Bleacher Report - Articles by Anthony Pilcher

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Stanford

Anthony Pilcher — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:46:15 -0500

Notre Dame dropped their fourth-straight game Saturday and completed a second-half season slide for the second consecutive season. The Irish finish the regular season at 6-6, the six wins about at the expectation level of the most pessimistic fans.

For the 33 Irish seniors, it was a bitter way to end a season ripe with high expectations. For head coach Charlie Weis it was a final loss to end a five-year coaching tenure. For junior quarterback Jimmy Clausen and wide receiver Golden Tate, it may have been their final game in a Notre Dame uniform.

Offense

This game featured some familiar problems for the Irish offense to go along with improved play in other areas.

The Irish gained 447 yards for an average of 8.1 yards per snap and scored 38 points, second only to the 40 points scored against Washington State. Most of the yardage came via big plays and the offense had only three negative plays, their lowest total of the year.

The pass was heavily favored as only 20 runs were called for running backs and Tate out of a season-low 55 plays. Correspondingly, 76.1 percent of the yards came through the air, very near the season-high against Navy (88.3 percent), while 23.9 percent of the offensive production came on the ground.

The first downs followed a similar trend. Notre Dame moved the chains 21 times in the game (very close to the season-low 20 against Pittsburgh), but only notched six on the ground. The six rushing first downs tied Washington, Navy and Pittsburgh for the least all year.

Weis solved the persistent red zone touchdown efficiency problems by scoring from afar. The offense had two red zone possessions and scored touchdowns both times-once on a five-yard pass from Clausen to Tate and the other on an 18-yard strike from Clausen to wide receiver Michael Floyd. The remaining touchdowns came via big passing plays-78 and 28-yard catches by Tate, and a 46-yard reception by Floyd.

In fact, the big plays were a huge part of the offense. Better than 60 percent of the total production came from eight plays (three runs, five passes) that gained 271 yards (33.9 yards per play). Without these eight plays the Irish averaged only 3.7 yards per snap, very near the low mark of the season set against Washington.

Third down was a mixed bag. The offense started strong in the first quarter (four of five) but failed to convert a single third down opportunity through the final three quarters of play.

Rushing

Weis has all but abandoned the run over the last four games as the offense has averaged a paltry 89 yards per game on the ground. Against Navy, Pittsburgh and Connecticut, this was somewhat understandable as the Irish averaged only 3.1 yards per rush.

But against Stanford, Notre Dame gained 107 yards on 25 carries at a rate of 4.3 yards per attempt-a value that climbs to 5.3 when sacks are excluded. This is especially puzzling given that the Irish led for much of the game.

Running back Robert Hughes was particularly effective-albeit seldom used-with 77 yards on only 13 carries (5.7 yards per attempt). On the fifth drive of the game Hughes ran the ball three consecutive times for 24 yards and two first downs. The next play Weis emptied the backfield and passed from the shotgun.

This makes little sense and is indicative of the head-scratching play-calling evident throughout the year. The run was working, and working well. Hughes is a rhythm back that gets better with more carries. Mixing in the pass to keep the opposing defense off-balance is a valid strategy, but using an empty-gun formation telegraphs the pass and completely removes the threat of the run.

Similar to the previous 11 games, the Irish were good running the ball in short yardage situations. There were nine short yardage situations in this game. Six runs were called and four resulted in first downs (66.7 percent). Unfortunately, one of the failed attempts was when the Irish needed to extend a winning scoring drive late in the game.

Three explosive runs gained 54 yards (18 yards per rush). Without these three gains and excluding sacks the Irish averaged 3.5 yards per carry.

Passing

If it was the last game in the Blue and Gold for Clausen and Tate, they certainly went out in style as the Irish passing game was both effective and efficient.

Clausen completed 76.7 percent of his passes (23 of 30) for 340 yards, five touchdowns, and no interceptions as he averaged 11.3 yards per attempt and 14.8 yards per completion.

Five explosive passes went for 217 yards (43.4 yards per completion) and three touchdowns. The per-completion average for these plays was second only to Nevada(48.8 yards per completion). Excluding these five passes Clausen averaged 4.9 yards per attempt and 6.8 yards per completion-the lowest value of the season.

For the year the Irish signal caller has completed 68 percent (289 of 425) of his throws for 3722 yards, 28 touchdowns, and only four interceptions, averaging 8.8 yards per attempt and 12.9 yards per completion. This performance has been good for a 161.4 passer rating.

What makes these numbers even more impressive is how they have come.

Clausen is responsible for as much of the offensive execution as any quarterback in the country. Additionally, he has no running game to fall back on, has been consistently pressured, and has been restrained by play-calling that makes execution in the passing game extremely difficult.

Tate was his usual, electrifying self. The junior wide receiver generated the bulk of the production through the air catching 10 balls for 201 yards (20.1 yards per reception) and three touchdowns. Floyd added six catches for 85 yards (14.2 yards per reception) and two touchdowns of his own.

Similar to the Navy and Pittsburghgames, the front five couldn't protect Clausen when it mattered most. The offensive line surrendered two sacks, both on the final drive of the game and one when the Irish had no timeouts left to stop the clock. The Irish have allowed one sack per 17.9 pass attempts after surrendering one per 20.3 pass attempts last year.

Defense

The Irish defense had one of their worst outings of the year in almost every facet of the game but played particularly poor on first down.

