Football’s
back! What a glorious time of year, and
when the weather cools and the number of hours I spend in front of the
television rises, I also find some extra time to get back to writing and
analysis. This year, JLD’s expanding its
analysis to include all offensive plays run by Notre Dame and see what, if
anything, we can learn from an obsessively detailed analysis of their
plays. Each week I plan to give you a
break down of the QB play, the running game, and overall observations regarding
the ND offensive game plan.
I got good
feedback on the pieces I did regarding Golson last year, so the idea is to give
more of the stats and fewer words….well, at least until something interesting
happens. The Irish are 1-0, and I’m
ready to dig right in. Loudspeaker,
please crank up the “Crazy Train”:
No Golson, no
problem. The Reesus has risen, and
there’s no better place to start than with TR’s first game line:
Att: 23
Com: 16
Comp. %: 69.6%
Yds: 346
TD: 3
INT: 0
FMB: 0
Sacks: 1
RZ Attempts: 0
Rushes: 0
How much
analysis can you give on a near flawless stat line against Temple? Plus, we all know Tommy Rees is not defined
by his stats (he’s defined by his ‘stache)…but if he were, it might look a
little something like this:
Rees by Area of Field Thrown to:
|
Area:
|
Left
|
Middle
|
Right
|
Air < 10
|
Air > 10
|
|
Attempts:
|
11
|
4
|
8
|
12
|
11
|
|
Completions:
|
7
|
4
|
5
|
10
|
6
|
|
Comp. %:
|
63.6%
|
100%
|
62.5%
|
83.3%
|
54.5%
|
|
Yards:
|
135
|
130
|
81
|
137
|
209
|
|
TDs:
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
1
|
2
|
Rees’ Deep Throws (> 10 through air)
by Area:
|
Area:
|
Completions
|
Attempts:
|
Percentage:
|
|
Left:
|
2
|
5
|
40%
|
|
Middle:
|
3
|
3
|
100%
|
|
Right:
|
1
|
3
|
33%
|
Rees by Targeted Position:
|
Position:
|
Completions:
|
Attempts:
|
Comp. %:
|
Yards:
|
TDs:
|
|
RB:
|
3
|
3
|
100%
|
16
|
0
|
|
TE:
|
1
|
2
|
50%
|
66
|
1
|
|
WR:
|
12
|
18
|
66%
|
264
|
2
|
Rees to Individual Receivers:
|
Receiver:
|
Targets:
|
Completions:
|
Notes:
|
|
Chris Brown
|
4
|
3
|
3/3
on targets to the right. 0/1 on
targets to the left.
|
|
DaVaris Daniels
|
5
|
3
|
2/4
on targets over 10 yards in the air.
|
|
William Fuller
|
1
|
0
|
|
|
T.J. Jones
|
8
|
6
|
2/3
on slot bubble screen.
|
Rees by Line-up Package:
|
Set:
|
Completions:
|
Attempts:
|
Yards:
|
TD:
|
|
2WR/1RB/2TE
|
3
|
3
|
63
|
1
|
|
3WR/1RB/1TE
|
10
|
16
|
212
|
1
|
|
4WR/0RB/1TE
|
3
|
7
|
71
|
1
|
Rees by Down:
|
Down:
|
Completions:
|
Attempts:
|
Yards:
|
|
1st
|
8
|
10*
|
208
|
|
2nd
|
5
|
6
|
88
|
|
3rd**
|
3
|
7
|
50
|
* 9/10 first
down targets went to WR’s.
** 5/7 4 WR set throws came on third down.
Takeaways:
Quick Reads:
“Turnover Tommy” didn’t show up all game. His reads were quick and decisive, which led
to 0 interceptions and only one sack.
The sack wasn’t even his fault as a missed assignment led to Tommy being
taken down WAY easier than he was by SBPD.
The only truly “bad” pass Rees threw occurred in the second quarter on
an attempt intended for Troy Niklas.
Watching the replay, it appears Niklas’ feet got tangled with the
defender just as he was making his outside cut upsetting the timing. Dare I say that Tommy Rees made it an entire
game without one bad pass? I’m waiting
on the other signs of the apocalypse…
No Tyler
Eifert A Positive?: One of TR’s biggest issues was his propensity
to stare down his security blanket or just blatantly throw it to him whether
double, triple, or quadruple covered.
Without Tyler Eifert around, it comes as no surprise that the number of TE
targets diminished, but there were only 2 TE targets all game. The TE targets happened on consecutive passes
in the second quarter and each occurred out of the 4 WR/1 TE set. Not the Notre Dame we’ve come accustomed to
over the past….well, decade. While I’m
sure some will point to T.J. Jones as Rees’ new security blanket, I’m not sure
this is the case. Three of Jones’ eight
targets came on designed slot screens.
Jones set up closest to the tackle and off the line, and they place
Niklas between Jones and the wideout.
The first two worked to great effect.
The last resulted in a drop by Jones.
I expect ND to use this formation at Michigan to set up a long throw anticipating
UM to bite on ND’s recurrent use of the play this week. They ran similar screens to Carlisle, Atkinson, and Daniels. While Jones may get more targets than anyone else, I'm not convinced Jones is the new Eifert.
How Will Rees
Respond Under Pressure?: Temple’s lack of pressure led to a lot of
pitch and catch. Rees very rarely had to
progress through his reads. On his 4
longest passes (the 2 to Daniels, the screen to Jones, and the pass to Niklas)
his targeted receiver was also his primary read. If BK and Chuck Martin can keep it that
simple all year, that’d be great, but we all know the defenses will get
tougher, and it begins this coming weekend.
I was impressed with Rees’ accuracy the few times he threw the ball down
the field, but there’s no doubt that the ability to step into the throws
uncontested and his tall receivers going up against overmatched corners made
the throws look better than the skill required to execute them.
It’s the first
game and Temple was never expected to pose too much of a threat, so I’m going
to keep the analysis short for this week.
Back Tuesday with a breakdown of the running game.
- Moons
No comments:
Post a Comment