Post Game observations Purdue '14

[NDohio]

Not too old. Low 40s I'd guess.

Phase of life is a huge part of this too. When I was in my twenties I knew every player, read all the magazines(no internet then), and watched every game. As you have kids and they start getting into more activities and your obligations at work become greater, you lose time to focus on all things UND. Now my kids are off to college and upper HS age and the time that is available to be obsessed with UND is easier. From age thirty to early forties it was difficult.

 

[koonja]

Phase of life is a huge part of this too. When I was in my twenties I knew every player, read all the magazines(no internet then), and watched every game. As you have kids and they start getting into more activities and your obligations at work become greater, you lose time to focus on all things UND. Now my kids are off to college and upper HS age and the time that is available to be obsessed with UND is easier. From age thirty to early forties it was difficult.

Like I said, I'm not blaming him because he probably has better things to do and it doesn't mean he's not much of a fan. Just makes it awkward IMO.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Not too old. Low 40s I'd guess.

Well idk about you dude, but it sounds like he has one foot in the home. I'd make sure you're buddy buddy with him so he gets you into his will.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Prister just published an article titled "Notre Dame Scoring at Historic Pace:"

For the 18th time since the start of the Ara Parseghian era at Notre Dame in 1964, the Irish are off to a 3-0 start following their 30-14 victory over Purdue in Indianapolis Saturday night.

In the process, the Irish have put up scoring numbers that date back an astonishing 71 Notre Dame football seasons.

By scoring 48 points in the season-opening victory over Rice, 31 against Michigan in the Sept. 6 whitewash, and 30 versus the Boilermakers at Lucas Oil Field, it marks the first time since 1943 that the Fighting Irish have a) scored as many as 109 points in their first three games of the season and b) scored at least 30 points in each of the first three games.

Frank Leahy’s 1943 national championship squad opened with a 41-0 victory over Pittsburgh, a 55-13 conquest of Georgia Tech, and a 35-12 win over No. 2-ranked Michigan for a total of 131 points out of the chute.

The 2009 Notre Dame team - led by quarterback Jimmy Clausen - scored 35, 34 and 33 points (102) against Nevada, Michigan and Michigan State respectively to open the season, although the Irish fell to the Wolverines in Ann Arbor, 38-34.

Prior to 2009, the last Notre Dame team to score 30 points or more in the first three games was Parseghian’s 1964 squad that opened with 31-7, 34-15 and 34-7 victories over Wisconsin, Purdue and Air Force respectively.

Lou Holtz’s 1992 squad scored 111 points in its first three games, including 42 versus Northwestern in the opener and 52 against Michigan State in Week Three. But sandwiched in between was a 17-17 tie with Michigan.

The 31 points allowed by Brian VanGorder in his debut season with the Irish as defensive coordinator hasn’t been quite as spectacular as the offensive output, but it joins a list of strong-starting defenses. At 10.3 points allowed per game, the Irish are tied for fourth nationally in scoring defense.

The 2012 defense held Navy to 10, Purdue to 17 and Michigan State to 3 - a total of 30 points - en route to the No. 2 scoring defense in the country (12.77 points per game). Prior to 2012, the last time the Irish held their first three opponents to as few as 31 points was Holtz’s last team, in 1996, when the Irish defeated Vanderbilt, 14-7, Purdue, 35-0, and Texas, 27-24.

Notre Dame’s 1988 national championship team surrendered just 27 points out of the gate with 19-17, 20-3 and 52-7 wins over Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue respectively.

Dan Devine’s 1976 squad held its first three opponents to 31 points (just 43 through six games) and the first three foes of 1975 to just 10 points.

In 11 seasons as head coach, Parseghian’s defenses held its first three opponents to 31 points or less six times - 1964 (22), 1966 (21, and just 17 points over the final eight games), 1970 (14), 1971 (16), 1972 (14) and 1973 (17).

The 3-0 start to Notre Dame’s 2014 season is just the third since the end of the Holtz era, which is now 19 seasons removed. Tyrone Willingham’s 8-0 start in his first season at Notre Dame (2002) was the program’s last undefeated three-game start prior to 2012 when the Irish won all 12 of their regular-season games.

