UCLA Game Analysis

[johnnd05]

Great post, Z-Bo ... reps.

 

[Sureal]

So many Monday Morning QBs questioning Charlie's playcalling.

Fact of the matter is Charlie's team won.

Charlie has never been a predictable playcaller. But he has two true freshman getting 30%+ of the snaps at WR. Add in a freshman QB digesting the playbook since only January. Add to that the fact the OL can't hold off blockers on anything more than a three step drop and you can understand this very poignant fact: The playbook is just too tiny at this point, so of course it's going to be predictable if you can only call 100 plays.

Now stop being whiny, emo fans complaining about Charlie's playcalling. You're Monday Morning QBing and also providing a very slanted, unfair, inaccurate assessment.

My thoughts exactly. Good post

 

[SouthieND04]

I'm just thrilled with the play of the defense. Yeah, you can say we got lucky knocking out their QB (I can't say we weren't), but it was US who knocked him out, right? And we certainly capitalized, creating turnovers and never letting up on the UCLA offense.

The offense needs time to figure itself out--it's just a fact of the game. I'm happy the defense is allowing it time to do so!

How's that for Monday Morning QBing?

 

[kmoose]

Kjones,
I appreciate your analysis, but CW is getting WAY too predictable with his playcalling and is not realizing the failures of certain plays. I really think he is still coaching in an NFL style. College playcalling is more about creating confusion and misdirection of defensive flow.......

With all due respect, jonesman, his NFL style playcalling worked just fine in his first two years, didn't it? Confusion and misdirection is, indeed, a big part of most college teams' arsenals. However, confusion and misdirection only work well, when you have players that play with speed. Not players that have great 40 times, but players that play with speed. There are many things that effect this. For tailbacks, for instance: I'll take a guy who is a step or two slow, but can make cuts on the fly, without having to stop dead in his tracks and then start up again. A guy who can accelerate through arm tackles at the line of scrimmage. A guy who instinctively makes the right cuts at the right times. A guy who has that burst of speed when he needs it to create seperation from the LBs. ND has no one that fits the above billing, yet. I'm not saying Aldridge or Hughes or Allen won't develop into that kind of back. But they aren't there yet.

I'm not saying that the playcalling couldn't be a LOT better. But when nothing is working, you have to kind of scrap "the plan".

 

[Wham]

So many Monday Morning QBs questioning Charlie's playcalling.

Add in a freshman QB digesting the playbook since only January. Add to that the fact the OL can't hold off blockers on anything more than a three step drop and you can understand this very poignant fact: The playbook is just too tiny at this point, so of course it's going to be predictable if you can only call 100 plays.

Now stop being whiny, emo fans complaining about Charlie's playcalling. You're Monday Morning QBing and also providing a very slanted, unfair, inaccurate assessment.

This is what I read when I first joined this site about a week or so ago: "This is the place to chat, share, argue, flame, curse, discuss, whine, or bitch about Fighting Irish football!"

Get with the program dude. I'm here to "chat, share, argue, flame, curse, discuss, whine, and bitch about Fighting Irish football!"

I'm the first to admit I'm a Monday coach.

Now, let's look at the contadiction in your post:

You start with "Add in a freshman QB digesting the playbook since only January", which insinuates that he has a huge playbook to learn. You follow with "The playbook is just too tiny at this point "

At 10:39 in your other post you said "Charlie has never been a predictable playcaller." You follow that in your next post with "the playbook is just too tiny at this point, so of course it's going to be predictable.."

Proper sequencing of playcalling can make any ahtlete look great. Poor sequencing can make a man look like a boy. This past week, the O used inside, outside, middle, deep and play action pass plays to keep the defense on its heels. All of a sudden the line pass blocking looked great.

They got help from the science of playcalling.

 

[Wham]

HAHAHA.

Play-calling is an exact science in Madden when you figure out how to abuse the AI.

You just told me all I need to know about your football experience.

Play-calling in real life is nowhere near an exact science and you sound ridiculous even suggesting it is exact. Do you even coach and have you ever called plays? You're completely lacking anecdotes from real world experience to give you an ounce of credibility here. But Monday Morning QBs can say whatever they want.

