Sep 14 | Purdue

[ACamp1900]

I agree. At this point, blaming Tommy is the easiest emotional response.

Tommy was the reason my cable bill wasn't paid.. and he took ur jobs!!!

 

[returnofthemack]

I agree. At this point, blaming Tommy is the easiest emotional response.

Of course. His comical interception on his "rollout" had no effect at all on the game.

 

[returnofthemack]

Our defense, excluding the defensive line, sucks and our QB is a glorified game manager. The latter part we (or most of us) knew, the former comes as an extremely unpleasant surprise.

 

[Pachuco]

Our defense, excluding the defensive line, sucks and our QB is a glorified game manager. The latter part we (or most of us) knew, the former comes as an extremely unpleasant surprise.

That's sort of my point. I never said Tommy was blameless, but a tempered view of why things went wrong on Saturday is much more rational than Tommy lost the game, Tommy sucks, Tommy this and that...

 

[GATTACA!]

You thinking of Nick?

Yes LOL read tht wrong, trying to post while not getting caught by a prof not working out haha

 

[returnofthemack]

That's sort of my point. I never said Tommy was blameless, but a tempered view of why things went wrong on Saturday is much more rational than Tommy lost the game, Tommy sucks, Tommy this and that...

That makes sense. Rees obviously wasn't the whole problem and reason we lost the game - though the visceral reaction is a product of his terrible pass getting kicked and picked off at the end. If you told me before the game that Rees was going to throw 51 times, I'd laugh, assume we'd lose, and predict 50% completion, 2TD, 2-3INT. That's what happens if you make a QB whose strong point isn't throwing the ball throw that much. However, he was forced to throw that much because our defense completely lost contain. Some are saying it was due to a superhuman effort by Devin Gardner. Gardner is damn good, but I don't think our scheme was designed well enough, and adjustments weren't properly made after we saw what he was capable of.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Of course. His comical interception on his "rollout" had no effect at all on the game.

For the umpteenth time, check out the game splits for this season. Rees' TOs accounted for -4.8 of our 11 point deficit, but our defense (or Gardner's amazing performance) accounted for -17; so it's accurate to say that Tommy's TO at the end of the half had a relatively minor effect on the outcome when our defense couldn't get a stop all night.

Our defense, excluding the defensive line, sucks and our QB is a glorified game manager. The latter part we (or most of us) knew, the former comes as an extremely unpleasant surprise.

Our defense doesn't "suck". They're just out of sync right now, because Diaco's utilizing a very different style of defense this season than he did last year (see this article from OFD.) They're still going to absolutely smother most of the teams on our schedule. We just have to hope that our staff can coach them up enough on man-coverage and blitzing in time for our tougher opponents.

 

[koonja]

For the umpteenth time, check out the game splits for this season. Rees' TOs accounted for -4.8 of our 11 point deficit, but our defense (or Gardner's amazing performance) accounted for -17; so it's accurate to say that Tommy's TO at the end of the half had a relatively minor effect on the outcome when our defense couldn't get a stop all night.



Our defense doesn't "suck". They're just out of sync right now, because Diaco's utilizing a very different style of defense this season than he did last year (see this article from OFD.) They're still going to absolutely smother most of the teams on our schedule. We just have to hope that our staff can coach them up enough on man-coverage and blitzing in time for our tougher opponents.

This is where missing on Tee and Darby hurts.

 

[returnofthemack]

For the umpteenth time, check out the game splits for this season. Rees' TOs accounted for -4.8 of our 11 point deficit, but our defense (or Gardner's amazing performance) accounted for -17; so it's accurate to say that Tommy's TO at the end of the half had a relatively minor effect on the outcome when our defense couldn't get a stop all night.



Our defense doesn't "suck". They're just out of sync right now, because Diaco's utilizing a very different style of defense this season than he did last year (see this article from OFD.) They're still going to absolutely smother most of the teams on our schedule. We just have to hope that our staff can coach them up enough on man-coverage and blitzing in time for our tougher opponents.

"Out of sync" is putting it politely. Anyway, I hope you're right. I successfully emotionally detached myself from this year's team after my depressed Sunday where I didn't leave my apartment.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

This is where missing on Tee and Darby hurts.

