

[NDdomer2]

What happened on that play was that because the blitz on NMart's side was faked, he found himself with only air in front of him. No normal pass-blocking assignments that I know of ask the guards to try to chase rushers from the opposite side of the field, so he jiggled around trying to locate someone to hit.

On Elmer's side, there was a true blitz. Lombard and Elmer tried to pick it up, but there was also a loop with the faster blitzer looping inside. Steve did not locate this faster blitzer coming from behind a bigger man in time to block that path. Two guys then bracketed Golson and he had nowhere to go.

The point is that NO OLine can block more people than it itself has, and when Kelly calls a play that the DC has buffooned him on, he expects Everett to check off to something that gives the manpower numbers a fighting chance. Had Elmer been a clairvoyant Zack Martin, he could have picked up the looping blitzer in time, but that would probably only have lessened the blow Everett took by the other guy.

Another clairvoyant maneuver would have been if Everett signaled the Oline of an Elmer-side blitz [Think Peyton Manning walking up to the center/guard gap and pointing to a possibly blitzing linebacker] and then NMart might have slid to Hegarty's man, Matt to the looper, Steve stuck to the guy he began driving outside, and Christian to the most outside guy. THAT would have been one helluva play by the Big Boys, but Everett never gave even that a chance.

I guess I should have wrote more. I am not asking him to magically end up on the right side of the line to help with the blitz that actually ended up coming. But he does have a guy to his right (Hegarty) and a guy to his left (Stanley) that are both busy. Go help your brothers. And maybe he never gets there (most likely in this exact instance) but at least he was trying to do something instead of looking like a video game glitch standing in place running his feet with his arms out wide.

And as I stated initially this was not the olines fault. They were doomed, we all agree on that.

I just was refuting that the oline was "innocent".

If I had to guess, Martin and Elmer didnt grade out at 100% that play, once ol' Harry watched the film. Again just a guess, but I'd bet money on it.

 

[Grahambo]

I'm not worried about the O Line, perse', but the weakness of the running game is certainly warranted. ND is averaging less than 160 yards a game, rushing. That's good for 77th in the country. A few of the teams that have had more success running the ball, than ND: Arkansas State, New Mexico State, Tulane, and Appalachian State. When you look at the competition that we have played, you would expect that average to be MUCH better. That's not to say that it won't improve. If the relative inexperience of the backs is a major part of what's holding the running game back, then as the season goes along, it should get better. But it is going to have to get better, to beat the better defenses on our schedule.

My issue has less to do with the OL (I will say they do need to improve as a group) and more to do with the 3 headed RB committee. These guys just aren't getting the carries they need.

ND currently has 4 guys with at least 33 carries. That's just not ideal in getting the ground game going. These guys can't get a feel for the game. Even if you don't include Golson's 39 carries, 3 RBs getting 33-39 carries is not going to help. None of those 3 can really go into a game with the confidence I think they need to have in order to dominate. They just aren't getting that many touches and by the time it comes around to their turn, they're cold.

Most of the teams in the Top 10 have their RB depth chart sorted out and can pound the ball with confidence. You will see teams with the distinct 1-2 punch and some carries for either the QB or a 3rd string but the difference in carries is noticeable.

 

[ickythump1225]

My issue has less to do with the OL (I will say they do need to improve as a group) and more to do with the 3 headed RB committee. These guys just aren't getting the carries they need.

ND currently has 4 guys with at least 33 carries. That's just not ideal in getting the ground game going. These guys can't get a feel for the game. Even if you don't include Golson's 39 carries, 3 RBs getting 33-39 carries is not going to help. None of those 3 can really go into a game with the confidence I think they need to have in order to dominate. They just aren't getting that many touches and by the time it comes around to their turn, they're cold.

Most of the teams in the Top 10 have their RB depth chart sorted out and can pound the ball with confidence. You will see teams with the distinct 1-2 punch and some carries for either the QB or a 3rd string but the difference in carries is noticeable.

