ND vs USC 2010 replay

[NDinL.A.]

I have this game on my DVR (I've watched it 3 times at least), and yet I still tuned in last night. Soooooooo much fun watching us finally beat those a-holes...

 

[ACamp1900]

I really want that game on DVD... very hard to find people with any games from last year... odd

 

[irishfan]

I just want to see RoJo's drop. The video is nowhere online for whatever reason. I feel like it would be included in highlights, but its not for whatever reason.

 

[military_irish]

Here it is, just put it up.

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LuTn-9Fk85w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[condoms SUCk]

Not sure anyone would wana watch it, but on Thursday the ND/MichSt 2010 game, 1:00AM on ESPNU

 

[irishfan]

Here it is, just put it up.

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LuTn-9Fk85w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Awesome. Thank you so much.

 

[IrishAlum1997]

FYI....You can go to ESPN U on Facebook and vote for a "midnight rivalry" game of the week. ND vs. USC is an option. I think the winning game gets played on Thursday? Get the IE vote out!!!!

 

[Rhode Irish]

Obviously the kid should've have caught that pass, but does anyone else think it was a little underthrown?

 

[IrishAlum1997]

He threw it behind him. With the rain, that was not an easy catch, and I think there's even a chance Slaughter catches him at the 5 if he catches that ball.

Woulda should coulda. We win, they lose. Tuck the Frojans.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Mitch Cumstain was a pretty terrible QB.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Obviously the kid should've have caught that pass, but does anyone else think it was a little underthrown?

Exactly, far from an automatic. The quarterback wasn't terrible. Did anyone see the pressure he faced. Because nobody has commented on that! Finally, I don't know what was going on with that part of the field, but everyone was loosing their footing. What a play to design; throw it to the skating rink!

 

[Rocket89]

Floridas offense will be good, but never great, and will have a lot of trouble with the top SEC defenses. wanna bet a few vbucks? set the parameters.

I think I kind of agree with this.

Weis will be good when:

He has a smart and talented quarterback to work with, and sufficient weapons for said QB to deliver the ball to.

Some concerns if I'm a UF fan:

1.) He does get predictable. We've all seen it.

2.) His offenses are only as good as the QB. His player development at other positions is mediocre at best.

3.) I think he's a product of coaching really good players, and not someone who can take less skilled players and make them great. That's not his whole history, but I wouldn't be too thrilled about his abilities to craft an offensive line or running backs.

For how well his offense did at ND in 2005-06 and 2009, throwing the ball at least...he still has 2007 on his hands. And yes, he had young guys to work with, but that just kind of drives home the point that he needs great players with experience.

In time, I think he'll have some great offenses at UF, but I'm not sure Brantley is going to thrive in his system. And if Brantley can't keep his head screwed on straight, the Gators will not have a very good offense.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Every coach needs good players in order to be good. CW is no different. But I agree 1000% (and said so in a previous post) that CW needs an experienced QB to have a good offense. His offense is too complex and requires such a great relationship between the QB and his receivers that there has to be experience/talent in that spot.

As for developing other players - that was never CW's strength nor his focal point. His problem was hiring the wrong position coaches. I think Alford was trying with the RBs, but the line was so bad, and the talent at the RB spot overrated, that they never got that running game going. But the WRs and TE's definitely got better (at least, their numbers did - Ianello was a suspect position coach; just look at those dudes block now under Alford).

I agree that CW's offense will struggle this year, and it will be because of Brantley. But with those leopards that he will be recruiting, once he gets a pro-style QB stud, that offense could be scary...

 

[kmoose]

2.) His offenses are only as good as the QB. His player development at other positions is mediocre at best.

Absolutely! Just look at what a crappy job he did of developing Golden Tate.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Obviously the kid should've have caught that pass, but does anyone else think it was a little underthrown?

He threw it behind him. With the rain, that was not an easy catch, and I think there's even a chance Slaughter catches him at the 5 if he catches that ball.

Woulda should coulda. We win, they lose. Tuck the Frojans.

C'mon guys, take off your Irish glasses LOL. Yes, the ball was slightly behind him, and yes, it was raining. He was also their best WR going into the season, had like 70 catches for almost 700 yds, and was a senior with enough talent to be drafted into the NFL. There was nobody around him, and the ball hit his hands. He makes that catch 100 out 100 times at practice, rain or not. But the moment got the best of him, and he choked, plain and simple. It was an easy catch for a player of his talent, save for the moment.

