It's time to see what Weis is made of

[Vince Young]

You guys realize we EASILY could have had 5 losses this year, right? Imagine a few things don't go our way in the MSU and UCLA games, we would have been 8-5, or 9-4 if we won our bowl game. Confidence and composure won us two games last year, and if Weis keeps instilling that attitude in his players, we will keep winning games like that.

Emphasis added by me. Great point. Reps for you.

 

[solo]

Emphasis added by me. Great point. Reps for you.

I am not certain I would add this as a feather in Weis' cap. We got lucky to beat MSU and UCLA, two teams that clearly have less talent than us. So in a s much as Weis is doing the right thing by instilling a winning attitude and making his vision of excellence the team expectation. I wouldn't reference these 2 games when trying to make Weis look good.

 

[Vince Young]

I am not certain I would add this as a feather in Weis' cap. We got lucky to beat MSU and UCLA, two teams that clearly have less talent than us. So in a s much as Weis is doing the right thing by instilling a winning attitude and making his vision of excellence the team expectation. I wouldn't reference these 2 games when trying to make Weis look good.

Ah, but was either of those games truly because of luck?

Certainly not the UCLA game... both defenses locked down and both offenses struggled for most of the game. There weren't many "lucky" plays for either team. But when it came down to crunch time, UCLA's coach switched away from the game plan that had kept UCLA in the lead for most of the game. On UCLA's final full offensive possession, he called several bone-headed up-the-gut running plays and seemed content to give the ball back to us. In stark contrast, when Charlie Weis was in that exact same situation with a small lead and the ball late in the game against Georgia Tech, Charlie got aggressive and went for the throat, putting together a clock-running yardage-chewing drive that kept the ball out of Georgia Tech's hands until the clock read 0:00. He could've run it up the gut 3 times and punted instead like UCLA did, but Charlie knew that was far riskier. So he stuck with his gameplan. UCLA's coach did not.

Then, when we had the ball on that final, fateful drive, UCLA's coach made Fatal Mistake #2: he switched away from his aggressive blitzing defense that had kept Brady Quinn tied up in knots all day, and dropped back into a soft prevent defense. Charlie said, "OK, thanks!" and went to work. And I didn't see any luck in Brady's pump-fake to free up the Shark, or in Brady's bull's-eye throw, or Shark's catch, or Shark's incredible effort to keep his balance after getting hit.

Coaching is part of the game, and in the UCLA game, we outcoached them. That's why we won.

The Michigan State game is a harder case, especially with those two crazy interceptions. But there's any number of cliches about how to "create your own luck" that could easily be applied to that game. Our players kept themselves in the game long enough for opportunities to start opening up, and then they took full advantage of those opportunities when they finally began to materialize. And why did they keep themselves in the game for that long? Because they believed they could still win. And they got that attitude from Charlie Weis.

That's coaching. And that's why we won.

Now, were those games Charlie's best performances? No, not by a long-shot. But they illustrate the attitude that this team has. And it's that sort of attitude that can make all the difference in a close game, or in a game where you're just not firing on all cylinders.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Don't forget how closely the sports media will be scrutinizing Weis' every move. This is the crucial 3rd year & EVERYBODY knows he's losing a ton of players (specifically Quinn & Samardzija). If the season goes sour, look for the haters to start pulling out the Tyrone Willingham debate. Granted it holds no water, especially when you look at Weis' 1st 2 seasons and consider what Willingham & his staff did to his last 2 recruiting classes. But the media never let facts get in the way of a hot topic. You just know that John Saunders, Tim Brando, Mark May, Lee corso, etc are chomping at the bit for ND to fail miserably in '07 chalking the last 2 yrs up to "success w/ Willingham's players" & leaving the ? whether Weis has proven he can truly coach. I can't wait for weis & co. to prove their smug asses wrong!

 

[solo]

Ah, but was either of those games truly because of luck?