I doubt either would be starting over Jackson, and Russell was a freshman All-American last season. As long as we stay healthy, athleticism and talent at CB aren't going to be problems. I think most of our issues thus far have been technical, and that's on the coaching staff.

 

[koonja]

I doubt either would be starting over Jackson, and Russell was a freshman All-American last season. As long as we stay healthy, athleticism and talent at CB aren't going to be problems. I think most of our issues thus far have been technical, and that's on the coaching staff.

I doubt Jackson would start over both of them, but no sense in arguing it. And with offenses using the spread today, you need 3-4 good-great corners to play man-man. Not blaming the staff for missing on them, but just saying to play man-man you need to lock down those types of talents on the edges.

Honestly, I blame this loss on Martin/Kelly for not running the ball, and Garner for going full retard on us.

I swear to God I truly believe we're a better team than Michigan. We'll be really good this year.

 

[BobD]

GO IRISH GO!

Smash the Boilermakers!

 

[irishff1014]

I doubt Jackson would start over both of them, but no sense in arguing it. And with offenses using the spread today, you need 3-4 good-great corners to play man-man. Not blaming the staff for missing on them, but just saying to play man-man you need to lock down those types of talents on the edges.

Honestly, I blame this loss on Martin/Kelly for not running the ball, and Garner for going full retard on us.

I swear to God I truly believe we're a better team than Michigan. We'll be really good this year.

If we are we going to be really good this year we need MUCH better play from our defense.and thats no secret.

 

[koonja]

If we are we going to be really good this year we need MUCH better play from our defense.and thats no secret.

I agree, especially when you focus on the 41 points. But we don't need to be as much better as some think IMO.
We were in position to kill Michigan drives quite a few times, but Gardner went superhero and made great individual moves to keep plays alive, and by that time, the defense which is tailored to maintain form for 4-6 seconds had broken down, and a guy with Gardner's talents will kill you in that situation.

Our defense is and will be much better than the 41 that was put up by Gardner. He made us look foolish. Johnny Idiot made Bama's defense look silly too, by extending plays based on super-human individual plays, and Bama's defense was the best in the country last year.

Our defense is going to be great this year. 3 more days!

 

[Irish Houstonian]

For the umpteenth time, check out the game splits for this season. Rees' TOs accounted for -4.8 of our 11 point deficit...

I don't know...Isn't it safe to say that, had TR not thrown that interception, Michigan wouldn't have scored another touchdown before the end of the half? And if so, doesn't that make that TO worth -7? Obviously the defense didn't stop them after that turnover either, so I get where the 2.2 is coming from, but I don't think it's unreasonable to blame the TO as the sine qua non there. I guess it's sort of a matter of perspective.

 

[irishff1014]

I agree, especially when you put the 41 points and look at that fact.

But I really, really think we were in position to kill Michigan drives quite a few times, but Gardner went superhero and made great individual moves to keep plays alive, and by that time, the defense which is tailored to maintain form for 4-6 seconds had broken down, and a guy with Gardner's talents will kill you in that situation.

Our defense is and will be much better than the 41 that was put up by Gardner. He made us look foolish. Johnny Idiot made Bama's defense look silly too, by extending plays based on super-human individual plays, and Bama's defense was the best in the country last year.

Our defense is going to be great this year. 3 more days!

I think our defense will be good but not great.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I doubt Jackson would start over both of them, but no sense in arguing it.

Based on what? Jackson is allegedly one of the fastest guys on the team. He's not getting burned by WRs, and he's not obviously wanting for speed. As long as you've got the athleticism, it's all down to instinct, technique, and schematic knowledge. There's no reason to believe that Shepard or Darby would be more advanced than Jackson in any of those categories.

And with offenses using the spread today, you need 3-4 good-great corners to play man-man.

We didn't have that last year and we did just fine.

Not blaming the staff for missing on them, but just saying to play man-man you need to lock down those types of talents on the edges.

Again, why are you convinced that Russell and Jackson are somehow deficient in the talent or athleticism necessary to play man-to-man? If Lo Wood was starting for us, you'd have an argument. But our top 5-6 DBs are all plenty athletic. I think this comes down to Diaco asking them to play a certain way that they're not comfortable doing yet.

