Post Game Observations Stanford '14

[Old Man Mike]

I'm going to hold my typing in check for a change.

1). We were OBVIOUSLY better than Stanford and could have had six more points via field goals and Stanford seven less without Everett handing them the ball practically on our goal line. Neither of these two things do I consider wild speculations;
2). Our defense killed them all game. We'd beat Stanford 9 out of ten this year;
3). Cole Luke, Andrew Trumbetti, and a mass of youngsters are already great and getting greater. VanGorder is a true elite pro.;
4). We still have the dropsies --- Everett and Riggs being the most frightening. We absolutely must put a stop to this;
5). We lack sufficient power at the center position. This is messing up lots of things --- including even RB pass-blocking, as our RB must worry about up-the-middle jailbreaks before getting the outside rusher [you block the man with the shortest path]. My assessment of our lineman is that unless NMart goes back there, Bivin is the only guy we have with the power and athleticism to really hold up in that spot.

 

[BobbyMac]

I'm going to hold my typing in check for a change.

1). We were OBVIOUSLY better than Stanford and could have had six more points via field goals and Stanford seven less without Everett handing them the ball practically on our goal line. Neither of these two things do I consider wild speculations;
2). Our defense killed them all game. We'd beat Stanford 9 out of ten this year;
3). Cole Luke, Andrew Trumbetti, and a mass of youngsters are already great and getting greater. VanGorder is a true elite pro.;
4). We still have the dropsies --- Everett and Riggs being the most frightening. We absolutely must put a stop to this;
5). We lack sufficient power at the center position. This is messing up lots of things --- including even RB pass-blocking, as our RB must worry about up-the-middle jailbreaks before getting the outside rusher [you block the man with the shortest path]. My assessment of our lineman is that unless NMart goes back there, Bivin is the only guy we have with the power and athleticism to really hold up in that spot.

Actually there were 3 field goals as Golson threw the interception on the Stanford 2 on 3rd down. Bottom line, if you play that game 10 more times, 17-14 is the best outcome Stanford gets unless you count the 43 yard field goal attempt they passed up to go for it on 4th down at the Irish 25 during the 2nd quarter. On the other end it could have very easily been 26-7 if Golson doesn't throw the interception, fumble inside his own 10 and Smith handles those 2 snaps. You say 9 out of 10, I'll go 29 out of 30. Lastly, that weather was in their favor too. Cold rain and steady 20mph winds are tough to deal with when you are a throwing team and probably led to many of the dropsies you mentioned.
.

 

[irishtrain]

I'm going to hold my typing in check for a change.

1). We were OBVIOUSLY better than Stanford and could have had six more points via field goals and Stanford seven less without Everett handing them the ball practically on our goal line. Neither of these two things do I consider wild speculations;
2). Our defense killed them all game. We'd beat Stanford 9 out of ten this year;
3). Cole Luke, Andrew Trumbetti, and a mass of youngsters are already great and getting greater. VanGorder is a true elite pro.;
4). We still have the dropsies --- Everett and Riggs being the most frightening. We absolutely must put a stop to this;
5). We lack sufficient power at the center position. This is messing up lots of things --- including even RB pass-blocking, as our RB must worry about up-the-middle jailbreaks before getting the outside rusher [you block the man with the shortest path]. My assessment of our lineman is that unless NMart goes back there, Bivin is the only guy we have with the power and athleticism to really hold up in that spot.

Mike I felt the same way as you on all points. I caught some flack for saying we needed to run better as I was hit with stats by one of our brothers that in my mind was twisted. As we know stats are for making a point but in this case the rush yards were tainted by Golson and a receiver's 26 yard run. We need to see more productive sustained yards from the backs. The yards from Golson and receivers is just a diversion. This passing game is very very good and if the run better they can beat anyone. I suspect the games they lose they wont run very well (even the exotic runs) and if Golson must pass you put the offense in a box. This team reminds me of the '93 team. No stars to speak of one tremendous QB and a smart disciplined well coached defense. Difference was the '93 team had a much better diesel engine at o line. I love this team and its heart.

 

[condoms SUCk]

Urban's good enough to win one game he shouldn't, so I could see it. Their schedule is absolutely pathetic though.

The radio guys sell Maryland as a moderately big time game... I hate this place.

Yeah I could see OSU pulling a road victory at MSU, highly unlikely but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility.

FYI. Sweet profile pic, fits you perfectly. (No italics)

 

[Wild Bill]

I'm going to hold my typing in check for a change.