And 1997, I too thought, while watching it, that Slaughter might have caught him, but I've looked at it closely, and it wouldn't have happened. If he did get to him, it would have been close enough (IMO) to the goal line where his momentum still would have carried him into the endzone.

On point, here is what I wrote on another board regarding USC fans and this game:

USC fans I talk to always say 2 things:

1. "We would have won in Barkley played".

To which I counter, "our freshman QB SUCKED that game, gave you 4 turnovers and you still lost. If Crist plays we win going away. And anyway, in 2009, we didn't have Floyd. You had no answer for Floyd this past game. He got hurt in the 2nd half this year, and still completely dominated that game. We lost by a TD in 2009, and we should have tied you on the last play. Who was open and slipped on that last play? Michael Floyd's replacement. We win that game if Floyd plays. We can do this all day - got any more excuses?"

2. "Rojo dropped the ball that would have won that game. You guys got lucky."

To which I counter, "If Rojo catches that ball, USC's drive would have taken exactly one minute to score that TD. There still would have been 1:17 on the clock. What makes you think we couldn't have driven down the field against your tired-***, sorry-*** defense to kick a fg in more than a minute? That game was far from over, so stop buying the myth that that catch would have ended the game. Also, Matt Leinart also choked against ND in '05. He fumbled on the one yd line with a few seconds left in the game. The lucky ******* had the ball go out of bounds. If that ball goes ANYWHERE else on the field the game is over. So when the '05 game gets brought up, do you immediately say that ND should have won because you got lucky with Leinart's fumble??? I don't think so. So if you concede that we won in '05, then I'll concede this game to you. Oh wait, you already lost that '05 game because you used an ineligible player. Nevermind."

At which point they STFU and start in on the NCAA LOL.

 

[IrishAlum1997]

As I said, woulda coulda shoulda. We won.

 

[Rocket89]

Absolutely! Just look at what a crappy job he did of developing Golden Tate.

The same Golden Tate who's fundamentals in route running and blocking were damn near pitiful when he got to the NFL?

Golden Tate developed Golden Tate, but that's about it.

Also, look at the criticism Kelly put on Floyd before last year.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Obviously the kid should've have caught that pass, but does anyone else think it was a little underthrown?

C'mon guys, take off your Irish glasses LOL.

I'm confused about what I said that reflects homerism....

 

[IrishAlum1997]

I'm confused about what I said that reflects homerism....

Take that ND logo off your profile, homer.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

NDin LA you are the man. Hey, I was thinking, I could come out your way and you could take me to these SuCks fans, and I could REALLLY help you lay it on 'em.

 

[kmoose]

The same Golden Tate who's fundamentals in route running and blocking were damn near pitiful when he got to the NFL?

Golden Tate developed Golden Tate, but that's about it.

Also, look at the criticism Kelly put on Floyd before last year.

Golden Tate went from nothing, to one of the best receivers in College Football, under Weis' tutelage. Of course Tate wasn't ready for the NFL. He had only been a receiver for his years at ND.

And what criticism did Kelly put on Floyd before last year?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

And what criticism did Kelly put on Floyd before last year?

That he wasn't a polished route runner, and was poor at down-field blocking. In short, that he was a one-trick WR who relied on his size and superior athleticism to abuse opposing DBs. And Kelly was right.

Eric is absolutely right in saying that, QBs aside, Weis was a mediocre developer of talent at best.

 

[kmoose]

That he wasn't a polished route runner, and was poor at down-field blocking. In short, that he was a one-trick WR who used his superior athleticism to abuse opposing DBs. And Kelly was right.

I'd have to see this before I believe it. The only thing that I remember Kelly saying about Michael Floyd is that he wanted him to get in better shape, because Kelly was going to significantly increase his workload.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I'd have to see this before I believe it. The only thing that I remember Kelly saying about Michael Floyd is that he wanted him to get in better shape, because Kelly was going to significantly increase his workload.

Ask and you shall receive:

"I thought Michael Floyd was overhyped. I thought he was at times average," Kelly said.

"Ran down the field and threw it up. He wasn't a precision route runner. He wasn't asked to be. He was a matchup guy. Bodied people, caught the ball, sometimes he did, sometimes he didn't," Kelly said of Floyd's role in coach Charlie Weis' offense.