Honestly, I blame this loss on Martin/Kelly for not running the ball, and Garner for going full retard on us.

According to Kelly, Rees checked out of 40% of the plays Martin called down. Who knows what sort of run/ pass ratio they were going for? And as he mentioned, if Michigan was stacking the box, then checking out of a run is the right thing to do almost every time. We can't really criticize Kelly and Martin on this front without doing some serious film study on Rees' line checks.

I swear to God I truly believe we're a better team than Michigan. We'll be really good this year.

I agree with you. And as far as Michigan goes, it basically comes down to this: they've had a Heisman-caliber QB for the last 4 years running, and we can't hang onto a dynamic signal caller to save our lives.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I don't know...Isn't it safe to say that, had TR not thrown that interception, Michigan wouldn't have scored another touchdown before the end of the half? And if so, doesn't that make that TO worth -7? Obviously the defense didn't stop them after that turnover either, so I get where the 2.2 is coming from, but I don't think it's unreasonable to blame the TO as the sine qua non there. I guess it's sort of a matter of perspective.

It's a team sport. Everything one unit does affects the others. Yes, if Rees hadn't tossed that INT, we'd probably have scored at least a FG, and UM wouldn't have scored that last second TD (10 point swing). But he still hung 30 points on them, which should have been enough to win (which the offense's near 0 split reflects-- they pulled their own weight). If our DBs had better positioning/ technique in man coverage, or if our LBs had been a little better at blitzing, or if Gardner hadn't been so freakishly accurate, we win that game, and it's not even close.

 

[koonja]

Based on what? Jackson is allegedly one of the fastest guys on the team. He's not getting burned by WRs, and he's not obviously wanting for speed. As long as you've got the athleticism, it's all down to instinct, technique, and schematic knowledge. There's no reason to believe that Shepard or Darby would be more advanced than Jackson in any of those categories.

That's fine, but he's newer to the position than Tee/Darby would be, and Tee was more physical and Darby's faster.

We didn't have that last year and we did just fine.

But we're talking man-man, which we weren't playing last year as much as we will be apparently be doing this year, so this point is moot IMO.

Again, why are you convinced that Russell and Jackson are somehow deficient in the talent or athleticism necessary to play man-to-man? If Lo Wood was starting for us, you'd have an argument. But our top 5-6 DBs are all plenty athletic. I think this comes down to Diaco asking them to play a certain way that they're not comfortable doing yet.

Jackson has ideal speed, but he's not as physical as Tee would have been or as fast as Darby. Like I said, I'd also argue both were more 'natural' corners than Jackson. Remember when Tee posted a video telling ND fans that 'this is not what you'll be seeing from me' pointing out how soft Jackson plays on the corner. Obviously Tee's not a coach, but he felt he could come in and be more physical right away and play man to man better than anyone we had. I guess I'm higher on Russel than Jackson.

According to Kelly, Rees checked out of 40% of the plays Martin called down. Who knows what sort of run/ pass ratio they were going for? And as he mentioned, if Michigan was stacking the box, then checking out of a run is the right thing to do almost every time. We can't really criticize Kelly and Martin on this front without doing some serious film study on Rees' line checks.

Well then I'm back to blaming Rees! Lol.

I agree with you. And as far as Michigan goes, it basically comes down to this: they've had a Heisman-caliber QB for the last 4 years running, and we can't hang onto a dynamic signal caller to save our lives.

Not sure how this happened, but my responses are bolded.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

It's a team sport. Everything one unit does affects the others. Yes, if Rees hadn't tossed that INT, we'd probably have scored at least a FG, and UM wouldn't have scored that last second TD (10 point swing). But he still hung 30 points on them, which should have been enough to win (which the offense's near 0 split reflects-- they pulled their own weight). If our DBs had better positioning/ technique in man coverage, or if our LBs had been a little better at blitzing, or if Gardner hadn't been so freakishly accurate, we win that game, and it's not even close.

Yeah, I'm not saying it's Rees's fault the team lost, I just think attributing specific, quantitative point values to bone-headed plays is an inexact science.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Yeah, I'm not saying it's Rees's fault the team lost, I just think attributing specific, quantitative point values to bone-headed plays is an inexact science.

