As promised, I finally got a chance to ask Tommy Rees about the decrease in two-back sets Notre Dame has used the last two weeks.
I shared last week that Notre Dame averaged 11.2 yards per play, 8.4 yards per carry and 14 yards per pass attempt in the 26 snaps with two-back sets in Drew Pyne's first three starts against Cal, UNC and BYU.
Then Notre Dame only used two-back sets three times against Stanford. It resulted in three runs for 18 yards. And against UNLV, Notre Dame only used a two-back set once, which was the incomplete screen pass to Chris Tyree. I covered that in my analysis earlier this evening.
Here's what I posed to Rees tonight: "In Drew's first three starts, two-back sets were really productive for you guys and I think you've only run it four times in the last two games. Is there something opposing defenses are doing that aren't giving you looks that you want to try to utilize that with? What's gone into using that less the last two games?"
Rees: "It's definitely schematic with how teams play that look. Like against Carolina we kind of knew exactly — they were pretty consistent how they played two backs. Same with Cal. Last couple weeks, probably not as much. And then there's mitigating factors, personnel-wise, why we would or wouldn't.
"We want our five best on the field. We obviously feel like we have a pretty good advantage when we can have Chris and another back out there. Chris, Mike (Mayer), a back — whatever the makeup is.
"Every week we look for kind of those personnel groupings that whether it's three tight ends or two backs that gives us a competitive advantage, and we're going to try to maximize those. Week to week it varies based schematically with what you kind of see on film. I'm trying not to give too much (away) here. I don't know. It's a hard question to answer honestly."
Me: "OK. Is it something you want to try to use more in the future? Maybe that's even worse to answer?"
Rees: "Yeah. If the — yeah, we'll just give that one up."
My thoughts: Rees took a long pause after I asked the first question, which seemed like he was trying to find a way to answer it without revealing too much, which he got to at the end there. It sounds like something he's aware of. I wish he would have explained a bit what defenses do that would make it harder to use two-back sets, but I understand him wanting to guard that information. I still think you have to try it and see how it works for a few plays before scrapping it.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I can see him not wanting to use it as much against UNLV after Estimé fumbled as he may have needed to keep Diggs and Tyree fresh and you can't do that while they're both on the field. But a handful of play still could have been carved out of that.
I shared last week that Notre Dame averaged 11.2 yards per play, 8.4 yards per carry and 14 yards per pass attempt in the 26 snaps with two-back sets in Drew Pyne's first three starts against Cal, UNC and BYU.
Then Notre Dame only used two-back sets three times against Stanford. It resulted in three runs for 18 yards. And against UNLV, Notre Dame only used a two-back set once, which was the incomplete screen pass to Chris Tyree. I covered that in my analysis earlier this evening.
Here's what I posed to Rees tonight: "In Drew's first three starts, two-back sets were really productive for you guys and I think you've only run it four times in the last two games. Is there something opposing defenses are doing that aren't giving you looks that you want to try to utilize that with? What's gone into using that less the last two games?"
Rees: "It's definitely schematic with how teams play that look. Like against Carolina we kind of knew exactly — they were pretty consistent how they played two backs. Same with Cal. Last couple weeks, probably not as much. And then there's mitigating factors, personnel-wise, why we would or wouldn't.
"We want our five best on the field. We obviously feel like we have a pretty good advantage when we can have Chris and another back out there. Chris, Mike (Mayer), a back — whatever the makeup is.
"Every week we look for kind of those personnel groupings that whether it's three tight ends or two backs that gives us a competitive advantage, and we're going to try to maximize those. Week to week it varies based schematically with what you kind of see on film. I'm trying not to give too much (away) here. I don't know. It's a hard question to answer honestly."
Me: "OK. Is it something you want to try to use more in the future? Maybe that's even worse to answer?"
Rees: "Yeah. If the — yeah, we'll just give that one up."
My thoughts: Rees took a long pause after I asked the first question, which seemed like he was trying to find a way to answer it without revealing too much, which he got to at the end there. It sounds like something he's aware of. I wish he would have explained a bit what defenses do that would make it harder to use two-back sets, but I understand him wanting to guard that information. I still think you have to try it and see how it works for a few plays before scrapping it.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I can see him not wanting to use it as much against UNLV after Estimé fumbled as he may have needed to keep Diggs and Tyree fresh and you can't do that while they're both on the field. But a handful of play still could have been carved out of that.
