QB Competition during the spring

[pkt77242]

1. The Michigan State game is more of an exception for Tommy. Against every other solid defense, he struggled quite a bit (and he wasn't really that great against MSU either). If you're going to keep track of his record as a starter, then that means that he, as the starting QB, is going to shoulder a lot of the blame. The defense played well throughout the season, but the offense was often anemic against good defenses. And in this offense, it all starts with the QB.

2. As for ND's QB history, it's irrelevant, because we've never had a coach with Brian Kelly's offensive philosophy. And I don't see how you can call our running game 'average' this year. I thought it was quite obvious that QB was the greatest weakness on offense this year.

I would say WR reciever play besides Floyd (well and Tyler) was a huge weakness. TJ and Riddick had problem getting seperation and that makes it hard for any QB to throw to them.

 

[DillonHall]

I would say WR reciever play besides Floyd (well and Tyler) was a huge weakness. TJ and Riddick had problem getting seperation and that makes it hard for any QB to throw to them.

They were often open, but he never looked toward them. It's also hard to get open when the opposition drops 8 into coverage.

 

[kmoose]

And I don't see how you can call our running game 'average' this year. I thought it was quite obvious that QB was the greatest weakness on offense this year.

If your defense is your weakness, that doesn't mean that your offense is good.

Notre Dame was 51st, in rushing offense. That means that 50 teams were better, and 69 were worse. I retract my characterization of them as average, they were very slightly above average. If you've watched ND for very long, you'll know that this running game lagged far behind those of the glory years.

 

[DillonHall]

If your defense is your weakness, that doesn't mean that your offense is good.

Notre Dame was 51st, in rushing offense. That means that 50 teams were better, and 69 were worse. I retract my characterization of them as average, they were very slightly above average. If you've watched ND for very long, you'll know that this running game lagged far behind those of the glory years.

We were 22nd in yards per carry, which is a more relevant stat, since this is a pass-first offense. A 5.0 average is far from average.

In regards to your first comment, you missed my logic. I was establishing that the defense was not the reason we struggled; I narrowed down our struggles/losses to mainly the offense, after which I further designated Tommy as the greatest weakness of said offense. Obviously, this is over-simplified, but I was trying to dispute your statement that 'everyone' struggled in the games against good opponents.

 

[Who'saWildManNow]

If your defense is your weakness, that doesn't mean that your offense is good.

Notre Dame was 51st, in rushing offense. That means that 50 teams were better, and 69 were worse. I retract my characterization of them as average, they were very slightly above average. If you've watched ND for very long, you'll know that this running game lagged far behind those of the glory years.

To be fair, that running game came in the form of the Wing-T and Wishbone.

I think this years team was "above average" with glimpses of excellence in every department except special teams.

The running game, mainly because of Jonas, was better than I expected it to be.

 

[kmoose]

They were often open, but he never looked toward them.

I'm curious as to what you are basing this on? Because a review of the numbers shows the following distribution, in the passing game:

Michael Floyd caught 95 of the total of 283 completions, or 33.5%
Eifert had 57 catches, or 20.1%
Jones, 37 catches, 13.1%
Riddick, 36 catches, 12.7%
Wood, 26 catches, 9.2%
Toma, 15 catches, 5.3%

6.1% of the receptions went to others.

Given how good Michael Floyd is, I just don't find it unreasonable that he should have 1 out of every 3 catches.

 

[DillonHall]

I'm curious as to what you are basing this on? Because a review of the numbers shows the following distribution, in the passing game:

Michael Floyd caught 95 of the total of 283 completions, or 33.5%
Eifert had 57 catches, or 20.1%
Jones, 37 catches, 13.1%
Riddick, 36 catches, 12.7%
Wood, 26 catches, 9.2%
Toma, 15 catches, 5.3%

6.1% of the receptions went to others.

Given how good Michael Floyd is, I just don't find it unreasonable that he should have 1 out of every 3 catches.

Irrelevant/misleading data; there would have been more total completions if he'd thrown to TJ and Riddick while Floyd and Eifert were covered.

 

[kmoose]

We were 22nd in yards per carry, which is a more relevant stat, since this is a pass-first offense. A 5.0 average is far from average.

In regards to your first comment, you missed my logic. I was establishing that the defense was not the reason we struggled; I narrowed down our struggles/losses to mainly the offense, after which I further designated Tommy as the greatest weakness of said offense. Obviously, this is over-simplified, but I was trying to dispute your statement that 'everyone' struggled in the games against good opponents.

5.0 in college is damn near pedestrian. This isn't the NFL. Every year, there are a dozen or so guys who have ~250 carries (approx. 20 carries per game, so they are starters/co-starters) that average 7+ yards per carry. 5 yards a carry, in the NFL, means that you are a very good back. In college, it means that you would play on most teams, but it doesn't denote anything terrific. It's not bad, it's just not great.