I don't know enough about the FEI model to defend its methodology here, but it's really accurate at predicting outcomes. Those splits look good to me based on what I saw against Michigan.

 

[PANDFAN]

man that breakdown on onefootdown was great on what's wrong w/ our defense this year....i know everyone here is a college coach and would have called a brilliant game and won vs michigan....but the fact remains that 40% of the time the play called was changed...and as the smart whisky man said...you would be a fool to run then when they are staking the box...so stop throwing out what we should have done because the coaches know a hell of a lot more than all of us combined and im pretty sure they have spent countless hours breaking every tendency/formation etc down ...and because you played jv football in 92 and rode the bench you got a real good feel for how the game should be called...so when everyone is bitching about schemes and why diaco/bk/martin isn't or is doing stuff, remember that the coaches arn't playing and can only lead them to water...they must drink...unfortunately we have a bunch of camels and right now they don't need a drink...lets hope they are thirsty this saturday

 

[ScooterIrish]

you would be a fool to run then when they are staking the box

Staking the box wasn't really the case every play like you make it sound. See link

Even "stacking the box", our RB's averaged close to 6 ypc. We should have ran it more and we should never run a play with an empty backfield with Tommy as QB.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Staking the box wasn't really the case every play like you make it sound. See link

That's a good point.

We should have ran it more and we should never run a play with an empty backfield with Tommy as QB.

It's hard to know where to assign blame for our lack of balance. Since Rees was checking out so often, it's likely that he was mostly responsible, though without going through UM's defensive looks on a check-by-check basis, I can't say how often he was wrong.

Kelly mentioned today that they go 5-wide to force the defense to tip its coverage. It's a bit of a double-edged sword in that it also tips our hand (pass incoming), though that may be a good trade-off in certain situations.

 

[PANDFAN]

Staking the box wasn't really the case every play like you make it sound. See link

Even "stacking the box", our RB's averaged close to 6 ypc. We should have ran it more and we should never run a play with an empty backfield with Tommy as QB.

we checked out of 40% of the plays called.....im sure a healthy dose of running plays were called but TR who BK and other coaches have said has a high football iq checked out of the run and called pass when they stacked

 

[OlympiaIrishFan]

Whiskey, look at the time and the place of the interceptions. Flat out bad on both places. Right before half and resulted in a TD correct? The second in the end zone Correct that took at least 3 points off the board, with the possibibilites of 7. Now, if you look at the play again he had 2 other open receivers, but chose not to throw to them. This is the problem with Tommy. Constantly makes bad decisions against good team. And if you don't think Tommy isn't one of our problems you have your head in the sand. 9 TDs and 18 turnovers against good teams is a huge issue. And now he is 0-1 with two HUge TURNOVERS IN AN 11 POINT GAME. The defense is equally culpable. I totally believe that. But, a QB with zero mobility and a turnover problem isn't a problem and you can't understand that---then I can't help you. Or even more stats of under 160 yards per game and huge amounts of turnovers on average against good defenses isn't enough for you, whatever I say can't change that.

Just like Tommy's not one but two interceptions in the end zone against FSU in the Bowl game didn't lose that game, it was on Diaco for not blitzing more. But, Tommy threw two ints in the end zone. Just like last weekend two huge ints, but that didn't cause us to lose the game?? I guess there is a little truth to what yous say, it was only 10 points we lost on Tommy's turnovers ad we lost by 11.

Tommy is a problem flat out, not horrific by any standar. But, the problem truly is Everett got himself kicked out of school. WE would be having a totally different week IMO if Everett was here. The threat of the run and the experience of last year would have really helped.

 

[OlympiaIrishFan]

Sorry for beating a dead horse, had to answer one of Whiskeys statement.

Our defense was pitiful, and between them and Tommy it was very hard to watch. If our Dline doesn't get pressure we are in trouble, and if our DB's don't cover better we are in trouble. 41 points in unacceptable. It was a full team loss, Coaching included.

I firmly think we have to play over our heads defensively and running the ball if we have Tommy as QB. It can be done, we have enough talent on D to get that side done. They just have to do it. And the Oline is good, and the backs are too. So, that can be done.

It just doesn't bode well for us and the BCS. If a non-BCS Bowl is acceptable then fine, but I don't think it is.

