Hear me out...

[retro44]

Screens seemed to work well for ND. :noidea:

That was as on Bullough....no adjustments till halftime so that leads me to believe Shafer read him the riot act

 

[CIL]

To snarkly say the, "You supposedly ran a successful business" line ... seems mean spirited to me. It's one thing to challenge another viewpoint and another to inject something personal. I may be wrong but that's my opinion.

Well, when a poster constantly refers to his successes at running a business or his father's donations to the program, I would think it is fair game. My issue is that said poster's constant MO is to bash everyone and everything after a loss is tiresome. He never explains why he didn't like the coaching or play calling, just that it stunk.

 

[CIL]

What does that even mean?

Perhaps I used poor grammar as I meant to write quantify or qualify. It's pretty tiresome to hear Adam stinks or McDonald stinks without any thoughts behind it.

 

[upperdeck]

I still say coaching is keeping us in games more than people want to think. the talent is getting better but still not one dynamic player on the team at any spot

 

[Crusty]

Normally, I am a boisterous fan when at the game. I am usually on my feet rooting loudly, standing on opponents' third downs and making all the noise I can, cheering my butt off until I am hoarse. Last night I became very quiet. Mrs Crusty thought I was ill (well, I was but not in the way she meant) and my 10 year-old nephew asked her why I was so quiet. The talent gap all over the field was just so apparent it was very demoralizing.

If you are hired to come in and become an OC you have to design an offense and then recruit players to execute it. The players you inherit are what they are and there is little you can do about it. While you can choose plays from your offense that best suits your talent you really have no choice but to make the best of what you have, eek out wins where you can and move on. In the meanwhile recruit like crazy.

Our OC knows he is playing in a dome so he has chosen to go with a fast paced wide open spread option game. I do not know why anyone has a problem with this. He is recruiting players to fit that style - and this takes time.

Watching ND execute the same plays to perfection and watching them stuff our offense brought home the talent gap on every play. You couldn't miss it as it was in your face all game long. If they had our talent and we had theirs, the result would have been the same - our coaches would have beaten theirs. It really is just that simple.

On one play, Gulley tried to turn the left corner and a DE ran him down. A DE - really?

I understand and share everyone's frustration but this has nothing to do with play calling and bubble screens - its all about talent. So, I shall remain patient while the staff recruits faster, taller more athletic players who can actually execute bubble screens.

 

[OttoMets]

...

If you are hired to come in and become an OC you have to design an offense and then recruit players to execute it. The players you inherit are what they are and there is little you can do about it. While you can choose plays from your offense that best suits your talent you really have no choice but to make the best of what you have, eek out wins where you can and move on. ...

Exactly.

Our OC knows he is playing in a dome so he has chosen to go with a fast paced wide open spread option game. I do not know why anyone has a problem with this. He is recruiting players to fit that style - and this takes time.

Watching ND execute the same plays to perfection and watching them stuff our offense brought home the talent gap on every play. You couldn't miss it as it was in your face all game long. If they had our talent and we had theirs, the result would have been the same - our coaches would have beaten theirs. It really is just that simple.

On one play, Gulley tried to turn the left corner and a DE ran him down. A DE - really?

I understand and share everyone's frustration but this has nothing to do with play calling and bubble screens - its all about talent. So, I shall remain patient while the staff recruits faster, taller more athletic players who can actually execute bubble screens.

I don't agree with the conclusion - why we have a problem with this is McDonald's inability to, as you said, make the best of what he has. Yeah, he inherited guys like Gulley. Use him in a way that takes advantage of his skills. Don't run him east-west; if that's the play, use one of the three faster tailbacks.

 

[djorange1989]

I agree with Upper Deck's post in that we really don't have a dynamic playmaker on the field at this point. I don't think GMD is s genius or a moron I think he is still figuring things out and is perhaps putting square peg in round hole by using this up tempo bubble screen offense based on what we have and don't have. This team doesn't look much different from Marrone's teams as far as sloppy play, shooting themselves in the foot etc. yet now Marrone and his staff are geniuses compared to HCSS and his staff. Not buying it.

 

[Crusty]

Exactly.



I don't agree with the conclusion - why we have a problem with this is McDonald's inability to, as you said, make the best of what he has. Yeah, he inherited guys like Gulley. Use him in a way that takes advantage of his skills. Don't run him east-west; if that's the play, use one of the three faster tailbacks.

He has used every TB he has.

 

[RF2044]

Normally, I am a boisterous fan when at the game. I am usually on my feet rooting loudly, standing on opponents' third downs and making all the noise I can, cheering my butt off until I am hoarse. Last night I became very quiet. Mrs Crusty thought I was ill (well, I was but not in the way she meant) and my 10 year-old nephew asked her why I was so quiet. The talent gap all over the field was just so apparent it was very demoralizing.

