Post Game Observations (Stanford '15)...

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,625
Reaction score
2,731
They hate ND football - trust me I am in the middle of ACC land. We are viewed as interlopers and the only thing working to our advantage is that it is a basketball first conference.

Pinching out ND opens potential for UNC to make the playoffs if they beat Clemson - thus locking in a Playoff spot for the ACC. Stop playing checkers and put on a tin foil hat for a solid game of chess.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,995
It's in the ACC's best interest for Notre Dame to win.

Only sometimes are they better served with ND winning. We can steal bowl slots and their $$ so usually they'd be better off with us losing. Against Stanford, there was little to no incentive I can think of for us to win.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Pinching out ND opens potential for UNC to make the playoffs if they beat Clemson - thus locking in a Playoff spot for the ACC. Stop playing checkers and put on a tin foil hat for a solid game of chess.
The chess game long con would be for us to finish 11-1 and miss the playoffs, then join the ACC in full. That would be their best case scenario.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,625
Reaction score
2,731
The chess game long con would be for us to finish 11-1 and miss the playoffs, then join the ACC in full. That would be their best case scenario.

Failure to whoop BC and Wake Forest is more to blame than lack of a conference tie in. We have not dominated like a champion should. We win and we would be in the playoffs over UNC - that is the clear and present danger to the ACC.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
From Keith Arnold's "The good, the bad, and the ugly":

The Final 30 seconds.

Where to begin? Perhaps with the replay officials decision to allow Kizer’s touchdown run to stand? What seemed like a break for the Irish actually turned out to give Stanford more time to come back and kick a field goal.

From there, it all happened rather quickly. First the bad luck—another incidental facemask by the Irish as Isaac Rochell chased after Kevin Hogan. That provided just enough room for the game’s clinching play—a seam route that looked way too open.

Here’s what Shaw said postgame when asked about the play.

“Well we always look at what they do in the two minute,” Shaw said. “They were a couple different options. We tried some shots early on, they did a really good job defending it. But we thought there were some lanes inside. So we weren’t trying to score a touchdown, we were just trying to get into field goal range…Kevin did a great job, looking off the safety coming back and then he through a bullet. Devon caught it, got positive yards after the catch.”

Kelly audibly groaned when asked to give his evaluation of what happened.

“We’ve got to close down inside out on that seam route,” Kelly said. “I thought we probably played it a little bit too much, too much outside in, worried about backing up. We’ve got to be more aggressive to the seam route.”

In reality, Notre Dame’s defensive personnel deficiencies couldn’t have been exposed more on that play. Devin Butler was out of the game with a concussion, bringing in Nick Watkins to play outside cornerback. Lined up three across underneath the four-deep shell were Jaylon Smith, Joe Schmidt and Matthias Farley.

Romeo Okwara, Notre Dame’s best pass rusher, was relegated to making sure Hogan didn’t scramble. That left Andrew Trumbetti to chase Hogan opposite Day, with Isaac Rochell on the nose. Trumbetti’s outside route to the quarterback was never a factor.

Hogan put a very good throw in a hole between Schmidt and Farley, with the linebacker drawn inside by a curl and Farley surrendering the middle of the field too easily.

But more frustrating? The depth safeties Max Redfield and Elijah Shumate got. Neither had a clue that Stanford was just one big play from being in field goal range. There was more than 10 yards between the underneath coverage and the safeties over the top. Redfield was still in his backpedal at the 25, Shumate not much better as he finally broke on the ball at the 30. Bad Football IQ play by two guys who haven’t showed a ton of it.

There were so many great things that this football team did. But from day one, safety play has been a struggle. Game 12 that deficiency ended up breaking the team’s back.
 

Sherm Sticky

The Prophet
Messages
19,321
Reaction score
1,638
Wow didn't know that Butler got a concussion in the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,270
Reaction score
2,493
I don't have a lot to add to this thread other than to agree with certain points already made:

1.) The defense is inconsistent. They have more talent on the field than 90% of the teams in the country. They have multiple players who will play in the NFL in some capacity. Yet they left a lot to be desired. They weren't horrible. Any objective person can look at the rankings in total defense, scoring defense, third down defense, etc and see that. But red zone defense was horrendous (especially allowing TDs) as was the number of times a team marched down the field to score. What was it, 25 times the defense gave up a 75+ yard scoring drive? That's awful. Safety play has been an issue with BK's teams ever since Smith and Motta left. Explain that.

2.) Red Zone offense under BK is so far beyond infuriating that I've lost ways to describe it. If this team scored TDs at a higher rate AND turned the ball over at a lower rate, it almost wouldn't matter what the defense did. They would've hung 50 on Stanford and that would've won the game. Fucking fix this. It's been 6 years.

3.) I don't want to be all negative. This is a 10-win team. Some may debate that ND looked better than Clemson and Stanford (even in the loss). Credit to the guys for that.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,995
Truth bombs from KA - safety play once again.