The Cardinal offense gained 496 yards on 69 plays (7.2 yards per snap) using a run-heavy approach. Stanford head coach Jim Harbaugh ran the ball 48 times and attempted only 21 passes to gain 15 rushing and 10 passing first downs.

Nine plays were explosive gains that generated 198 yards (22 yards per play), roughly 40 percent of the total offense. Without these plays Stanford averaged five yards per snap, slightly below the season-high 5.2-yard average posted by Michigan State earlier in the year.

Six of these nine plays came on first down. Notre Dame surrendered eight yards per first down play, allowing 19 of 33 (57.6 percent) plays to gain five or more yards while holding the Cardinal to two or fewer yards on only 11 tries (33.3 percent).

Perhaps more astounding were the number of first down plays that resulted in first downs. Out of 25 total first downs, 11 (44 percent) came on a first down play as the Cardinal offense moved the chains on a third of their play series without needing a second or third down.

When the Irish managed to force second and third down the outcome wasn't much better. Similar to the game against Boston College, the defense surrendered several big gains in long distance situations and allowed 66.7 percent of third downs to be converted. Most of these gains came through the air as co-defensive coordinator Jon Tenuta loaded the box in a futile attempt to stop the Cardinal running game.

Things were just as ugly in the red zone where the opposing offense scored on all six possessions inside the Irish 20-yard line. Five of these scores were touchdowns.

Rushing

If Cardinal running back Toby Gerhart wasn't a Heisman Trophy contender prior to Saturday, he certainly should be now.

Behind a rather small offensive line, Gerhart grew stronger as the game progressed and Stanford's rushing attack posted arguably the most efficient and effective outing of the year against the Irish defense.

The opposing rush offense was dominant and mostly responsible for a 14 play and more than 10-minute time of possession advantage. The former was second only to game against Washington while the latter was the largest possession disparity of the season for the Irish.

Gerhart's bruising, physical running style resulted in three touchdowns and 205 yards rushing on 29 carries, good for a gaudy 7.1 yards per rush.

As a team the Cardinal scored four touchdowns and gained 280 yards rushing on 48 attempts (5.8 yards per rush). Both values are second only to Navy. Without the sack of quarterback Tavita Pritchard the average increases to 6.1 yards per carry.

Five big runs gained 99 yards (19.8 yards per attempt) and accounted for 35.4 percent of the rushing production. Without these plays Stanford still managed 181 yards on 43 attempts, good for 4.2 yards per rushing attempt, the highest allowed this season by Notre Dame.

First down rush defense was just as bad, if not worse. Nearly 35 percent (8 of 23) of first down running plays moved the chains as the Cardinal offense averaged eight yards per first down rush attempt including explosive gains of 18, 18, 28 and 19 yards.

About the only bright spot for the Irish was allowing first down conversions on only five of 10 short yardage rushing attempts.

Passing

It wasn't just the run defense that struggled. Quarterback Andrew Luck completed 70 percent (14 of 20) of his pass attempts for 198 yards and no interceptions to lead a passing offense that was equally as efficient as the Cardinal running game.

As a team Stanford gained 216 yards through the air at a rate of 10.3 yards per attempt and 14.4 yards per completion. The 71.4 percent completion percentage was the highest allowed all year by Notre Dame.

Four passes went for more than 20 yards. These four plays gained 99 yards (24.8 yards per play) and were responsible for almost 46 percent of the production through the air. Excluding these four pass plays Stanford averaged 10.6 yards per completion and 6.9 yards per attempt-the highest value posted against the Irish this season.

Notre Dame allowed 7.8 yards per first down pass as Luck completed six of 10 attempts for 78 yards and three of the 10 Cardinal passing first downs.

Special Teams

Kicker David Ruffer continued to fill in nicely for the injured freshman Nick Tausch, connecting on all five point after attempts and both field goal tries.

However, the special teams problems weren't in the scoring department. Despite a healthy 43-yard punting average by Ben Turk that included a 53-yard boot, the Irish gave away 12 yards in field position.

The biggest culprit was kickoffs as Notre Dame surrendered 10 yards in net kickoff average.

Summary

It is unfortunate, but fitting, that the Weis era would end with a loss similar to so many others. A prolific passing attack was undermined by poor defense and puzzling play-calling that included no commitment to running the football. The latter remains arguably the most baffling aspect of Weis' college coaching career.

If the game against Connecticut didn't prove the value of a running game, this one certainly did. The Cardinal red zone touchdown efficiency, 10-minute time of possession and 14-play advantage, 71.4 percent pass completion rate and efficient pass attempt average, minimal (4) negative plays, and 66.7 percent third down conversion rate are all directly tied to the ability to run the ball. Perhaps more impressive is that Stanford accomplished this with a much smaller line than the front five for Notre Dame.

The result was similar to almost every other contest this season, a close outcome with a chance for an Irish win. Lately that chance has favored the other team as Clausen and company have been unable to produce when it mattered most.

Scoring 38 points should be enough to win a game, but the reality is that the Irish didn't accomplish what they needed to winon either side of the ball. The offense managed to score from outside the red zone but didn't control the ball and spent too much of the day in spread formations attempting to go downfield.

The defense failed to stop the run, despite crowding the box and affording Luck success through the air. Moreover, the Irish front seven failed to penetrate and allowed Gerhart to run downhill for most of the game.