If you are hired to come in and become an OC you have to design an offense and then recruit players to execute it. The players you inherit are what they are and there is little you can do about it. While you can choose plays from your offense that best suits your talent you really have no choice but to make the best of what you have, eek out wins where you can and move on. In the meanwhile recruit like crazy.

Our OC knows he is playing in a dome so he has chosen to go with a fast paced wide open spread option game. I do not know why anyone has a problem with this. He is recruiting players to fit that style - and this takes time.

Watching ND execute the same plays to perfection and watching them stuff our offense brought home the talent gap on every play. You couldn't miss it as it was in your face all game long. If they had our talent and we had theirs, the result would have been the same - our coaches would have beaten theirs. It really is just that simple.

On one play, Gulley tried to turn the left corner and a DE ran him down. A DE - really?

I understand and share everyone's frustration but this has nothing to do with play calling and bubble screens - its all about talent. So, I shall remain patient while the staff recruits faster, taller more athletic players who can actually execute bubble screens.

Just a great post.

So much of the criticism of the offensive gameplan seems chicken v. egg.

Several years ago, Marrone made the decision to customize the offense around the talent on hand, to give the team the best chance to win in the short-term. That meant running the ball a ton to capitalize on Delone Carter's capabilities, shortening the game, playing conservatively, etc. This approach enabled us to contend for .500 record [after years of abject futility], win a few games that we otherwise might not have, land us in a minor bowl, etc. Despite these low hanging fruit "wins," there were numerous posters who criticized the approach of tailoring the offense to the players' capabilities, instead suggesting that Marrone was selling out for the short term, and that it would be better to implement whatever the "true" offensive system was, so that the younger players could get immersed in it. Some even suggested that they'd be willing to accept short term setbacks in order to further the long term objective of having a better offense.

Fast forward to the new coaching staff. The OC has installed the new system, despite limited personnel and a lack of explosive playmakers... and they are getting criticized for not installing a customized offense tailored to the players' strengths.

Can't have it both ways.

 

[OttoMets]

He has used every TB he has.

During the season, yes. Not a lot of Morris and McFarlane last night. I think they, unlike Gulley, could beat an end to the corner.

 

[RF2044]

During the season, yes. Not a lot of Morris and McFarlane last night. I think they, unlike Gulley, could beat an end to the corner.

So now the outcome of an individual play, where the athlete made a shaky read and didn't get the job done getting to the outside--is an indictment of the OC? C'mon--it's getting deep in here.

Gulley is a terrific player. He's broken more long runs in his career than any tailback in years. But he needs to beat that guy and turn the corner. He didn't. And he didn't have many holes yesterday, because the OL was overmatched. That doesn't mean that the coaching stinks.

Honestly, last game lots of posters were lining up to criticize the offensive coaches for using too many RBs. Now, there are complaints that we aren't using enough.

Gulley is our main guy. He's going to produce a lot more positive plays than he is negative ways. But negative players are going to happen occasionally--that's just football. It doesn't mean that the coaches are doing a bad job.

 

[Crusty]

During the season, yes. Not a lot of Morris and McFarlane last night. I think they, unlike Gulley, could beat an end to the corner.

Morris has great vision but he couldn't beat me to the corner and Run DMC is injured I think.

 

[OttoMets]

Morris has great vision but he couldn't beat me to the corner and Run DMC is injured I think.

Good call - I forgot about the injury. No wonder I didn't see him.

Morris is pretty speedy, I think.

 

[RF2044]

Good call - I forgot about the injury. No wonder I didn't see him.

Morris is pretty speedy, I think.

No doubt--the future looks bright at RB with Morris, McFarlane, and Philips.

 

[OttoMets]

So now the outcome of an individual play, where the athlete made a shaky read and didn't get the job done getting to the outside--is an indictment of the OC? C'mon--it's getting deep in here.

Gulley is a terrific player. He's broken more long runs in his career than any tailback in years. But he needs to beat that guy and turn the corner. He didn't. And he didn't have many holes yesterday, because the OL was overmatched. That doesn't mean that the coaching stinks.

Honestly, last game lots of posters were lining up to criticize the offensive coaches for using too many RBs. Now, there are complaints that we aren't using enough.

Gulley is our main guy. He's going to produce a lot more positive plays than he is negative ways. But negative players are going to happen occasionally--that's just football. It doesn't mean that the coaches are doing a bad job.

No, that's not what I mean to say at all.

Crusty put forth a reasonable idea: that an incoming coordinator might, before bringing in his preferred recruits, need to tailor the scheme to his inherited players' abilities. I agree with this (I especially agree with this when the coordinator doesn't have any record of success at this particular job and he's got some half-decent players to work with).