Of the 17 previous times the Irish have opened 3-0, all but two have finished with three losses or less, including 10 with two losses or less and eight with one loss or less.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Murtaugh's breakdown of the Purdue game is well worth a read. Here are some choice snippets:

Surprising Stat: 56 Rushing Yards by Purdue

With the change in scheme this off-season the run defense was a big worry. Through three games the defense is exceeding expectations. Total rushing yards and rushing average have gone down in each of the first three games in 2014. Additionally, the Irish are now 24th nationally in rushing yardage surrendered and 25th in yards per carry surrendered. On Saturday night Raheem Mostert had a long run of 8 yards while Akeem Hunt had a long run of 11 yards, but their other 17 running attempts went for a combined 60 yards. What aided Notre Dame greatly were 3 sacks that went for a hefty -37 yards, as well...

Schemes n Such

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't frustrated. Having Golson scramble and especially move the pocket while throwing really does make the offense so much more threatening all over the field. In this game specifically the offense really settled for a bunch of underneath throws (hence Golson reaching a career high in completions but not breaking the 300-yard mark) which is fine. They were productive with that and moved the ball reasonably well. The running game continues to be maddening, though. Golson struggles reading the defense on the option and everything is so predictable. Now, the offense actually showed motion on one play and even lined up with 2 backs next to Golson. Hooray! Yet, it came and went and we probably won't see stuff like that for another 3 games. We have been excited about the physical Tyler Luatua playing H-back and bringing great lead blocking and he was nowhere to be found. From a scheme standpoint we're not diverse enough, we're below average in short yardage running, and Golson hasn't been able to make the defense pay for crashing down on the backs. I also think in this scheme we're hurt by not having a true burner at running back...

• It's still early and the line hasn't been doing them any favors but I have not been impressed with the running backs this year. Too much dancing around, too much hesitation, and not enough acceleration through the holes. Yes, the holes have been small but they need to grind out more yards.
• Romeo Okwara stepped up in a big way finishing with 11 tackles, and a half sack. He was also credited with a forced fumble which was more of a goof by Purdue, but still.
• While it's not perfect the aggressiveness of the VanGorder defense is doing good things so far. The Irish have 8 sacks which is 27th nationally. The 16 tackles for loss is only 61st in the country but the 9 takeaways forced is tied for 5th nationally. With Golson protecting the ball and the defense making some things happen a lot of games will be there for the taking. Notre Dame now leads the country with a +8 turnover ratio.

 

[blackirish]

I'll take the win anytime,but let's keep it in perspective. It's Perdue.

 

[Booslum31]

I'll take the win anytime,but let's keep it in perspective. It's Perdue.

Isn't that the chicken guy?

 

[BGIF]

Murtaugh noted:

We have been excited about the physical Tyler Luatua playing H-back and bringing great lead blocking and he was nowhere to be found.

That was Kelly's call. In the Sunday teleconference there was a Q&A on Luatua.

Q. You had mentioned earlier in the year about Tyler Luatua perhaps providing that downhill running ability to the team. What's been holding back being a factor in that area of the game?
COACH KELLY: Just my not going to that formation set.

So it's just been a decision on my part not to utilize that set, that running style with an h back in the backfield. So it's really nothing that Tyler's done. It's just been a decision by me in terms of play calling not to feature that set.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Murtaugh noted:

That was Kelly's call. In the Sunday teleconference there was a Q&A on Luatua.

Hopefully he's saving Luatua as a nasty surprise for Stanford or FSU. That's more or less how BC managed to torch USC on Saturday-- by bringing out a scheme that the Trogans were completely unprepared to defend.

 

[BGIF]

Hopefully he's saving Luatua as a nasty surprise for Stanford or FSU. That's more or less how BC managed to torch USC on Saturday-- by bringing out a scheme that the Trogans were completely unprepared to defend.

Why not? We've been saving the OLine pretty much so far.

 

[Emcee77]

Hopefully he's saving Luatua as a nasty surprise for Stanford or FSU. That's more or less how BC managed to torch USC on Saturday-- by bringing out a scheme that the Trogans were completely unprepared to defend.

Yep, and Purdue tried the same thing against us. Fortunately we were able to adjust in the second half. Props to BVG there.

If there's anything I've learned about Kelly from listening to him speak to the media the last few years, it's that he at least likes to portray himself as a matchups-oriented guy. He is not a run-my-play-and-let-them-try-to-stop-me coach; he is a take-what-the-defense-gives-you coach. For example, if the other team stacks the box, he won't try to force the run game; he will throw all day. This is what he said when asked about the running game against Michigan. Why didn't we gain more yards on the ground? Because Kelly was only rushing at all to keep scUM honest; it was clear that if he presented any kind of running threat they were going to stack the box and give him the 1-on-1 matchups he wanted in the passing game.

