Holtz used to plan out an entire season. He would purposefully restrict the playbook against lesser opponents so that everything would not be on film for the upcoming big games.

Meanwhile, from reading the article, you can see that our later opponents in 2017 were able to scout our tendencies without any surprises. That comprehensive book on Notre Dame certainly helped Miami and Stanford.

Adams left the Wake game in either late 1st quarter or early 2nd quarter and never returned that game. He never really seemed to be himself afterward. Yes, we had a stable of good backs last year, but all of the others seemed to benefit from being a change of pace from Adams, and each other for that matter.

Interesting that this particular site would be touted on this board. In the last two videos the author suggests that we should have audibled into a pass (or alternatively, a designed QB run in one of the videos). Passing seems to be anathema to many on this board.

Sometimes, especially in hurricanes, we run a "blame the center" offense

It's not 1988 anymore!

Having an offense based on passing (with its resulting dependency on high-quality QB play at all times) is anathema to many on this board.

We struggled to throw 5 yard crossing routes. We were a terrible passing team. It doesn’t matter what the design of the offense is. If the coaches can’t get the QB to consistently complete basic throws a mediocre HS QB can make than were screwed. There has to be a balance to the offense. Extremely run heavy will not work against elite defenses either. I don’t care about just running the ball vs everyone else and that getting ND to 10-2. I want to win every game and I want to be able to run the ball when we need to and pass it when we need to. This staff never seems to have a team that can do it.

The offense should not need a heisman candidate and potential top draft pick to be able function against good, well coached defenses.

the intellectual laziness of our fanbase has become one of the more depressing trends of the past 15 years.

When in doubt, beat up straw men and over simplify someone's position, and then get into a twitter circle jerk about it.

Bravo, I say

and the many posts below that take issue with it, one common theme emerges: We had early success, teams studied how we did it and made adjustments, and we had no answers. That's a pattern we've seen since Kelly's been here.

SC put up no fight. None of those teams had any teeth and we beat up on them. Miami and Stanford have players/athletes comparable to us but with WAY better coaching than we had. There was no surprise we lost to either team.

This take is a much more informed than anything I can offer, so I am just a fan posting his own opinion (FWIW).

I remain convinced that had we been more committed to run play calls on offense, we would have at least been competitive with Miami and Stanford, and I feel we would have won at least one of those games. I don't believe Wimbush ever demonstrated a capacity to run Kelly 1.0, and Kelly 2.0 (or Long 1.0) was so successful he was never even tested until the play calling transformation against Wake.

Looking at the drive charts, Stanford especially sticks out to me. The second drive of the second half, with the game tied, started with 6 consecutive runs moving the ball 35 yards from the ND 25 to the Stanford 40. Then the dreaded first down incomplete pass and the drive stalled. Defense and special teams got us into the red zone for the next drive, which stalled due to penalties but got us a field goal, and the rest is history after the Stanford drive to take the lead (first down pick, kickoff fumble...).

I would be interested in JT's thoughts. I know he has pointed to the slow developing style of our run plays and blocking schemes, but the Long playbook was fantastic from games 2-8, and I believe a more steadfast commitment to the run even with Long's plays would have enabled our line/backs to eventually impose their will on even Stanford and Miami. Stanford was in question well into the 3rd quarter, and who knows if we didn't hand Miami early game points via picks (see the drive mid second quarter down 17-0 with 7 straight runs that might have been a signal of slowly but surely taking control of the line of scrimmage).

With our coach, and his trademark inconsistent special teams and dumb penalties, and far from a '85 Bears defense, this team was not Alabama. But the great run-heavy teams at Bama, and throughout the history of elite college and NFL football, were much more patient sticking with the run and if they did not play themselves out of the game, their run game eventually imposed its will. We will never know thanks to the unwillingness to stay the course with the Long offense from the Wake game on.

the "extra man in the box" or "7 to block 8" as he says in the last play.

You don't need to have even numbers in the box to run successfully, especially in a zone scheme. You can run force zone in which there is a lead H-back (or running back, but come on--Air Kelly) that goes playside or you can run traditional zone where that H-back leads back across weakside to open up the cut back against a fast flow defense. In both of those plays, one defender is going to be unblocked (in force, it is the end man on off side and on traditional it is going to be the LB farthest backside).

Furthermore, having a running qb (and not necessarily a qb that is going to throw a snatch ass quick screen RPO that's going to really help our OL fire off the ball) is supposed to keep that farthest man from the ball (in force) blocked. When you run traditional zone, if the backside backer crashes hard all the time you can run boot and the h-back will be wide open in the flat.

