SBNation's 2012 Notre Dame Football Preview

[irishpat183]

In your mind, what is the difference between conducting analysis and making excuses? Because I don't see any way to look at last season and talk about it in any meaningful way without acknowledging the turnover problem. Putting the turnover problem in proper context isn't making excuses. At least not to me.

Mostly, it's just frustration on my part. More of a broad view of Irish football as of late, not just last year.

I'm tired of "this is why we didn't win last year..." talks. To me, it doesn't matter if it was turnovers, bad secondary, poor recruiting, penalties...etc.

Just frustrating

 

[Buster Bluth]

ND was frustratingly conservative in almost every facet of the game last season: very little blitzing, no throwing downfield, almost no use of the no-huddle offense, pulling Crist for the steady hand QB, and don't get me started on the punt return unit...

The USF debacle was probably the catalyst but it was frustrating to watch the Irish play to avoid losses. They basically spent the Wake and Maryland games pumping the breaks and waiting for the clock to expire.

Brian Kelly wasn't brought here to be Dick Jauron and the sooner he he gets schematically aggressive the better.

He tried running the show like he did in Cincinnati (i.e. with competent quarterbacks) and it failed pretty miserably. You can only play with the cards which you are dealt.

Notre Dame's defense is a smart one. Make opposing offenses nickel and dime you down the field, and they won't score as often because Notre Dame has enough talent playing to force a fourth down. We didn't see a lot of turnovers, but we didn't see many big plays (sans UM 4th Q) all season. I don't know Diaco well enough to know if it's 1) he's just an uber conservative guy who will rely on making the best calculations every time or 2) he didn't like his LB corp enough in coverage to allow others to blitz and widen the windows.

I would imagine that when all of the pieces are in place that neither the offense nor the defense will look like they did in 2011. The offense especially.

Say what you want about turnovers, but this defense was damn effective at keeping the points off the board.

 

[STLDomer]

Notre Dame's defense is a smart one. Make opposing offenses nickel and dime you down the field, and they won't score as often because Notre Dame has enough talent playing to force a fourth down. We didn't see a lot of turnovers, but we didn't see many big plays (sans UM 4th Q) all season. I don't know Diaco well enough to know if it's 1) he's just an uber conservative guy who will rely on making the best calculations every time or 2) he didn't like his LB corp enough in coverage to allow others to blitz and widen the windows.

I would imagine that when all of the pieces are in place that neither the offense nor the defense will look like they did in 2011. The offense especially.

Say what you want about turnovers, but this defense was damn effective at keeping the points off the board.

Agreed expect teams like USC like nickel and diming it down the field

 

[Buster Bluth]

Agreed expect teams like USC like nickel and diming it down the field

Teams like USC are really good. You can't expect a defense to just shut everyone down.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

To be clear, I'm not questioning Diaco's "bend don't break" philosophy. Football Outsiders' has an "explosiveness" stat precisely because it's so strongly correlated with scoring. Defenses that eliminate big plays don't get scored on often.

"Bend don't break" naturally generates fewer TOs, but that alone isn't enough to explain our defense's apparent inability to force TOs over the last two seasons. Lots of other teams subscribe to similar defensive philosophies, but they still get their fair share.

Wish I had an answer for it.

 

[phork]

Should have went for 3. I cry about that nightly.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Should have went for 3. I cry about that nightly.

No, Rees simply shouldn't have thrown the pass. It wasn't fourth down.

Kelly learned that day that he is coaching quarterbacks of incompetence and needed to be vanilla all day every day.

 

[FLDomer]

I hope that as Diaco gets more team speed to come in, than the blitzes will increase. Why blitz with guys that cant get there....Dont get me wrong we have some talent but overall speed at the LB we havent had and are now supposedly getting, lets ee how it works out.

 

[woolybug25]

No, Rees simply shouldn't have thrown the pass. It wasn't fourth down.

Kelly learned that day that he is coaching quarterbacks of incompetence and needed to be vanilla all day every day.

It was also an awful play call. That fade route is never a play that the receiver gets wide open on. It's a play that puts a tall receiver in a jump ball situation where he has distinct physical advantages. We should have ran the ball up the middle, called time out, and kicked the d@mn field goal.

Dumb on the coach.

Dumb on the Quarterback.

 

[arahop]

It was also an awful play call. That fade route is never a play that the receiver gets wide open on. It's a play that puts a tall receiver in a jump ball situation where he has distinct physical advantages. We should have ran the ball up the middle, called time out, and kicked the d@mn field goal.

Dumb on the coach.

Dumb on the Quarterback.

Agree 100%.

 

[arahop]

Kelly after the Tulsa game in the post game interview said that in that situation "he would have called the same play again." He showed absolutely 0 regret at that point. I knew that BK was stubborn as they come. I support BK but that was an absolute joke to say that he would've done the same thing again.