So my guess as to Luatua and his sets is that Kelly just hasn't liked that matchup against a particular defense. Thus far, defenses have been daring Golson to beat them, which he has had no problem doing.

 

[WestCoast]

If there's anything I've learned about Kelly from listening to him speak to the media the last few years, it's that he at least likes to portray himself as a matchups-oriented guy. He is not a run-my-play-and-let-them-try-to-stop-me coach; he is a take-what-the-defense-gives-you coach. For example, if the other team stacks the box, he won't try to force the run game; he will throw all day. This is what he said when asked about the running game against Michigan. Why didn't we gain more yards on the ground? Because Kelly was only rushing at all to keep scUM honest; it was clear that if he presented any kind of running threat they were going to stack the box and give him the 1-on-1 matchups he wanted in the passing game.

I don't disagree with these thoughts in general. But I don't think the lack of success in the run game thus far has been a response to what the opponent is doing. It's one thing to call a run play and consistently get 3-4 yards (occasionally more, occasionally less) and use the run game to set up big gains on passing plays. Unfortunately it seems (my perception could be wrong) as though the passing game is having to bail out the run game's poor results (or maybe inconsistency is a better word), and the lack of success (or consistency) is due to a fundamental problem with blocking, execution or something else, not due to the opponent stacking the box.

 

[Cackalacky]

I don't disagree with these thoughts in general. But I don't think the lack of success in the run game thus far has been a response to what the opponent is doing. It's one thing to call a run play and consistently get 3-4 yards (occasionally more, occasionally less) and use the run game to set up big gains on passing plays. Unfortunately it seems (my perception could be wrong) as though the passing game is having to bail out the run game's poor results (or maybe inconsistency is a better word), and the lack of success (or consistency) is due to a fundamental problem with blocking, execution or something else, not due to the opponent stacking the box.

BK after Michigan:

For Everett, to do what he did without much of a running attack going, how impressive was that for him?
Brian Kelly: It was good. The way they decided to play the game, there was six, seven guys, it was just how they decided that they wanted to take those opportunities away from us, and we were gladly to oblige them and throw the football. So, if somebody is going to play the game so one sided defensively, we're going to throw the football. And we probably missed a number of opportunities that we would like to have back, but we think 31 points against Michigan is still not bad.

At one point in the second quarter, it was just 7 0 and you decide to go for a fourth and three. Did you feel you needed to seize the moment the way the game was going, or was it confidence on both sides of the ball at that point?
Brian Kelly: I just liked the matchups we had on the outside. We can't run the ball. There's just so many guys in there. They had seven guys standing down the line of scrimmage. So, I liked our one on one matchups. Everett throws the ball well on the outside. We work that when you have a good play call on fourth down, I'm all for using it. So, we used it.

You mentioned they were kind of loading the box a little bit. You continued to try to run into it. How important was that in sort of keeping a balance, and then ultimately, that was what opened things up for Everett?
Brian Kelly: Yeah, well we ran it over 30 times into some really difficult looks. You have to you got to keep pounding it in there. We're on the goal line and there's nine guys on the line of scrimmage, and we found a way to get it into the end zone. So, we'll continue to run it, even in a loaded box, because I think our backs are gifted enough that they can make some people miss in there. But, we were able to hit some quick slants off some play action. We were able to hit a Z climb a couple of times off of some play action. So, we'll continue to run it even if the numbers are not there. So, it's very important that we continue to run it.

Just a few I found from one game. I think Emcee has the right idea.

 

[WestCoast]

I think Emcee has the right idea.

Again, I don't disagree. I think in general he does have the right idea. I don't disagree that BK has that philosophy.

My comment was related but going in a different direction.

 

[Cackalacky]

Again, I don't disagree. I think in general he does have the right idea. I don't disagree that BK has that philosophy.

My comment was related but going in a different direction.

I am confused then. You think that our run game is suffering because we cannot run on a stacked box or that our OL cannot effectively block a stacked box in order to run?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I don't disagree with these thoughts in general. But I don't think the lack of success in the run game thus far has been a response to what the opponent is doing. It's one thing to call a run play and consistently get 3-4 yards (occasionally more, occasionally less) and use the run game to set up big gains on passing plays. Unfortunately it seems (my perception could be wrong) as though the passing game is having to bail out the run game's poor results (or maybe inconsistency is a better word), and the lack of success (or consistency) is due to a fundamental problem with blocking, execution or something else, not due to the opponent stacking the box.

