Wednesday War Room: Deep dive into James Madison offfense

 

Oregon’s defense against James Madison’s offense is as close to a pure strength-on-strength matchup as you’re going to get in this playoff. One side wants to bludgeon you for four quarters with a deep, efficient run game; the other has spent an entire season turning high-powered Big Ten and Big 12 offenses into negative-EPA afternoons.

Layer in Dean Kennedy’s background with Dan Mullen at Mississippi State—QB run game, spread option, RPOs, calculated deep shots—and you get a chess match that’s a lot more nuanced than “G5 darling vs Big Ten bully.”

---

1. The core conflict: JMU’s run-centric identity vs Oregon’s run wall

Start with who James Madison is at its core:

• Rush attempts: 575 vs 336 passes (about 63% run)

• Rushing production: 3,466 gross rush yards, 5.6 yards per carry, 245.8 rush yards per game

• Rushing TDs: 36 on the ground

• Time of possession: 34:05 per game

• Third down: 47.4% (82/173)

The EPA data backs up the box score: against most of the Sun Belt and non-P5 schedule, JMU consistently posted positive rushing EPA:

• App State: +0.417 EPA/rush

• Coastal Carolina: +0.361 EPA/rush

• Texas State: +0.258 EPA/rush

• Liberty: +0.235 EPA/rush

They weren’t just staying ahead of the sticks; they were generating real value every time they handed it off.

Now look at Oregon:

• Rush defense: 107.2 rush yards allowed per game, 3.2 yards per carry

• Defensive EPA vs run: negative in almost every Power-conference matchup (OSU, Northwestern, Oregon State, Rutgers, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington)

• Only two real “meh” outings against the run: Penn State (+0.066 EPA/rush allowed) and Iowa (+0.100), and even those weren’t disasters.

The advanced grading plus the stats say Oregon’s front is both talented and deep:

• Interior: Bear Alexander, A’Mauri Washington, Jerry Mixon, Terrance Green and others form a rotation that consistently wins at the line of scrimmage. They don’t just eat blocks; they produce tackles for loss and squeeze interior gaps.

• Edges: Teitum Tuioti, Matayo Uiagalelei, Blake Purchase, Nasir Wyatt give Oregon a mix of length, power and suddenness on the edge. It’s a group that has held up versus more talented offensive lines than James Madison’s.

• Off-ball linebackers: Bryce Boettcher, Kamar Mothudi, Jerry Mixon (when he’s at LB) and company don’t rack up gaudy blitz numbers, but they fit the run and tackle at a very high level.

Net effect: JMU is used to getting downhill and staying on schedule. Oregon is built to make early-down runs neutral or negative EPA plays and force you out of your comfort zone.

So the first big question of the matchup:

Can James Madison keep its run game at or near its usual efficiency against a defense that rarely lets anyone reach even zero EPA per rush?

---

2. The backs, the QB, and the option element

James Madison’s ground game is not just volume; it’s personnel and structure.

Wayne Knight – the engine

• Rushing: 190 carries, 1,295 yards (1,263 net), 6.6 YPC, 9 TD, long of 73

• Receiving: 37 catches, 379 yards (10.2 per), 1 TD

Knight is the classic tempo back Kennedy’s system thrives with: great tempo, excellent vision, and enough top-end to punish bad angles. Grading data backs up what the numbers show—he’s one of JMU’s highest-graded offensive players and is consistently efficient as both a rusher and receiver.

Complementary backs

• Jordan Fuller: 82 carries, 415 net yards, 5.1 YPC, 5 TD

• Jobi Malary: 41 carries, 343 net yards, 8.4 YPC, 4 TD

• George Pettaway: 33 carries, 193 yards, 5.8 YPC

Mullin/Kennedy offenses have always been comfortable rotating backs and riding the hot hand. Fuller and Malary bring a little more explosive juice; Pettaway is the change-of-pace who can hit a crease and get to the perimeter in a hurry. The grading profile here is strong across multiple backs, not just Knight.

Quarterback run game

• Alonza Barnett III: 115 carries, 544 net yards, 4.7 YPC, 14 rushing TD

• Matthew Sluka: 42 carries, 239 net yards, 5.7 YPC, 3 rushing TD – plus very strong underlying efficiency when on the field.

Barnett is not a token read-option threat; he’s a true part of the run game with 14 rushing scores. Sluka, when used, is an even higher-graded runner and gives Kennedy a “heavy QB run” package if they want to stress the edges.

Oregon’s answer:

• Edges like Uiagalelei, Tuioti, Wyatt and Purchase are graded very well in run defense and pass rush. They’ve already seen QB run and option looks from Oklahoma State, Rutgers, Indiana and others.

