Part 3 of this installment series takes a look at the three most recent games: BYU, Oklahoma,
and Pitt. Sadly for the comparison
(thankfully for the amount of plays I had to review), a concussion kept Golson from
playing at all in the BYU game.
The following 2 games were truly something to remember. First, an epic showdown in Norman, OK
in a game that every pundit in the nation had pre-determined the Irish would
lose. Then, a non-intentionally
epic game versus Pitt that caused all of us watching to lose a few years of our
lives. Before I get to the
numbers, one thing, while my readership is quite minimal, if any of you who
read this are the incredibly kind and dedicated people who post condensed games
onto Youtube, please get back at it.
Since no condensed video was available, I had to scroll back-and-forth
through online full games which just sucks. Now that my complaining is out of the way, let’s add on
Segment 3’s games to the normal statistical breakdown I’ve used to start the
last couple of pieces:
Category:
|
Games 1-3:
|
Games 4-6:
|
Games 7-9:
|
Attempts:
|
81
|
54
|
67
|
Completions:
|
47
|
32
|
36
|
Completion %:
|
58%
|
59%
|
54%
|
Yards:
|
611
|
357
|
404
|
TD’s:
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
INTS’s:
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
Yards per completion:
|
13
|
11.16
|
11.22
|
Yards per attempt:
|
7.54
|
6.61
|
6.03
|
For the most part, everything stayed more or less in line
with Segment 2, and slightly down from Segment 1. On yesterday’s post, commenter “Dan” suggested that the
increased difficulty of the defenses played on a game-to-game basis might
explain this. My gut tells me he’s
correct. I think that I may
do one “wrap up” piece either Thursday or Friday to explore that more
thoroughly by considering Golson’s game-to-game numbers in view of the relative
strength of the defense he was up against.
On the surface, one aspect that sticks out to me about the
numbers above is the slight drop off in completion percentage. In theory, a quarterback progressing
will get better in this regard as he sees more live action. Most Notre Dame fans would consider
Oklahoma to be Golson’s best all-around game to this point in the season. Versus a very good secondary, Golson
avoided any major mistakes even if he didn’t record a touchdown through the
air. He was also 13/25 in that game. (aside: I will address his improvements running later.)
In part one of this series, I was critical of Golson’s
reluctance to throw the ball away.
His tendency to rely upon his scrambling ability and to attempt to make something
out of nothing bothered me. The
area he progressed in the most in
games 7-9 was doing just that….throwing the ball away. I wanted to at least consider
what happens when we take out the throwaways from attempts with respect to
completion percentage. It’s not a
good thing that he’s having to throw the ball away, and Golson’s reluctance to
make quick decisions certainly plays into the number of times he has to decide
between forcing a pass and conceding the play, but for a young quarterback,
learning that it’s okay to throw it away is definitely a skill to appreciate:
Category:
|
Games 1-3:
|
Games 4-6:
|
Games 7-9:
|
Attempts:
|
81
|
54
|
67
|
Throwaways:
|
4
|
3
|
6
|
Effective Attempts:
|
77
|
51
|
61
|
Completions:
|
47
|
32
|
36
|
Completion %:
|
61%
|
63%
|
59%
|
Does Golson make up all of the ground on completion
percentage once we take out the throwaways? No. However, he
does make up a little ground, and should give us some (moderate) hope of
improvement in decision-making going forward. I was happy to see that the number of forced throws was in
fact decreasing over time.
Okay, let’s get to the throwing by down breakdown:
Down:
|
Attempts:
|
Completions:
|
Comp. %:
|
TD’s:
|
INTs:
|
1
|
30
|
15
|
50%
|
2
|
0
|
2
|
18
|
14
|
78%
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
19
|
7
|
37%
|
0
|
0
|
4
|
0**
|
0
|
---
|
0
|
0
|
· ** Golson did attempt a throw on 4th
down: The now infamous pass
interference against Eifert during the Pitt game. Of course, it was a P.I., and so no official attempt is
recorded.
