In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 821
Online now 1067 Record: 6507 (2/14/2012)
The place for Irish fans to engage in hardcore discussion about Notre Dame athletics
Talk with Irish fans from around the globe about college football's most storied program
The spot for anything on your mind outside of Notre Dame athletics
The place for Notre Dame fans to trade and exchange tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I'm sorry, but this post is going to irritate some of the fantasy types, like Matty-Boy, but so be it...
--- on the heels of hearing that Kelly will make all the quarterbacks "fair game" (wow, what a change from last year's red shirt approach for Tommy and Crist), and saying they will "run it"...or something to that effect.
#1 I am NOT against quarterbacks running the ball, IF (a big IF) they can actually run the ball effectively.
#2 Running the quarterback for the sake of running the quarterback makes no sense (to me) unless "they can run the ball effectively..."...inside and outside like Golsen can do...
#3 Running a quarterback who has no ability (or very little) to run effectively....puts him in danger of visiting the emergency room...as we saw with Crist.
Tommy Rees, like Crist before him, is not a naturally gifted running quarterback...by any stretch of the imagination...
--- he is slow, has has no "moves" whatsoever to any degree, and he won't hold up from getting hit, if he gets hit hard (as when Crist went out with his concussion at UM on the goal line)
IMO, and yes it is my opinion, Kelly screwed with Crist's head consistently (over and over and over again) about running the ball...
--- and it paid off in a very negative result.
We have a couple of quarterbacks who can certainly run it, and run it very effectively, more than effectively, but Tommy isn't one of them.
We have been here once before....in spades.
Is anyone really saying, "we cannot afford to lose Tommy at QB to injury if he scrambles or runs the ball ?"
Sorry, I don't want to see anyone get hurt....but a running QB, even if not a born runner, is more of a threat than someone who will not run the ball.....and if Tommy gets hurt there are better QB's who should have been playing instead of Tommy anyways.
When I watch the video below, especially the last few minutes, it just looks to me like the offense goes better with Golson at QB because he can make so many things happen. I wish Kelly had been able to name him the starter early in spring camp and given him all the reps he needs to hone his skills as a starter.
The departure of defensive end Aaron Lynch cast a fairly large shadow over the Irish football program, just as the Notre Dame coaching staff was opening its doors to over 600 high school coaches.
maybe we should request a flag football game to all our opponents this year.
a sitting duck is more in danger. if he's no threat to run the defense knows they can tee off on him.
you can't compete for an NC with a zero run threat QB.
However, please allow me to zig while others here are zagging. I don't believe the stats support the argument that we need a running QB. For example, look at the following stat lines for the past few NC winning QBs:
2011: AJ McCarron: -22 yards rushing
2010: Cam Newton: 1400 yards rushing to go with ~2800 yards passing
2009: Greg McElroy: 83 yards
2008: Tebow: 900 yards rushing; 3300 yards passing
2007: Russell: 142 yards
Based on how Cam is doing in the NFL (66%, ~4000, 700 yds rushing, 17 INTS against pros), one could argue he was the entire Auburn offense in 2010 (>400 yds more rushing than Dyer), and therefore an outlier; same goes for Tebow; he rushed for >300 yards more than a RB. None of the USC title QBs was a threat to run either. I'd make the case that its not about running, or the threat of the run. It's actually about turnovers. For example, lets look at those same years:
2011: McCarron: 67% comp, 2600 yds, 5 INTS 147 Rating
2010 Newton: 66%, 2800, 7 INTS 182
2009: McElroy: 71%, 3000, 5 INTS 140
2008: Russell: 68%, 3000, 8 INTS 167
2007: Tebow: 67, 3300, 6 INTS 172
Rees: 66%, 2800, 14 INTS, 133. Cut down on the TO's and his passer rating is in the 140 range; even without that, his stats are comparable to any of these guys. Now, compare that to this stat line:
Jimmy Clausen 2008: 61%, 3100 yds, 17 INTs, 132 rating. That years team went 7-6 with a win in the bowl game. As Kelly said, cut down the TOs, and last year is different, even though we still went 8-5. To win in this day and age of football, we need a QB who doesn't turn the ball over first and foremost; running is a fringe-benefit, IMO.
I get it, Tommy's limited, but keep in mind Tony Pike didnt run at UC, yet went 67%, 2500, 6 INTS and 150 rating. Also, folks don't realize but it took Tony til his 3rd year to get comfortable in Kelly's system; he redshirted and didn't look good his first year (61%, 2400, 11 INTS, 136 rating). Look familiar?
So, be it Tommy or Everett or Kiel; I want the guy who makes the right reads, throws the ball away and not to the other team. Get that right, and this team will look that much better on the field this fall.
And for completeness, let's just look at the argument that, say, Alabama just runs the ball. Last year, Alabama averaged 164 yds per game; ND averaged 161, a difference of about 40 yards on the year.
Feel free to chew on this analysis and refute where you think I might be wrong....
This post has been edited 4 times, most recently by J_Law 2 years ago
I just cannot figure out what Kelly Is doing. I think Golson should start. We may have a Tony Rice type season with Golson
nice job jlaw...
its a tough call all around...it could be worse, we could have 4 guys that stink
Rees without the turnovers would be a completely different player. He threw interceptions. He coughed up the ball. He threw backward passes over the receivers head that were recovered by the defense. I just watched the Michigan game the other night on the Big 10 Network, and watched as he let the ball fly out of his hand backward trying to pass on a first and goal on the 6 when we were ready to score a probable game clinching TD. Michigan recovered.
That doesn't tell the whole story either. I can think of at least two plays (one against USC) down deep in the opponent's territory where the receivers were covered but a wide opening was available for Rees to run for a TD, but he was so slow that he made little or nothing. There were numerous other times when he could have scrambled for a first down or positive yardage but had to throw the ball away because he cannot scramble. There were also periods when virtually every pass he threw looked like it might be intercepted.
So I think we really have to give someone else a chance a QB.
Kelly is not changing the offense around the QB like he did with Rees! Rees will NOT be the starter because he will prove that he can not run Kelly's offense! If you can not outrun DL than you will not see the field!!
Your points are well taken; yes he did throw those interceptions and yes he is limited, so I'm fine with Rees not starting, particularly after watching a und.com update. Perhaps you saw it, too. Rees overthrows Riddick on a wheel-route, I believe. Looking at his footwork, he did not appear to be solid in his base and threw off his back foot. I couldn't believe it. Old habits dying hard, I guess.
Let me also add this: the kind of running you're talking about is different from what others among us are looking for. Some think we need a Denard Robinson and therefore think Hendrix or Golson is the guy; I don't think we do. We need a QB with enough athleticism and ability to run so that he can extend plays and, yes, get us 4-5 yards on a scramble, as you point out. I think Shembo just jumped again at a pump fake Barkley put up at SC practice. Barkley isn't the most athletic guy, but he was good enough to extend plays so that good things happened for his team. If Rees can do that, so be it; if it's somebody else, godspeed.
Thanks for the reply, patH72
I agree with with what you've said here.
It seems that the QBs that are able to scramble and run are less likely to get hurt. They have done it enough, and they are more likely to land safely when tackled or hit. Not saying they can't get hurt, but they are able to control their bodies better to prevent such things. Tommy seems like he would get knocked into basketball season the way he moves around. They say Floyd looked stiff when he ran. They haven't seen TR.
3 time POTW
I agree. I don't remember anyone being less mobile than Rees. Powlus wasn't particularly mobile, but he was a cut above Rees. He also had a much better arm.
Agree totally with this post!
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports