Offensive Coordinator

[Meat man 01]

The play calling yesterday I thought was not very good and all predictable with nothing but runs up the middle . Is it because the quarterback cannot throw the ball or we have no receivers at least why not try a few plays and what happened to the trick plays you would be has not used them in years. This is a coach with 24 years experience let's see some . They need to do some changing if they plan on winning more games.

[The Sicatoka]

Dare I refer you to the Lennon era where Bubba was the DC: With a lead and with the defense in control, the offense (per Lennon's directive) was dialed back to ultra-conservative*.

 

That's what you saw last night. SB is not a come-from-behind team. The Tillman interception-TD made it two scores which at that point in the game is probably enough. The UND offense went completely conservative so as to not give up an easy score to SB on a miscue.

 

What we need is enough offense to get a couple rushing first downs and not give the ball back with under four minutes to play. That takes some better line play and there are already about three threads talking about that. 

 

To you point about "predictable": Yup. But when you're playing to hold onto the ball and not make mistakes you're going to be. Don't you remember the early 2000s? First down was always over the left guard -- second and eight, but with UND with the ball and the clock running and the UND defense on the sideline resting and plotting. However, those teams had enough line push and other offensive weapons to make it third and three and convert.

 

This team? It needs to work on that. This team, unfortunately, seems to make second and eight into third and eleven far too often.  

 

 

*You saw Mussman's offensive philosophy without Lennon there to temper it. You saw how well that worked out. 

[Northcountry]

You nailed it Sic.  My old man nostalgia had me thinking I was watching a Dale Lennon era game yesterday.  I realize that it was against lesser competition, but in style it was very familiar.  To play that style will require more of an ability to control and dictate field position, which will require some improvement on the offensive side (Lennon always placed a lot of emphasis on the punting game, and it seems like that part of the game is coming along very well, but a 45 yard punt from your own 20 is worlds different from a 45 yard punt from the 40).  I too would like to see the running game challenge the edge a little bit more (some of what used to be the base running game appears to have been abandoned).  As frustrating as it may seem this offense is better suited to BUILDING than one that relies on trick plays and throwing the ball 50 yards downfield 30 times a game relying on the laws of probability to bail you out.  It is difficult to find another couple of wins on the schedule and trick plays will not improve that prospect and in my mind would be an indication of desperation on the part of the coaching staff (and we have recently experienced the rewards that desperation bring).

[Irish]

You nailed it Sic.  My old man nostalgia had me thinking I was watching a Dale Lennon era game yesterday.  I realize that it was against lesser competition, but in style it was very familiar.  To play that style will require more of an ability to control and dictate field position, which will require some improvement on the offensive side (Lennon always placed a lot of emphasis on the punting game, and it seems like that part of the game is coming along very well, but a 45 yard punt from your own 20 is worlds different from a 45 yard punt from the 40).  I too would like to see the running game challenge the edge a little bit more (some of what used to be the base running game appears to have been abandoned).  As frustrating as it may seem this offense is better suited to BUILDING than one that relies on trick plays and throwing the ball 50 yards downfield 30 times a game relying on the laws of probability to bail you out.  It is difficult to find another couple of wins on the schedule and trick plays will not improve that prospect and in my mind would be an indication of desperation on the part of the coaching staff (and we have recently experienced the rewards that desperation bring).

You don't build squat practicing failure and predictibility.  And this idea that we have to have an offense that looks like this in order to have a great defense is just nonsense.  The Lennon way isn't the only way as fans of Southern Illinois would gladly tell you.  What we saw on the offensive side of the ball was awful and the fact we repeated it the whole game doesn't speak well of the coaches.  

[The Sicatoka]

You don't build squat practicing failure and predictibility.  And this idea that we have to have an offense that looks like this in order to have a great defense is just nonsense.  The Lennon way isn't the only way as fans of Southern Illinois would gladly tell you.  What we saw on the offensive side of the ball was awful and the fact we repeated it the whole game doesn't speak well of the coaches.  

 

So instead of run we should go all "Air Coryell" (aka "Mussman 2.0*")? 

 

 

*We don't have the WRs for that right now, much less the blocking. <-- It all starts up front. 

[sioux24/7]

#ChuckThePigskin

[Irish]

So instead of run we should go all "Air Coryell" (aka "Mussman 2.0*")? 

 

 

*We don't have the WRs for that right now, much less the blocking. <-- It all starts up front. 

It doesn't have to be one or the other - however, if Muss could have developed this defense his record and offense would be pretty good.  This idea that in order to have a great defense your offense needs to be boring and predictable is nonsense.  

