ND 2020 was ranked 102 in Red Zone Offense. Do you expect significant improvement?
(no message)
Back to threaded view
Full conversation · 33 posts
-
Level 1
I would love to look at a breakdown of every RZ play the "O" had in 2020..............
Missed FGs, turnovers, runs, passes, offensive penalties. I think BK went conservative in a couple of RZ opportunities and just basically ran out the clock with basic run plays.
-
Level 1
Red Zone scoring has been an ND problem as long as Kelly
It began when Grey was stood up and fumbled (which was run back for a touchdown) in Kelly's first game. Lack of a strong running game, as opposed to passing, and the failure to recruit goal line busting fullbacks have been trademarks of the problem.
-
Level 2
Not trying to be a dick, but every sentence in your post is just wrong
The game you refer to is against So Fla, and that was in Kelly's second year. Ok, a simple mistake, but do you recall that the entire drive leading up to the fumble was practically all on the ground. They were gashing the defense with power runs between the tackles. The fumble was the result of a great strip as Jonas was about to score. That's not a play that supports your argument.
Kelly has had several years where they've had a strong running game. That has not been the issue. Rather it's having a diverse enough offense that the other team can't predict the play that's coming. And as it's been pointed out, their red zone offense has been pretty good in several years. Last year was not one of them.
As far as a fullback, ND used an H back last year. That's the modern equivalent of the old fullback of the 80s and 90s.
-
Level 3
I don't think there were many times last year where we were repeatedly stuffed at the goal line.
NDavenue 7489 postsAs I pointed out also, our 3rd down conversations were superb. Heck, people here were raving about how good we were in short yardage last year.
I don't believe illusions because too much is for real.-
Level 4
I agree, but their red zone conversion was not great. That was the original post
I agree with you that once inside the 5, their power game took over, and was pretty successful. Inside the 20, it wasn't that great. Johnathan Doerer being inconsistent had something to do with that. And their play calling was a little suspect.
-
Level 5
One of the problems is once you get inside the 10 the field shrinks, the defense sells out more and
it becomes 10 on 11. Usually as any level going ripe up the gut, unless it is a foot away is tough. A little play off tackle or the old fashioned option play if run well are the toughest plays to stop.
-
Level 5
To that point, ND was #8 nationally in 3rd down conversions last year.
I think people are reading too much into Red Zone Offense as a statistical ranking here. As the NCAA records it, it is simply the percentage of times a team scores after entering the RZ. FGs count the same as TDs. So missed FGs and red zone turnovers are the biggest issues. Miss a few chip shot FGs and fumble a few away inside the 20 (ala Book/Clemson Rd 1), and your percentage tanks. This particular stat is mercurial by nature, which is why ND's ranking varies so greatly year-to-year. It is also why Eastern Michigan was ranked #1 last year in "Red Zone Offense" while Ohio State was ranked #100.
-
Level 6
That's true, but there's a reason why red zone efficiency is emphasized.
In the red zone the field obviously gets smaller and the defense is able to get a little tighter. Therefor the offense has to be more efficient. If a team is not good at moving the ball and putting points on the board while in the red zone, then it logically follows that in order to remain a high scoring team, they must have more explosive plays from outside the zone. Notre Dame had some but was not great at those kinds of plays with Ian Book at QB.
-
Level 7
I think your narrative is probably accurate. But I think the stat is misleading.
You wrote: "If the team is not good at moving the ball and putting points on the board in the red zone . . . ." That is the crux of my issue with the stat ranking itself. FGs and TDs count the same for Red Zone Offense. A team could simply be incapable of moving the ball in the red zone and still have a high ranking per the stat because you don't have to "move the ball" to make a FG once in the red zone. Missouri 2020 is illustrative. Per the "Red Zone Offense" stat ranking that is linked, Missouri was #3 nationally. They scored a high percentage of the time they made it to the Red Zone -- 94%. But peel back a layer and you see it was a lot of FGs compared to TDs. They had 20 TDs and 12 FGs in the RZ on the season. That's fewer than two TDs per made FG in the RZ. Does that mean they had a "good" RZ offense? Doesn't sound that great to me. But there Mizzou is, in the top 5, according to the ranking -- along with Eastern Michigan, Northern Illinois, Kansas State, and Washington State.