Well I would say our RB by committee is still going for a few reasons: 1) No one back has clearly separated himself as being "the guy." I think as the season wears on we'll see GB start to do that once the game slows down a bit for him. 2) GB and TF aren't polished enough in their blocking assignments. 3) I just don't think we're destined to be a "pound the rock" team under BK anymore. Our short pass game will supplement the run game and I look for our RBs to catch a fair amount of passes as the season rolls along. They might not be traditional "rushing" touches but they are touches none the less.

 

[Wild Bill]

Well I would say our RB by committee is still going for a few reasons: 1) No one back has clearly separated himself as being "the guy." I think as the season wears on we'll see GB start to do that once the game slows down a bit for him. 2) GB and TF aren't polished enough in their blocking assignments. 3) I just don't think we're destined to be a "pound the rock" team under BK anymore. Our short pass game will supplement the run game and I look for our RBs to catch a fair amount of passes as the season rolls along. They might not be traditional "rushing" touches but they are touches none the less.

I can agree with your first and third point. Not necessarily certain about the second, though. I can't recall many break downs from any of our backs. To be honest, I don't pay close attention to their pass blocking so I could be off. I did see one of them, TF or GB, throw a nice block on a blitz against cuse (I think it was TF).

I think Kelly would be ecstatic if one of these backs stepped up and the offense simply would not be the same without them on the field.

 

[BGIF]

My issue has less to do with the OL (I will say they do need to improve as a group) and more to do with the 3 headed RB committee. These guys just aren't getting the carries they need.

ND currently has 4 guys with at least 33 carries. That's just not ideal in getting the ground game going. These guys can't get a feel for the game. Even if you don't include Golson's 39 carries, 3 RBs getting 33-39 carries is not going to help. None of those 3 can really go into a game with the confidence I think they need to have in order to dominate. They just aren't getting that many touches and by the time it comes around to their turn, they're cold.

Most of the teams in the Top 10 have their RB depth chart sorted out and can pound the ball with confidence. You will see teams with the distinct 1-2 punch and some carries for either the QB or a 3rd string but the difference in carries is noticeable.

If you look a Holtz's successful years, you'd find this kind of distribution with Rice being the leading rusher. Holtz had a stable of backs at least as good as Kelly's but he kept fresh legs in the game. Bear Bryant won over 300 games but only had one 1,000 yd rusher, Johnny Musso. Bryant rotated backs and wore down defenses with fresh legs as the defenders tired.

ND has also had bell cows like Denson but usually there was a steep drop off between the bell cow and the other RBs. Hence the one that was most effective played more.

Rocket didn't get 25 carries a game. To the contrary his carries were sparse. He didn't need to "warm up" with a 10 minute workout on the field prior to hitting his stride. He hit the field ready to play, every play.

If you're a stud back with superior speed, vision, and moves then show it on the field, the Division I field. When you get the opportunity, make the most of it. Carpe diem!

 

[kmoose]

Most of the teams in the Top 10 have their RB depth chart sorted out and can pound the ball with confidence. You will see teams with the distinct 1-2 punch and some carries for either the QB or a 3rd string but the difference in carries is noticeable.

Most teams in the Top 10 have one or two complete tailbacks. We obviously don't, or that complete back would be the clear starter and get the lion's share of the carries.

 

[NDohio]

I can agree with your first and third point. Not necessarily certain about the second, though. I can't recall many break downs from any of our backs. To be honest, I don't pay close attention to their pass blocking so I could be off. I did see one of them, TF or GB, throw a nice block on a blitz against cuse (I think it was TF).

I think Kelly would be ecstatic if one of these backs stepped up and the offense simply would not be the same without them on the field.

GB misses his blocking assignments on a regular basis. His long screen pass play against Michigan(I think) was a play where he totally missed his block and was kinda wondering around the line of scrimmage. Golson made a great escape and got the ball to him and he was off. He totally looks lost out there when he needs to block a blitz.

I would love for any of them to step up and take over the position and make it hard for the other guys to get on the field, they just haven't done that yet.