Your concerns about our run blocking are justified, but every offense in CFB falls into one of two categories: (1) those who run-to-pass; or (2) those who pass-to-run. Kelly's offense, like all pass-first spreads, is in the latter category.

If opposing defenses consistently leave 5-6 men in the box against Navy or 'Bama, they will happily run all day long without throwing a single pass. Conversely, if opposing defenses consistently stack the box against ND or Baylor, thereby creating favorable match-ups on the outside, Kelly and Briles will happily throw the ball all day long.

 

[Emcee77]

I don't disagree with these thoughts in general. But I don't think the lack of success in the run game thus far has been a response to what the opponent is doing.

There's definitely some truth in that. Yesterday Kelly was clear that the OL needs to be getting more push and it may be necessary to shuffle some guys around in order to accomplish that.

But I want to point out that that isn't inconsistent with my main point in my original post. There are two different issues here. The OL's struggles in run-blocking this season are an execution issue; the issue of why Kelly hasn't used sets featuring Luatua as an H-back is a schematic, strategic issue, imo, and I only brought up Kelly's comments to support that point. I did not intend to apologize broadly for the lack of success in the running game this season.

 

[Booslum31]

There's definitely some truth in that. Yesterday Kelly was clear that the OL needs to be getting more push and it may be necessary to shuffle some guys around in order to accomplish that.

But I want to point out that that isn't inconsistent with my main point in my original post. There are two different issues here. The OL's struggles in run-blocking this season are an execution issue; the issue of why Kelly hasn't used sets featuring Luatua as an H-back is a schematic, strategic issue, imo, and I only brought up Kelly's comments to support that point. I did not intend to apologize broadly for the lack of success in the running game this season.

I understand what opposing defenses are trying to do to us and it's impact on our running game. I also get what impact the shot-gun has on the running game. The part that I've been a little disappointed in is the push our O-Line is getting...or not getting. We don't seem to be pushing folks off the line at times and it seems there is penetration from the opposing D-Lines. Maybe I'm just old and got spoiled during the Holtz years.

 

[BGIF]

I am confused then. You think that our run game is suffering because we cannot run on a stacked box or that our OL cannot effectively block a stacked box in order to run?

I don't know which but do know ND ran for the least Yards, the lowest YPC, and fewest TDs in
PU's 3 games. Two of those opponents were Michigan directional schools.

How OLs and how many LBs at WMU and CMU were offered scholarships to ND?

How many PU defenders were offered ND scholarship?

WMU scored 3 Rushing TDs
CMU scored 2 Rushing TDs
ND scored 1, on the game's longest run ... by the QB. (Any co-incident that the two longest runs of the season are both by QBs?

Which WMU or CMU head coach is being courted by the NFL?

Which WMU or CMU Offensive Coordinator has the Schematic Advantage over Kelly and his brain trust?

Neither WMU nor CMU have a QB or receiving corps like NDs? PU could stack the box against them but they both out rushed ND, particularly in the red zone.


The highly mobile Golson was sacked 4 times. How many times was Rees sacked last year? How many more did Golson evade that Rees would not?


Yes, ND has injuries and yes, ND has key players out on offense and defense but those that are playing are significantly more talented than PU's!

 

[BGIF]

Your concerns about our run blocking are justified, but every offense in CFB falls into one of two categories: (1) those who run-to-pass; or (2) those who pass-to-run. Kelly's offense, like all pass-first spreads, is in the latter category.

If opposing defenses consistently leave 5-6 men in the box against Navy or 'Bama, they will happily run all day long without throwing a single pass. Conversely, if opposing defenses consistently stack the box against ND or Baylor, thereby creating favorable match-ups on the outside, Kelly and Briles will happily throw the ball all day long.

BUT we didn't throw all day long. We threw 40 times and ran 38.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

BUT we didn't throw all day long. We threw 40 times and ran 38.

True. But see Kelly's comments above after the Michigan game. He's been consistently getting the looks he wants on the outside, so as a pass-first guy, he's not going to force the running game any more than he has to in order to keep the passing match-ups favorable.

The OL concerns are legitimate. Hopefully Heistand will shake up the personnel a bit, and we'll incorporate some more pistol and/or gap blocking before we run into a secondary that can prevent Golson from simply carving them up from the pocket.

But I think it's important to keep in mind that Kelly wants to pass first, and if he's getting good looks there, he's not going to force the rushing attack. It's hard to argue with three straight 30+ point games.