This game marks the end of the Weis regime but his failure was evident long ago. Several off-season changes brought hope of a nine or 10-win season, but these changes were guesses aimed at correcting problems of the past, not solutions of anticipated challenges. The constant change over the past three seasons has prevented player development and consistent performance on the field.

Despite his failure, Weis has left the program in a better state than when he started and a proven, qualified coach should be able to turn the program around in relatively short order. Hopefully athletic director Jack Swarbrick finds him quickly.

Be sure to check back next week for year-end statistical reviews similar to those performed over the bye week this season (offense and defense) and at the end of last year (offense and defense).

Similar Posts

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Connecticut

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Nevada

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Washington

This article is © 2007-2009 by De Veritate, LLC and was originally published at Clashmore Mike. This article may not be copied, distributed, or transmitted without attribution. Additionally, you may not use this article for commercial purposes or to generate derivative works without explicit written permission. Please contact us if you wish to license this content for your own use.

Notre Dame's Coaching Search: Avoiding the Availability Bias

Anthony Pilcher — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:30:03 -0500

Notre Dame head coach Charlie Weis' failure was evident long ago. His lack of experience with the college game and as a head coach made him unable to anticipate future problems and incapable of implementing changes to correct them.

His list of shortcomings is long and condemning, but painfully reiterating what the on-field product clearly shows adds no value other than venting frustration at the most readily identifiable target.

He deserves better.

In 2005, Weis took a job no one wanted. Notre Dame had a reputation as a program that couldn't recruit. The Irish offense was a trainwreck. And the secondary was among the worst in the country.

During his tenure, Weis developed two Heisman Trophy candidate quarterbacks in Brady Quinn and Jimmy Clausen, and morphed the Irish offense into a modern, pro-style unit. While the production of his offense has been overstated both last year and this season, these accomplishments are far from trivial.

Perhaps more important was his work on the recruiting trail. Weis and his assistants were tireless in their efforts, scouring the country from coast to coast to find talented players like Clausen, Ethan Johnson, Michael Floyd, Golden Tate, Kyle Rudolph and Manti Te'o. The last of these Weis recruited on crutches with two knees that desperately needed surgery.

His teams have performed well in academics, there have been very few disciplinary issues off the field, and he was an excellent steward of the players. Stories like "Pass Right" will forever be inscribed in Irish football lore.

There is no questioning his effort, devotion or love for his alma mater, and that is ultimately what separates him from his previous two predecessors. Weis did everything he could, and for that his legacy deserves to be remembered better than that of Bob Davie or Tyrone Willingham.

But with a 6-6 record in year five of his tenure, his best simply isn’t good enough.

It's Time To Move On, But To Whom?

So who should athletic director Jack Swarbrick hire as the next coach at Notre Dame? First, let's examine the situation surrounding Weis' hiring.

It is human nature to focus on recent and negative data. Negatives are viewed as the cause of failure and the latest evidence and experiences often seem to be the most pertinent, especially when emotion is involved. This is known as the availability bias and the natural consequence is seeking a corrective action that compensates for these deficiencies.

In many ways, Weis’ hiring reflected this philosophy.

Much of Notre Dame Nation, myself included, didn't see this at the time. While I wasn't sold on Weis, I was impressed by his success in the NFL and partially won over by the “hard-working, intelligent, nasty” team promised at his introductory press conference. I was more impressed when he turned the once-dormant Irish offense into a scoring machine. And I was even more impressed when I read his book "No Excuses," and heard the things he said to the team upon his arrival at Notre Dame. Eventually, I moved from skeptic to believer.

I did this mostly because many of Weis' strengths were the weaknesses of Notre Dame’s previous two coaches.

Weis is brash, confident (almost to a fault), and direct. Willingham was timid, guarded, and lacked transparency (also almost to a fault). Davie seemed to always have a canned response. Davie and Willingham fielded offenses that lacked explosion and production. Weis' offenses set record after record. Neither Davie nor Willingham "got" Notre Dame and what it stood for. Weis not only “gets it,” he is an alumnus who embraces it. Willingham was lazy, Weis never stops working. Willingham couldn't recruit, Weis has hauled in several highly-ranked recruiting classes.

But does that mean that Willingham and Davie didn't do good things during their tenure in South Bend? Furthermore, does it mean that Weis is infallible? It was nearly impossible to foresee his failure at the time of his hiring, but the past three seasons have certainly proven it.

The lesson of Weis’ failure (and Davie’s and Willingham’s) is that Notre Dame needs a coach who does many things well, not one that excels in a few areas that have been lacking over the recent coaching regimes.

So this begs the question: who should be hired as the next head football coach at Notre Dame? There is no simple answer. Notre Dame is a unique place that has unique coaching challenges. What works for other programs doesn’t necessarily apply.