 

[Emcee77]

Most teams in the Top 10 have one or two complete tailbacks. We obviously don't, or that complete back would be the clear starter and get the lion's share of the carries.

Exactly. Kelly basically said this at last week's presser. We play 3 RBs because they all have different strengths and weaknesses and we want both to take advantage of the strengths and avoid exposing the weaknesses. The implication was that, just as kmoose said, if we had a complete back, he would be the clear starter.

 

[yankeeND]

Exactly. Kelly basically said this at last week's presser. We play 3 RBs because they all have different strengths and weaknesses and we want both to take advantage of the strengths and avoid exposing the weaknesses. The implication was that, just as kmoose said, if we had a complete back, he would be the clear starter.

I completely agree with this. I think that Folston is starting to be that guy though. Pass pro looked god and he is running between the tackles better and catching the ball well too. I thought he played very well up until he bruised his sternum Saturday. Personally I think he is the closest to getting the bulk of the carries of the three right now, but once Bryant flips the switch they will be pretty even.

 

[irishfan]

How many times have we legit gone under-center this year? I miss how in 2012, we could go under center and pound it for 2-3 yards on 3rd and 1. I hate being in the shotgun in those situations.

 

[ickythump1225]

How many times have we legit gone under-center this year? I miss how in 2012, we could go under center and pound it for 2-3 yards on 3rd and 1. I hate being in the shotgun in those situations.

Yet I recall us picking up a few 3rd and shorts/mediums on the ground from the shotgun. Oregon runs for massive amounts of yards from the shotgun every game.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

How many times have we legit gone under-center this year? I miss how in 2012, we could go under center and pound it for 2-3 yards on 3rd and 1. I hate being in the shotgun in those situations.

That's what the Pistol is for. Much easier way for Spread teams to enjoy some "Power" advantages than putting the QB under-center. If you'll recall, we briefly experimented with placing Rees under-center, and the QB-C exchanges were a train wreck.

 

[phgreek]

are you preparing your guys for the next level with your rinky dinky offense? Nice Job Urban!

I've played amateur football here for over 6 years and this year finally our club is setting up a junior (under 18's) team, i am amped to start coaching this year

...Next level stuff for these guys is more consistently thinking about the snap count than the flavor in the gatorade jug.

coaching is fun...where do I send the shirt that says coach/dumbass on the back...because if a parent is talking to you face to face...you'll be coach. When they are in the stands you are dumbass. OK, I kid...a little bit.

 

[irishfan]

Yet I recall us picking up a few 3rd and shorts/mediums on the ground from the shotgun. Oregon runs for massive amounts of yards from the shotgun every game.

LMK know when we're running it as well as Oregon.

My point is that we're not the type of team who I trust at all when we have to run it in short-yardage situations. In 2012, we would go under-center all the time and pound it out with Riddick on 3rd and shorts. I'm not saying we should be trying to line up and pound the ball on teams, but I get frustrated when its 3rd and 1 and we're in the shotgun.

I just think there is a lot to be said for being able to line up on 3rd and 1, throw multiple TE's out there, and pick up a yard or two running it up the middle. Which we did with ease in 2012.

I feel like a dick even complaining about the offense when we've put up 30+ every game.

 

[irishfan]

That's what the Pistol is for. Much easier way for Spread teams to enjoy some "Power" advantages than putting the QB under-center. If you'll recall, we briefly experimented with placing Rees under-center, and the QB-C exchanges were a train wreck.

But we went under-center in 2012 with Golson all the time and I don't recall any fumbled exchanges. I prefer the spread look, I'm not advocating for a switch there, I just wish we'd go under-center about 10% of the time.

 

[NDdomer2]

Do you have to be under center to spike it?

 

[Grahambo]

Do you have to be under center to spike it?

http://static.nfl.com/static/conten.../pdfs/11_2012_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf

 

[BGIF]

http://static.nfl.com/static/conten.../pdfs/11_2012_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf

That's the NFL rule.


I can't find the NCAA rule.