I guess your use of the word "anecdote" makes you feel kind of smart huh? What does a story about a past experience have to do with anything? You attach credibility to an anecdote? OK, here goes an anecdote:

One time, I was playing football, and I fell down.

There. Now do I have credibility?

If play calling is nowhere near an exact science, then why so many "offensive schemes" exist? Helter skelter "draw it in the sand" playbooks produce few results and poor execution. A more scientific approach develops tried and true systems. Think about it.

I'm not really trying to pick on you, but your statement just captured what a lot of the posters in this thread are suggesting: Charlie Weis is suddenly a predictable, poor playcaller.

You can't pick on me. You aren't that impressive. Thanks for the response though.

Here is a list of what effects playcalling off the top of my head:

• Quarterback arm strength and velocity
• Quarterback decision-making ability (i.e., Akili Smith never had more than 2 reads to make when he was the Ducks QB; he sucked when he got to the NFL for this reason)
• Type of running back
• Quality of running back
• Pass protection quality at 3 step drops
• Pass protection quality at 5 step drops
• Pass protection quality at 7 step drops
• Philosophy regarding the Shotgun; some coaches don't believe in EVER using it
• Centers ability to snap the ball in the shotgun
• QB knowledge of the playbook
• WR knowledge of responsibilities on any given route
• RB blitz responsibilities
• TE ability to catch the ball
• WR ability to make plays after catch

Blah blah blah. These are D1 athletes here. Practice helps approach perfect.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Appalachian State and Boise State. Why can't ND?

How many of those things are a "PLUS" for Notre Dame this year? How many were a "PLUS" the past two years? The more in the "PLUS" column you are, the larger your playbook gets.

Do you even coach and have you ever called plays? You're completely lacking anecdotes from real world experience to give you an ounce of credibility here. But Monday Morning QBs can say whatever they want.

 

[kmoose]

You just told me all I need to know about your football experience.


I guess your use of the word "anecdote" makes you feel kind of smart huh?

Please try to use only two or less syllable words around Wham. He's kind of sensitive that way, it seems.

 

[Wham]

Just giving Z-Bozo some help.

"Panties"

That word has 2 syllables. You left yours in the bed of my truck. Want them back?

Wink

 

[kmoose]

Just giving Z-Bozo some help.

"Panties"

That word has 2 syllables. You left yours in the bed of my truck. Want them back?

Wink

You're doing no such thing. You're attempting to discredit him, just like you did me, by trying to paint him as some kind of arrogant psuedo-intellectual. You're hoping that will somehow discredit his words, and sway opinion to your side of the argument. One of the true measures of a man, Wham, is not how vehemently he defends his opinions, but his ability to process new information without bias and perhaps admit that his initial conclusions could have been false. Z-bo was absolutely correct: a scheme is not based on what plays you have practiced to perfection. An offensive scheme is based on the talents, schemes, and weaknesses of the defense you are sceming against. Watch the Weis press conferences on nd.edu, or und.com. He has about 4 or 5 different pressers a week online, and they are almost a clinic in how to coach. He doesn't discuss specifics of his schemes, but he does discuss the philosophies of them, quite often.

 

[Wham]

This is how Z-Bo introduced herself to me:

"HAHAHA"..."you sound ridiculous even suggesting it" ..."Do you even coach and have you ever called plays?"... "You're completely lacking anecdotes from real world experience to give you an ounce of credibility here".... "But Monday Morning QBs can say whatever they want"..."I'm not really trying to pick on you..."
Here is what you (kmoose) added:

"Please try to use only two or less syllable words around Wham."

Then, quite hilarioulsy, you start your last post with:
"You're attempting to discredit him, just like you did me, by trying to paint him as some kind of arrogant psuedo-intellectual. You're hoping that will somehow discredit his words, and sway opinion to your side of the argument."

Pot calling kettle what?