He also mentioned a play last night in which one of our players -- as you say, an accomplished player who does some things well -- failed to beat a lineman to the corner. My concern is running plays whose success is contingent on one of our slower backs making it around the corner. Gulley's been very good between the tackles over the years. He's been a lot less effective when he's forced to run laterally. McDonald often has him running laterally. So my point in response to Crusty's post was: good post, but this particular play is an example of McDonald's unwillingness to build his offense around inherited players.

No one play serves as an indictment of the coordinator. But a number of plays like this seem -- to me and others -- to constitute a trend of stubbornness and failure to recognize his players' strengths and weaknesses.

 

[RF2044]

No, that's not what I mean to say at all.

Crusty put forth a reasonable idea: that an incoming coordinator might, before bringing in his preferred recruits, need to tailor the scheme to his inherited players' abilities. I agree with this (I especially agree with this when the coordinator doesn't have any record of success at this particular job and he's got some half-decent players to work with).

He also mentioned a play last night in which one of our players -- as you say, an accomplished player who does some things well -- failed to beat a lineman to the corner. My concern is running plays whose success is contingent on one of our slower backs making it around the corner. Gulley's been very good between the tackles over the years. He's been a lot less effective when he's forced to run laterally. McDonald often has him running laterally. So my point in response to Crusty's post was: good post, but this particular play is an example of McDonald's unwillingness to build his offense around inherited players.

No one play serves as an indictment of the coordinator. But a number of plays like this seem -- to me and others -- to constitute a trend of stubbornness and failure to recognize his players' strengths and weaknesses.

The implement the system versus build it around the talent issue seems like a chicken v. egg debate.

Several years ago, Marrone made the decision to tailor the offense around the talent on hand, to give the team the best chance to win in the short-term. That meant running the ball a ton to capitalize on Delone Carter's capabilities, shortening the game, playing conservatively, etc. This approach enabled us to contend for .500 record [after years of abject futility], win a few games that we otherwise might not have, land us in a minor bowl, etc. Despite these low hanging fruit "wins," there were numerous posters who criticized the approach of tailoring the offense to the players' capabilities, instead suggesting that Marrone was selling out for the short term, and that it would be better to implement whatever the "true" offensive system was, so that the younger players could get immersed in it. Some even suggested that they'd be willing to accept short term setbacks in order to further the long term objective of having a better offense.

Fast forward to the new coaching staff. The OC has installed the new system, despite limited personnel and a lack of explosive playmakers... and they are getting criticized for not installing a customized offense tailored to the players' strengths.

Can't have it both ways. But not sure that there is a "right" answer.

 

[OttoMets]

The implement the system versus build it around the talent issue seems like a chicken v. egg debate.

Several years ago, Marrone made the decision to tailor the offense around the talent on hand, to give the team the best chance to win in the short-term. That meant running the ball a ton to capitalize on Delone Carter's capabilities, shortening the game, playing conservatively, etc. This approach enabled us to contend for .500 record [after years of abject futility], win a few games that we otherwise might not have, land us in a minor bowl, etc. Despite these low hanging fruit "wins," there were numerous posters who criticized the approach of tailoring the offense to the players' capabilities, instead suggesting that Marrone was selling out for the short term, and that it would be better to implement whatever the "true" offensive system was, so that the younger players could get immersed in it. Some even suggested that they'd be willing to accept short term setbacks in order to further the long term objective of having a better offense.

Fast forward to the new coaching staff. The OC has installed the new system, despite limited personnel and a lack of explosive playmakers... and they are getting criticized for not installing a customized offense tailored to the players' strengths.

Can't have it both ways. But not sure that there is a "right" answer.

Right, there's no black and white here. I'm definitely on the conservative side of this debate, though - I don't want it both ways, I just want to maximize these players' abilities. The skills of the kids who won the Pinstripe Bowl and scored a lot of points in 2012 should, I believe, trump the skills of the young offensive coordinator. Build the system around them, install the preferred offense when they're gone and the better-suited recruits are in place.

Installation of the round-holed system with square-pegged players has to be terribly frustrating for the kids in the program; I don't want the staff to alienate them and I really don't want to sacrifice any wins, touchdowns, or entertainment value in this short-term period in which we desperately need to placate fans.

 

[Flacusian]

Well, when a poster constantly refers to his successes at running a business or his father's donations to the program, I would think it is fair game. My issue is that said poster's constant MO is to bash everyone and everything after a loss is tiresome. He never explains why he didn't like the coaching or play calling, just that it stunk.

Fair enough. I'm just for keeping the tone of the conversation friendly and think that it's more important to stress the things that bind us together rather than keep us separate.

At the same time I understand that constant negativism and berating certain points over and over can get quite tiresome.

 

[Crusty]

Right, there's no black and white here. I'm definitely on the conservative side of this debate, though - I don't want it both ways, I just want to maximize these players' abilities. The skills of the kids who won the Pinstripe Bowl and scored a lot of points in 2012 should, I believe, trump the skills of the young offensive coordinator. Build the system around them, install the preferred offense when they're gone and the better-suited recruits are in place.

