2018 Preview: Notre Dame Opponent Offenses

Expectations are sky-high this fall for rookie defensive coordinator Clark Lea with a combination of talented and experienced returning starters. While there are a few outstanding questions – who will emerge at safety and to what level of performance, how Lea will handle game-planning and play-calling, how key position changes will play out – it seems this unit could be one of the best in the country (S&P+ preseason projections have the ND defense 6th nationally).

So let’s take a look at what offenses the schedule brings to the table. The graph below shows how each opponent (and Notre Dame, as a reference point) performed in 2017 in explosiveness (IsoPPP) and efficiency (success rate). Below I’ll dive into how each may change this fall, along with overall offensive quality, with what each team returns. Opponents naturally fell into quality tiers, and you’ll see that there are a lot of mediocre offenses – few pushovers, but also few offenses that look to be balanced and very dangerous.

Top 110 Offense (maybe?)

Ball State

‘17 Offensive S&P+ Rank: 117^th
Success Rate: 40.0% (87^th)
IsoPPP: 0.97 (127^th)
Returning Production Rank: 84% (16^th)

The Cardinals were ravaged by injuries last season, and return basically everyone on offense, including two quarterbacks with experience. The bad news is that even with marked improvement, Ball State will be the least talented offense on Notre Dame’s schedule by a wide gulf. Strong returning experience is a great indicator things won’t be the disaster of 2017, but S&P+ projects that improvement to only take BSU from 117^th to 114^th.

Ball State has a grand total of 27 three-star players, with no blue chips, last season, and ranked 118^th in the ’18 class composite. The Cardinals were maybe the least explosive team in college football last year, so bringing back all of the top backs and receivers in that regard may not be much of a positive. If the Cardinal have to put together long sustained drives to score on the Irish, I like the chances for Clark Lea’s group to keep BSU’s points in single-digits.

Top 80 Offense

Northwestern

‘17 Offensive S&P+ Rank: 82^nd
Success Rate: 42.1% (58^th)
IsoPPP: 1.02 (120^th)
Returning Production Rank: 67% (68^th )

The Wildcats have a pretty wide range of outcomes on offense – senior QB Clayton Thorson showed great potential as a sophomore but was very mediocre last season. The lack of ability to generate big plays in the passing game – 127^th in passing explosiveness (IsoPPP) – and generally pass when they needed to (113^th in Passing Downs S&P+) was a killer and the same key pieces return. Can they take meaningful steps forward to become more explosive, through development or scheme?

Pat Fitzgerald’s team also loses bell-cow running back Justin Jackson, who seemingly suited up in purple for eight years. Replacing his 1300 rushing yard and 44 catches won’t be easy. A veteran offensive line will help the new backs, but this is really mostly about Thorson. If he has an excellent senior year (recovering from tearing his ACL in Northwestern’s bowl game), the Cats can be solid offensively. If he replicates his 2017 performance, the offense will be a liability again.

Top 60 Offenses

There are lot of teams in this tier – very few offenses on the 2018 schedule project to be elite, but barring significant injuries (which will happen to someone), there’s fairly high floors for a lot of Notre Dame’s mid-tier opponents.

Virginia Tech

‘17 Offensive S&P+ Rank: 96^th
Success Rate: 42.1% (57^th)
IsoPPP: 1.07 (107^th)
Returning Production Rank: 68% (65^th)

Preseason S&P+ projections have the Hokies at 67^th on offense, which seems about right, but I’ll be generous and lump them in the top 60. Justin Fuente’s group was surprisingly bad moving the ball last season, but sometimes that happens breaking in a true freshman quarterback. VT had average efficiency but abysmal explosiveness, and putting together long sustained drives is hard. It’s even harder when you are bad in obvious passing situations, and Virginia Tech was 109^th in Passing Downs S&P+.

Quarterback play promises to be better, despite offseason rumblings Josh Jackson might be suspended some number of games, and three of five offensive line starters return. Still, there’s no skill position guys that keep you up at night heading into the fall, which leaves the explosiveness concerns on the table and puts a ton of pressure on Jackson to go from serviceable to great.

Vanderbilt

‘17 Offensive S&P+ Rank: 73^rd
Success Rate: 43.0% (51^st)
IsoPPP: 1.19 (49^th)
Returning Production Rank: 58% (92^nd)

The Commodores fielded an offense in 2017 that showed some promise but turned in a few clunkers, especially against top defenses like Alabama and Georgia (to be expected) and some less explicable ones versus Kansas State and Mizzou. They’re an interesting test case for returning production entering the fall – Vanderbilt returns a solid senior QB in Kyle Shurmur (6.8 YPA, 26 TDs/10 INTs) and the entire starting offensive line. But the 20^th ranked Passing S&P+ team has to replace 4 of the top 6 receivers and the lead back in an offense that really only featured one runner.