You then vehemently defend your opinion with a pseudo – intellectual description of a MAN:
“One of the true measures of a man, Wham, is not how vehemently he defends his opinions, but his ability to process new information without bias and perhaps admit that his initial conclusions could have been false.”
(I have never called you a pseudo-intellectual, but did the shoe fit?)

You then prove you are biased and fail to admit that your initial conclusion has been false with:
“ Z-bo was absolutely correct: a scheme is not based on what plays you have practiced to perfection….”

Pause here. So, ummm, plays that have been practiced to perfection should not be used? Then why were they practiced to perfection in the first place?

Let’s continue. You then add “An offensive scheme is based on the talents, schemes, and weaknesses of the defense you are sceming against.

I really had to stop on this one. I was laughing way too hard. So you are telling me that your offense should change every single week according to the team you are playing? I agree that you can find the weaknesses and stress certain plays from your book at practice that week, but under your plan, what the hell do you do at practice that week if you are going to change the whole damn thing every week? CW is your example and well, his team has scored how many touchdowns this year? What happens when the defense you are scheming against has no apparent weakness? Ladies and gentlemen, I give you ND’s offensive output against all good defenses for the last 2 seasons. But hey, CW gives a clinic on how to coach college offensive football. And that is the basis of your argument.
CW’s offense did well the first season because he had 5 returning starters on the O-line from the Davie era, actually I think the entire offense returned intact. Defenses did not know what to expect from the 1st year coach, especially because they had “no film on him” to “scheme” from.. They surely caught on by the end of the year though. At least the good teams did.

I have said previously, I don’t know if it is here or at the bars, that CW is building a great team. I just don’t think he was – using your words - “able to process new information without bias and perhaps admit that his initial conclusions could have been false.” I guess, according to your definition, he wasn’t being a Man.

OK. All that being said, I'm thinking maybe a semantic difference might be a cause of disagreement here (our definition of the term "offensive scheme"). I agree that adjustments must be made according to the team you are playing, but to change the entire playbook week by week is just plain crazy. Air Force has defeated ND how many times using the same option offense?

The rest of the flaws in your and Z-bo's posts are too numerous for me to spend anymore time on a response.

Peace brother.

 

[jonesman]

OK guys,
I started this thread and we are now officially ending it. UCLA is behind us and we have beat this horse into Elmers Glue and beyond. Let's all get prepared for the boyz of BC. I am really excited to see this game. We have had some success at most aspects of our game at one time or another this year, so let's hope we put them all together in one game. GO IRISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Beat BC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[kmoose]

OK. All that being said, I'm thinking maybe a semantic difference might be a cause of disagreement here (our definition of the term "offensive scheme").

At last something we can agree on. In my vernacular, your offense is something that you have built. It is a collection of formations and plays designed around your offensive philosophies. The West Coast Offense is an offense. The Wing-T is an offense. A scheme is a philosophy that you use to beat a specific team. Maybe they have a great front 7, but you pass block very well. So the scheme would be to throw a lot of deep balls early, to force the linebackers to drop into coverage, and open up running lanes. The gameplan is a specific set of plays that use, within your offense, to accomplish your scheme. Then, you can add in offensive philosophies as well. CW has always said his philosophy is to be a balanced attack. He would like to run the ball as often as he throws it. Maybe not an exact 50-50 split, but within +/- 15%. Other coaches espouse the philosophy of taking whatever the defense gives you. I think this is probably what was meant by playcalling not being an exact science. You have to incorporate different parts of a whole, to have a successful outcome. Knowing which parts to weigh heavier than others is kind of instinctual. It's not black and white. And it really isn't just a function of "well, we ran this play perfectly in practice this week, so.......". The point of practice is to learn to run EVERY play in the playbook perfectly. But you will never actually acheive perfection, so you have to weigh the options..........down and distance, personnel, and just gut feeling.

 

[Wham]

An offense is something an OC builds based on a scheme that works. Running shoot, veer, Wing T, are all offensive schemes. A head coach either knows a scheme, or hires a coach who can implement the scheme that the head coach has determined his team needs. Too small a team? Run the option scheme or misdirection Wing T. Big and strong? Run the power I formation with fullback and tight end or two.

