I think that if Wimbush had been a credible threat as a passer a lot would have been different in those losses. Hard to say we would have been undefeated, but I think we'd have won vs UGA and Stanford. Miami, that was just their night.
Heart warming tale of a young man saved from the Dark Side ..ie Michigan by a trip to Notre Dame. https://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/2017/12/19/ovie-oghoufo-notre-dame-football-recruiting/964427001/
Do you really think that Wimbush' mediocre passing stats were to blame for our OL's failure to open holes for our RBs in those three games? I could turn your argument around and say that you're putting the cart before the horse. If the OL had opened holes for the RBs, a lot would have been different in those games. Either way, it's speculation. I'll continue to credit and defend Wimbush's leadership by example along with his unmatched toughness as a huge contributing factor in our success. To be clear, we had an outstanding team with outstanding leadership, but we were far from perfect. I respect the effort of the OL line throughout the season, but I find it hard to believe there wasn't another OL in the FBS which was consistently strong throughout the entire 12-13 game schedule. IMO ours wasn't. The good news is that it was much improved over 2016. Hopefully, that improvement will continue into 2018 despite the loss of Nelson and McGlinchey.
We'll never really know of course, and I know conventional wisdom has been that you use the run to set up the pass. But Wimbush was so erratic passing, missing the simplest throws and then making a great throw for a TD that I think the better defenses said that we will commit the resources to stop the run and dare them to beat us passing and we couldn't.
I agree with Terry on this one. When the QB is a below average passer, the LBs and Safeties can crowd the line and make certain that there aren't any holes. With an outstanding defense like Georgia's you have to loosen them up somehow. Otherwise, they're just standing in the gaps waiting for you.
You can agree all you want. I'm sure others agree with you. As far as I'm concerned, you both are missing my point. Maybe you're not interested in letting go of your obsession with the QB. I've railed about it before in a pretty angry way, but understandably it fell on deaf ears. No problem. I'm going to make my point again, this time with a clear illustration. The 1988 team had a QB similar to Wimbush and won a national championship. Check the comparative stats for Tony Rice and Wimbush. You'll see they're essentially the same in % completions (Rice 50.6, Wimbush just under 50) and net rushing yards (Rice 700, Wimbush 765). Rice completed 70 passes for 8 TD and had 7 INT. Wimbush completed 133 passes for 16 TD and had 6 INT. Rice had 9 rushing TD and Wimbush had 14. Rice was responsible for 17 of the team's 40 TD. Wimbush was responsible for 30 of the team's 43 TD. On balance, Wimbush contributed far more to his team's offensive production than did Rice, yet Rice QB'd a national championship team. How did that happen? Because the other parts of the whole did their jobs efficiently and consistently. The OL dominated its opponents when it counted. The defense did what it had to do to keep the opponents from getting the upper hand. This year's OL and defense did that at times but not in the games that mattered, specifically Georgia, Miami, and Stanford. You could throw in Navy, but that was a W. I understand the game. I know that defenses are going to crowd the line of scrimmage to shut down the running game, especially if the QB is not a great passer. Don't you think teams did the same against the '88 team? Of course they did. The difference? In '88 we had the players up front to overcome that strategy by blowing open holes for the RBs where there were none. This year, we did not. That's why I believe our OL was overrated. I still do. It was much better this year than last but still not at the level to produce a championship caliber team. The same is true for our defense, much better than last year but still not able to stop the upper tier offenses, either on the ground or in the air. What's the answer? It's not changing the QB who by himself was responsible for 30 TD. It's getting better players in the trenches who can overcome whatever defenses the opposition throws at us, from the first kickoff of the season to the last whistle. What does that take? Better recruiting? Better coaching? A combination of both? If you're honest about it, and if you're open-minded enough to look at the full picture and not just the most visible of the of 22 players on the field, you'll understand what I'm trying to say. Maybe you'll agree, but I'm not holding my breath.
Notre Dame <t>Sid,<br/> <br/> Since I'm not a very complicated person I'll try to make this very simple.<br/> <br/> Wimbush has so many positive attributes that it's hard for me to wish for his replacement to appear. If somehow over the off season he can improve his mechanics enough to make him a QB that consistently throws anywhere near 13 or 20, 99% of our problems are solved. Kelly seems to think he can. We'll have to see.</t>
Tim, Appreciate your thoughts. I never focus on one player or one part of the whole. I look at the entire TEAM performance. My example of the '88 team shows that you can win a championship with a less-than-proficient passer if all the other parts are in sync and performing at the highest level. IMO this is the issue, not whether our QB leads with his arm or his feet or both. I'm afraid this point gets lost on some fans.
Notre Dame <r>I'm having fun watching the videos of the new commitments as they phone in this morning. Great stuff. Hopefully we end up with around 20 for today. <E></E></r>
The Facebook live coverage is much better than I thought it was going to be. This is pretty fun. For once, I am enjoying one of my mornings
I respect your opinion Sid, but it's hard to compare 1988 stats to today. Joe Montana's stat's in the 1977 Nat'l Championship season were not very good compared to today's offenses and stats. He threw an Interception for almost every TD that he threw, and he barely completed 50% of his passes. He's one of the all time greats though. Same for Tony Rice, it was just a different time and a much different offense and really you can't even begin to compare Holtz and that '88 Staff to our current staff either. I'm with Tim. I really like Brandon Wimbush and really hope that he can show significant improvement in 2018, he's the kind of kid who I know will work hard to make that happen. On the recruiting front I think the last I saw we had 16 of the 20 kids with LOI's in, and the other 4 are expected to get there LOI's in today as well. Lots of last minute woes regarding some of the DB's we hoped would sign today who have not verballed to anybody. Still hopeful that Braden Lenzy will go with the Irish. After that it's a crap shoot.