"You watched him, were evaluating him, you go, 'OK, he's got a big body, he runs down the field, if they throw it up there, there's a good chance he's going to get it.' You never saw him in positions to run the dig or drive, be one-on-one, beat coverage on a quick slant on fourth down and snap his hands. All those things that go to winning football games, I didn't see that."

 

[kmoose]

And where does it say that he blocks poorly, downfield? I wouldn't say that Kelly's pointing out that Floyd was not asked to run precision routes equates to calling him a poor route runner. He was just pointing out that Floyd was not asked to run precision routes.

Did I miss the words "one trick WR"?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

And where does it say that he blocks poorly, downfield? I wouldn't say that Kelly's pointing out that Floyd was not asked to run precision routes equates to calling him a poor route runner. He was just pointing out that Floyd was not asked to run precision routes.

Did I miss the words "one trick WR"?

I could swear Kelly commented on the poor down-field blocking of our receiver corps when he arrived, but I can't find a specific quote at the moment.

The "one-trick WR" comment is my paraphrasing of Kelly's criticism. He basically said that Floyd wasn't a polished WR; just a big body who used his size and superior athleticism to connect on a bunch of Fade routes.

Your reading of that criticism is that Floyd really had all of those listed skills, but Weis simply never asked him to do any of it? That's absurd.

 

[kmoose]

I could swear Kelly commented on the poor down-field blocking of our receiver corps when he arrived, but I can't find a specific quote at the moment.

The "one-trick WR" comment is my paraphrasing of Kelly's criticism. He basically said that Floyd wasn't a polished WR; just a big body who used his size and superior athleticism to connect on a bunch of Fade routes.

Your reading of that criticism is that Floyd really had all of those listed skills, but Weis simply never asked him to do any of it? That's absurd.

It's not absurd when you consider that Weis had Golden Tate doing many of those things, and doing them well at the collegiate level. The alternative is that you expect to me to believe that the #1 recruit coming out of high school, the guy that EVERYONE in the country was after, didn't even have the basic skills to play his position?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

It's not absurd when you consider that Weis had Golden Tate doing many of those things, and doing them well at the collegiate level. The alternative is that you expect to me to believe that the #1 recruit coming out of high school, the guy that EVERYONE in the country was after, didn't even have the basic skills to play his position?

No, the alternative is that Weis did a mediocre job at developing his WR talent. Thus, when BK took over, Weis' remaining star WR was not very good at doing lots of important WR things. If you look at how Floyd was used during his first two years, you'll see it's a pretty valid criticism.

It fits right in with the narrative that Weis was poor at developing talent. I can point to plenty of highlights from 2008-2009, as well as a direct quote from Kelly, in support of my position. Your position seems to be that since Tate won the Biletnikoff, it's absurd to suggest that Weis wasn't a master at developing WR talent.

 

[kmoose]

No, the alternative is that Weis did a mediocre job at developing his WR talent. Thus, when BK took over, Weis' remaining star WR was not very good at doing lots of important WR things. If you look at how Floyd was used during his first two years, you'll see it's a pretty valid criticism.

It fits right in with the narrative that Weis was poor at developing talent. I can point to plenty of highlights from 2008-2009, as well as a direct quote from Kelly, in support of my position. Your position seems to be that since Tate won the Biletnikoff, it's absurd to suggest that Weis wasn't a master at developing WR talent.

No, my position is that Weis did a great job of developing Tate. And Michael Floyd has nothing to do with that. Of course Michael Floyd wasn't a polished receiver. He was only a sophomore. And, regardless of whether or not Tate was ready for the NFL (after only three years of playing WR; don't forget that he was a RB in High School), the progress he made from his first year to his last was incredible. And if Weis is going to get the blame for all of the guys who didn't develop, then you have to give him credit for the guys who did.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

No, my position is that Weis did a great job of developing Tate. And Michael Floyd has nothing to do with that. Of course Michael Floyd wasn't a polished receiver. He was only a sophomore. And, regardless of whether or not Tate was ready for the NFL (after only three years of playing WR; don't forget that he was a RB in High School), the progress he made from his first year to his last was incredible. And if Weis is going to get the blame for all of the guys who didn't develop, then you have to give him credit for the guys who did.

Tate was a 4 ATH coming in. Given Weis' inability to develop talent at virtually every position besides QB, I'm more inclined to chalk Tate's 2008 and 2009 success up to his natural athleticism and being the #1 WR in Weis' pass-happy system. There's simply very little evidence that Weis' coaching turned Tate into a baller.