Rather than explaining this in paragraphs, let’s do the
side-by-side comparison in a couple of different ways. First, by completion percentage by down
for each of the 3 segments:
Down:
|
Games 1-3
|
Games 4-6
|
Games 7-9
|
1
|
51%
|
64%
|
50%
|
2
|
68%
|
62%
|
78%
|
3
|
56%
|
50%
|
37%
|
I’ve highlighted the top performer for each of the 3-downs
(excluding 4th down given that no official attempts have been
registered). I don’t think there’s
too much of a takeaway. Random
fluctuation probably matters just as much as anything else. The only unsettling aspect is Golson’s
20 point drop in completion percentage on third-downs from Segment 1 to Segment
3. It’s also unnerving that that’s
the only category where a downward pattern developed. More on that shortly. I also wanted to consider the percentage of attempts
that came on each down for each segment:
Down:
|
Games 1-3**
|
Games 4-6
|
Games 7-9
|
1
|
46%
|
46%
|
45%
|
2
|
35%
|
24%
|
27%
|
3
|
20%
|
30%
|
28%
|
· ** Rounding errors apply.
One observation about first downs, and then I'm moving to the more important second and third down situations: It’s interesting how consistent
the percentage of Golson’s attempts have occurred on first down across the
different game periods. That said,
I think this is just a matter of coincidence. Even from a schematic standpoint,
comparing Segment One and Two’s games which both involved blow outs where Notre
Dame’s offense shifted strongly towards the run in the second half to Segment Three where the Oklahoma game was in doubt until the fourth quarter and the
Pitt game required a near miraculous come from behind victory is difficult to
say the least, and more importantly, somewhat meaningless.
Golson was not asked to pass as much in third down situations in Segment One which makes sense for a young starter. The standout game was the Dublin opener versus Navy in which Golson had only one throwing attempt on third down (The team only had 10 third downs the entire game). Though, even in the Purdue game (26%) and Michigan State game (21%) the team did not ask him to make a lot of third down throws compared to what we'd see going forward.
Perhaps if we go to the “money down” down and distance chart
for Segment Three we’ll get something better:
Down:
|
Attempts:
|
Completions:
|
Comp. Percent.
|
TD’s:
|
INT:
|
2nd 5+
|
11
|
8
|
73%
|
0
|
1
|
2nd <5
|
7
|
6
|
86%
|
0
|
0
|
3rd 5+
|
12
|
5
|
42%
|
0
|
0
|
3rd <5
|
7
|
2
|
29%
|
0
|
0
|
I’ve highlighted second and short for a very particular
reason: In Part 2 of this series,
I said it was absolutely imperative that Golson get more opportunities to pass
in that situation. He finally did. In case you’re wondering, yes, the incredibly important play
action 50 yard strike to Chris Brown in the Oklahoma game occurred on 2nd
and short. The regret? Golson’s other 5 completions on second
and short amassed 27 yards combined.
Sadly, his increased opportunities were generally used for short
completions to move the chains, which he mostly did well. Given his third down numbers in these
games, maybe Kelly was on to something, but I’d still like to see 2nd
and short be used more aggressively going forward.
I also wanted to touch on Golson's drop off in third down success rate. I'd thought that perhaps he just didn't do as well on third and long plays, but that wasn't true. His completion numbers on third and long remained fairly similar, but his decline in performance on third and short was awful. Through the first 6 games of the season Golson was a combined 5/8 on third and less than 5 which comes out to a 63% completion rate. In the last two games, he's been in third and short situations more frequently, and has not faired as well.
So why has Golson been in more second and short and third and short situations? The first chart above demonstrates that
Golson continued to see a decline in yards per completion and yards per
attempt, and I think when we consider the travel distance of passes through the air, the reason
reveals itself:
Length:
|
Attempts:
|
Completions:
|
Comp. Percent.