The Criteria For Success

The list below doesn’t answer this question with a specific name, but rather with a specific set of criteria. To ensure success, the following criteria (in no particular order) must be satisfied:

He must have head coaching experience. Notre Dame is not a place where you learn on the job. The margin for error is small, and even small mistakes are unforgiving. Prior head coaching experience is necessary to develop requisite leadership, organizational and time management skills.
He must have experience in a college football program with consistent success. Too often coaching hires are based on the performance of one or a few seasons. A coach must be proven through consistent success. Hot coaching names come and go (see Turner Gill), but consistent success in the past is the best indicator of succeeding in the future. It is preferable that this come as a head coach, but many assistant coaches have learned what it takes to succeed from their superiors.
He must have offensive or defensive coordinator experience. Part of being a head coach is allocating time and effort of the assistant coaches and players. A head coach must have a first-hand understanding of the effort level and time needed to prepare and implement a game plan in order to properly and effectively allocate resources.
He must be able to relate to younger players and adapt to their changing needs. One of the primary jobs of a head coach is having his team emotionally prepared for each game. To effectively motivate and lead, a head coach must connect with young adults and understand the challenges college students face. Additionally, a freshman is not the same as a senior. The head coach must adapt his approach as each player matures.
He must be able to recruit well. There is a litany of things that go into this-proven success, being able to relate to high school players, forming relationships with high school coaches, working tirelessly, and hiring a staff who can also recruit. At Notre Dame this also means casting a nationwide net. Academic standards make the number of potential recruits much smaller than at other schools. The only way to combat this problem is to delve into every available talent pool.
He must be able to recognize and hire assistant coaches who can develop and utilize the talent he recruits. Talent is synonymous with athleticism and proportional to potential. Players who excel at the high school level frequently do so by being more athletic than their peers. This is not sufficient at the college level when teaching fundamentals that maximize potential becomes far more important to success. Assistant coaches must be able to teach and instill fundamentals, as well as put players in positions that maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.
He must be disciplined, well-organized, and consistent, and he must maintain a team with those same qualities. With few exceptions, players take on the attitude and persona of their coach. Discipline minimizes turnovers and penalties. Organization minimizes poor game and clock management. Consistency ensures continued success and sustains player development. The lack of consistency over the past few years has severely hampered the progress of many Irish players.
He must have goals that are aligned with Notre Dame’s athletic department and administration. This is more important at Notre Dame than perhaps any other program. The head coach at Notre Dame must “get it,” and embrace what the Notre Dame family represents. He must work well with the administration and maintain a vision for the program that is consistent with the aspirations of the University.
He needs to have a well-defined and complementary offensive and defensive philosophy. This doesn’t mean he has to be a play-caller on either side of the ball, but it does mean he needs to hire offensive and defensive coordinators/coaches who are capable of implementing schemes congruent with the philosophies of the head coach. Moreover, these schemes need to complement each other such that the strengths of the scheme on one side of the ball accentuate those on the other.

In Closing...

The next few weeks will be filled with speculation as hot names like Bob Stoops, Urban Meyer and Brian Kelly dot the headlines covering the Irish coaching search.

Some candidates may be disinclined to take the job. Many of the coaches that exhibit the criteria listed above are in established programs where success is more easily achieved. Taking a more difficult job like Notre Dame isn't necessarily appealing, even with the unparalleled praise that comes with leading the Irish back to the top. But these candidates are not the only ones that can succeed.

There are other coaches that possess most of the items above. To maximize the chance of success Swarbrick must find a candidate with as many as possible, and a well-defined plan to minimize risk in the others. Additionally, more emphasis must be applied to some of the criteria-e.g. head coaching experience and recruiting prowess-than to others.

Weis will leave the program in a better state than his predecessor. While they may not rival USC or Florida, the Irish boast plenty of talent on both sides of the ball. With better fundamentals and improved coaching, Notre Dame can certainly succeed at an elite level.

It is Swarbrick's task to find this coach and bring him to South Bend. His legacy will be defined by it.

Similar Posts

Facing an Angry Mob: The Future of Charlie Weis at Notre Dame

Notre Dame Under Charlie Weis—and Beyond

Why 2008+1=2005

This article is © 2007-2009 by De Veritate, LLC and was originally published at Clashmore Mike. This article may not be copied, distributed, or transmitted without attribution. Additionally, you may not use this article for commercial purposes or to generate derivative works without explicit written permission. Please contact us if you wish to license this content for your own use.

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Connecticut

Anthony Pilcher — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:11:37 -0500

Editor's note: I was at the Ole Miss-LSU game this weekend and was unable to watch Notre Dame play Connecticut. This analysis is directly from the box score and will undoubtedly lack certain insight that comes from viewing the game.

The Irish dropped their third straight Saturday, this time at home, on Senior Day, to the visiting Huskies. For the coaches, players and fans, it feels like 2008 all over again. The Irish had a promising start in both years, but faltered down the stretch.

This game wasn't much different from many others this year. A strong passing attack led by quarterback Jimmy Clausen and wide receivers Golden Tate and Michael Floyd was not enough to overcome poor red zone offense, no commitment to the running the football, and a defense that cannot stop opposing rushing attacks.

Offense

The Irish gained 452 yards on 80 plays for an average of 5.7 yards per snap. Ball control was phenomenal as Clausen and company generated a time of possession advantage of over six minutes and the 80 plays run was second only to the Washington State game earlier this year.

Officially, the run/pass split was 56.3 percent in favor of the pass. However, when Clausen's runs are removed, that percentage edges up to nearly 60. The first downs follow a similar trend as only seven of Notre Dame's 22 first downs came on the ground.

Only 27.7 percent of the offense came from big gains as five plays amassed 125 yards (25 yards per play). Without these five gains the offense averaged 4.4 yards per snap, the middle of their output for the year.

The Irish were a tale of two halves on third down. Notre Dame converted five of eight third down conversions (62.5 percent) in the first half but only two of eight in the second (25 percent). For the game the offense notched a 43.8 percent efficiency on third down.

