In reply to: Some positives on the OL posted by SEE
Not with the death-defying aerial show our new/old OC is getting set to roll out.
Rocco made a move.
more than one RB (I would hope so given the depth we seem to have)? Will there be traps, counters, misdirection in the running game? Are we ok winning games with an offense similar to what Michigan ran (sans cheating), or is that kind of commitment to running and physically wearing down the opponent just too boring for us? Will above-average defenses as usual be able to identify exactly what we're doing before we run the play, shut down the run, and make us one-dimensional? I'm hopeful but am not holding my breath.
Raridon and Evans be part of a 2-TE base offense, or will those snaps be given to the 6th-year portal WRs, Collins, Thomas, Faison, Colzie?
It is going to be inconsistent and unreliable. It will be useless should a decent team helicopter in on our pathetic schedule.
The scheme is the thing. None of our beat writers ask any questions about the scheme, except about how it is going to be more friendly to WR and "more downfield" and "more explosive."
The best pro offenses run a mixture of formations, shotgun, under center, one back, two back. So did Michigan last year.
I really don't know why people are optimistic about this jazzercize offense.
QBs under center.
He has one formation. Shotgun, 1 Back, 1 TE, 3 WRs. We might put one of them in motion, but its really all the same. QB read the defense, then "take what the defense gives you" or hope for a mismatch.
We're only playing one really good defense this year- A&M. Maybe our defense can pitch a shutout.
impression that he was more comfortable relying on a strong running game, Tressel-ball if you will. But the Denbrock hire belies that.
I'm concerned that he's done what so many unsuccessful teams/ADs do -- hire/draft the "safe" guy, the guy that you won't get second-guessed for -- rather than the guy who best fits what you need.
LSU’s quarterback and two best receivers will be high first round draft picks tomorrow. Denbrock was fortunate to have this elite level of talent. The ACP incorrectly assumes Denbrock’s offense is responsible for this production rather than the players. He doesn’t have anywhere near that level at ND (yet). This year’s results will reflect this year’s talent level and be further limited by the issues he will face with the pass blocking.
rushed for over 200 yards/game in 2023. But will neglect to mention that Jayden Daniels accounted for 45% of those yards -- mostly on long scrambles after passing plays broke down. He also accounted for a third of the team's total rush attempts.
at OC so I don't think you need to be f'n clown to expect an uptick unless the new tackles soil the bed.
Also, #13 in yards-per-rush (5.28). Even the passing offense did well (#9 Passing Rating 165.39). And yes, that includes cupcakes and good teams just like everyone else's average...Rick
the effective scoring offense would be closer to the 29th ranking for Total Offense. Because it was 47th in red zone scoring percentage and 16th in red zone TD percentage. (Why there isn't a readily accessible stat for scoring offense that removes non-offensive scores is beyond me. Another stat that adjusts for field position advantages created by defense would also be nice.) ND's defense was definitely notably better than average at creating scores and likely also better than average at creating short-field opportunities conducive to scoring. So 29thish is probably a good benchmark for where our offense actually stood last year and, thus, how progress should be measured this year.
I know you're always wearing your rose-tinted glasses, but it's hard to evaluate where we'll be this year. I would guess that if the talent were the same, we would have a more effective offense than last year, as I'll credit the idea that Denbrock has matured since he was generally not very good as the OC at ND. However, while RB should still be strong, our OL losses will probably be noticed. And our current strengths don't necessarily suit how Denbrock achieved success the past two years.
Nevertheless, assuming a strong OL performance, it'd be reasonable to have concerns that the in-over-his-head OC from last year could conceivably take what is still a strong stable of running backs and OL and actually produce a better scoring offense (defense-adjusted of course) in 2024 than would our current OC who will not have an elite athlete at QB and mature early round picks catching balls from him. If one took that position, he'd probably note that Denbrock was responsible for the 40th best scoring offense in 2014 (and 47th best TD percentage red zone offense) and (if all the homers are to be believed) 34th best scoring offense in 2015 (and whopping 79th best TD percentage red zone offense in 2015 despite a pretty balanced and talented attack). To say nothing of the 53rd best scoring offense in 2016 (and 55th best red zone TD percentage) when homers claim he was hamstrung.
Adjusts for field position.