Gameplan? Notice the weakness of your opposition's D and stress the option right all week at practice as a result. Notice that right CB is a backup, and on 2nd and 6, throw the "play action WHAM left, Z post right" at him.

OK dude. Any more info and time spent responding to you will cost you cold hard cash. Glad you didn't buckle to the silly request that the post be closed. You chose to return the kick rather than down it. Can't say I care much for the ref's flag. Good thing he waved it off.

 

[goldandblue]

scheme can be used in two ways which may be causing the confusion. Scheme as a noun and scheme as a verb.

scheme /skim/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[skeem] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, schemed, schem·ing.
–noun 1. a plan, design, or program of action to be followed; project.
2. an underhand plot; intrigue.
3. a visionary or impractical project.
4. a body or system of related doctrines, theories, etc.: a scheme of philosophy.
5. any system of correlated things, parts, etc., or the manner of its arrangement.
6. a plan, program, or policy officially adopted and followed, as by a government or business: The company's pension scheme is very successful.
7. an analytical or tabular statement.
8. a diagram, map, or the like.
9. an astrological diagram of the heavens.
–verb (used with object) 10. to devise as a scheme; plan; plot; contrive.
–verb (used without object) 11. to lay schemes; devise plans; plot.

 

[Z-Bo]

Wham,

You put way too much thought into my points and made them way too personal.

Sometimes, the drawback to online communication is all too obvious: the feedback loop is not instantaneous, and, as a result, something is missing.

However, it seems as though in interpreting my comments as personal, your reply was personal. Perception matters and I understand your perception ended up in you spending probably way too much time replying to what I had to say.

As for my football experience: I began playing football in Pop Warner. As a kid, even before playing high school football, I would read books like Bill Walsh's Building a Champion and Finding the Winning Edge. I actually sent him the latter's dust jacket to autograph, but unfortunately never returned. I would also rent training tapes from my local library, such as Jerry Rice The Ultimate Receiver which I must've rented at least 10 times. At one point in my childhood, my friends found my stack of marble notebooks with notes written in it, including Mel Kiper-like draft analyses. I never knew they found this until recently, when a friend admitted they agreed to keeping it a secret because they realized the hazing I would get at school if it ever got out. I played four years of football in high school. I watched game film every week. I would suggest defensive strategies to my defensive coordinator each week, strategies he would relent to using only at half-time of the game when we were being attacked exactly where I thought we would be attacked. By my senior season, I could predict the plays at the line of scrimmage. I have a ferociously acute antennae for detail and a cerebral approach to everything in life: I'm not satisfied unless I have a deep, penetrating knowledge of some subject matter that interests me.

I'm 23, just graduated college, and plan to get my coaching certification now. While in college, I tried volunteering to coach at my old high school, but the school district changed the rules regarding certification, limiting involvement from community volunteers (in fact, two coaches from the community could no longer volunteer due to this).

 

[Wham]

You put way too much thought into my points and made them way too personal. Perception matters and I understand your perception ended up in you spending probably way too much time replying to what I had to say.

Thanks for the response. I TOTALLY agree that something is missing in this form of communication, because I have never taken anything personally on here, although it may seem that I do because I don't use the smiley function enough.

Although I didn't actually give your post much thought at all, I did want to point out the flaws. My response took time because I was typing with one finger on the keyboard while I had 5 other fingers surrounding my ice-cold Old Milwaukee. You did write a completely personal attack though. See first paragraph in red in my post at 2:51. But, like I say again and again, I'm just havin some fun here. I expect spicy responses because I like to play

As far as football experience goes, I'll just say that, um, I have more. Much, much more. Much much much more. And I didn't just get info from books. I have actually sat in on sessions with current greats. I'll leave the details alone....


Thanks for the interaction brother.

 

[Z-Bo]

I am interested in the details, though. I would never consider it gloating if you go into detail.

There is nothing to hide here; we are all Notre Dame fans and we are all family here.

I have never taken anything personally on here

Calling me a girl made it seem as if you took it personally.

You did write a completely personal attack though.

Perception matters.