|
TD’s
|
INT:
|
< 10
|
39
|
27
|
69%
|
2
|
1
|
10+
|
22
|
9
|
41%
|
0
|
0
|
Let’s review the comparisons by Segment. First, completion percentage for each:
Length:
|
Games 1-3:
|
Games 4-6:
|
Games 7-9:
|
< 10
|
68%
|
73%
|
69%
|
10+
|
46%
|
52%
|
41%
|
And then, percentage of pass attempts travelling each
distance:
Length:
|
Games 1-3:
|
Games 4-6:
|
Games 7-9:
|
< 10
|
66%
|
51%
|
64%
|
10+
|
34%
|
49%
|
36%
|
Golson’s pattern reverted (not necessarily regressed) to
Segment 1 in terms of breakdown between passes travelling less or more than 10
yards through the air. However, he
was worse
in terms of completing plays down the field than at any other time. Part of this is explained by the Pitt
game where in the scramble to come back, the team took more shots for the big
play (very rarely successfully). I
liked to see, particularly in the Pitt game, that the use of the bubble screen
and slip screen to wide receivers came back into use more prevalently, but the
team was not very effective at breaking away (aside: with the exception of the great slip screen to T.J.
Jones in the Pitt game that went for an 11 yard touchdown at as pivotal a
moment as can be imagined).
Golson’s longest completion on a pass travelling less than 10 yards
through the air was just 14 yards. 17 of Golson's 39 attempts of short passess occurred on first down, and only 4 gained 10 or more yards. While he wasn’t much better in the previous periods, the lack
of short-pass, big-play yardage bothers me. It’d be nice to see our passing game execute on a short pass
and make a much larger play to take some pressure off of EG.
Additionally, the passing game continued to be generally
ineffective even when Golson completed the ball deeper. Yes, he converted on two remarkably
important plays: The 50 yard
strike to Brown previously mentioned, and the 45 yard jump ball to Daniels in
the Pitt game, but Golson had only one other play on passes of ten yards or greater
through the air that netted 20 yards.
Amassing just 3 plays of 20+ yards in the passing game was his fewest for any of the three Segments.
Finally, before I get to the general observations section, I
want to make sure I cover targets by position:
Target:
|
Attempts:
|
Completions:
|
Comp. Percent.
|
TD’s:
|
INT:
|
WR:
|
37
|
24
|
65%
|
1
|
0
|
RB:
|
7
|
4
|
57%
|
1
|
0
|
TE:
|
17
|
8
|
47%
|
0
|
1
|
Not much changed on this front. Receivers still led the way in targets, and all three
categories remained fairly static.
Running backs were targeted slightly less, but not in any meaningful
manner. We’re basically talking
about a target or two between all of the subsets to put the numbers directly in
line with previous Segments.
Like I said, I’m going to do a wrap-up where I’ll take some
additional space to think things over and provide a few more incites into what
I’ve watched. The tight end
completion percentage number continued to fluctuate. The team’s goal of getting Eifet touches sometimes plagues
their decision-making. Golson’s
one interception from this Segment came on a pass to a tight end…only it wasn’t Eifert. On the fateful play that most of us thought would derail
Notre Dame’s season, Golson overlooked an open Eifert over the middle and
instead released a horribly underthrown ball to Troy Niklas in the corner of
the end zone which was picked.
I’ll do a larger general breakdown on
Golson for Friday, so I’ll keep my general observations very
short:
1. Golson appears much more comfortable in the empty backfield set when he sets up to
pass. He scrambles less and seems
less anxious. My general
impression in this respect is that he is very uncomfortable either dropping
back or having to do play action fakes.
In general, his drop back footwork is lazy. The empty backfield, shotgun formation alleviates all of
these issues. He doesn’t have to
drop back and simultaneously get himself into a good throwing position, and he
doesn’t have to worry about the play fake.
2. Golson can throw the left side of the
field. His biggest issue in this
respect is that unless the play is a quick strike designed to go to the left
side, he just generally ignores what’s going on over there.
3. I’ll have
more to say about this in the wrap-up, but I fully appreciate that I’ve ignored
Golson’s running ability to this point in my analysis. Partly, this is intentional. I wanted to focus on his passing. Many of Golson’s runs through the first
set of games were the result of scrambles on broken plays. In both the OU and Pitt games, the
number of designed QB runs increased, and it played to perhaps Golson’s
greatest strength.
Can’t wait to do the wrap-up as that’s what all of this
research was intended to generate anyways. If there’s anything specific you’d like to see covered, hit
me up at JLDthoughts@gmail.com.