Certainly not the UCLA game... both defenses locked down and both offenses struggled for most of the game. There weren't many "lucky" plays for either team. But when it came down to crunch time, UCLA's coach switched away from the game plan that had kept UCLA in the lead for most of the game. On UCLA's final full offensive possession, he called several bone-headed up-the-gut running plays and seemed content to give the ball back to us. In stark contrast, when Charlie Weis was in that exact same situation with a small lead and the ball late in the game against Georgia Tech, Charlie got aggressive and went for the throat, putting together a clock-running yardage-chewing drive that kept the ball out of Georgia Tech's hands until the clock read 0:00. He could've run it up the gut 3 times and punted instead like UCLA did, but Charlie knew that was far riskier. So he stuck with his gameplan. UCLA's coach did not.

Then, when we had the ball on that final, fateful drive, UCLA's coach made Fatal Mistake #2: he switched away from his aggressive blitzing defense that had kept Brady Quinn tied up in knots all day, and dropped back into a soft prevent defense. Charlie said, "OK, thanks!" and went to work. And I didn't see any luck in Brady's pump-fake to free up the Shark, or in Brady's bull's-eye throw, or Shark's catch, or Shark's incredible effort to keep his balance after getting hit.

Coaching is part of the game, and in the UCLA game, we outcoached them. That's why we won.

The Michigan State game is a harder case, especially with those two crazy interceptions. But there's any number of cliches about how to "create your own luck" that could easily be applied to that game. Our players kept themselves in the game long enough for opportunities to start opening up, and then they took full advantage of those opportunities when they finally began to materialize. And why did they keep themselves in the game for that long? Because they believed they could still win. And they got that attitude from Charlie Weis.

That's coaching. And that's why we won.

Now, were those games Charlie's best performances? No, not by a long-shot. But they illustrate the attitude that this team has. And it's that sort of attitude that can make all the difference in a close game, or in a game where you're just not firing on all cylinders.

With great coaching, these games wouldnt have been close. We did just enough to win each game. Some of it was a gift from the UCLA coach, the other was a gift from Sparty's coach.

I mean, was it really genius for us to throw the ball deep with less than a minute to go? Poitning out another coaches mistakes and giving Weis credit is not what I would call an example of great coaching. We should have blown both of those teams off the field.

In any case, we just aren't gonna agree on this point. You will point to Weis' brilliance and our players skill as reasons for thise victories. I would never reference last minute comebacks versus unranked and inferior opponents as a feather in our cap. That's just a difference in philosophy.

 

[BigIrish]

I would never reference last minute comebacks versus unranked and inferior opponents as a feather in our cap. That's just a difference in philosophy.

Given the dick stompings the Irish suffered at the hands of UM, SC and LSU, why exactly to you seem to think that MSU and UCLA are inferior opponents? there's a world of evidence to suggest that, from a talent and performance standpoint, those teams were very much our peers this year and we were in over our heads against elite teams.

MSU's losses this year were more a result of poor morale and a fractured coaching staff. there isn't a significant disparity in the talent between their kids and the players at ND right now. UCLA proved to be a quality team and earned a signature win over SC. why do you insist on discounting our wins against similarly talented teams?

 

[Vince Young]

I would never reference last minute comebacks versus unranked and inferior opponents as a feather in our cap. That's just a difference in philosophy.

I'm perfectly fine with that philosophy. I just think you're selling those wins a bit short, that's all. UCLA's defense was damn good this year; just ask USC. And for the past couple of years at Michigan State, their mad talent has been matched only by their mad head coach.

Plus no team, no matter how well-coached, no matter how talented, is going to play 100% every single game, and that's when an inferior team can bite anyone in the ass. It's bad that we came out flat against Michigan State and UCLA, sure. But it's good that we came out flat and won anyway.

Besides, if you want a REALLY embarrassing game to point to, try the North Carolina game. Eek. How the HELL did THAT offense put up 27?

 

[FleaFlicker]

With great coaching, these games wouldnt have been close. We did just enough to win each game. Some of it was a gift from the UCLA coach, the other was a gift from Sparty's coach.