 

[peoriairish]

Kelly after the Tulsa game in the post game interview said that in that situation "he would have called the same play again." He showed absolutely 0 regret at that point. I knew that BK was stubborn as they come. I support BK but that was an absolute joke to say that he would've done the same thing again.

Have you ever seen a coach in a post game presser say he would have called another play? I think that was just him not wanting to be seen as someone who backpedals.

 

[arahop]

Have you ever seen a coach in a post game presser say he would have called another play? I think that was just him not wanting to be seen as someone who backpedals.

I respect when a coach describes the play, goes over the thought process as to why they called that play and then moves on.

 

[Rocket89]

It was also an awful play call. That fade route is never a play that the receiver gets wide open on. It's a play that puts a tall receiver in a jump ball situation where he has distinct physical advantages. We should have ran the ball up the middle, called time out, and kicked the d@mn field goal.

Dumb on the coach.

Dumb on the Quarterback.

A fade route is also a play that rarely gets picked off---especially one thrown to Michael Floyd.

It was 2nd down. We took a shot in the end zone against one of the worst pass defenses the Irish have ever faced. The odds of that ball being picked off with that particular throw were very small.

In fact, I bet the turnover rate on that throw is the same as it would be fumbling while running the ball in the same situation.

That's why I didn't have a problem with the playcall, again, on 2nd down.

Also, factor in a windy day and the kicking game struggled during the game. Makes that call on 2nd down much more understandable and actually a pretty smart idea when it's Michael Floyd vs. the dead last worst passing defense in college football.

It was just a terrible, terrible throw.

 

[woolybug25]

A fade route is also a play that rarely gets picked off---especially one thrown to Michael Floyd.

It was 2nd down. We took a shot in the end zone against one of the worst pass defenses the Irish have ever faced. The odds of that ball being picked off with that particular throw were very small.

In fact, I bet the turnover rate on that throw is the same as it would be fumbling while running the ball in the same situation.

That's why I didn't have a problem with the playcall, again, on 2nd down.

Also, factor in a windy day and the kicking game struggled during the game. Makes that call on 2nd down much more understandable and actually a pretty smart idea when it's Michael Floyd vs. the dead last worst passing defense in college football.

It was just a terrible, terrible throw.

No way the fade has the same turnover rate as a ball placement run up the middle.

The kick would have been roughly an extra point. There is absolutely no reason to put the ball in the air at all, especially in a jump ball situation, which is exactly what it was.

I don't care if its snowing in the middle of a tsunami... I will take my chances making an extra point-length field goal over a fade jump ball all day long.

 

[phork]

Windy days aren't for throwing bombs either... I bet you ask all Div1a coaches what they do in that situation and they'll tell you, run it to the middle of the field on 2nd down, run down the middle on 3rd down. Kick the FG, take the win and some lessons and go home.

 

[Rocket89]

You guys are going under the assumption that "simply running the ball" and kicking the field goal guaranteed an automatic win.

The ball was on the 18 yard line too.

We already had that oh so easy extra point blocked earlier in the game. Wasn't the long snapper injured as well? This all points to not going ultra-conservative---throwing a fade to Floyd against a horrible pass defense should not be that risky.

Plenty of coaches would have thrown the ball in that situation, especially given the matchup. You mean to tell me if we ran the ball twice and missed the field goal, no one questions the playcalling as well? Teams go ultra-conservative all the time and lose in that situation and yet we're supposed to believe that it was an automatic win?

I'd be more apt to agree with you if it was 4th down (which most people frame the argument---why didn't you kick the field goal and not the throw the fade???) or even 3rd down.

Still had time to run the ball once more and then try the field goal, if the throw wasn't so awful.

 

[greyhammer90]

Guys, guys, you're both right.....





Everyone sucks.

 

[phork]

OK how about run to the middle of the field. Kick on 3rd down so you have an extra down in case something goes wrong?

 

[Downinthebend]

Why didn't we kick on second down?

 

[Buster Bluth]

No way the fade has the same turnover rate as a ball placement run up the middle.

Agreed.

The kick would have been roughly an extra point. There is absolutely no reason to put the ball in the air at all, especially in a jump ball situation, which is exactly what it was.

It would have been double an extra point. Still a fairly common kick though, I agree,

Defenses in Tulsa's situation load the box and you'd get, 90% of the time, a yard or two. Kelly called a play that, 99% of the time results in anything but an interception. One of the best wide receivers in the country--and arguably the best fade-route receiver in the country--was single covered against the worst passing defense in the NCAA. Rees is the one who 1) didn't just throw the damn thing away like Kelly said he was instructed to do if he felt that he needed to, 2) throw up a lousy duck for the defense to intercept and win the game.