Shurmur and the returning line experience provides a solid foundation, but Irish fans have seen in recent years the cost of attempting to replace so much production at wide receiver. For Vanderbilt to take a mini-leap forward, they’ll need to be more balanced on offense – maintaining strong efficiency in the passing game (12^th in ’17 Pass Success Rate) and becoming less one-dimensional in the run game (93^rd in Rushing S&P+, with poor efficiency and explosiveness).

Syracuse

‘17 Offensive S&P+ Rank: 62^nd
Success Rate: 39.7% (91^st)
IsoPPP: 1.14 (79^th)
Returning Production Rank: 59% (86^th)

There’s a lot of reasons to have a healthy fear of the Orange offense. Dino Babers is a strong offensive mind, Eric Dungey is an experienced and talented QB, and last year Clemson saw what can happen when everything clicks with the passing game and line. The flip side is that there’s also quite a few glaring weaknesses that don’t have obvious answers – Dungey’s struggles to stay healthy throughout his career, replacing the two top receivers (that combined accounted for over 60% of Syracuse’s targets), and a run game that’s ranged from middling to poor for a while (72^nd on Offensive S&P+).

Will Dungey be healthy in November when the Irish meet them at Yankee Stadium? History says he might not, although he’ll have a better line to protect him in 2018 that he’s had in his career. There’s a lot of raw materials here to be dangerous, highlighted by Baber’s willingness to create mismatches and take shots downfield. But for the Orange to threaten Notre Dame the young receivers will need a couple of guys to really emerge and challenge the veteran Irish secondary.

Pittsburgh

‘17 Offensive S&P+ Rank: 72^nd
Success Rate: 45.2% (24^th)
IsoPPP: 1.03 (118^th)
Returning Production Rank: 60% (84^th)

Pitt’s offense is very Pitt, by which I mean that they project to be decent everywhere but not spectacular anywhere. Last season was characterized by two shuffles at QB, with last man up Kenny Pickett taking over late and leading the upset win over Miami. Pickett looked like a strong young talent but has thrown just 66 passes in his career, and should go through the usual ups and downs of the inexperienced QB growth curve.

In front of Pickett is a line that returns only two starters and will have to find some answers from transfers and redshirt freshmen. Running back Darrin Hall emerged as a strong performer down the stretch, and the Panthers surprisingly cobbled together the 19^th ranked Rushing S&P+ offense last year with mostly an ensemble attack (7 players with at least 20 carries). If Pickett turns out to be a stud, and the offensive line finds quick answers, the upside is here for a top 30-40 attack, but both seem like long odds, with a top 50-60 performance much more likely.

Top 40 Offenses

Navy

‘17 Offensive S&P+ Rank: 38^th
Success Rate: 46.7% (10^th)
IsoPPP: 1.07 (110^th)
Returning Production Rank: 51% (104^th)

Advanced stats have a hard time projecting the Midshipmen offense, so while S&P+ projects Navy 54^th on offense I’ll bet on recent performance, where Ken N’s crew hasn’t finished outside the top 40 the last three years. Last season Navy was their typical hyper-efficient selves, but less explosive than usual and way more inept passing (111^th in Passing S&P+, 89^th in Passing Downs S&P+).

There’s a good chance of the explosiveness problem getting solved in 2018, as Navy turns to Malcolm Perry at QB from Zach Abey. Perry rushed for 1,193 yards on 8.7 YPC as a slotback last year, and played quarterback in high school. He averaged a ridiculous 9.4 highlight yards per opportunity – inflated perhaps a bit by Navy’s scheme, but a number comparable to Josh Adams last year. The Middies will need to find some new secondary rushers beyond QB and fullback, but once again it’s a safe bet they’ll be a dangerous offense that’s a giant pain to play against.

Wake Forest

‘17 Offensive S&P+ Rank: 23^rd
Success Rate: 42.8% (53^rd)
IsoPPP: 1.26 (28^th)
Returning Production Rank: 74% (43^rd)

You might be surprised to find the Demon Deacons this high up, but you started this exercise looking at the blind resumes above, Wake might finish as high as second or third of Notre Dame’s opponents. Wake took a massive leap from 110^th (!) in Offensive S&P+ in 2016 to 23^rd last year, which should reinforce the lesson than who knows what can happen with a few changes year to year. The secret sauce was really just a few things – senior QB John Wolford quietly being awesome, and effectively employing tempo (moving from 88^th in ’16 in adjusted pace to 6^th nationally).

The offensive line returns, as well as the key skill position guys Greg Dortch (who was awesome as a true freshmen before going out for the year prior to playing Notre Dame), Scotty Washington, and Matt Colburn. The big question is junior QB Kendall Hinton, who is suspended to start the year but should regain the starting job. Hinton was good in limited time last year, has experience, but has big shoes to fill with Wolford’s departure. If he’s good, Wake will field another top-25 offense. If the awesome passing efficiency falls off, and some regression from the 5^th best passing success rate is probably due, top-40 is more realistic.