I mean, was it really genius for us to throw the ball deep with less than a minute to go? Poitning out another coaches mistakes and giving Weis credit is not what I would call an example of great coaching. We should have blown both of those teams off the field.

In any case, we just aren't gonna agree on this point. You will point to Weis' brilliance and our players skill as reasons for thise victories. I would never reference last minute comebacks versus unranked and inferior opponents as a feather in our cap. That's just a difference in philosophy.

How exactly should we have blown UCLA off the field? And to say that they are much less talented than ND was this year.... I'd have to disagree. When you don't just look at star-power, but depth as well, they have us beat there. They held USC to 9 points. 9.

To say that isn't a talented team is not giving them enough credit. How can you possibly say that our team should have blown them out of the water. MSU, I can understand. But UCLA was a very solid team that had enormous potential.

 

[solo]

How exactly should we have blown UCLA off the field? And to say that they are much less talented than ND was this year.... I'd have to disagree. When you don't just look at star-power, but depth as well, they have us beat there. They held USC to 9 points. 9.

To say that isn't a talented team is not giving them enough credit. How can you possibly say that our team should have blown them out of the water. MSU, I can understand. But UCLA was a very solid team that had enormous potential.

UCLA lost to Washignton and Washington State...those are the 2nd and 3rd worst teams in the Pac 10. They also got dominated by a very mediocre FSU team. They finished 7-5. Weren't they playing with their backup QB against us?

MSU... they finished 1-7 in a big 10 conference that had 4 good teams and a bunch of nobodies.

 

[solo]

Given the dick stompings the Irish suffered at the hands of UM, SC and LSU, why exactly to you seem to think that MSU and UCLA are inferior opponents? there's a world of evidence to suggest that, from a talent and performance standpoint, those teams were very much our peers this year and we were in over our heads against elite teams.

MSU's losses this year were more a result of poor morale and a fractured coaching staff. there isn't a significant disparity in the talent between their kids and the players at ND right now. UCLA proved to be a quality team and earned a signature win over SC. why do you insist on discounting our wins against similarly talented teams?

Because you are the only person that is saying that those teams have similar talent. You really think the MSU team that went 1-7 in a not so good Big 10 had similar talent?

The UCLA team that lost toWashigton and Washington State (2nd and 2rd worst teams in the Pac 10), and also got blown off the field by FSU. You are telling me that those guys have simialr talent as us simply because they managed to beat their cross town rival?

Niether of those teams had a first rounder at QB or an all american wideout or a 100 yard rusher.

 

[FleaFlicker]

UCLA lost to Washignton and Washington State...those are the 2nd and 3rd worst teams in the Pac 10. They also got dominated by a very mediocre FSU team. They finished 7-5. Weren't they playing with their backup QB against us?

MSU... they finished 1-7 in a big 10 conference that had 4 good teams and a bunch of nobodies.

And those are stories of teams that played very poor at times this year. UCLA beat USC. The same USC team that drubbed us and UM. I'd say they are very capable. They could have beat us as well.

If anything, the fact that they lost to Washington and Washington St. points out that they have tremendous potential (beating USC) but performed poorly... due to coaching... in various games this season.

But looking at that game, it's silly to say that ND "should have blown UCLA out of the water." Oh, USC played against their backup QB as well. ND gutted out that win against a team that can play very well when inspired. Wouldn't you assume that they play very well when they are motivated? i.e. USC? You KNOW they were motivated to play us, and you could tell all game long. The way everyone played this year, that game wasn't a gimme, and never should have been a blowout.

As was said earlier... if anything, the USC, UM, and LSU games (and OSU last year) point to the fact that we aren't in that teir of talent. We weren't just beat because of coaching in those games, their players flat-out out-played our guys. Talent-wise, I'd say we are a bit stronger than MSU, and probably right on par with UCLA.

 

[FleaFlicker]

Because you are the only person that is saying that those teams have similar talent. You really think the MSU team that went 1-7 in a not so good Big 10 had similar talent?