1). We were OBVIOUSLY better than Stanford and could have had six more points via field goals and Stanford seven less without Everett handing them the ball practically on our goal line. Neither of these two things do I consider wild speculations;
2). Our defense killed them all game. We'd beat Stanford 9 out of ten this year;
3). Cole Luke, Andrew Trumbetti, and a mass of youngsters are already great and getting greater. VanGorder is a true elite pro.;
4). We still have the dropsies --- Everett and Riggs being the most frightening. We absolutely must put a stop to this;
5). We lack sufficient power at the center position. This is messing up lots of things --- including even RB pass-blocking, as our RB must worry about up-the-middle jailbreaks before getting the outside rusher [you block the man with the shortest path]. My assessment of our lineman is that unless NMart goes back there, Bivin is the only guy we have with the power and athleticism to really hold up in that spot.

I think we'd win 9 of 10 but I'm not convinced we're that much better (we're better but not by much). I think the difference is production from the QB position. Golson is that much better than Hogan, and tilts the scale in our favor. What Stanford lacks in talent they make up for with will to win and toughness. It appears Golson has that same will to win and toughness. They'd be one hell of a team if he was taking their snaps. Lucky for us he's Irish.

 

[BobbyMac]

Mike I felt the same way as you on all points. I caught some flack for saying we needed to run better as I was hit with stats by one of our brothers that in my mind was twisted. As we know stats are for making a point but in this case the rush yards were tainted by Golson and a receiver's 26 yard run. We need to see more productive sustained yards from the backs. The yards from Golson and receivers is just a diversion. This passing game is very very good and if the run better they can beat anyone. I suspect the games they lose they wont run very well (even the exotic runs) and if Golson must pass you put the offense in a box. This team reminds me of the '93 team. No stars to speak of one tremendous QB and a smart disciplined well coached defense. Difference was the '93 team had a much better diesel engine at o line. I love this team and its heart.

That's high praise for Kevin McDougal to be compared with Golson or this team in general as that '93 team was looooooaded with stars. Taylor, Ruddy, Young, Flannigan, Taylor, Burris, even some young future football stars in Bert Berry, Marc Edwards and Ray Zellers.

That team's OL was awesome. I think there is more talent on this team but that team got it done. Without looking, was that Reggie Brooks big year or was that '92? If not, Lee Becton had a 1000 yard year and like I said, they had Zellars and Edwards on that team too.

Jeez they had talent. But that's what you'd expect from the REAL National Champs.

.

 

[kmoose]

That team's OL was awesome. I think there is more talent on this team but that team got it done. Without looking, was that Reggie Brooks big year or was that '92? If not, Lee Becton had a 1000 yard year and like I said, they had Zellars and Edwards on that team too.

Jeez they had talent. But that's what you'd expect from the REAL National Champs.

.

The backfield was loaded, in 93. Reggie Brooks was playing on the defensive side of the ball, at CB. Tony Brooks was a tailback. Rodney Culver was the leading rusher, with 725 yards, Ricky Watters had 607, Rocket Ismail(technically a Flanker) had 537, Tony Brooks had 472, Rick Mirer had 329, and Jerome Bettis had 115. True running backs were Tony Brooks, Ricky Watters, Jerome Bettis, Dorsey Levens, Jeff Burris, and Ryan Mihalko.

 

[IrishLion]

5). We lack sufficient power at the center position. This is messing up lots of things --- including even RB pass-blocking, as our RB must worry about up-the-middle jailbreaks before getting the outside rusher [you block the man with the shortest path]. My assessment of our lineman is that unless NMart goes back there, Bivin is the only guy we have with the power and athleticism to really hold up in that spot.

How do we know this to be the case?

We haven't seen Bivin in action yet, and right now he's working as a backup OT. I hope he develops into the C that the middle of the line needs, but we have no indication that he can help at the moment.

 

[jcun]

Jerome Bettis had 115 yards in 1990... In 1993 he was in the pros, having skipped his senior year.

 

[Riddickulous]

That's high praise for Kevin McDougal to be compared with Golson or this team in general as that '93 team was looooooaded with stars. Taylor, Ruddy, Young, Flannigan, Taylor, Burris, even some young future football stars in Bert Berry, Marc Edwards and Ray Zellers.

That team's OL was awesome. I think there is more talent on this team but that team got it done. Without looking, was that Reggie Brooks big year or was that '92? If not, Lee Becton had a 1000 yard year and like I said, they had Zellars and Edwards on that team too.