FSU

‘17 Offensive S&P+ Rank: 75^th
Success Rate: 42.0%, 60^th)
IsoPPP: 1.18 (54^th)
Returning Production Rank: 74% (41^st)

Like Michigan, the Noles fit the “poor 2017, but obvious 2018 upside and talent” category. FSU was really poor early in the season, not hitting the 30 point mark in their first seven games and without an offensive percentile performance over 50%.  Those opponents included Wake Forest, Duke, Louisville, and BC, so not exactly a murderer’s row of defenses. Late in the year, however, the offense began to click a bit more, and there’s an abundance of talent for Willie Taggart to work with.

As a result S&P+ sees a bounce-back to 31^st on offense, whether Deondre Francois or James Blackman takes the starting role. The offensive line should be better, and Cam Akers / Jacques Patrick is a devastating running back duo. At receiver there’s Nyqwan Murray and few proven options, but there’s the usual blue chip options that could emerge. By the time FSU comes to South Bend in November, the QB competition should be settled and the team far more comfortable in Willie Taggart’s offense.

Michigan

‘17 Offensive S&P+ Rank: 86^th
Success Rate: 38.4% (109^th)
IsoPPP: 1.18 (58^th)
Returning Production Rank: 74% (42^nd)

The Wolverines struggles on offense last season were well documented, but they’re fun to repeat, so let’s rehash them. Quarterback guru Jim Harbaugh’s offense passed for nine touchdowns and finished 87^th in Passing S&P+. Three Michigan quarterbacks started, and all were under six yards per attempt. It wasn’t all their fault – the offensive line couldn’t protect at all, finishing 117^th in adjusted sack rate.

Despite all of this, they still rushed the ball decently, finished 14^th in Rushing S&P+. Karan Higdon and Chris Evans were both effective running backs and return. The receiving corps is young and talented and all back. And of course, Shea Patterson comes in with immediate eligibility to fix the passing game.

Patterson is still more talent than actualized production, but a sophomore to junior leap wouldn’t be surprising. The talent is there, the offensive line has to protect better, and the rushing attack provides a strong foundation. Still, it will be interesting to see how the combination of Harbaugh, Jim McElwain, and Pep Hamilton figures out play calling and scheme. S&P+ sees the talent and returning production and has Michigan projected at 45^th, but a top-20 performance is an achievable ceiling.

Top 25 Offenses

USC

‘17 Offensive S&P+ Rank: 16^th
Success Rate: 46.6%, 12^th)
IsoPPP: 1.26 (25^th)
Returning Production Rank: 40% (123^rd)

The statistic above that stands out is the returning production ranking, where the Trojans are gashed by the losses of Sam Darnold, Ronald Jones, and Deontay Burnett. Still, S&P+ likes to be a the 20^th best offense nationally despite these losses, mostly because they’ll all be replaced with composite four and five star talent. The Trojans were well-balanced between explosiveness and efficiency last season, led by the 10^th ranked Passing S&P+ Offense.

The devil’s advocate to S&P+’s view is that QB is a huge question mark, with lots of talented options but a coach with recent experience botching his choice of a starter. The offensive line should be solid but not spectacular, similar to last season. Stephen Carr might be just as good as Jones, and the receivers should be very good despite losing two of their top four targets. But if QB play is mediocre, the run game is similar to last year’s 42^nd ranking in Rushing S&P+, there’s a chance the Trojans decline is down to merely a top-40 unit, not a top-25 one.

Top 10 Offense

Stanford

’17 Offensive S&P+ Rank: 29^th
Success Rate: 39.6% (94^th)
IsoPPP: 1.41 (7^th)
Returning Production Rank: 81% (22^nd)

The Cardinal should boast the best offense the Irish face in 2018, and I don’t think it’s particularly close. Stanford’s offense was good last year despite terrible efficiency. Through the air, that was easily explained, as Keller Chryst struggled and K.J. Costello took some time to get into a rhythym. On the ground though that was surprising, as the rushing attack was extremely all or nothing – 101^st in success rate, 1^st in rushing explosiveness. Bryce Love, fresh off posting the most explosive season ever by a P5 running back (as measured by most 50+ yard carries in a season), is back, so the explosiveness should be too. And the line is mostly intact, so the weird inefficiency and ability to hit some singles and doubles along with the home runs should return as well.

Costello missed spring practice with an injury, and is the key to realizing top 10 offensive potential. He returns his top four receiving targets, and should build on his 58% completion rate and 7.0 yard per attempt. David Shaw could still screw this up – the Cardinal benefitted from excellent field position and red zone performance last season, and that hasn’t always been the case in the Shaw tenure. But unfortunately for Irish fans, the Cardinal will offer an enormous test for the defense, from containing Love (who should be healthier than the last time the Irish faced him) to winning jump balls against a cadre of over-sized receivers.

Does this list match up with your expectations and fear index for 2018? Any offenses you think in particular are scary for the Notre Dame defense? Let me know in the comments below.