With my first comment. I was responding to the assertion that the running game was irrelevant because it was obvious that the weakness was the quarterback. I should probably have phrased it, "Just because your quarterback is your weakness, that doesn't mean that your running game was good."

 

[kmoose]

Irrelevant/misleading data; there would have been more total completions if he'd thrown to TJ and Riddick while Floyd and Eifert were covered.

What's misleading is saying that Rees "never looked at them".

 

[anarin]

Really, Mike? Did you happen to catch the Michigan State game? I'm pretty sure that Michigan State is a "quality opponent", and Rees was very much in sight, in that game.

I have to disagree. 18 for 26, 161 yards, 1 td, 1 int and 1 lost fumble isn't in sight. If you really think this then your expectations have been grounded.

 

[DillonHall]

5.0 in college is damn near pedestrian. This isn't the NFL. Every year, there are a dozen or so guys who have ~250 carries (approx. 20 carries per game, so they are starters/co-starters) that average 7+ yards per carry. 5 yards a carry, in the NFL, means that you are a very good back. In college, it means that you would play on most teams, but it doesn't denote anything terrific. It's not bad, it's just not great.

With my first comment. I was responding to the assertion that the running game was irrelevant because it was obvious that the weakness was the quarterback. I should probably have phrased it, "Just because your quarterback is your weakness, that doesn't mean that your running game was good."

The rushing stats include sacks in college but not the NFL, which could have some (not sure to what extent) effect on these stats. But like I said earlier, 5.0 is good enough for 22nd in the nation. You can call it pedestrian, but I think that's damn good.

And I never said the running game was irrelevant (not sure what that even means...)

 

[DillonHall]

What's misleading is saying that Rees "never looked at them".

True, that was an exaggeration, but I hope you understand why your distribution information doesn't prove much.

 

[kmoose]

True, that was an exaggeration, but I hope you understand why your distribution information doesn't prove much.

It proves a lot. Your assertion was that Rees locked on to Floyd and Eifert all the time, and basically ignored Riddick and Jones. Well, the numbers don't bear that out. Riddick and Jones combined for over 25% of Rees' completions. How could that happen, if he was ignoring them. The truth is that Riddick and Jones just aren't the studs that we were all hoping that they would be, not that they have been held back by a quarterback that doesn't look their way.

 

[DillonHall]

It proves a lot. Your assertion was that Rees locked on to Floyd and Eifert all the time, and basically ignored Riddick and Jones. Well, the numbers don't bear that out. Riddick and Jones combined for over 25% of Rees' completions. How could that happen, if he was ignoring them. The truth is that Riddick and Jones just aren't the studs that we were all hoping that they would be, not that they have been held back by a quarterback that doesn't look their way.

Fine, I'll explain. How does the data prove that they aren't open more often? They could have beaten the coverage 60% of the time, but that wouldn't be reflected in the data that you provided if Rees didn't throw it to them. If Rees had made the proper read each time, I'd bet that the 25% to Riddick and TJ would be much higher. I can't see how you think that Tommy saw the field well, especially given his high interception rate.

In any case, I find it ridiculous that you can prove this with stats. You have to watch the individual players and see if they get open. But if you want to use numbers, then a more pertinent stat for this discussion would be the completion percentage for each individual receiver.

 

[kmoose]

I have to disagree. 18 for 26, 161 yards, 1 td, 1 int and 1 lost fumble isn't in sight. If you really think this then your expectations have been grounded.

You do realize that Michigan State was the #8 pass defense in the country, right? If you expected Rees to put up 300 yards, 3 TDs, and no INTs against them, then your expectations are wildly unrealistic.

 

[DillonHall]

You do realize that Michigan State was the #8 pass defense in the country, right? If you expected Rees to put up 300 yards, 3 TDs, and no INTs against them, then your expectations are wildly unrealistic.

Your expectations are affected by the abilities of the player, and your lowered expectations for Tommy show that he is not good enough.

 

[kmoose]

Fine, I'll explain. How does the data prove that they aren't open more often? They could have beaten the coverage 60% of the time, but that wouldn't be reflected in the data that you provided if Rees didn't throw it to them. If Rees had made the proper read each time, I'd bet that the 25% to Riddick and TJ would be much higher. I can't see how you think that Tommy saw the field well, especially given his high interception rate.

In any case, I find it ridiculous that you can prove this with stats. You have to watch the individual players and see if they get open. But if you want to use numbers, then a more pertinent stat for this discussion would be the completion percentage for each individual receiver.