Jeez they had talent. But that's what you'd expect from the REAL National Champs.

.

'92.

The backfield was loaded, in 93. Reggie Brooks was playing on the defensive side of the ball, at CB. Tony Brooks was a tailback. Rodney Culver was the leading rusher, with 725 yards, Ricky Watters had 607, Rocket Ismail(technically a Flanker) had 537, Tony Brooks had 472, Rick Mirer had 329, and Jerome Bettis had 115. True running backs were Tony Brooks, Ricky Watters, Jerome Bettis, Dorsey Levens, Jeff Burris, and Ryan Mihalko.

You're thinking of 1990.

 

[BGIF]

I'm going to hold my typing in check for a change.

1). We were OBVIOUSLY better than Stanford and could have had six more points via field goals and Stanford seven less without Everett handing them the ball practically on our goal line. Neither of these two things do I consider wild speculations;
2). Our defense killed them all game. We'd beat Stanford 9 out of ten this year;
3). Cole Luke, Andrew Trumbetti, and a mass of youngsters are already great and getting greater. VanGorder is a true elite pro.;
4). We still have the dropsies --- Everett and Riggs being the most frightening. We absolutely must put a stop to this;
5). We lack sufficient power at the center position. This is messing up lots of things --- including even RB pass-blocking, as our RB must worry about up-the-middle jailbreaks before getting the outside rusher [you block the man with the shortest path]. My assessment of our lineman is that unless NMart goes back there, Bivin is the only guy we have with the power and athleticism to really hold up in that spot.

Mike, please don't hold your typing. You're one of the few posters who provide substance in their comments as opposed to the shoot from the hip crowd with their all to frequent "_______ (fill in the blank) is the worst _______ (fill in the position) in the history of ND football."

We are substantially better than Stanford. I hadn't felt that way before the game.

Is the question at Center just strength?

It seemed to me that the defender was much quicker than Hegarty. Whether he passed him on the left or right, he frequently had a hand placed on Hegarty's back around the shoulder blade and would use that hand for leverage as he blew by. Hegarty still had his head and shoulders down, it seemed, as the defender was passing him.

Is it speed? Not foot speed but overall playing speed. Does Hegarty take too long to recover from the shotgun snap until he is in a blocking position, be it run or pass? The defender seemed to be "on" Hegarty in a hurry frequently. Again, was that Hegarty's lack of playing speed or was the defender that incredibly fast?

 

[ickythump1225]

Mike I felt the same way as you on all points. I caught some flack for saying we needed to run better as I was hit with stats by one of our brothers that in my mind was twisted. As we know stats are for making a point but in this case the rush yards were tainted by Golson and a receiver's 26 yard run. We need to see more productive sustained yards from the backs. The yards from Golson and receivers is just a diversion. This passing game is very very good and if the run better they can beat anyone. I suspect the games they lose they wont run very well (even the exotic runs) and if Golson must pass you put the offense in a box. This team reminds me of the '93 team. No stars to speak of one tremendous QB and a smart disciplined well coached defense. Difference was the '93 team had a much better diesel engine at o line. I love this team and its heart.

Well if we take out our top 32 runs we rushed for 0 yards. The run game needs fixing.

I'm sorry but you can't just take out big plays. Our run game isn't "tainted" because we got run production from non-RBs...it's enhanced. I'm sorry but you could to any team and any game and arbitrarily take out their top 2 runs and make their run games look worse. I can play this game too by taking out 2 runs for losses and suddenly our yards per attempt looks a lot better.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

SBNation's Bill Connelly (also of Football Outsiders) just posted a CFB Study Hall for the ND v. Stanford game:

The tables turned in this one. Stanford lost the field position battle but kept things close by closing out scoring opportunities with points. It had been mostly the opposite this season. But while Notre Dame was able to make up for a lack of efficiency with occasional big plays, the big plays just never came for the Cardinal. This Stanford team is becoming more of a caricature by the day -- the defense just gets better, and the offense just gets worse.

Meanwhile, Notre Dame keeps figuring out ways to win, just as it did in 2012.

 

[SoDakDomer]

My biggest issue with the run game is it feels like we get very little production on first down. I may be wrong but it feels like we are always in 2nd and 10 to 8 yard situations after first down. That really limits the play book compared to if we are looking at 2nd and 5 or 6. I think our offense would really turn the corner with a little bit better push on 1st down.