I believe the rational for the QB being under center is to distinguish between a clock stopping incomplete pass (spike) from intentional grounding. From the shotgun the QB has downfield vision, seeing the defenses initial response to the snap. He has a chance to to do something else. After taking the snap under center and immediately going to a passing posture and then initiating a downward passing motion makes the intent clear to the officials.

 

[NDdomer2]

That's the NFL rule.


I can't find the NCAA rule.


I believe the rational for the QB being under center is to distinguish between a clock stopping incomplete pass (spike) from intentional grounding. From the shotgun the QB has downfield vision, seeing the defenses initial response to the snap. He has a chance to to do something else. After taking the snap under center and immediately going to a passing posture and then initiating a downward passing motion makes the intent clear to the officials.

But couldn't you argue that if he does have all that vision and opportunity that if he immediately spikes it into the ground he is making his intent clear?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Watching the Syracuse game for a second time I watched both lines. The best I can figure loathing on this site, and everywhere else for the offensive line having troubles is because everyone accepts Herbie's and Fowler's narrative. This is certainly true after the Syracuse game, which according to Herbie and Fowler, was a cut above ND's competition in their first three games, (their own words.) They did not see the same game I did.

They were talking about ND's offensive line woes, and continued woes as ND got 3 first downs on the 95 yard drive by ground and averaged over 5 yards a carry on that drive. In fact the only run I saw that was shorter that five yards was the "delay sneak" by EG which converted a 3rd and two. On that play there was a hole a mile wide. If he had hit it just a little faster he would have gotten serious yards.

The play everyone talks about is the play that Cuse had seven on the line and showed blitze from one direction (overloaded) and came from another. Herbie talked about that play as being on Golson to identify and audible. Who would want to have a quarterback roll out with his back to two uncovered blitzers?

And in fact it resulted in the only sack of the night, and when Golson got to the sidelines, Kelly asked him, per the sideline reporter why he would run that play against the look the defense gave him. (That was the time for a sneak up the middle or an I/S zone run, (had there been anyone in the backfield).

There was another play where Elmer pulled and there was no one in the middle, the defense angled away and the linebacker got hung up somewhere, and Elmer looked kind of funny, like he was blocking air. But he did on that play what the offensive line rarely did last year. He got out of the way and didn't plug the hole. Christian Lombard had a real problem with that, he would pick the wrong guy and end up plugging the hole. I didn't see that mistake once against Syracuse and I am to halftime, (of my second viewing.)

So I say that when people talk down about the talking heads, it is often with good reason. The network owns the narrative and most people accept it. It wasn't true in the game Saturday night. It was just ESPNABC selling their game and priming their ratings, not the actual situation on the field.

And yes, as some have pointed out the running backs have some timing and other issues that really ad to the look of this being a "line problem."

 

[Black Irish]

How many times have we legit gone under-center this year? I miss how in 2012, we could go under center and pound it for 2-3 yards on 3rd and 1. I hate being in the shotgun in those situations.

I feel the same way. But, since the Irish didn't get stuffed in those situations, it worked out. I don't know how well 3&1 shotgun will do against Stanford.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

OFD's Larz just published a good film breakdown of the BvG blitz that led to Farley's INT against Syracuse.

And OFD's Punter Bro breaks down our ST play against Syracuse here. Be warned that the article is heavy on GIFs, so it will probably be slow to load.

 

[ickythump1225]

LMK know when we're running it as well as Oregon.

Oh that would be never. We're not a run based spread team. I used Oregon as an example of a team that never goes under center yet has no problem rushing for 300 yards a game at times. The spread offense works fine out of the shotgun in 3rd and short because it keeps the defense spread out making the potentially vulnerable up the middle plus the defense had to account for 2 potential rushers (QB and RB) who would be running in two opposite directions. Or if they line up with 2 RBs in the backfield that is 3 runners that could all plausibly get the ball and running to different points in the defense.

I know in a traditional I formation for instance you could have three runners on a 3rd and 1 (QB, FB, and RB) but A)the FB is never usually athletic enough to get significant touches and B)all rushers would be generally running the same direction at the heart of a defense that has loaded up the box.