Installation of the round-holed system with square-pegged players has to be terribly frustrating for the kids in the program; I don't want the staff to alienate them and I really don't want to sacrifice any wins, touchdowns, or entertainment value in this short-term period in which we desperately need to placate fans.

I really don't think that is possible. Youhave to install your system and then try to pick the plays WITHIN the system that your players have the best chance to execute. You cannot have a new system every year to suit the talent at hand.

The offense is comprised of many different parts and some of the players fit and some don't. We are, at the same time, playing at a different level, which makes it even more challenging. I believe one of the reasons that we have so many frosh playing is that because they do fit the system and even if they would benefit from a RS season we can't afford it. We also need to go into next year with some players who have a bit of experience. It is a real balancing act that can easily be upset with injuries or slower than anticipated player development.

Look at our OLine. It was supposedly the strength of the offense and against MD it was but vs ND and the better programs they are just another OLine.

We are at the point where we can compete against pretty much all but the elite programs, but that about it. THIS set of players has to improve in order to go to a bowl and we have to continue to recruit the players we need to compete at a higher level.

 

[OrangePA]

What is predictable is fans complaining that play calling is predictable.

 

[Nahson]

Screens seemed to work well for ND. :noidea:

That's because the Irish have the talent to successfully run those plays. What kills me is we don't play within our means, we try fitting round pegs into square holes. It's frustrating watching this because I look at teams like NC State and I'm jealous. Talent wise, I don't see NC state being any better then us but they came in and played a competitive, entertaining, 60 mins of ball. Is that so much to ask for? With that said, I think George McDonald is still growing as a coordinator, I'm hopeful he pulls it together but he's gonna really need to look at what he's doing (objectively as possible) and change some things.

 

[Nahson]

Also, I rreally want to see the tight ends get more involved. If this is how it's going to be in GMcs offense, then I'd hate to waste a talent like Custis.

 

[Forza Azzurri]

Normally, I am a boisterous fan when at the game. I am usually on my feet rooting loudly, standing on opponents' third downs and making all the noise I can, cheering my butt off until I am hoarse. Last night I became very quiet. Mrs Crusty thought I was ill (well, I was but not in the way she meant) and my 10 year-old nephew asked her why I was so quiet. The talent gap all over the field was just so apparent it was very demoralizing.

If you are hired to come in and become an OC you have to design an offense and then recruit players to execute it. The players you inherit are what they are and there is little you can do about it. While you can choose plays from your offense that best suits your talent you really have no choice but to make the best of what you have, eek out wins where you can and move on. In the meanwhile recruit like crazy.

Our OC knows he is playing in a dome so he has chosen to go with a fast paced wide open spread option game. I do not know why anyone has a problem with this. He is recruiting players to fit that style - and this takes time.

Watching ND execute the same plays to perfection and watching them stuff our offense brought home the talent gap on every play. You couldn't miss it as it was in your face all game long. If they had our talent and we had theirs, the result would have been the same - our coaches would have beaten theirs. It really is just that simple.

On one play, Gulley tried to turn the left corner and a DE ran him down. A DE - really?

I understand and share everyone's frustration but this has nothing to do with play calling and bubble screens - its all about talent. So, I shall remain patient while the staff recruits faster, taller more athletic players who can actually execute bubble screens.

You and I watched the same game last night.

We couldn't get to the edge and we couldn't get a push inside so running the ball was just plain tough.

Hunt made some great throws but his accuracy comes and goes and, as a result, he is very inconsistent.

No running game and an inconsistent quarterback make for tough sledding no matter what plays you call.

Everything you have articulated is what I was thinking last night.

In fact, when PTG couldn't get to the edge against the DE, I said to my bud at the game, "That play symbolizes the entire evening. When your tailback cannot beat their DE to the edge, you are going to have real problems moving the ball."

 

[Crusty]

That's because the Irish have the talent to successfully run those plays. What kills me is we don't play within our means, we try fitting round pegs into square holes. It's frustrating watching this because I look at teams like NC State and I'm jealous. Talent wise, I don't see NC state being any better then us but they came in and played a competitive, entertaining, 60 mins of ball. Is that so much to ask for? With that said, I think George McDonald is still growing as a coordinator, I'm hopeful he pulls it together but he's gonna really need to look at what he's doing (objectively as possible) and change some things.

What exactly do you think he should run? What talent is being wasted?

 

[Orange Rust Belt]

While it wasn't quite 30 screen passes, it sure felt that way, and it was to many given how poorly they work. Our east/west offense needs to be scraped. It may work for very quick and athletic teams like Oregon but it seems to lose us as many yards as it gains overall.