Yeah, I would have ran the rock and kicked the ball. But I don't think the call was horrible, or even bad. I think it was aggressive and that's about it. That's why I stated that Kelly's offense was much more aggressive before he realize that Tommy Rees is a turnover machine. I think that 2011 has retroactively cleared Brian Kelly of serious wrongdoing on that play. It's pretty clear to most people that Tommy Rees is just a bad quarterback. He's simply a bad intra-play decision maker with a bad arm, but a very good interplay quarterback (i.e. audibles).

 

[woolybug25]

Plenty of coaches would have thrown the ball in that situation, especially given the matchup. You mean to tell me if we ran the ball twice and missed the field goal, no one questions the playcalling as well? Teams go ultra-conservative all the time and lose in that situation and yet we're supposed to believe that it was an automatic win?

That situation, down by less than a field goal and within commonly accepted field goal range, is fairly common. So I would think that if it was reasonable, other teams would have done the same at some point. Give me one example of a team down by less than a field goal choosing to bypass setting up an easy field goal for an attempt at winning the game on a jump ball in the endzone.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

Not to mention, Ruffer was a Lou Groza finalist that year. I don't think he'd even missed a fg up until that point. From the 20yd line, down by less than a fg, with one of the best kickers in the nation.......you kick the GD ball.

I have complete trust in BK and trust his judgement but that was the flat out wrong call.

 

[Rocket89]

That situation, down by less than a field goal and within commonly accepted field goal range, is fairly common. So I would think that if it was reasonable, other teams would have done the same at some point. Give me one example of a team down by less than a field goal choosing to bypass setting up an easy field goal for an attempt at winning the game on a jump ball in the endzone.

You're right. No team has ever thrown the ball on second down in that situation. I don't need to look it up because it's never happened.

Should have just kicked the "extra point" and won the game.

 

[Rocket89]

Not to mention, Ruffer was a Lou Groza finalist that year. I don't think he'd even missed a fg up until that point. From the 20yd line, down by less than a fg, with one of the best kickers in the nation.......you kick the GD ball.

I have complete trust in BK and trust his judgement but that was the flat out wrong call.

So, you're saying he should have kicked the field goal on 2nd down?

Seriously guys, he probably had every intention of kicking a field goal after taking a shot to the end zone on 2nd down, once again, with a huge mismatch.

 

[woolybug25]

You're right. No team has ever thrown the ball on second down in that situation. I don't need to look it up because it's never happened.

Should have just kicked the "extra point" and won the game.

It has nothing to do with what down it was, it was the end of the game.

Find me a scenario where a coach chose to throw a jump ball into the endzone at the end of the game instead of kicking an easy field goal for the win. It simply doesn't happen.


You have every right to your opinion, but I haven't really ran into too many people that can honestly say they thought that was a good play call.

 

[woolybug25]

So, you're saying he should have kicked the field goal on 2nd down?

Seriously guys, he probably had every intention of kicking a field goal after taking a shot to the end zone on 2nd down, once again, with a huge mismatch.

That's not what we are saying either. 99.9% of the time a coach will run the ball to get the proper spot for the field goal attempt. Then line up on third. That way, if something bad happens, they can not kick the ball and line up on fourth.

Regardless, you keep acting like it had something to do with the down. It didn't. We needed one freeking point and were in easy field goal range. Time was winding down and there was no need to take risk (especially in a game that we had frequent errors in).

So run the damn ball.... kick the FG. That's what almost every other major coach would have called. It's what I think Kelly would do if the scenario arose again.

 

[phork]

Logic seems to be a lacking commodity on this board sometimes.

 

[Downinthebend]

That situation, down by less than a field goal and within commonly accepted field goal range, is fairly common. So I would think that if it was reasonable, other teams would have done the same at some point. Give me one example of a team down by less than a field goal choosing to bypass setting up an easy field goal for an attempt at winning the game on a jump ball in the endzone.

How did that work for Stanford in their bowl game? They had the best college quarterback that I can remember, but instead of "taking a risk" they just lined up the ball, and then they missed the kick? How'd that work for Virginia Tech?

Missed field goals happen, there is no reason not to take a shot on second down especially if its a fairly risk-free one.

 

[phork]

How did that work for Stanford in their bowl game? They had the best college quarterback that I can remember, but instead of "taking a risk" they just lined up the ball, and then they missed the kick? How'd that work for Virginia Tech?

Missed field goals happen, there is no reason not to take a shot on second down especially if its a fairly risk-free one.

When its the first, second or third quarter.

As far as the Stanford game goes, he missed a FG at the end of Regulation, and a 43rd yarder in OT. The Regulation FG was for the win, no way you are throwing a pass there. The OT was because you have to get some points. And a 30 yard pass was not likely to have success.

You are just validating that a FG is the way to go, whether your team executes is another story.