But using it to call a 12-yard TD drive an unqualified success with predictive value for future scoring success simply because 100 percent of available yards on the drive were gained is not helpful. If that 12/12 is aggregated with a 35/70 drive and taken to show a 47/82 yards gained percentage, that has some value in isolating independent offensive value in a total yards context. But because total yards ignores the ability to score in the red zone, I find it less valuable as a go-to stat than scoring offense--so long as proper adjustments can be made to scoring offense to isolate offensive productivity into a predictive measure. The Kelly offensive tenure (including under Denbrock) consistently underperformed in scoring offense compared to total yards gained because red zone productivity of its candy-assed scheme ranged from mediocre to poor.
I like the concept of the SP+ comparing actual points scored v. expected points scored for an average team that takes into account the strength of defenses played. But I'm not totally clear on the full methodology. I would just make sure that the stat considers both the strengths of defenses played PLUS the expected point value of an average team based on each season's starting field position and compare to actual points scored from the starting position. I would find that more useful than a standalone % of available yards because it bakes in red zone efficiency translating to actual scoring.
You no like my numbers?
based spread.
And 23rd in 2014. I didn't include that in my other post because I know the people I'm talking to find opponent-adjusted stats to be bullshit.
to know how useful either the Success Rate is, or how the points per play component is setup. I assume the latter is based only on offensive scores. But I don't know if that component accounts for field position. (My understanding is that there's some attempt to account for field position in the overall rankings.)
Not so great.
What happens if ND plays on offense this year like LSU last season. Number One. Still pissed?
Extremely mediocre team in a lousy conference. This game was the most disappointing one of the year, even if it was a win.
Because I've expressed that while I don't expect a great offense, I also take issue with the ideas that Denbrock is a Kelly-clone as an OC and that his offenses will definitely suck against top competition.
It's not like we don't have data on this. Denbrock was the OC at ND in 2014 and 2015. In those two years we faced four teams who finished top 5 in the final AP poll. Here is what we scored in those games:
2014 vs FSU - 27 points
2015 vs Clemson - 22 points
2015 vs Stanford - 36 points
2015 vs Ohio State - 28 points
I don't think it's fair to pin 2016 on him as that was a perfect shit storm of variables that led to how bad that team was, and by all accounts the OC role was being "shared" between Sanford in some messed up way.
So while Denbrock had the OC reigns at ND in his last stint, we averaged 28.25 ppg against teams who finished in the top 5. I don't think that's laying turds.
I think he is a firm step up from Parker. I would have preferred someone who runs an offense like Michigan's, or the Packers, or the 49ers, too. Those offenses would play far better to our natural recruiting strengths, as I've said many times on here. I'm not a spread-lover, I don't think it's most suitable for a program like ND, but my point is that there's a wide range between "sucks and rules" for OCs, and I don't think Denbrock falls under "sucks". I think Mike Elko is a fine coach, and it bears noting that Denbrock was his first choice to join him at A&M.
I also think it's unfair to just say "well he had Jayden Daniels fall into his lap". Daniels was seen as a semi-bust at ASU and when he announced his transfer, teams were barely looking at him. When LSU took him, it was a nothingburger. He wasn't even a guarantee to start. Denbrock was the OC that coached him into a Heisman winner.
was Brian Kelly.
Someone else might have had the title, but it was his scheme, he held veto power, and he would shove his nose in and offer input whenever the fuck he wanted. Now, I'm sure that Denbrock was very involved and perhaps even running much of it, but there were no tweaks or adjustments that SRFSIM didn't approve of first before they were implemented. Oh, and I'm sure that Kelly was the driving force behind the 2016 fuck up, no question.
I didn't like the Denbrock hire at Notre Dame because he reminds me of the Kelly and Willingham regimes. Hard stop. I don't want to be reminded of those two regimes. I would have preferred a fresh face; unlike other guys, I think that you can run good running schemes from gun and/or pistol. I'm not married to under center/21 or 12 personnel groupings or whatever. There are a variety of ways to skin a cat.
shotgun. If an OC is so committed to the formation, it means he is dumb.
and he might also be dumb.
Denbrock was "the OC" in two of the three best Kelly offenses, and his years were the only ones where we didn't look completely inept on offense against top teams.
I fucking hate the Willingham and Kelly regimes, for different reasons.
Everyone on that staff can go jump in a lake, as far as I'm concerned. I don't care which one is the tallest midget, they're all short little fuckers.
continues to be cited when trying to justify the hiring. Elko isn't a proven elite head coach. He is the process of trying to prove himself at A&M. We don't know yet what will become of his career. It simply doesn't make any sense to mention him. If we were dueling Saban for his services, it might be noteworthy.
I think Elko is widely respected and seen as an up-and-comer, but I get your point.