Actually, completion percentage per receiver would be a better indication of the receiver. If he is getting plenty of opportunities, but not catches, then that would indicate that he probably doesn't have very good hands. The 25% to Riddick and Jones wouldn't be any higher, because the total completions would be higher. They might have a bigger slice of pie, but it would be a bigger pie, essentially making it the same percentage. And I'm not so sure that Kelly hasn't instructed ALL of his QBs to throw the ball to Floyd, EVERY TIME they read single coverage on him. Could you really blame him? Floyd is a once every 25 year receiver. He's hands down the best receiver in college football right now. Not all INTs are the result of not seeing the field well. Ask TJ Jones. Others are a product of the pass rush, while others still can be the receiver running the wrong route. If Rees didn't have such a high completion percentage, then I would be much more concerned about his INTs. It's not that I don't assign any concern to them, I do. They can kill drives, kill momentum, and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. But the fact that Rees has a very good completion percentage tells me that he throws the ball well. He's young, and whether it's nerves or a bad read, those things can be fixed with coaching.

 

[pkt77242]

They were often open, but he never looked toward them. It's also hard to get open when the opposition drops 8 into coverage.

No they weren't. Hell even during half of the passes thrown to them they couldn't get seperation. I really like TJ Jones but he did not get seperation from the DB's and Theo almost never got seperation.

Look Rees is an average to slightly above average QB but outside of Floyd and Eiffert the rest of our WR's (and TE's this year, not including potential) were average or below. That is the truth.

 

[NYMIKE6]

sorry moose, your argument is understood and i still won't agree and its not because i'm frustrated it's because i've seen this before too many times in college football. 20 years of being a diehard college football fan and a ND fan and i must say Rees would have been a solid Qb in the MAC, or even Big East but not here. Do you actually think he would have sniffed the field if he played for Lou or Ara? I don't think he would've ever made it past 3rd string. I like the kid but he is not nor will ever be the one that leads us to the promise land. My friend it seems your the only one that feels this way or at least the minority and i know this isn't a popularity contest but i know one thing when i'm not the only one that sees what i'm seeing i have a point.

 

[anarin]

You do realize that Michigan State was the #8 pass defense in the country, right? If you expected Rees to put up 300 yards, 3 TDs, and no INTs against them, then your expectations are wildly unrealistic.

Since you are all about using that stats for your lowered expectations. If you throw out the four cupcakes Michigan State faced (Youngstown State, Florida Atlantic, Central Michigan and Indiana), then the yards per game average jumps to around 200 yards per game. Also these four cupcakes accounted for 7 of their defense 16 ints this season.

With these simple stats; you are saying that Rees is incapable of throwing for atleast 225 yards? Not to mention not turning the ball over not once but TWICE!!

come on man... My expectations arent a fantasy, I just expect more from my teams QB that plays for a decently skilled team. You on the other hand thinks its ok for the leader of the offense to have marginal numbers.

 

[NYMIKE6]

Amen^^^^

 

[kmoose]

Since you are all about using that stats for your lowered expectations. If you throw out the four cupcakes Michigan State faced (Youngstown State, Florida Atlantic, Central Michigan and Indiana), then the yards per game average jumps to around 200 yards per game. Also these four cupcakes accounted for 7 of their defense 16 ints this season.

With these simple stats; you are saying that Rees is incapable of throwing for atleast 225 yards? Not to mention not turning the ball over not once but TWICE!!

come on man... My expectations arent a fantasy, I just expect more from my teams QB that plays for a decently skilled team. You on the other hand thinks its ok for the leader of the offense to have marginal numbers.

This argument might hold weight, if I had been claiming that Rees had a superb performance. I'm not.

The whole point of this is that people are bagging on Rees for "disappearing" in every game against a good opponent. Well, he didn't. He didn't shine, but he sure as hell didn't disappear. And your factoring out the cupcakes doesn't change that. Just admit that you might have been exaggerating, when you said "disappears", and move on.

 

[kmoose]

sorry moose, your argument is understood and i still won't agree and its not because i'm frustrated it's because i've seen this before too many times in college football. 20 years of being a diehard college football fan and a ND fan and i must say Rees would have been a solid Qb in the MAC, or even Big East but not here. Do you actually think he would have sniffed the field if he played for Lou or Ara? I don't think he would've ever made it past 3rd string. I like the kid but he is not nor will ever be the one that leads us to the promise land. My friend it seems your the only one that feels this way or at least the minority and i know this isn't a popularity contest but i know one thing when i'm not the only one that sees what i'm seeing i have a point.

He most definitely would not have seen the field under Holtz. He probably would not have even been recruited under Holtz. Neither would Theismann, Montana, Clausen, or Quinn. So that's really not relevant.

In the Ara years, he would not have played in front of:

Huarte
Hanratty
Theismann
Clements

He probably would have started in front of:

Schoen
Zloch
O'Brien
Steenberge
Etter

 

[phgreek]

He most definitely would not have seen the field under Holtz. He probably would not have even been recruited under Holtz. Neither would Theismann, Montana, Clausen, or Quinn. So that's really not relevant.