Go Irish, and I will try to lay off of Tommy.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Whiskey, look at the time and the place of the interceptions. Flat out bad on both places.

The first one was definitely a bad decision. But the 2nd one came while we were down 11 points with under 2m remaining (and it was a fluke deflection). No game manager, Rees included, is going to perform well under those circumstances, and the defense put him in that position.

Right before half and resulted in a TD correct?

Yes, a TD that the defense allowed after Michigan promptly marched down the length of the field.

Now, if you look at the play again he had 2 other open receivers, but chose not to throw to them. This is the problem with Tommy. Constantly makes bad decisions against good team.

So Tommy gets no credit for his 29 completions, 314 yards, and 2 TDs, but every bad decision is entirely his fault, regardless of the position his defense puts him in?

And if you don't think Tommy isn't one of our problems you have your head in the sand. 9 TDs and 18 turnovers against good teams is a huge issue. And now he is 0-1 with two HUge TURNOVERS IN AN 11 POINT GAME. The defense is equally culpable. I totally believe that. But, a QB with zero mobility and a turnover problem isn't a problem and you can't understand that---then I can't help you. Or even more stats of under 160 yards per game and huge amounts of turnovers on average against good defenses isn't enough for you, whatever I say can't change that.

Just like Tommy's not one but two interceptions in the end zone against FSU in the Bowl game didn't lose that game, it was on Diaco for not blitzing more. But, Tommy threw two ints in the end zone. Just like last weekend two huge ints, but that didn't cause us to lose the game?? I guess there is a little truth to what yous say, it was only 10 points we lost on Tommy's turnovers ad we lost by 11.

Tommy is a problem flat out, not horrific by any standar. But, the problem truly is Everett got himself kicked out of school. WE would be having a totally different week IMO if Everett was here. The threat of the run and the experience of last year would have really helped.

Look at the game splits (which is objective statistical data). The offense, of which Rees is a huge part, is +23.1 for the season; our defense is -16.3. Tommy aint perfect, and he definitely made some mistakes against Michigan, but if you think he's the reason we lost, then you're beyond reason. The objective data doesn't support it.

Could Golson have scored more 41 points on UM? I doubt it. QB play wasn't the issue. It was our defense's inability to stop Gardner. Full stop.

Sorry for beating a dead horse, had to answer one of Whiskeys statement.

Our defense was pitiful, and between them and Tommy it was very hard to watch. If our Dline doesn't get pressure we are in trouble, and if our DB's don't cover better we are in trouble. 41 points in unacceptable. It was a full team loss, Coaching included.

I firmly think we have to play over our heads defensively and running the ball if we have Tommy as QB. It can be done, we have enough talent on D to get that side done. They just have to do it. And the Oline is good, and the backs are too. So, that can be done.

It just doesn't bode well for us and the BCS. If a non-BCS Bowl is acceptable then fine, but I don't think it is.

Go Irish, and I will try to lay off of Tommy.

This is much more reasonable. We have a strong OL and talented skill players. There's no reason why this offense can't score enough points to win against every opponent on our schedule with Rees under center.

The real question is whether our defense can adapt to this new style of play-- aggressive blitzing and man coverage-- in time to beat OU, ASU, and USC. If so, the BCS is still in reach. And, if and when things finally click, our defense is gonna be really fun to watch.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Everyone, chill.

Garner is the best QB we'll face this season (especially most dynamic).

Just wait til Saturday, watching Purdue's oline get pushed by ISU was hilarious.
I'd be shocked if we don't get 5 sacks.

As for the rest of the season, no QB will hurt us like Garner.
And no environment will be as hostile.

ND will get better, they'll be fine.
Let the coaches work on the kinks.

 

[CarrollVermin]

It is crazy that not a single person on here will give Garner credit for a) being a good quarterback and/or b) having the game of his life against us. We brought the house, he made plays...why is that so difficult to accept or to understand?

Move on. If you see the same issues in the upcoming weeks, then worry. This talk about balance is the same. I don't care if we throw the ball 1 billion times if it leads to a win.

I don't disagree with anything that BK said today. And of course, he has the advantage of game tape to form his opinions, and 20 plus years of coaching experience on which to hang his hat on. You either trust him to fix it or you don't. It really is that simple.