Honestly, I think there is truth in what is said here (namely that we never developed an outside running game to force the LB's to respect, although that play doesn't have to be jet sweep). I think that the idea that we simply can't block 8 in the box with 7 is bullshit and incomplete thought process.

The truth is (and it is alluded to in the article) is that our scheme fucking sucks, is weak in the running game, and is basically half ass. That's the fucking problem; you can get GIFs and all that other window dressing if you want, but it basically boils down to a soft ass scheme run by a guy who consistently gets outcoached.

tell us how you honestly feel about the offense.

We used him very effectively in the red zone throughout the year. And he got a ton of yards on rollouts and pass plays. But at the end of the year against tougher opponents, we could've used more effective qb running. Part of that may have been concern over Wimbush's injury against Wake.

because they knew Wimbush was dinged up.

I don't disagree with it, but there is a lot more to it than that. I basically read it as Wimbush can't count and can't throw short passes so that's why our run game failed late. How about we have more variation in our running game instead of the slow developing runs? Wimbush could have made better reads no doubt. But we became predictable based on both execution and the limited play selection (see also, asswhooping, Bama, 01/07/2013). We also apparently need to do a better job of self-scouting, which BK touted as much improved on approach last year. I do agree with Andy that our competition got much stiffer the second half of the year, which also had a significant impact on the lower yield in the run game. We seem to discount the element of surprise in our offensive game planning, which by late in the season would be instrumental in keeping the opposing defense guessing and somewhat hesitant. Thanks for sharing.

I don't think he is given the option to keep/pull as much as we have been led to believe. I think it's called, and since we never established anything other than inside zone other teams didn't bother to defend anything except inside zone.

The players didn't wear down, we got outschemed and outcoached. Shocking, I know.

Liked the analysis and afraid that is all too accurate as far as it went. The running game had too few plays using power components to set up counters off them, and seldom used boot-leg passes. With an occasional, or more than occasional, trap using the tackle and guard talent there is a lot more for the D to prepare for.
Oops, forgot BK is the pass master, regardless of lacking receiver talent and depth, and QB inexperience, or even giving Wimbush's easier throws to build his skills and confidence. Silly me.

I think we just started playing better teams and passing more.

USC being the outlier, but that was kind of a strange game.

We ran 54 times for 318 yards against them - which was 200 more than they averaged giving up against their other 12 opponents (Clemson ran for 224 against them).

We ran 12 straight times against them on the final drive (including a game-ending kneel down).

We pushed their very talented defensive line - which included a likely top 4 pick (Chubb) and 3 other guys who will probably be picked in two weeks - all over the place.

And then, from that apex, we tumbled back down into the typical Kelly quagmire. Probably because the final teams were better coached and prepared than SC and NC State (I'll take the Miami, Navy & Stanford staffs over those in LA and Raleigh), our running game remained unimaginative, Adams wore down, and Kelly reverted in large measure to his old self.

Whatever the reason, I don't think we'll ever see an 8 day stretch like SC / NC State again under this coach. It hadn't happened before, it won't happen again.

They proved they were able to overwhelm a good defense that saw it coming. I don't know why Kelly chose to put that game film in a trash can and light it on fire.

you can dress it up all you want, but there is 0 commitment to a diverse running game.

I was flummoxed it was working as well as it did last year, but it do so against the squishy part of our schedule and we happened to have extraordinary OL talent.

board! Completely have the tools to dominate and be great and I predict that we'll lead the nation in rushing and have 3 backs over 1000 yards. Unless Kelly and Quinn suck in which case we won't.

I do think the "analysis" is correct that teams early in the year were unprepared for our approach, which did rely on RPO/jet sweep deception to achieve success. It wasn't necessarily the "physical" run offense that the media claimed it was.

The higher quality defenses later in the season had watched enough film to know that we didn't really have the capability to overpower defenses if they ignored the misdirection that we threw at them. This wasn't the Alabama (or Joe Moore) type of rush offense that it was pitched as in the first half of the year.

traps, counters, misdirection are all good running plays that are usually based on fakes/deception.

There is no problem with having deception in the scheme; the problem with our scheme is that nobody had to fall for the deception because we were inept and never bothered to run any other play (basically--Air Kelly and all).

For example, trap won't work if you don't consistently run sweep or iso (depending on how you're running the trap). Triple option won't work if the qb is always keeping and never gives the dive. Outside zone is going to struggle if you never run boot. Counter isn't going to work if you don't run power well. Etc

It also mentioned that Wimbush struggled with screen passes, so he either did not throw them when open (see the second highlighted play against Stanford) or Long did not even let him try to throw them at the end of the year.