[Oxbow6]

The defense is better than last year but reality will rear its head w the MT schools the next couple weeks. Problem is offensively not sure UND will score 14 points... in 2 games combined.

[gundy1124]

I would love to see our offensive goal sheet. Things like 150 rushing yards/game, 100 pass, 15 first downs, 3 or less 3 and outs, no turnovers, 4 yards a carry, 60 percent completion percent, win time of possession, etc. (every school has their own list)

Is our list available?

[UND92,96]

The defense is better than last year but reality will rear its head w the MT schools the next couple weeks. Problem is offensively not sure UND will score 14 points... in 2 games combined.

 

In terms of margin of defeat, it's probably not possible to do worse than last year--118 to 37 in the two games against the Montana schools. I think the defense has improved to a far greater degree than the offense has regressed. The reality is that we stunk last year on both sides of the ball. At least now the defense is respectable.

[fightingsioux4life]

Dare I refer you to the Lennon era where Bubba was the DC: With a lead and with the defense in control, the offense (per Lennon's directive) was dialed back to ultra-conservative*.

 

That's what you saw last night. SB is not a come-from-behind team. The Tillman interception-TD made it two scores which at that point in the game is probably enough. The UND offense went completely conservative so as to not give up an easy score to SB on a miscue.

 

What we need is enough offense to get a couple rushing first downs and not give the ball back with under four minutes to play. That takes some better line play and there are already about three threads talking about that. 

 

To you point about "predictable": Yup. But when you're playing to hold onto the ball and not make mistakes you're going to be. Don't you remember the early 2000s? First down was always over the left guard -- second and eight, but with UND with the ball and the clock running and the UND defense on the sideline resting and plotting. However, those teams had enough line push and other offensive weapons to make it third and three and convert.

 

This team? It needs to work on that. This team, unfortunately, seems to make second and eight into third and eleven far too often.

 

 

*You saw Mussman's offensive philosophy without Lennon there to temper it. You saw how well that worked out. 

You make good points, but the fact is we will never beat really good teams with an offense that gains less than 200 yards total for the entire game week after week after week.  The concern here is that the offense is always pedestrian and always conservative.  Well, there will be days when the D is off their game or we are going up against a really high-powered team that will get its yards and its points no matter how well your D is playing.  I believe this is what is missing at SIU for Lennon.  It seems like every year they have a pedestrian QB, which leads to a very predictable offensive scheme and that is what is holding them back from taking the next step (perennial playoff team).  I do think as we get better O linemen in here and some receivers that can stretch the field, the running game will become a force.  Until then, we will struggle.

[fightingsioux4life]

So instead of run we should go all "Air Coryell" (aka "Mussman 2.0*")? 

 

 

*We don't have the WRs for that right now, much less the blocking. <-- It all starts up front. 

With all due respect, nobody is saying that or even implying that.  What Irish was saying is that it's a false choice to presume that if you have a great defense that the offense must, by necessity, operate in a pedestrian manner to "run time off the clock".  At this level of football (FCS vs. D-II), you cannot have any glaring weaknesses on offense, defense or special teams.  That is the point of this thread, as if yesterday wasn't proof enough.

[geaux_sioux]

If the OL clicks all of a sudden I think the play calling will open up as much as Mollberg will allow it.

[UND92,96]

Ideally, once the talent is in place I'd love to see a conservative game plan that actually works, a la Wisconsin, or UNO back in the day. You know/knew exactly what's coming, but stopping it is a whole other story.

[UND-FB-FAN]

You're wrong "Irish". The offense doesn't have the ability to win games on its own, so the best solution is to support the defense with conservative offensive play-calling.

UND won yesterday; be happy. Stony Brook is a tough defensive football team; in the Big Sky, they'd be a top 3 defense. UND didn't need to do fancy things with the ball.

UND's offense will improve with two things: experience and increased talent. Experience will decrease penalties and offensive line blocking mistakes. Increased offensive line talent will, obviously, increase YPC average. It all starts up-front.

I'm afraid video game playbook ideas will not fix the offense, despite what incompetent arm chair quarterbacks say. This team is built to WIN with defense, and that's exactly what they did yesterday.

As for the offense, it needs to improve, and it will. The play calling reflected both the defense's play and the offense's ability (only 7 pass attempts).

[UND-FB-FAN]

At this level of football (FCS vs. D-II), you cannot have any glaring weaknesses on offense, defense or special teams. That is the point of this thread, as if yesterday wasn't proof enough.

Wrong. Have you seen Eastern Washington play? How about 2001 UND? Heck, it's possible to win if one side of the ball is dominant. Most often, it works better with defense than offense (see NDSU the past few seasons). NDSU's offense is efficient, not prolific.