 

[kmoose]

Well if we take out our top 32 runs we rushed for 0 yards. The run game needs fixing.

I'm sorry but you can't just take out big plays. Our run game isn't "tainted" because we got run production from non-RBs...it's enhanced. I'm sorry but you could to any team and any game and arbitrarily take out their top 2 runs and make their run games look worse. I can play this game too by taking out 2 runs for losses and suddenly our yards per attempt looks a lot better.

It's actually pretty common, when evaluating a runner's game, to take out his best run and his worst run, to get a clearer picture of just how effective he was.

 

[ickythump1225]

It's actually pretty common, when evaluating a runner's game, to take out his best run and his worst run, to get a clearer picture of just how effective he was.

Yeah maybe for an individual runner but when I see some people do it for our whole team it bugs me because most of the time they're only taking out the good runs so they can continue the weekly panic about the o-line/run game. If you're going to try to objectively evaluate the state of the run game be fair about it and take out of some of the worst runs too. But I don't feel objective analysis is the goal sometimes around here, and this isn't directed at Irishtrain, the goal is just to find something to gripe about. We're 5-0 but I swear some people won't be happy until we're in the power-I running 50 times a game.

 

[kmoose]

Yeah maybe for an individual runner but when I see some people do it for our whole team it bugs me because most of the time they're only taking out the good runs so they can continue the weekly panic about the o-line/run game. If you're going to try to objectively evaluate the state of the run game be fair about it and take out of some of the worst runs too. But I don't feel objective analysis is the goal sometimes around here, and this isn't directed at Irishtrain, the goal is just to find something to gripe about. We're 5-0 but I swear some people won't be happy until we're in the power-I running 50 times a game.

Well, I am in the camp of not being completely satisfied with our running game. We saw Stanford, at times, really confuse Golson by dropping everyone into coverage. If our running game were top-shelf, so to speak, they would not have been able to do that, without conceding at least 7-8 yards a carry to our backs. But I don't see the sky falling, when it comes to the running game.

 

[Old Man Mike]

BGIF: yes, you're correct. Hegarty IN THEORY is good enough on his feet, but he can't "right" himself quickly enough after the snap to achieve best athletic position to deliver a punch or get sliding [just a step] to cleanly confront the rusher [one almost wonders if our snap count is too predictable.] Hegarty was thought of as a pretty good "dancer" when he came in, and a Left Tackle candidate. So the potential for good feet should be there, but maybe Center is just wrong for him.

But I think that the big deal is strength. When you see problems developing with a pushed-in pocket. look at Matt. He often is being bulled so that his back is arcing and therefore his strength is dissipated. Cave, for all his "crudeness" at Center, never looked out of athletic position to me. Also, Matt doesn't seem to have the armstrength to semi-illegally "hook" the swimming NT and retard his progress enough to get a piece of him.

I'm making this sound like a total disaster when of course sometimes Matt gets righted quickly and punches effectively and we see a beautiful cup shape for Everett to meditate in. It just doesn't happen all the time, and all defenses need is a sack or a few hurries and we punt. If I were a DC I'd suggest that my NT do a LOT of swimming, and let-it-all-hang-out bull rushing whenever possible [I don't think that interior line stunts are as good as both Elmer and NMart seem concentrating on that sort of trick, and Matt would have time to pick up loopers.]

... always remembering that I don't know what I'm talking about.....

 

[irishtrain]

That's high praise for Kevin McDougal to be compared with Golson or this team in general as that '93 team was looooooaded with stars. Taylor, Ruddy, Young, Flannigan, Taylor, Burris, even some young future football stars in Bert Berry, Marc Edwards and Ray Zellers.

That team's OL was awesome. I think there is more talent on this team but that team got it done. Without looking, was that Reggie Brooks big year or was that '92? If not, Lee Becton had a 1000 yard year and like I said, they had Zellars and Edwards on that team too.

Jeez they had talent. But that's what you'd expect from the REAL National Champs.

.

Agree, I believe it was Becton/Edwards and that o line was treeeeeemendous. Thanks for reminding me about the rest of the nfl type caliber players. Somehow Golson reminds me of McDougal maybe its the way the team shows their regard for him or the humble character. McDougal was some story that year.

