Post Game Observations Stanford '14

[N_D_Fighting_Irish]

agree, but I'd add something a bit more simple. He's short. On a couple plays where I could see him looking downfield, he was really impaired by his height, and in turn had to move out of the pocket to see the field, thus late on throws. Simple, but it is a factor.

That's seems reasonable, but I think can be overcome with experience. Once he can proficiently read defenses, he just needs to throw to a spot...trusting the WR and the play call.

 

[palinurus]

After watching Smith, Redfield, Trumbetti and Tranquill fly around, had me thinking how young this team is and damn we will have all of this for several more years!

Yeah, this. Plus add in a lot of very talented red shirts coming in to contribute, a stronger, more mature O line....and not losing too much to graduation and an (apparently, at the moment) easier schedule, and I like next year a lot.

 

[N_D_Fighting_Irish]

Well, like it or not, we need him to run at least a few times per game, on designed runs. That keeps teams from dropping their LBs into coverage at the snap of the ball. The good news is that he doesn't have to be a great running threat. When teams start cheating against the pass, you run the QB draw for 15-20 (or 35, like yesterday), and force them to guard against it.

I agree, but very sparingly. Kid has taken some hits.

 

[N_D_Fighting_Irish]

Agree with just about everything.

And I think Stanford's d-line and linebackers play with the same furry as ours. All I was saying is that the o-line took a step forward yesterday, despite looking bad some, due to weather and an off the hook defense.

Put another way, do you agree that our o-line looked "less bad" then Stanford's? I think we rolled them much more often than they did us. And Stanford's o-line came into the season rated as one of the nations best, has higher rated individuals (draft grades), and is comprised of seniors and fifth years.

In fact the completion of my point is we are a freshman-sophomore-one junior defensive line; Stanford is a senior, fifth year line. Stanford's offense is all fifth year and senior as well, ND has one player on the offensive line that will have exhausted his eligibility after this season. Who would you rather have?

I would take their center.

Their Oline played decent. Hogan had time, but either no one was open or he couldn't deliver on the pass. Golson had little or no time and pressure was coming up his face.

Problem with Stanford wasn't the their Oline. They lack weapons on offense. They don't have an every down back to grind one or two YACs. Making a two yard run into a four yard run. They don't have the TEs that were matchup nightmares for opposing defenses. They don't have Luck. Finally they have a whiny coach who bitches about the band..the band.

 

[arndtjc]

Wow, two Stanford games in a row, Golson can't get the job done...

 

[Irish YJ]

Wow, two Stanford games in a row, Golson can't get the job done...

Goldson....

 

[arndtjc]

Haha I know, I said Golson as though he got pulled for Goldson during the game

 

[irish#underground]

agree, but I'd add something a bit more simple. He's short. On a couple plays where I could see him looking downfield, he was really impaired by his height, and in turn had to move out of the pocket to see the field, thus late on throws. Simple, but it is a factor.

This ^ just like the tochdown in the corner of the endzone, he couldnt see him over our oline til late.

 

[Luckylucci]

This!!!

don't forget our OL issues. Stanford blew them up several times. Anyone recall our C getting knocked the F... back into EG on a planned keeper. Sweet Jesus that was ugly.

If your talking about towards the end of the game that was Elmer (guard) that got straight abused and walked back into Golson.

 

[NDhoosier]

Gold-son maybe? :/

 

[Luckylucci]

Elmer and Heharty are still young and need to develop more strength. Stanford's D line was several years older and stronger. Comes with age.

Keep in mind that it's not just strength it's leverage and technique as well. Plus there were just plain whiffs or misses which strength has nothing to do with. I love our guys and will cheer for their success forever but I haven't seen an ND Olineman that bad in a while.

 

[Irish YJ]

If your talking about towards the end of the game that was Elmer (guard) that got straight abused and walked back into Golson.

ah, thanks. Thought that was Hegs. The whiffs were Hegs, correct? or did I get that wrong too?

 

[Irish#1]

Keep in mind that it's not just strength it's leverage and technique as well. Plus there were just plain whiffs or misses which strength has nothing to do with. I love our guys and will cheer for their success forever but I haven't seen an ND Olineman that bad in a while.

No disagreement there. I was referring to the the times they got pushed back or made contact, but couldn't get any movement where strength and leverage come into play. The planned QB draw is the best example. Great call by BK and it looked like EG could pick up a huge chunk until Elmer got handled.

 

[MNIrishman]

I'd like to propose the nickname of "Captain Clutch" for Golson. Who's with me?