In the red zone, the Irish continue to struggle. Points were scored on all six red zone appearances, but only half resulted in touchdowns, one of which came in overtime.

Rushing

The Irish ran the ball 35 times for 123 yards, good for 3.5 yards per carry. Subtracting Clausen's two sacks brings this average up to 4.2 yards per carry. Excluding Clausen's carries altogether, the Irish averaged about the same amount.

There were two explosive runs that went for 42 yards (21 yards per attempt). Without these two runs and excluding sacks the Irish averaged 3.1 yards per carry.

The front five were particularly dominant in their short yardage run blocking. The offense faced short yardage five times in this game. A run was called all five times and each went for a first down.

Armando Allen led the way with 106 yards on 24 carries (4.4 yards per carry).

Passing

Clausen was his usual, extremely efficient self. The junior signal caller completed 30 of 45 pass attempts (66.7 percent) for 329 yards and two touchdowns. This equates to 7.3 yards per attempt and 11 yards per completion.

Three passes went for big gains and accounted for 83 yards (27.7 per pass) and 25.2 percent of the passing yardage. Without these big plays Clausen averaged 5.9 yards per attempt and 9.1 yards per completion, the latter being one of the highest values this season.

For the ninth-straight game the Irish surrendered at least one sack. The front five allowed two in this game (one per 22.5 attempts), but have allowed 23 over the last nine, good for one sack per 15.4 pass attempts. This value is almost 25 percent lower than that of last season.

As mentioned above, Tate and Floyd led the way. The former caught nine balls for 123 yards (13.7 yards per reception) and a touchdown, while the latter hauled in eight passes for 104 yards (13 yards per catch) and a touchdown.

Defense

It was a mixed bag for the Irish defense. Most of the game the front seven played well stopping the run, particularly on first down. The defense also played well in the red zone and on third down, surrendering only 13 points in regulation. But big plays and regressed production against the run were very costly down the stretch.

The Huskies attempted 48 rushes to only 25 passes, running the ball on 65.7 percent run of their snaps. Accordingly, the ground game accounted for over 62 percent of the total yardage and 13 of 21 first downs.

Connecticut ran 73 plays for 372 yards, averaging 5.1 yards per snap-one of the lower values of the year for the Irish defense. It was largely the big play that was Notre Dame's undoing.

Seven plays gained 167 yards (23.9 yards per play) and accounted for nearly 45 percent of the total offense. Without these plays the per-snap average dips from 5.1 to 3.1 yards per snap, one of the lowest outings of the year.

Notre Dame's defense was strong on third down throughout the game as Connecticut managed only three of eight third down conversions in the first half and only one of five in the second. The Huskies converted only 30.8 percent of their third down tries for the day.

The defense also played well in the red zone, allowing scores on only three of five appearances and only allowing a red zone touchdown in the overtime periods.

First down defense was also good for the majority of the day. The Irish defense held 16 of 33 first down plays (48.5 percent) to two or fewer yards and allowed only 2.7 yards per first down play through two quarters of football.

When fatigue became a problem in the second half, however, this average jumped to 6.8 yards per snap. Even worse, on the final 14 first down snaps Notre Dame allowed a gaudy 8.5 yards per play. Only three of these plays were pass attempts.

Rushing

Stopping the run was an important part of winning this game. The Irish were able to hold the Huskies in check for most of the day, but Connecticut head coach Randy Edsall's firm commitment to the running game ultimately paid dividends against a tired Irish defense.

Connecticut ran the ball 48 times for 231 yards (4.8 yards per carry). Both values were second only to Navy for the Irish defense.

Without sacks the per-carry average climbs to 5.1 yards, but big rushing gains were really the story of the game. Connecticut had five explosive running plays gain 109 yards (21.8 yards per rush attempt) and account for 47.2 percent of the total rushing output. Without these five plays the Husky offense averaged only 2.8 yards per rush.

The first down run defense followed a similar trend to the total numbers outlined above. In the first half Notre Dame held Connecticut to 3.7 yards per first down rush and gains of two or fewer yards on nine of 15 (60 percent) first downs.

The second half was another matter. Only seven of 18 plays went for two or fewer yards (38.9 percent) while the Huskies averaged 6.8 yards per rush attempt. The final 11 first down runs for Connecticut averaged 7.5 yards per snap.

As expected, Jordan Todman and Andre Dixon led the way. Todman gained 130 yards and a touchdown on 26 attempts (five yards per carry), while Dixon gained 114 yards on 20 carries (5.7 yards per attempt). Without the two runs by quarterback Zach Frazer the two backs gained 244 yards on 46 attempts for 5.3 yards per carry.

Passing

While the Irish run defense struggled, the pass defense was solid.

Frazer completed only 12 of 25 pass attempts (48 percent) for 141 yards, one touchdown, and one interception. The completion percentage was the lowest by an opposing quarterback all season against Notre Dame.

Frazer averaged 5.6 yards per pass attempt and 11.8 yards per completion, both ranking near the bottom of what the Irish have allowed in any game this year.

Two passes went for big gains, garnering 58 yards (29 yards per completion) and accounting for better than 41 percent of the Husky passing offense. Without these gains Frazer averaged only 3.6 yards per attempt and 8.3 yards per completion.

The Huskies averaged -0.3 yards per first down pass in the first half as Frazer completed only one attempt for minus one yards. In the second half things improved for Connecticut as Frazer averaged 6.8 yards per pass attempt. But the average was significantly bolstered by a gain of 37 yards to Marcus Easley. Without this completion the Irish defense held their opponent to -1.4 yards per first down pass.