• Interior players like Bear Alexander and A’Mauri Washington fit gaps well enough that Oregon can play option rules without constantly loading the box with linebackers.

What to expect:
JMU will absolutely test Oregon’s edges early with zone read, power read, and QB keepers. The numbers say that’s where they’ve found a lot of value this year. Oregon’s front, though, is good enough that they can play “squeeze-and-scrape” football without completely sacrificing their pass integrity.

If Oregon is fitting cleanly with six in the box and a safety rotating late, JMU’s usual +0.2 to +0.4 EPA per rush against Sun Belt defenses is likely to slide closer to neutral or slightly negative. If Oregon busts fits the way it briefly did against Indiana, though, Knight/Barnett can punish them and sustain drives.

---

3. JMU’s passing game vs Oregon’s coverage

James Madison’s passing profile:

• Team passing:

  • 201 completions on 336 attempts (59.8%)

  • 2,633 yards, 7.84 yards per attempt

  • 24 TD, 10 INT

• Barnett alone:

  • 193/322 (59.9%), 2,533 yards, 21 TD, 8 INT, 8.0 YPA

Efficiency-wise, this is a good, not elite, passing attack that spikes in the right matchups:

• EPA per pass above +0.5 against Old Dominion (+0.784), Texas State (+0.675), Marshall (+0.548), Liberty (+0.433).

• Noticeable struggles vs higher-caliber defenses: Louisville (-0.280 EPA/pass), Washington State (-0.330).

That tracks with the receiving corps:

• Landon Ellis: 33 for 541 (16.4 per), 5 TD – reliable intermediate threat, plus one of the better all-around receivers by grading.

• Nick DeGennaro: 23 for 410 (17.8), 4 TD – vertical shot guy.

• Jaylan Sanchez / Braeden Wisloski: secondary weapons with good efficiency on lower volume.

• TE Lacota Dippre: 15 for 187, 3 TD – plus strong blocking grades; he’s a key piece in the play-action and RPO game.

• Knight: as mentioned, 37 for 379 – the checkdown and screen game.

This is not an NFL-factory wideout room, but it is deep, assignment-sound, and paired with a QB who tends to take the throw that’s there rather than forcing low-percentage shots.

Oregon’s pass defense is a different animal:

• Passing yards allowed: 144.3 per game, 5.36 yards per attempt

• Pass EPA allowed: negative in nearly every game outside Indiana (+0.231) and USC (+0.371). Against Washington’s passing game? -0.309 EPA/pass. Against Oklahoma State? -1.172 EPA/pass—a dominant performance.

• Takeaways: 13 interceptions, only 12 passing TDs allowed.

• Sack production: 23 sacks, but the more telling thing is how often they get pressure without having to sacrifice numbers in coverage.

The secondary and back-seven grading is exactly what you’d expect from that stat line:

• Dillon Thieneman: one of the best all-around safeties in the country—range, tackling, ball skills.

• Jadon Canady, Sione Laulea, Na’eem Offord, Solomon Davis, Daylen Austin, Aaron Flowers: Oregon can roll out multiple corners and safeties with plus coverage and run-fit ability.

• Linebackers like Bryce Boettcher and Kamar Mothudi hold up in space and don’t blow many assignments on RB/TE routes.

Translation on the field:

• The explosive gains JMU got through the air against Old Dominion and Texas State came against secondaries that either busted coverages or couldn’t hold up one-on-one when Kennedy dialed up play-action shots. Oregon doesn’t live in bust city; their coverage structure and individual talent make those big downfield windows rare.

• Barnett’s 21/8 TD-INT ratio is excellent, but he hasn’t seen many secondaries that can rotate coverages late and still pass off crossers and RPO slants as cleanly as Oregon does.

• Knight’s impact as a receiver is real, but Oregon has the linebackers and safeties to handle backs on angle routes, swings and screens without having to wholesale change personnel.

If JMU’s run game forces Oregon into consistently heavier boxes (i.e., they stop trusting two-high looks on early downs), then those Liberty/Marshall-style EPA spikes through the air are on the table. If Oregon can stay in its preferred structures and still keep the run under control, JMU’s passing efficiency probably drops toward what we saw against Louisville and Washington State: competent, but not game-breaking.

---

4. Situational football: third downs, red zone, and game script

This matchup may ultimately come down to situations more than raw yardage.

Third down

• JMU offense: 47.4% (82/173) on third down – elite.

• Oregon defense: 34.3% (57/166) allowed – also excellent.

Kennedy’s offense is built to live in 3rd and 3–5, where the run/pass menu stays wide open and QB run, Knight inside zone, and quick game all threaten simultaneously. Oregon’s defense is built to force 3rd and 7+, where their pass rush and coverage leverage take over and EPA allowed per pass drops sharply.