[Csonked Out]

The real question mark I have always had is if Molberg is even a fit for an offense like this. If we are trying to be a run based and defensive dominant team, we need to have a quarterback who is accurate and doesn't turn the ball over, Molberg doesn't do either of those particularly well. Good play calling and efficient quarterback play can make up for a subpar offensive line. Put Bartels in the game and do more 3 step drops, screens, and draw plays. If you make the quarterback get the ball out of the hand in around 2 seconds it will take a lot of stress off the offensive line.

 

That being said, we are 2-2 after 4 games. To me that is a great start for a rebuilding program.

[UND-FB-FAN]

The real question mark I have always had is if Molberg is even a fit for an offense like this. If we are trying to be a run based and defensive dominant team, we need to have a quarterback who is accurate and doesn't turn the ball over, Molberg doesn't do either of those particularly well. Good play calling and efficient quarterback play can make up for a subpar offensive line. Put Bartels in the game and do more 3 step drops, screens, and draw plays. If you make the quarterback get the ball out of the hand in around 2 seconds it will take a lot of stress off the offensive line.

That being said, we are 2-2 after 4 games. To me that is a great start for a rebuilding program.

Exactly.

As for the QB, I believe Rudolph wants to be a running team from all positions, even QB. That's why Mollberg is the best fit. Eventually, it may be Studsrud or someone not yet on the team. Point is, with the run emphasis that UND wants to have, the offensive line needs to be better.

[fightingsioux4life]

Wrong. Have you seen Eastern Washington play? How about 2001 UND? Heck, it's possible to win if one side of the ball is dominant. Most often, it works better with defense than offense (see NDSU the past few seasons). NDSU's offense is efficient, not prolific.

Wrong? I do not think so.  Did you really compare FU's offense to ours?  There are high school teams that could put more points on the board than our offense right now.  And FYI, when we won it all in 2001, we had a run-pass threat at QB, a game-breaking WR and (the most important part) a rock-solid OL that pass protected and run blocked enough for our rather pedestrian RBs to grind out yards when we needed them.  Without those tools on offense, we wouldn't have gotten out of the first round vs. Winona St. at home (they hung 28 on our defense; thankfully our offense put up 42).  And Eastern Washington is going to lose some games if they keep giving up 40-50 ppg like they have been, so that isn't a really good example either.  Dale Lennon is learning the hard way at SIU that having a pedestrian offense is a major detriment to taking that next step beyond having a winning record every year.  We just have to be patient and allow Bubba and company to bring in better O-linemen.

[UND-FB-FAN]

Wrong? I do not think so. Did you really compare FU's offense to ours? There are high school teams that could put more points on the board than our offense right now. And FYI, when we won it all in 2001, we had a run-pass threat at QB, a game-breaking WR and (the most important part) a rock-solid OL that pass protected and run blocked enough for our rather pedestrian RBs to grind out yards when we needed them. Without those tools on offense, we wouldn't have gotten out of the first round vs. Winona St. at home (they hung 28 on our defense; thankfully our offense put up 42). And Eastern Washington is going to lose some games if they keep giving up 40-50 ppg like they have been, so that isn't a really good example either. Dale Lennon is learning the hard way at SIU that having a pedestrian offense is a major detriment to taking that next step beyond having a winning record every year. We just have to be patient and allow Bubba and company to bring in better O-linemen.

To assume Lennon doesn't understand a capable offense is needed is foolish. As for UND right now, the offense needs to improve but it doesn't have to become an FCS top 10 offense. If the defense keeps improving, it will be a top FCS unit before the offense does, and if that's the case, then the offense doesn't have to be top notch. Ultimately, UND needs to develop an efficient offense that can move the ball consistently on the ground. If that can happen, UND can win the field position battle and ultimately the turnover battle. With that, UND will put up enough points to win most games.

[The Sicatoka]

If you can't block a simple play over the guard or off-tackle, how are you going block anything requiring keeping the pressure away longer? 

[MafiaMan]

You make good points, but the fact is we will never beat really good teams with an offense that gains less than 200 yards total for the entire game week after week after week. The concern here is that the offense is always pedestrian and always conservative.

Of course, most of us here already knew you would prefer a more "liberal" offense...

?

[fightingsioux4life]

Of course, most of us here already knew you would prefer a more "liberal" offense...

[nhockey30]

My question is: is the problem Molberg or is the problem Rudolph?

[MafiaMan]

Good, I'm glad you took that as humor and not a shot. Good chuckle.