Special Teams

Notre Dame's kickoff coverage allowed its second touchdown return of the season, a critical play that tied the game after an 11 play, 77-yard Irish drive early in the third quarter.

Kicker David Ruffer connected on all three field goal attempts for the Irish and averaged over 66 yards per kickoff, one of the best performances of the season.

The Irish return game was good on punts, and very average on kickoffs. Barry Gallup and Theo Riddick averaged a paltry 18.8 yards per kickoff return while Tate and fellow wide receiver John Goodman averaged 10 yards per punt return.

Freshman punter Ben Turk put his recent woes to bed averaging 47 yards per punt.

Summary

The defense played well enough to win this game. Allowing only 13 points through four quarters of football should get a win. But a special teams breakdown and poor red zone offense allowed Connecticut to keep the game close.

The two turnovers and host of penalties didn't help, but this loss was the result of problems that were present last year and through the first nine games of this season. It is difficult to understand how these deficiencies are repetitive, obvious and fundamental.

For the better part of the last 24 games there has been little improvement in any of these areas. Given their importance to the outcome of a game, this seems to be an indictment of poor coaching. The effort of head coach Charlie Weis and his staff is unquestionable, but the recipe chosen for success is either fundamentally flawed or poorly implemented.

The Irish have one game left to end the season on a high note. But, against another opponent that matches up well, the outcome could very likely be more of the same.

Similar Posts

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Washington

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Nevada

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Pittsburgh

This article is © 2007-2009 by De Veritate, LLC and was originally published at Clashmore Mike. This article may not be copied, distributed, or transmitted without attribution. Additionally, you may not use this article for commercial purposes or to generate derivative works without explicit written permission. Please contact us if you wish to license this content for your own use.

Notre Dame vs. Connecticut: Keys to an Irish Win

Anthony Pilcher — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:52:49 -0500

The Fighting Irish return to South Bend Saturday on the heels of their second consecutive loss and looking to avoid a second-half season meltdown. Despite the promise this squad showed early in 2009, the last handful of games have looked eerily similar to the last six games of 2008 when the Irish sputtered to a dismal finish.

Notre Dame's opponent, the Connecticut Huskies, should not be underestimated and strongly resembles two previous Irish foes (Pittsburgh and USC) on the 2009 slate. The Huskies are better than their record indicates and match up very well against Notre Dame.

Connecticut Version 2009

Head coach Randy Edsall has his team playing tough, determined football. The Huskies are 4-5 entering Saturday's game but have faced the sixth-best AV Ranking strength of schedule and have lost their five games by a combined 15 points to Cincinnati, Rutgers, West Virginia, Pittsburgh and North Carolina.

In other words, Edsall's troops have played very competitive football in losing efforts to several good teams.

The Huskies are ranked 49th in the AV Ranking with the 31st rated TPR, a 22nd ranked offense, but only a 62nd ranked defense.

Connecticut doesn't protect the ball particularly well (minus one in turnover margin, 66th best in the country) or control the clock, averaging only 29:19 in time of possession (77). They are, however, very disciplined with only 33.4 yards in penalties per game-good for second best in the country.

Offense

Offensive coordinator Joe Moorhead is a run-first play-caller and the Husky offense has an effective ground game. This directly contributes to a potent downfield passing game and excellent red zone touchdown efficiency (70.6 percent, 19).

Third down and overall red zone efficiency are another matter. Connecticut ranks 66th converting third downs and a more respectable 35th in red zone efficiency. The latter value is significantly bolstered by scoring touchdowns inside the 20-yard line as the kicking game hasn't performed very well (9 of 16 on the year).

As noted above, Moorhead favors the run in his play-calling but the production is fairly balanced as the Husky offense averages 167.9 yards per game rushing (45) and 241 yards per game through the air (39).

The run-heavy approach and lack of passing yards makes the total offensive numbers appear pedestrian, but Connecticut routinely outperforms their defensive opposition in scoring, yards per play, and yards per game.

Moorhead splits the carries evenly between Jordan Todman (159 attempts, 826 yards, 5.2 yards per rush, 12 touchdowns) and Andre Dixon (158 carries, 730 yards, 4.6 yards per attempt, seven touchdowns). Both backs are very capable and ensure a fresh set of legs for the duration of the game.

Connecticut has performed well against fairly stout rushing defenses. Namely, the Husky ground game has produced 21 touchdowns (22) and over 40 yards per game more than opposing defenses typically allow.

Cody Endres and former Notre Dame quarterback Zach Frazer are the signal callers for Moorhead. Both have played extensively, but Endres is the preferred option and has completed 64 percent of his passes for 1,354 yards, six touchdowns, and four interceptions.

Endres operates a passing offense that is fairly average and with an offensive line that doesn't protect the quarterback exceptionally well (19 sacks surrendered, 70). Despite this, Endres and Frazer have been effective enough to rank 39th in passing yards per game. The strength of the passing game is play-action and the ability to stretch the field. The running threat maintains an efficient passing unit that averages 7.8 yards per attempt (26) and 13.6 yards per completion (25).

Seven Husky receivers have double-digit receptions but Marcus Easley has nearly twice as many yards as any other target,the result of a gaudy 21.5-yard per reception average. Easley also leads the team with five receiving touchdowns.