Frankly, safety play was not the issue on that down as much as it was 1) Joe Schmidt not getting depth and completely vacating the middle of the field 2) our scheme asking Okwara to site there and spy the QB, which is completely worthless if you're going to have players in shallow zone coverage... would've been better off having him rush the passer OR rushing 3 and putting another DB on the field (preferably right in the middle of the field).
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,625
Reaction score
2,731
I don't have a lot to add to this thread other than to agree with certain points already made:

1.) The defense is inconsistent. They have more talent on the field than 90% of the teams in the country. They have multiple players who will play in the NFL in some capacity. Yet they left a lot to be desired. They weren't horrible. Any objective person can look at the rankings in total defense, scoring defense, third down defense, etc and see that. But red zone defense was horrendous (especially allowing TDs) as was the number of times a team marched down the field to score. What was it, 25 times the defense gave up a 75+ yard scoring drive? That's awful. Safety play has been an issue with BK's teams ever since Smith and Motta left. Explain that.

2.) Red Zone offense under BK is so far beyond infuriating that I've lost ways to describe it. If this team scored TDs at a higher rate AND turned the ball over at a lower rate, it almost wouldn't matter what the defense did. They would've hung 50 on Stanford and that would've won the game. Fucking fix this. It's been 6 years.

3.) I don't want to be all negative. This is a 10-win team. Some may debate that ND looked better than Clemson and Stanford (even in the loss). Credit to the guys for that.

Red zone on both sides of the ball is a big problem. We look awesome on paper and fail under fire and you can trace 95% of the problem to this issue alone.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,600
Reaction score
20,070
Frankly, safety play was not the issue on that down as much as it was 1) Joe Schmidt not getting depth and completely vacating the middle of the field 2) our scheme asking Okwara to site there and spy the QB, which is completely worthless if you're going to have players in shallow zone coverage... would've been better off having him rush the passer OR rushing 3 and putting another DB on the field (preferably right in the middle of the field).

Everyone wants to look at that play or the penalty the difference in the game, but in reality it was the failure to account for the TE throughout the game that hurt us. Take him away and we win by 10 or more.
 
Last edited:

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,270
Reaction score
2,493
Red zone on both sides of the ball is a big problem. We look awesome on paper and fail under fire and you can trace 95% of the problem to this issue alone.

It's horrible. I'm at the point now where the players are different but the results are the same: It's gotta be scheme, coaching, philosophy, ego...something. Between the 20s the field is much much bigger. BK's offense is phenomenal in space. But once they get to the RZ, the field shrinks, yet BK doesn't change the offense. When variables change (field size, defensive scheme/personnel), you have to change as well. Without adapting, you're just trying to cram a square peg into a round hole.

I can't explain the problem on defense. Just seems like utter confusion on some plays and lack of grit on others. Sometimes you have to win your matchup. Our guys failed a lot of times (Luke, Butler are two easy and recent examples). I can't put it all on coaching as it pertains to defensive red zone woes.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,270
Reaction score
2,493
Frankly, safety play was not the issue on that down as much as it was 1) Joe Schmidt not getting depth and completely vacating the middle of the field 2) our scheme asking Okwara to site there and spy the QB, which is completely worthless if you're going to have players in shallow zone coverage... would've been better off having him rush the passer OR rushing 3 and putting another DB on the field (preferably right in the middle of the field).

Am I mistaken then? Because I could've sworn Shumate and Redfield were lined up in deep, prevent coverage. They defended the touchdown when they should've been defending the 30 or 35 yard line (FG range). Did the coaches put them back there? Or were they confused on coverage and just played deep (way too deep). *I'll go back and look at the replay. I'm going off memory at the moment, which isn't reliable at my old age.

EDIT: They were still backpedalling when the pass was thrown and caught at the 40...a couple strides and he's tackled at the 30. Crazy to give up that play. Should've been protecting the 35/40 yard line...

I'm not saying it's on the safeties...but if you and I are talking about the same play, the safeties did play a role in it.
 
Last edited:

ND NYC

New member
Messages
3,571
Reaction score
209
This was a fun game to watch regardless of the outcome. It had its ups and very big downs. I am just proud of the way this team never throws in the towel. They are 4 points and roughly 13 seconds from being the number 1 team in the country. Can't let losses dictate the success of the season. I am excited for the bowl game and the seasons to come. The talent is here.

this is where I'm at
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,995
Am I mistaken then? Because I could've sworn Shumate and Redfield were lined up in deep, prevent coverage. They defended the touchdown when they should've been defending the 30 or 35 yard line (FG range). Did the coaches put them back there? Or were they confused on coverage and just played deep (way too deep). *I'll go back and look at the replay. I'm going off memory at the moment, which isn't reliable at my old age.

EDIT: They were still backpedalling when the pass was thrown and caught at the 40...a couple strides and he's tackled at the 30. Crazy to give up that play. Should've been protecting the 35/40 yard line...

I'm not saying it's on the safeties...but if you and I are talking about the same play, the safeties did play a role in it.

Oh it was an issue, but to me it wasn't the biggest issue. Safeties are never going to be able to make a play on that ball, but they could've definitely prevented the extra yards.

All in all, I'm guessing they were doing what they were asked to do... when in reality, we shouldn't have been in that type of prevent defense.
 

Grahambo

Varsity Club Member
Messages
4,259
Reaction score
2,606
Oh it was an issue, but to me it wasn't the biggest issue. Safeties are never going to be able to make a play on that ball, but they could've definitely prevented the extra yards.

All in all, I'm guessing they were doing what they were asked to do... when in reality, we shouldn't have been in that type of prevent defense.

Everything from the start was just awful. Again, 4 players on the boundary and 3 to the field. Bill Regan can't even figure out what the coverage was supposed to be. Just awful from the start.
 
Top