Our RB effectiveness
I do not want to come off as a debbie downer amist this glorious win. I am enjoying it thoroughly. However I've begun my analysis of the game and I have a question about our RBs.
Here are the rushing stats per the official site:
Rushing No Gain Loss Net TD Lg Avg -------------------------------------------- Robinson, D. 28 258 0 258 2 87 9.2 Smith, Vincent 7 17 0 17 0 6 2.4 Shaw, Michael 5 12 0 12 0 5 2.4 Hopkins, S. 1 1 0 1 1 1 1.0 Totals... 41 288 0 288 3 87 7.0 I would have thought that last week put a target on Denard's back and ND would try to stop him, giving more room for Shaw and Smith to work on the option...but that didn't seem to be the case. These guys pretty much got stuffed. Now I know that Denard is 100% Dilithium awesomeness, but it's the same Oline blocknig for the back and Denard, so why can he make so much out of nothing? Is it purely that Denard is that awesome? Are our RBs not as good as we hoped? Is Denard handing off when he should be keeping, thus putting the RBs in a bad situation? Are the RBs not hitting the right holes or dancing too much? Just wondering what your thoughts are. I thought maybe UConn just didn't game plan for Denard so RRod milked it. But after today, I felt like Denard was our only option running the ball and I was frustrated any time someone else got stuffed. I'd be curious to see peoples opinions on why this is happening until the UFR drops. I seriously expected Grand Canyon-esque holes for the RBs to run through today hoping everyone keyed on Denard.
September 12th, 2010 at 12:32 AM ^
September 12th, 2010 at 12:33 AM ^
our o line was not as good as the previous game
September 12th, 2010 at 12:33 AM ^
I wouldn't read too much into it. Denard has an extra blocker (the RB) and the RBs will get a good feel for things these next 3 weeks and should be ready for the gauntlet at the end.
September 12th, 2010 at 1:12 AM ^
now people can get off our running back's asses as well; for heaven's sake the offense ran for 288 (the Offense, people, as designed by C. Magee and R. Rodriguez) and this is the crap I have to read?
So, we run for 288 but now because the backs don't carry for enough yards they are the problem? God dammit, it's not about style...it's just about outcomes.
September 12th, 2010 at 12:37 AM ^
Our RB's need serious work, they aren't that elusive or fast. Shaw is faster than smith, but still nothing to write home about..
With that being said hopefully Toussaint plays next wk and shows us what we have been missing.
September 12th, 2010 at 12:40 AM ^
My thoughts exactly. Hopefully Touissant gets some quality reps the next 3 weeks and then is ready 100% for the start of the Big Ten season.
September 12th, 2010 at 1:33 AM ^
Special ND edition.
September 12th, 2010 at 1:33 AM ^
Shaw is one of the fastest kids on the team, top 5 or 3 easy
September 12th, 2010 at 12:38 AM ^
I do not want to come off as a debbie downer amist this glorious win.
Then just take a day or two and enjoy it. It's okay, we'll let you. And then eventually Brian will post over the top analysis for you to look at and ponder some of these things. For now. Watch the Muppets.
September 12th, 2010 at 1:13 AM ^
well said.
September 12th, 2010 at 12:40 AM ^
...Mike was special in that he had vision and was able to shed blockers while moving forward. And he was fearless. Smith and Shaw do not have those traits, at least not from what I have seen. Maybe with more playing time and better blocking they will prove me wrong but so far I am not impressed with their ability to run the ball.
September 12th, 2010 at 12:43 AM ^
So what I hear you saying is... we need more Hart!!!!!
September 12th, 2010 at 12:54 AM ^
I would like ANOTHER Hart. Hello: Demetrius.
September 12th, 2010 at 12:55 AM ^
cue: Hello, Dee Hart! Please.... : D
September 12th, 2010 at 1:03 AM ^
i really dont think there was much our RBs could do. The lb's were getting pretty open shots at them. the general strategy that ND deployed was to bring their safeties up and have the LBs focus on the run. most of the WRs were in one on one coverage, which is y odoms was getting such a large cusion (as the announcers constantly pointed out). While this may have been aimed primarily at stopping denard, it put them in good position to handle the running backs. unless we start stretching the field with deep balls, or consistently complete that seam route pass, this will probably be a strategy we face all yr.
September 12th, 2010 at 1:19 AM ^
This 100x. That's why RR simply stopped calling running plays for anyone but Denard. It was pretty damn effective play calling if you ask me.
September 12th, 2010 at 1:06 AM ^
EVERYBODY knew Denard would run the ball and that ND would stack to stop it. And they couldn't.
They had a week to prepare for Denard and did worse than UCONN.
September 12th, 2010 at 1:06 AM ^
It keeps the defense on their heels. Not so with the running backs. The D can go right at them.
The zone read against 8 in the box is not going to produce an effective running game. But the D is just picking their posion when your QB can also pass, ala Denard.
Our running game will pick up as defenses see that they can't just load up at the LOS.
September 12th, 2010 at 1:08 AM ^
I'd like to think you are right, but it sure seemed like ND loaded the box today and our run game didn't pick up.
September 12th, 2010 at 1:35 AM ^
does that mean that we'll rush for 500 yards instead of 250 if our run game does pick up?
September 12th, 2010 at 1:06 AM ^
One other thing I noticed today was some times on the read option denard would fake it, but then he'd end up running along side the RB to try and throw a block. I guess that's what the coaches want him to do (help block) but it seemed weird to me because it wasn't selling the fake and it may have been drawing defenders towards the ball.
Did anyone else notice that or was it just me?
September 12th, 2010 at 1:19 AM ^
I'm not too worried by these numbers for the moment. The impression I got during the game was that Notre Dame's defense was generally concentrating on stopping the run on option looks, trying to force Robinson to pass. If memory serves, most of Denard's running success came on draw plays and other designed quarterback runs, which presumably accounts for the small number of carries the running backs got, as well as their limited success. Since, in Michigan's base running play, the defense essentially decides who gets the ball, it wouldn;t really make sense that the running backs would get so few carries if they were having little success, unless Denard was consistently making bad decisions, which I doubt. I wouldn't be surprised to find in UFR this week that the Domers spent much of the game running some scheme designed to take away the read option, which Michigan countered with various passing and draw plays
September 12th, 2010 at 1:21 AM ^
when the RB runs there is no lead blocker. When D rob runs usually the RB is blocking someone. this could be the difference.
September 12th, 2010 at 1:23 AM ^
I really think RR needs to mix in one of the big backs like Cox or Hopkins. The change of pace from them and Denard would just be another thing to keep the D on their toes.
September 12th, 2010 at 2:04 AM ^
The O-line really isn't opening up many holes for the RBs to go through. The misdirection and multi-threat, along with the extra blocker, that DRob usually has is of extreme importance. Again, I just don't think the O-Line is reaching their guys, and it's forcing the RBs to have to cut back into the line where the weakside LB is waiting far too often.
Also, I don't think our O-line was able to effectively manage the late line shift ND was showing. That seemed to confuse our line a bit *
(*I was at the game so don't have the TV view of things to assure accuracy of above statements)