See the tables below for a more in-depth look at the Husky offense.

Due to problems embedding the tables the data can be seen here.

Defense

The Husky defense is efficient, but average against the run and a mixed bag against the pass going against offensive teams that do not excel in either area.

Defensive coordinator Todd Orlando's scheme is fairly basic, rarely using the blitz to generate pressure, instead opting to force the opposition to consistently execute. He likes to get upfield with his front four and let his linebackers run to the ball.

Connecticut does a good job on third down (37.4 percent conversion rate, 37) and are exceptional in the red zone. On the year Orlando's squad has held opponents to touchdowns on half of their red zone possessions, a performance good for 22nd best in the country.

The defense is decent against the run, but certainly not great, and rank between 37th and 53rd in the four major categories.

Most of the success stopping the run comes from the linebacker corps. Linebacker Lawrence Wilson leads the team in tackles with 97 (10.8 per game) and also has nine tackles for a loss. Fellow backer Greg Lloyd has notched 80 tackles this year.

Save two specific areas, the pass defense has also struggled. The Huskies allow eight yards per pass attempt (102), 12.2 yards per completion (72), and have allowed opposing quarterbacks to complete almost 66 percent of their passes (111). The result is a defensive pass efficiency rating of 139.9 that ranks 96th in the country.

There are, however, two bright spots for the Connecticut pass defense: rushing the passer and forcing interceptions.

The Huskies have 23 sacks on the year, 17 of which have come from defensive linemen. This translates into one sack per 11.3 pass attempts and ranks 17th in the country. Defensive end Lindsay Witten leads the team in both sacks (10.5) and tackles for a loss (11), and poses a problem for Irish offensive tackles Sam Young and Paul Duncan.

In the secondary, cornerback Robert McClain and safety Robert Vaughn each have four interceptions and lead a unit that is pretty good with the ball in the air (11 interceptions, 36).

See the tables below for a more in-depth look at the Husky defense.

Due to problems embedding the tables the data can be seen here.

Summary

Connecticut likes to run the ball on offense and are pretty effective doing it. This opens up the downfield pass, particularly on play-action, and contributes to very good red zone touchdown efficiency

Defensively, the Huskies are good on third down and also perform well preventing touchdowns in the red zone. Orlando likes to get pressure with the front four which allows for multiple defenders to drop into coverage. The result has been good production getting sacks and forcing interceptions.

In many ways the Huskies are built similarly to the Panthers and Trojans, two teams that dominated the Irish through most of the game. So what must the Irish do to defeat a team that matches up very well?

Offense

Run the freakin' ball. Connecticut is largely ineffective defending the pass. It will be tempting for head coach Charlie Weis to ride quarterback Jimmy Clausen and wide receivers Michael Floyd and Golden Tate to victory. However, the Huskies can pressure the quarterback with four and the Irish offense has struggled against teams with strong defensive line play. Moreover, the Husky defense is one the country's best in the red zone, and the Irish have been woeful inside the 20-yard line the past two games. Using the ground game is the answer to both problems. Over the past two weeks Irish running backs have only carried the ball 28 times despite averaging 4.6 yards per carry. Additionally, running backs Armando Allen (five yards per carry), Robert Hughes (4.7 yards per rush attempt) and Theo Riddick (6.9-yard per carry average) have all been effective for the duration of the season.
Once again, it comes down to the front five. What was critical against USC and Pittsburgh, is also critical in this contest. The offensive line must play well in pass protection to win this game. Running the ball is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for winning. At some point Weis will put the ball in Clausen's hands and attempt to exploit a very inefficient secondary. Like the Panthers and Trojans, Connecticut features the ability to get pressure with four. The Irish offensive line cannot allow Clausen to be repeatedly harassed as he was in those two contests.
Execute the screen. Last week the screen game reappeared but the execution wasn't crisp. It, along with draws and non-obvious passing formations, will be needed this week to slow Witten and company and prevent the Husky front four from pinning their ears back.

Defense

Something has to change. Connecticut's offense thrives when the entire playbook is open. In other words, down and distance is extremely important in this game. If Notre Dame plays well early in the series, it will limit play-calling and maximize the athletic ability of the Irish defense. Poor play on first down will allow Moorhead to mix the run and pass, keeping the Irish off-balance. It is in these situations that the defense has struggled the most, giving up a host of big plays.
Make 'em work for it. The Husky offense has 19 turnovers (eight fumbles, 11 interceptions) and doesn't take care of the ball particularly well. Endres and Frazer have forced the ball at times. The Irish defense must take advantage of this by forcing consistent execution, i.e. minimize the number of big plays. Connecticut doesn't have a lot of home run threats, but Easley certainly fits the bill.
Field goals are fine. It was true last week, but is even more critical in this contest. Connecticut scores touchdowns and prevents touchdowns in the red zone. The Irish offense struggles to notch seven on a short field and the defense hasn't played particularly well inside the 20-yard line. For Notre Dame to have a chance in this game, they must force Connecticut's kickers to generate points, something they have been fairly incapable of doing this year. This means forgoing the blitz, playing softer coverage, and using the sidelines and back of the end zone as extra defenders on a short field.

Summary

The Irish offense must run the ball effectively and frequently to win this game. Connecticut can pressure the passer and is very good with the ball in the air. Relying solely on a spread passing attack is not a viable option and the Irish offense has struggled against the two best defensive lines they have faced this year.