The early-down EPA battle is huge here:

• If JMU can keep their rushing EPA at least around 0.0 (i.e., not getting stuffed into consistent negative outcomes), they can stay out of obvious pass downs and keep Oregon from turning loose the full pressure package.

• If Oregon pushes JMU’s early-down run EPA negative, those third-down conversion numbers will look much closer to what Oregon’s defense usually allows.

Red zone

• JMU red zone: 51 trips, 58 total opportunities, 41 TD – about 70.7% TD rate and 87.9% scoring overall.

• Oregon defense red zone: 24 trips, 22 scores, 18 TD – 75% TD rate allowed.

Kennedy’s background with Mullen shows up here: the QB run game and multiple backs make them very hard to defend inside the 10. Barnett’s 14 rushing TDs are the tell. In the tight red area, JMU’s EPA spikes because you have to account for Knight, the QB, and the TE all at once.

Oregon’s front shortens the field in a different way: they don’t give up many chunk runs, and they rarely get moved off the ball at the 2–3 yard line. Their best interior and edge defenders grade well in short-yardage situations, and the secondary tackles well enough to bottle up quick throws near the goal line.

Practical expectation: If JMU gets into the red zone 3–4 times, they’re good enough schematically to punch in 2–3 TDs. The question is how often they actually get there against a defense that lives in negative EPA territory.

---

5. Dean Kennedy’s plan vs Dan Lanning’s answers

Kennedy’s track with Mullen tells you what he wants this to look like:

• Run-heavy script early to test Oregon’s fits and see how they handle the QB.

• Formational stress: motion, bunch, condensed sets to create leverage in the run game and get Knight/Gordon/Malary on the perimeter without needing perfect blocking.

• RPOs and play-action shots layered on top of the run game, especially to Ellis, DeGennaro and Dippre.

• Change-of-pace packages with Sluka to give Oregon a different QB-run presentation if the base stuff stalls.

Lanning’s defense has shown its counterpunch:

• Against elite offenses like Oklahoma State, they were comfortable sitting in lighter boxes, trusting the interior to hold up, and using coverage disguises to create catastrophic passing EPA for the opponent.

• When they’ve gotten in trouble (Indiana, USC), it’s often been a mix of tackling inconsistencies and a few structural busts that let explosives through, not a systemic inability to stop the run or cover.

Expect Oregon to:

• Start with a plan that dares JMU to play left-handed: fit the run with six or seven and keep their two-high structure as intact as possible.

• Use Thieneman and Flowers as versatile chess pieces—dropping late into the box, rotating to cut off RPO windows, and baiting Barnett into throws that look open pre-snap but close quickly.

• Mix simulated pressure and creepers to generate pressure without sending more than four or five, trusting that their edge talent can win enough one-on-ones against a JMU line that’s been good but not dominant against higher-end fronts.

---

6. What it probably looks like

Put it all together, and here’s the most likely shape of the game when James Madison has the ball:

• Between the 20s:

  • JMU has enough scheme and talent to move the ball. Knight and Barnett will find some creases, and Kennedy is too good to be completely blanked.

  • But the per-play efficiency they’ve enjoyed in the Sun Belt (+0.3 to +0.4 EPA/play in their best outings) is very likely to regress toward 0 or slightly negative against an Oregon defense that’s held multiple P4 offenses in the red (negative EPA) over 60+ snaps.

• Explosives:

  • JMU will hit a couple of chunk plays—maybe a Knight screen, a DeGennaro go ball off play-action, a Barnett keeper that slips through.

  • Oregon’s structure and tackling make it unlikely that those explosives are consistent enough to flip the overall EPA battle in JMU’s favor.

• Situations:

  • Early downs favor Oregon more often than not, forcing JMU into more 3rd-and-longs than they’re used to.

  • When JMU does stay ahead of the chains, their QB run and option package is good enough to convert and extend drives, but Oregon’s pressure and coverage advantage on long yardage should create at least a couple of drive-killing sacks or turnovers.

• Red zone:

  • JMU’s QB run game gives them a puncher’s chance to maintain their strong red-zone TD rate, but Oregon’s front is more talented than anything they’ve seen all year. Expect a mix: some well-designed touchdowns, some field goals, and at least one critical stop.

In short:

James Madison’s offense is good enough, and well-designed enough under Dean Kennedy, to avoid being completely suffocated. But the combination of Oregon’s front talent, coverage depth, and season-long EPA profile strongly suggests that the Dukes will play below their usual efficiency and need a couple of perfectly-timed explosives or short fields to reach their normal scoring range.

From a matchup standpoint, this is still Oregon’s defense with the built-in advantage.