 

[johnnycando]

I'd like to propose the nickname of "Captain Clutch" for Golson. Who's with me?

Let's let the jury decide come week 14.

 

[BobD]

They came, it rained, we conquered.

 

[NDBoiler]

Remember before the season when many people were saying this small, quick defense with Schmidt at LB would have trouble with big physical teams like Stanford? What a great performance orchestrated by BVG.

I admit that while watching the game yesterday I was pretty angry at all the dropped passes, but after re-watching it, those guys must have felt like they were trying to catch a bar of soap. Mayock even made a comment along those lines when Montgomery had a well-thrown ball squirt right through his hands.

 

[AvesEvo]

I'd like to propose the nickname of "Captain Clutch" for Golson. Who's with me?

No.

 

[Luckylucci]

ah, thanks. Thought that was Hegs. The whiffs were Hegs, correct? or did I get that wrong too?

They both had some. Not going to post each individual situation as that would be time consuming but there were plenty of times to look too

 

[DillonHall]

Remember before the season when many people were saying this small, quick defense with Schmidt at LB would have trouble with big physical teams like Stanford?

People like Brian Kelly?

 

[Koreyirishkelly]

As much as it pains me to say it but I can confidently say now that I am happy Diaco is gone. Always hated the bend but don't break defense. We would not have seen all the all-out-blitzes we saw on Saturday with Diaco. BVG is the man for the job and his defenses are nothing to be messed with. Imagine if he was at the helm of the 2012 defense. Would have been even more unstoppable.

 

[jmurphy75]

Sorry if this has been already stated but in the past once a rb/reciever got outside the inital tackle they would turn it up field and get yards. This year our D gets after it, every time I would wince du to a rb bouncing outside he was covered up and quickly. I was very impressed with the speed of the D flying around

 

[arndtjc]

Does anyone have audio from the radio call on Koyack's winning TD? Would love to hear Pinkett's call...

 

[Buster Bluth]

Does anyone have audio from the radio call on Koyack's winning TD? Would love to hear Pinkett's call...

It's on the ICONs on watchND.

 

[stlnd01]

No disagreement there. I was referring to the the times they got pushed back or made contact, but couldn't get any movement where strength and leverage come into play. The planned QB draw is the best example. Great call by BK and it looked like EG could pick up a huge chunk until Elmer got handled.

Yes. That was at least a five yard gain until Elmer got trucked and it became a four yard loss. Can't recall seeing one of our offensive linemen get as routinely abused/rendered useless (b/c half the time he was just standing there looking for someone to block) as Elmer was yesterday.

 

[stlnd01]

I would take their center.

Their Oline played decent. Hogan had time, but either no one was open or he couldn't deliver on the pass. Golson had little or no time and pressure was coming up his face.

Problem with Stanford wasn't the their Oline. They lack weapons on offense. They don't have an every down back to grind one or two YACs. Making a two yard run into a four yard run. They don't have the TEs that were matchup nightmares for opposing defenses. They don't have Luck. Finally they have a whiny coach who bitches about the band..the band.

Yeah. Stanford's pretty much the opposite of a USC, with skill players galore but weak/shallow up the middle, on both sides of the ball. Stanford has no skill players who scare you. And they need a better QB. Hogan was pretty unimpressive yesterday.

 

[pkt77242]

Yes. That was at least a five yard gain until Elmer got trucked and it became a four yard loss. Can't recall seeing one of our offensive linemen get as routinely abused/rendered useless (b/c half the time he was just standing there looking for someone to block) as Elmer was yesterday.

Then you should have looked one person to the left. Hegarty whiffed on many blocks. How many times can Hegarty get beat by a simple swim move? Now I definitely think that Elmer needs to improve as well (actually Martin does as well as he had quite a few missed blocks or plays where he blocked no one). I think the whole interior of our line looked out of synch. The problem with changing who is playing on the line and where often is that line play very much depends on knowing what the man next to you is going to do (and communication) and our line looks like they have no idea what the person next to them is going to do. I also think it hurts that last year our two communicators on O were Rees and Martin and with both of them gone I am not sure we have anyone who has taken over that role effectively.

 

[Luckylucci]

So I must have missed it, what's this about Shaw complaining about the band?

 

[twig21]

So I must have missed it, what's this about Shaw complaining about the band?

I guess there's a rule the band can only play so long once they reset the play clock, after one warning there's a penalty. There was one warning.

 

[Luckylucci]

Thanks