Take It To Another Level
Imagine for a moment a team ranked dead last in rushing offense in the country. Imagine that team only averages 1.09 yards per carry. Imagine that the rushing average is so bad that it’s almost doubled by the second to last rushing offense in the country - Duke.
Now, guess which defensive position has tallied the most tackles against that rushing offense. The defensive line, right? I mean, heck, 1.09 yards wouldn’t get you beyond arm’s reach of a defensive lineman. Those guys must be tallying tackles all day along with the linebackers.
Wrong.
Let’s face it. The Notre Dame rushing attack is terrible. So bad that you’d have to assume that absolutely nothing is being done right when Notre Dame runs the ball. But as this season’s progressed, I’ve been getting the feeling that the defensive backfields of ND’s opponents have been getting in on the fun quite a bit. And if absolutely nothing is going right for the ND offense on rushing plays, that seems counter-intuitive. Even accounting for blitzing defensive backs and exotic defensive schemes, if ND can’t even get 2 yards a carry, how on earth could those DBs be getting in on so many rushing plays?
I tabulated every tackle made by ND opponents against ND rushing plays and grouped those tackles by defensive position. (I counted solo and assists as “tackles,” so the tackle numbers may not mesh real well with the NCAA’s “rush attempts” which also include QB sacks and scrambles.) Here’s what I found…
With a 1.09 yards/carry average, one would reasonably assume that the defensive line and linebackers of Notre Dame’s opponents would dominate the tackling totals for ND rushing plays. After all, if ND’s only moving the ball 1.09 yards a carry, they’re certainly not getting to the “second level,” say, 5 yards off the line of scrimmage, very often. But the fact is, the tackling on rushing plays has been rather evenly dispersed between the “front 7″ and the “second level.” The “front 7″ have been credited with 69% of the tackles against ND rushing plays this year. The “second level” guys have actually accounted for more tackles (71%). Now, both groups include linebackers, and as anyone might expect, the linebackers account for more tackles than defensive backs or defensive linemen. But it doesn’t seem far fetched to expect that the average defense against such a horrible rushing offense would have very lopsided success against the rush with their “front 7″ relative to their “second level.” And that’s just not the case.
When you’ve got a really good rushing attack, you’ll actually find that defensive backs, especially safeties, are involved in a lot of the tackles. After all, they’re the “last hope” for a defense. But Notre Dame hasn’t managed to execute on 15% of their plays well enough to reach the “second level,” be they rushes or passes. So it’s pretty incredible that DBs have managed to account for 31% of the tackles made against ND rushing plays.
Two things probably account for this weirdness.
- Notre Dame’s receivers are small and/or young, and don’t do a very good job blocking. ND has been spoiled the previous 2 years by excellent blocking by Samardzija, Stovall, and McKnight. All big and strong guys relative to the current ND receiving corps. And the young receivers like Tate and Kamara don’t use very good blocking technique at this time.
- Nobody fears Notre Dame’s “big play potential.” Even with the “emergence” of Golden Tate, ND hasn’t proven that it can throw the ball well enough to pose a consistent deep threat. As a result, ND opponents can “stack the box” with a safety, crowding the line of scrimmage, practically turning a DB into an extra LB.
As much grief as the Notre Dame offensive line gets, and deservedly so, the anemic ND rushing attack is a full “team effort.”
Related Posts:
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
2 Comments
I think your stats support something I have felt all year. We are not stretching the field vertically at all. Thus, our RBs, even when they get past the line are hit again and again. There is never any space in that three yard area that you would expect a good runner (and all of our backs fit that) could make one move and go 10 or more yards.
Since we have no vertical passing game, and by that I mean in the 15 yard range not the occasional bomb to Tate, the defense completely stacks the box. Making it impossible to run, and also making it easier to blitz. The LBs do not drop into coverage and can free lance through the inevitable gaps in the line. I think it makes our line look worse than it actually is as well.
It is a vicious cycle. I am not sure how you break it either. But that is why CW gets the big money. I do think part of the problem is that Clausen is actually hurt more arm strength wise than we knew and Sharpley in not accurate enough on those routes generally.
I think part of the source of our anemic rushing statistics is the plenitude of sacks we’ve suffered. These have outweighed any positive rushing yardage we’ve gained. Also, often Weis starts throwing the ball in an effort to win, to the detriment of statistics. While our running game isn’t that good, I don’t think in and of itself it’s historically awful - rather, it’s slightly below mediocre, and our abysmal pass protection and invisible long-distance passing game reduce it to levels which must not be named.
Leave a Reply