 

[clashmore_jon]

here's my post game observation/ragey moment: middle aged fucker 5 rows up in the stands yelled at me for standing up and cheering during a defensive set. i was in the wrong cause i was the only person standing.

they called the usher over, who advised that i "just cool it with the profanity" which was fair enough. shitbag fan though.

 

[WestCoast]

There's definitely some truth in that. Yesterday Kelly was clear that the OL needs to be getting more push and it may be necessary to shuffle some guys around in order to accomplish that.

But I want to point out that that isn't inconsistent with my main point in my original post. There are two different issues here. The OL's struggles in run-blocking this season are an execution issue; the issue of why Kelly hasn't used sets featuring Luatua as an H-back is a schematic, strategic issue, imo, and I only brought up Kelly's comments to support that point. I did not intend to apologize broadly for the lack of success in the running game this season.

No, you're good. I agree with your main point, and I was the one who brought up the "different" issue of execution. Sorry for the distraction.... squirrel!

 

[Buster Bluth]

Isn't running run plays that probably don't have much of a chance to begin with the definition of "forcing the rushing attack?" And if Kelly is running run plays to keep the defense honest, isn't that the definition of run-to-pass?

I'm just not seeing the pass-to-run with this Irish team. I think they just have some serious issues running the ball. Notre Dame's personnel force opposing defenses into the nickle, if Hiestand's studs can't run the ball on that, then they aren't studs.

 

[IrishLion]

I'm hoping the "true" read option plays are being held in reserve for the October stretch. That, or Golson isn't comfortable pulling the ball back out and taking off. Either way, I hope that's addressed, because there have been HUGE Golson runs on the table, only to be handed to the backs towards a crowded middle.

I think CJ Prosise can still be a big-time weapon/mismatch for many a defense, but his ability to play the ball in the air is starting to worry me. This pains me to say, because I was the biggest CJ supporter heading into the season... I thought for sure he was going to break out as THE guy in the slot. Rather, it's been Amir, which is spectacular. Hopefully CJ continues to settle in and gains a bit more confidence in his hands, and with the offense in general.

Also, I was playing poker with a bunch of UK/SEC fans during the game, so I kept having to switch the games back-and-forth. What was the deal with Redfield's ejection? Warranted? I didn't catch it.

 

[koonja]

I expect Tori Hunter to steal the show from CJ eventually. Tori has sick ball skills and is faster than CJ IMO.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Re: the OLine.
1). Lombard is a natural guard and we don't have him. [or didn't for Purdue];
2). Elmer was trained up as a mauler guard and because McGlinchey [apparently] couldn't hack RT, had to suddenly get shifted over, and shakes against one kind of rusher;
BUT 3). Stanley, NMart, and Elmer should still be able to effectively "push", and we're still not getting it.

I opine that this is because Hanratty and Hegarty, and maybe Koyack cannot effectively push vs a DLine as strong as Purdue's.

Is there a solution [this season]?

"Solution A": go two TE sets with one of our two genuinely big TEs [who don't play] "in line". ... or "Solution Aa": leave Koyack where he is but get Luatua in to lead block. Why doesn't Coach do this? He loves to wing it around and likes Carlisle/Prosise and Koyack all in the game.

"Solution B": Assume that Big Steve will be an All-American mauling guard but not an All-American dancing tackle. ... and move him back to guard. If Lombard returns, we'll have four powerhouses stretching across from LT-to-RG. But what about RT? If McGlinchey can't do it, I say Bivin or Nelson. I know that Bivin is an athlete and a powerhouse, and I get the drift that Nelson is too. So why doesn't Harry do this? He is probably driven a bit nuts that Elmer can't dance well enough, and the two "Hs" can't push well enough, and Koyack isn't getting it done consistently AND he's invested so many reps getting these guys to work as a unit --- to juggle the line around again at this stage is not what an OLine coach would calmly do.

Likely outcome?: Kelly and Hiestand stick with the program which is getting 30+ ppg until it no longer does so. We continue to slightly improve the push and the TE blocking as we go, and RBs get more holes, marginally. Elmer, smart hard-worker that he is, gets to be better at dancing, and Kelly convinces people like Bryant [who is regularly lost-in-space non-blocking a blitzer] to pay better attention to that job. {one of Golson's late game improvisations vs Purdue was caused by Bryant going blank on this and wandering finally downfield. Ironically, Everett scrambled so brilliantly that it was the semi-confused Bryant who was open and received the first down pass.}

Prognosis: we continue to do the OLine thing ugly but relatively effectively.