The UCLA team that lost toWashigton and Washington State (2nd and 2rd worst teams in the Pac 10), and also got blown off the field by FSU. You are telling me that those guys have simialr talent as us simply because they managed to beat their cross town rival?

Niether of those teams had a first rounder at QB or an all american wideout or a 100 yard rusher.

And were Samardizja, Quinn, or Walker well-respected before Weis got there? Do you think Quinn is a Heisman finalist two years in a row without Weis? I sure don't.

 

[Satans Little Helper]

And those are stories of teams that played very poor at times this year. UCLA beat USC. The same USC team that drubbed us and UM. I'd say they are very capable. They could have beat us as well.

If anything, the fact that they lost to Washington and Washington St. points out that they have tremendous potential (beating USC) but performed poorly... due to coaching... in various games this season.

But looking at that game, it's silly to say that ND "should have blown UCLA out of the water." Oh, USC played against their backup QB as well. ND gutted out that win against a team that can play very well when inspired. Wouldn't you assume that they play very well when they are motivated? i.e. USC? You KNOW they were motivated to play us, and you could tell all game long. The way everyone played this year, that game wasn't a gimme, and never should have been a blowout.

As was said earlier... if anything, the USC, UM, and LSU games (and OSU last year) point to the fact that we aren't in that teir of talent. We weren't just beat because of coaching in those games, their players flat-out out-played our guys. Talent-wise, I'd say we are a bit stronger than MSU, and probably right on par with UCLA.

I must interject and refer back to the ND 2006 National Champs. thread. ThE "who beat who" argument is logically flawed and should be thrown out as there are too many variables to be used for justification.

 

[solo]

I must interject and refer back to the ND 2006 National Champs. thread. ThE "who beat who" argument is logically flawed and should be thrown out as there are too many variables to be used for justification.

So schedule is irrelavent? Then how in the world do you know who is good?

I agree that you can't say "UCLA beat USC" and "USC beat Michigan" therfore UCLA should beat Michigan. That is the argument that doesn't hold water.

That's not what I was doing doing. I was evaluating a team based off of it's schedule. They had one qulaity win and it happened to be in a rivalry game. They had 2 REALLY bad losses and a somewhat bad loss to FSU. So if a team loses twice to REALLY BAD teams and loses 5 times over the course of that same season, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that they are a very mediocre team. We finished the season ranked int etop 20, they finished unranked. We have a top 5 pick at QB, they have an unkown. We have a 1000 yard rusher, they didn't (at least not in the regular season). We have an all american wide receiver, they don't. We have a coach with NFL experience, they don't. We had our starter playing at QBm they didn't. We were at home, they weren't. I'm not saying that we have a world more talent than them, but I do think we have enough talent that we shouldn't have needed a miracle comeback. Maybe not a blowout like I said earlier. But we should have been able to handle them a little easier.

So I am not going to point ot this game as a testament to Weis' greatness. If the other coach doesn't screw up, we lose.

 

[BigIrish]

Because you are the only person that is saying that those teams have similar talent. You really think the MSU team that went 1-7 in a not so good Big 10 had similar talent?

The UCLA team that lost toWashigton and Washington State (2nd and 2rd worst teams in the Pac 10), and also got blown off the field by FSU. You are telling me that those guys have simialr talent as us simply because they managed to beat their cross town rival?

Niether of those teams had a first rounder at QB or an all american wideout or a 100 yard rusher.

perhaps with the right coach, they would have.

According to Scout.com class ratings:

2004: MSU #13; UCLA #24; ND #30
2005: MSU #40; UCLA #24; ND #27

(in case you're wondering, LSU, UM and SC all had back to back top 10 recruiting classes.)

average two year class ranking:

MSU #26.5; UCLA #24; ND #28.5

Looks like i'm not the only one saying it that they had similar talent. the difference in team records and player accolades is largely a result of coaching and player development. dig a little deeper before you turn your nose up at our "inferior opponents" while blindly suggesting that ND's inability to keep up with the elite opponents on our schedule is nothing more than a lack of good coaching.