There is no question that a QB who has a completion % of around 50% make sit easier for a DC to game plan against a team. I would also say that our slow developing running plays put a lot of pressure on the line to hold blocks longer. Wimbush accounted for 30 TDs but they are high risk scores and when his ankle injury surfaced he was simply not the same. Couple that with average passing skills and we became very defensible.
Just to point out a couple of difference between the '88 team and this year's team. First, Rice had the Rocket who put serious pressure on opposing secondaries. Trying to defend him with single coverage was asking for trouble. More importantly Rice normally took snaps directly behind the center and the running plays were quick hitters or traps with the FB often leading the play. Compare that with our offense today which has the RB getting the ball 3 or more yds. behind the line of scrimmage and requires the OL to hold their blocks longer.
It's that RPO offense that is so popular. I remember watching both Jarrett Stidham of Auburn and the Wake Forrest QB, it seemed like they held the ball forever in the exchange..reading who ever is the key on handing it off or keeping it. QB under center in HS and College is not very common, there are some offenses that still use it as a staple but it's mostly a shotgun world these days. I was listening to Tommy Tuberville talk about why he went to the spread offense after years of being a guy who was a traditional offense with QB underc center, a TB deep and maybe a FB. He said it was that HS have adopted the spread so univerally because it is easier to get their best athlete at QB in the spread. So that is what the colleges look at HS QB's who have never taken a snap under center. He said it takes 2 years to get a kid ready to play QB if you stick to an under center system, where as some kids can play as true freshmen and most are really ready to play as sophs and at a higher level than if you were trying to convert them.
Irish Men beat Dartmouth last night, but it wasn't a game anybody was happy with, they hung around hitting threes and while I only watched the last 5 minutes and they were talking about how Bonzie and Farrell took over and willed the team to the win, Bonzie had his usual double/double with 37 points. But the general feeling is not good over on ND boards, a lot of Bonzie not playing any defense and Farrell dribbling the clock away. Expectations are going down the drain at this point from competing for an ACC title and maybe a deep run in the NCAA to maybe not even getting to .500 in the ACC this year. They play S.E. Louisiana on Thursday.
Terry, I completely understand that much about today's game makes it difficult to compare stats. How many different ways can I say that's not the point? The stat comparison was used only to emphasize that in the opinion of today's fans who criticize Wimbush, Tony Rice was a mediocre QB, but he won a NC because the other parts of the whole were consistently successful. It was not the case with this year's team. How else can I explain that criticism of Wimbush focuses only on the most popular target and ignores or denies that there are intrinsic issues with the team's infrastructure (OL, coaching, overall talent and strength, etc.) that were to blame for the 3 losses and the close game with Navy? To repeat, this is not a criticism of the team that turned a 4-8 record into an outstanding 9-3 season. It's an unyielding defense of one of our most valuable assets in the face of (IMO) misguided criticism. By the way, Terry, thanks for pointing out Montana's similar season and stats in 1977, which closely resemble the '88 season except for a single loss. Both examples beg the question, if the '17 team had a similar OL to the '88 or '77 teams and we went 11-1 or even were undefeated because of our OL dominance, what would fans be saying about Wimbush with the same passing stats? George and Gipper, George, you're using different words to say the same thing JO'Co said last night. I agree that we face defenses loaded more for the running game than the passing game, as did the '88 team. How do you beat those defenses? With superior strength, speed, and teamwork along your offensive front. The '88 team had it. This year's team didn't. We definitely moved in the right direction with 2 AA OL, but that wasn't enough to achieve at a championship level. Gipper, Yes, we didn't have a Rocket or a Will Fuller to put pressure on the DBs. Is that Wimbush's fault? Hell, no. Second, blocking schemes are designed to make the offense successful, whether QB under center with quick hits or RPO or anything in between. It's on the OL to execute the schemes effectively. The '88 OL did that. The '17 OL did it for 8 games but couldn't do it in the 3 losses or vs. Navy. Is that Wimbush's fault? His 50% completion rate had nothing to do the the OL's failure to move the defenses of Georgia, Miami, or Stanford. Would you guys agree that a championship level OL dominates whatever defense it faces, whether a 7-8 man front or protecting the passer? Whether you agree or not, if you say yes, I promise to shut up and move on. :wink:
kp, I agree with you, but this particular conversation is focused on offensive issues. I guess when you're thinking of a championship caliber TEAM, you think of the sum of all parts adding up to dominance, not necessarily each individual part being the best. You pose a valid argument, one which I wish we could sit around a table with all the time in the world and debate. I wouldn't even care about the outcome. :wink:
Sid, I basically agree with your premise. Alabama has become famous for game managing QBs, great RBs and shut down defenses. The defense was the key.
kp, based of the Tide's consistent success since Saban arrived, it certainly looks like that's the formula to follow.