 

[BGIF]

I'm hoping the "true" read option plays are being held in reserve for the October stretch. That, or Golson isn't comfortable pulling the ball back out and taking off. Either way, I hope that's addressed, because there have been HUGE Golson runs on the table, only to be handed to the backs towards a crowded middle.

I think CJ Prosise can still be a big-time weapon/mismatch for many a defense, but his ability to play the ball in the air is starting to worry me. This pains me to say, because I was the biggest CJ supporter heading into the season... I thought for sure he was going to break out as THE guy in the slot. Rather, it's been Amir, which is spectacular. Hopefully CJ continues to settle in and gains a bit more confidence in his hands, and with the offense in general.

Also, I was playing poker with a bunch of UK/SEC fans during the game, so I kept having to switch the games back-and-forth. What was the deal with Redfield's ejection? Warranted? I didn't catch it.

It was warranted. The QB went into a semi-sitting, feet first slide on the ground. It was a terrible slide from a self protection consideration, as he didn't lay his head back. BUT he was clearly down. Redfield lowered himself down and lowered his head to make an unnecessary tackle.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Isn't running run plays that probably don't have much of a chance to begin with the definition of "forcing the rushing attack?"

By "forcing" it, I meant continuing to call running plays with the goal of gaining meaningful yardage, wearing down the opponent, etc. When Kelly likes his match-ups on the outside, he doesn't call for an Inside Zone run with the expectation that he's going to get much; he does it to keep the passing game open. Intent is key.

And if Kelly is running run plays to keep the defense honest, isn't that the definition of run-to-pass?

Teams have a collection of "base" plays which make up their offense, and then a collection of "constraint" plays designed to punish opponents who cheat to gain an advantage against their base plays (read: the Constraint Theory of Offense). Kelly's offense is based on 4 verts, which reflects what he wants to do-- get the ball to dynamic playmakers in space. If the defense sells out against the pass to stop his bread n butter, then Kelly will happily call Inside and Outside Zone runs, because his RBs should have lots of space to operate up the middle. But his offense is not built to gain tough yardage against a stacked box; no spread offense is, really.

I'm just not seeing the pass-to-run with this Irish team. I think they just have some serious issues running the ball.

I'm not ruling that out. As I've mentioned many times, there are legitimate causes for concern. But Kelly has run a primarily Zone Blocking scheme throughout his entire tenure at ND, and we've produced plenty of prolific rushing performances. The 2011 Purdue game is a perfect example of what I just described above. The Boilermakers were so worried about our WRs that we had favorable numbers in the box all game long, which lead to Wood and Gray gashing them repeatedly. But it really is a numbers game. We aren't built to gain 4-5 yards regularly through an Inside Zone into a stacked box.

Notre Dame's personnel force opposing defenses into the nickle, if Hiestand's studs can't run the ball on that, then they aren't studs.

Defensive alignment is important. You can still stack the box with a Nickelback on the field.

 

[Emcee77]

What was the deal with Redfield's ejection? Warranted? I didn't catch it.

Warranted by the letter of the law, definitely.

But it was a difficult penalty for me to swallow, as an Irish fan. The way I saw it, Max left his feet intending to tackle the scrambling QB low, but then the QB initiated a slide just as Max initiated his tackle, and Max's helmet hit Etling's helmet, but at the height where Etling's thighs would have been if he hadn't started to slide. I'm not really sure what Max was supposed to do to avoid the helmet-to-helmet contact. Etling brought his helmet down to the level of Max's helmet at about the same time that Max initiated the tackle. Things look different in slow-mo, but in real time I doubt he had time to adjust.

The problem I have with this is not that Max was penalized for accidental helmet-to-helmet contact. People get penalized for accidental conduct (in the sense of "mistimed" or "without intention to commit wrong") all the time. A false start is accidental. PI is often accidental. Etc.

But Max was not just penalized; he was ejected. You should only be ejected for malicious, intentional, or exceptionally reckless wrongdoing, imo. Although there was helmet to helmet contact, I really don't see how Max was supposed to have avoided it except by avoiding the ball-carrier. He was ejected for taking the normal football action of attempting to make a tackle because he happened to make helmet-to-helmet contact. It seems really unfair to me to humiliate the tackler and paint him a dirty player, which is what an ejection does, under those circumstances.