I suspect what "Red Zone Offense" really comes down to as a stat are two things primarily: 1) not missing FGs and 2) not turning the ball over in the RZ. Both of those things are important. Don't get me wrong. You have to make makeable FGs (as a few have noted Doerer missed a few), and turnovers in the RZ are killers (Book's goal line fumble against Clemson sticks in my mind, though ND overcame it). But those things are very different than whether the coach "called the right play" or whether the coaches were "creative enough" or whether the team could "run the ball in short yardage." The Red Zone Offense stat, which sounds outlandish (ND is ranked #102!), doesn't seem to tell me enough. I think it would take a lot deeper of a dig to make sense of this.
Link: https://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/703
-
Level 8
You're right. On its own, the stat is misleading. When TD pct is added then it becomes more telling.
Whatever stat table is being cited for this thread, if it bases the rankings on any score per trips into the red zone, then as you illustrate well, it is very misleading. When I have seen stats for red zone offenses, I usually see a TD pct along with an overall scoring pct., which becomes a better barometer of red zone efficiency.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Level 2
My eyes rolled so hard reading this it was blinding
Turkish 1395 postsThe fullback is a dying position
-
-
Level 1
This is the one glaring area where we missed Chip Long. He had much better design and creativity in
this crucial area of the field. We need to dust off that portion of the playbook. Drop the ego and use his 12 favorite plays inside the 20, over, and over, and over again.
-
Level 1
Yes, I think Kelly and Rees realize they must be better and I think the talent is there.
(no message)"Put a Riddell on somebody and be the most physical team in the country until the whistle blows." -
Level 1
New OL not as good this yr, new QB vs 5th yr vet last yr....Magic 8 Ball says,"Very doubtful"
BaronVonZemo 64302 postsUnless the offense changes.
-
Level 2
QB won't be the problem
Coan has played through multiple years, and the offensive schemes aren't very different from what he was used to running in the past.
I agree with everything else, though. Even though the talent coming in on the offensive line can be just as good, or even better, than the last two years' teams, it still needs to solidify as a unit or else it's going to be a long season...
-
-
-
Level 2
and Oklahoma #3, Alabama #6, and Clemson #38 for further context.
BaronVonZemo 64302 posts(no message)Link: https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/red-zone-scoring-pct
-
Level 3
The more context the better. The stats I saw had OU #13 and Bama #8.
Clemson at #38 by both methodologies.
What I see across both links is a mixture of good and shitty teams ranked high and low. Not sure what it means.
Link: https://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/703
-
-
-
Level 1
Who’s to blame! Rees, Kelly or the lack of talent ( big RB ) to get it across the line?
(no message)-
Level 2
RB was not the reason for poor RZ scoring. I don't recall our RBs not being able to punch it in.
NDavenue 7489 postsIn fact, I recall the exact opposite this year (as opposed to previous years). We scored 25 rushing TDs on 60 trips into the RZ (10 passing). We were also #8 in 3rd down conversions and #24 in rushing offense. Our short yardage running gave was very good.
Missed FGs didn't help.
I don't believe illusions because too much is for real.-
Level 3
Kyren Williams seemed fabulous to me on punching the ball in the end zone. I was very confident.
Also more importantly our third and fourth down efficiency seemed more than solid.
-
-
Level 1
Yes. I seem to recall we were very good the years before that.
NDavenue 7489 postsOur receiving corps was a weakness last year. Should be significantly improved.
I don't believe illusions because too much is for real.-
Level 2
Book bailed us out of a few jams.
I also thought rees had some questionable play calling sequences. I'd like to believe the talent is there to be in the top 50.
End of conversation