 

[NDokie13]

Just came across this picture online. A little too blurry to make out who's who in the background, but those are definitely some recruits looking on from the stands. Kinda cool to be able to see their reactions just as we scored the final touchdown. Some of them definitely seem to be soaking it up.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>This week in crazy VanGorder formations: Trumbetti + Rochell as ILBs, Smith + Schmidt as DEs. Only Smith didn't rush. <a href="http://t.co/mjOJVGqDHK">pic.twitter.com/mjOJVGqDHK</a></p>— Tyler James (@TJamesNDI) <a href="https://twitter.com/TJamesNDI/status/519650605971685377">October 8, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Good Lord. No wonder BvG's scheme is giving opposing QBs fits.

 

[irishfan]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>This week in crazy VanGorder formations: Trumbetti + Rochell as ILBs, Smith + Schmidt as DEs. Only Smith didn't rush. <a href="http://t.co/mjOJVGqDHK">pic.twitter.com/mjOJVGqDHK</a></p>— Tyler James (@TJamesNDI) <a href="https://twitter.com/TJamesNDI/status/519650605971685377">October 8, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Good Lord. No wonder BvG's scheme is giving opposing QBs fits.

This was the 3rd and 8 big pass play we gave up on that final Stanford TD drive.

I do like this look though. I mean what the hell is the QB thinking when he sees that...

 

[Andy in Sactown]

I'm watching the game for the third time now and I see a lot of similarities between this year's Stanford team and our 2012 squad.

 

[dublinirish]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>This week in crazy VanGorder formations: Trumbetti + Rochell as ILBs, Smith + Schmidt as DEs. Only Smith didn't rush. <a href="http://t.co/mjOJVGqDHK">pic.twitter.com/mjOJVGqDHK</a></p>— Tyler James (@TJamesNDI) <a href="https://twitter.com/TJamesNDI/status/519650605971685377">October 8, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Good Lord. No wonder BvG's scheme is giving opposing QBs fits.

Another one ive noticed is Kolin Hill on 3rd down lined up as a Defensive Tackle with his hand in the ground. Pretty interesting stuff alright!

 

[kmoose]

I do like this look though. I mean what the hell is the QB thinking when he sees that...

He's probably thinking, "No way are those big Defensive Linemen lined up at LB going to be able to cover my crossing routes."

 

[NDohio]

I'm watching the game for the third time now and I see a lot of similarities between this year's Stanford team and our 2012 squad.

Except for the win/loss record.

 

[yankeeND]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Ridiculous stat II: For the game against the zone blitz, Kevin Hogan went 2-of-12 for 21 yards with an INT while taking four sacks. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BVG?src=hash">#BVG</a></p>— Irish Illustrated (@NDatRivals) <a href="https://twitter.com/NDatRivals/status/519690490027847680">October 8, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Grahambo]

Another one ive noticed is Kolin Hill on 3rd down lined up as a Defensive Tackle with his hand in the ground. Pretty interesting stuff alright!

It reminds me of the Giants from several years ago, specifically during their 2007 Super Bowl run when Steve Spagnuolo would line up his DL in unconventional formations. The NY Media used to call it the NASCAR formation. He would move guys like Tuck, Osi, Strahan as DT and have backups like Dave Tollefson lineup as an edge rusher and would just straight speed attack the OL. It was pretty effective.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Ridiculous stat II: For the game against the zone blitz, Kevin Hogan went 2-of-12 for 21 yards with an INT while taking four sacks. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BVG?src=hash">#BVG</a></p>— Irish Illustrated (@NDatRivals) <a href="https://twitter.com/NDatRivals/status/519690490027847680">October 8, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Whiskeyjack]

SBNation's Ian Boyd just published an article titled "Notre Dame is good at enough things to be a College Football Playoff threat.":

Can this work in the Playoff?

It's hard to overlook the problems that could arise from Notre Dame's inability to run the ball. That said, the Irish are well-designed to stop the run, protect the scoreboard, and make plays on defense that create opportunities on offense.

Meanwhile, the offense is designed to allow Golson to run around and land haymakers in the passing game. Thus, because they are well-equipped to keep games close and make difference-making plays when the ball is in the air, the Irish are in good shape against any opponent and always capable of stealing a game in the fourth quarter.

If they are lucky enough to avoid a letdown game, it's possible that Notre Dame, despite not being a truly dominant football team, could be a Playoff contender in 2014.

This is required reading for any Irish fan who wants a better understanding of the 2014 team. Probably the best schematic breakdown of our strengths and weaknesses I've read this year.

Nice to see Boyd echoing OMM, Bogs, et al. that OL played well against Stanford, and that Golson and the RBs bear a fair share of the blame.