In the Ara years, he would not have played in front of:

Huarte
Hanratty
Theismann
Clements

He probably would have started in front of:

Schoen
Zloch
O'Brien
Steenberge
Etter

...So how'd Powlus get the gig.... He could run a little, but he didn't come to ND to run the option...He came to chuck it around...

as you say, I think Holtz would not have contemplated changing his attack for Tommy...based on Powlus, I think He would have for Clausen too...Can't speak to the Joes.

 

[greyhammer90]

BFeldmanCBS Bruce Feldman
@
RT @ChiTribHamilton QB Dayne Crist officially asks for release, will transfer from #NotreDame. trib.in/sTSZPq

Sorry if posted before.

 

[phgreek]

Sorry if posted before.

Good luck to him...had to be tough, but I'm glad he gets to keep playing. I'll be cheering him on...

 

[NYMIKE6]

He most definitely would not have seen the field under Holtz. He probably would not have even been recruited under Holtz. Neither would Theismann, Montana, Clausen, or Quinn. So that's really not relevant.

In the Ara years, he would not have played in front of:

Huarte
Hanratty
Theismann
Clements

He probably would have started in front of:

Schoen
Zloch
O'Brien
Steenberge
Etter

So just agree he wouldn't have been anything more then a 3rd string?
It's obvious by how many people are disagreeing with you that your wrong i change my stand your absolutely wrong. Your the type of person that just likes to argue with people on the internet because you don't agree. I have bigger and better things to post on here then to debate with someone like you.....

Have fun being "That Guy"

It must just be frustration setting in that you agree with me^^^^^

 

[Patulski]

...So how'd Powlus get the gig.... He could run a little, but he didn't come to ND to run the option...He came to chuck it around...

as you say, I think Holtz would not have contemplated changing his attack for Tommy...based on Powlus, I think He would have for Clausen too...Can't speak to the Joes.

Holtz's first offense was with Steve Beuerlein, and was a hybrid of the option, the I formation and passing the football. Then, he mostly ran a pure option attack for three years with Rice, with less passes that tended to be of the down field, quick strike variety. Then, he gravitated to a more conventional running attack with Rick Mirer, Kevin McDougal and then Powlus throwing more than Rice did, and running less option.

I don't think there is any proof that a "Kelly Offense" exists anymore than there was a "Holtz Offense". Usually, coaches form their attack based on the QB that they think can best help them win. First Crist and then Rees have been that guy. We'll see if that changes next year. If Kelly thinks he can win more with Hendrix than Rees, he'll be the QB.

 

[kmoose]

...So how'd Powlus get the gig.... He could run a little, but he didn't come to ND to run the option...He came to chuck it around...

as you say, I think Holtz would not have contemplated changing his attack for Tommy...based on Powlus, I think He would have for Clausen too...Can't speak to the Joes.

Powlus got the gig because he was widely considered to be the best quarterback, if not the best player, coming out of High School. Holtz would definitely have changed his attack, if he had to start Tommy Rees. The thing about those old time coaches..........they may have had a "system" that they preferred, but they always adjusted their offense to play to the strengths of their players. If they liked to throw the ball, but had a Herschel Walker on the field, then they ran most of the time. If they liked to run the ball, but had a great QB on the field, then they threw more often.

Rees would not have been Holtz's first choice to start, for sure. But one of the things that made Holtz a great coach is that he adapted his system to the players, instead of trying to force players into his system.

 

[phgreek]

Powlus got the gig because he was widely considered to be the best quarterback, if not the best player, coming out of High School. Holtz would definitely have changed his attack, if he had to start Tommy Rees. The thing about those old time coaches..........they may have had a "system" that they preferred, but they always adjusted their offense to play to the strengths of their players. If they liked to throw the ball, but had a Herschel Walker on the field, then they ran most of the time. If they liked to run the ball, but had a great QB on the field, then they threw more often.

Rees would not have been Holtz's first choice to start, for sure. But one of the things that made Holtz a great coach is that he adapted his system to the players, instead of trying to force players into his system.

I don't disagree with this at all...

I got the distinct impression earlier on that you believed Holtz would not have recruited or started Jimmy...In my mind Jimmy=Ron P. in the pre-college hype and skills.

...well, ok, Beano and his 4 Heismans spiel...tough to beat that. But then maybe Jimmy's stint at the CFHOF makes them =.

Anyway, like I said, I think Lou goes after Jimmy...Its too hard for me to say on the Joes because the hype/visibility just wasn't there like we see with post 1990 players...I didn't speak to BQ either because I don't know that coming in he would have moved Lou's "needle" to build a team around him.