The Huskies aren't as talented as Pittsburgh or USC, but they don't necessarily need to be. The match ups favor Orlando's unit unless the Irish passing game becomes less predictable. Weis must use the run to force extra defenders in the box and then use play-action to exploit the secondary downfield. Moving the pocket and effectively using screens and draws would also go a long way to keep Connecticut's defense off-balance.

Defensively, the Irish must play well on first down and prevent the big play. If Moorhead is able to maintain favorable down and distances he will be able to mix the run and pass and use play-action to go downfield. Notre Dame must force obvious passing downs and put the game on the shoulders of the Husky quarterbacks without the threat of play-action.

Saturday is Senior Day, the last home game for Irish seniors like Sam Young, Eric Olsen and Kyle McCarthy. The Irish should be motivated to play. If that isn't enough, the future of Weis' career in South Bend and preventing another downward spiral after a promising start are also at stake.

But in the end, the match ups in this game do not favor Notre Dame. Weis hasn't shown a commitment to the running game or a willingness to minimize the burden of execution on both Clausen and his offensive line. Additionally, first down defense and preventing the big play have hardly been staples of the Irish defense.

Unless something dramatically changes, the visitors have the edge.

Notre Dame 24, Connecticut 27

Similar Posts

Notre Dame vs. Washington: Keys to an Irish Win

Notre Dame vs. Washington: Keys to an Irish Win

Notre Dame vs. Washington State: Keys to an Irish Win

This article is © 2007-2009 by De Veritate, LLC and was originally published at Clashmore Mike. This article may not be copied, distributed, or transmitted without attribution. Additionally, you may not use this article for commercial purposes or to generate derivative works without explicit written permission. Please contact us if you wish to license this content for your own use.

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Pittsburgh

Anthony Pilcher — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:51:15 -0500

Notre Dame couldn't complete the comeback Saturday, falling 27-22 to Pitttsburgh at Heinz Field. The Irish offense sputtered for three quarters while the defense kept the score close in the early going.

For the second consecutive week, the team looked unprepared and unmotivated until the fourth quarter. This final 15 minute period showed some potential for the Irish, but head coach Charlie Weis hasn't found the motivational recipe this year or last. Other than the Hawaii Bowl, it is difficult to point to a complete game over the past 23 outings.

Offense

Notre Dame ran 67 plays for 349 yards (5.2 yards per play) and 20 first downs. The total yard and first down totals were the worst all season and the per play average wasn't far from the season-low 4.6-yard per snap value set against Boston College.

Like last week's game against Navy, Weis heavily favored the pass. Excluding carries by quarterback Jimmy Clausen, only 18 runs were called compared to 42 passes for a 30/70 run/pass split. Accordingly, 81.1 percent of the total yardage came through the air, second only to the Navy game.

The Irish recorded only five big gains for 125 yards (25-yard per play average). These plays accounted for 35.8 percent of the total offense without which Clausen and company averaged only 3.6 yards per play, only higher than their outing with Washington.

The offense managed to convert nearly 43 percent of third down opportunities, but this was largely helped by an explosive fourth quarter. Through the first three quarters only three of 10 tries were successfully converted.

This poor third down efficiency was directly responsible for the lack of red zone production, something that is becoming a recurring theme for the Irish. In contrast to the Navy and Washington games, Notre Dame managed to score touchdowns every time they crossed the Panther 20-yard line. The problem was that this only happened a season-low two times, both late in the game.

Rushing

Just like the game against Navy, the Irish running game was effective but almost never used.

As a team the Irish gained only 66 yards at a 2.6-yard per carry average, but without Clausen's two sacks this number climbs to four yards per attempt.

Running backs Armando Allen and Theo Riddick and wide receiver Golden Tate combined for only 18 carries. These 18 rush attempts were good for 75 yards (4.2 yards per attempt) as the running game produced a season-low six first downs. Allen was particularly effective with 77 yards on 14 attempts (5.5 yards per carry).

The sporadic use of the running game allowed Panther defensive coordinator Phil Bennett to keep the Panther secondary back and defend the run with only six or seven players in the box, forcing precious few passing lanes and preventing the vertical passing game that has been the strength of the offense all season.

This irregular use of the ground game was never more evident than the first drive of the third quarter which generated the following play sequence:

Run by Allen for two yards
Run by Allen for nine yards, first down
Pass incomplete to wide receiver Duval Kamara
Run by Allen for 11 yards, first down
Pass to Tate for 22 yards, first down
Pass to wide receiver Michael Floyd for a loss of one yard
Pass to Floyd incomplete
Pass to Floyd incomplete

Three of the first four plays were runs by Allen that averaged 7.3 yards per carry and notched two first downs. Rather inexplicably, Weis abandoned the run as the final four plays of the drive where passes that went for 22 yards (5.5 yards per play) and one first down.

Passing

After showing strong improvement in 2008, the offensive line has regressed protecting the quarterback.

Clausen has been repeatedly pressured for most of the season as the Irish front five have surrendered 21 sacks over the last eight games (one sack per 14.8 attempts). But these numbers don't capture the whole impact of the pass protection problems.

Clausen has also been forced to throw on the run or throw the ball away a host of times this year. The former contributes to inaccuracy while the latter hurts the ability to sustain drives. If Clausen consistently had time, his numbers would undoubtedly be better than they are.

The play-calling doesn't offer much relief. The screen game reappeared this week (although it wasn't executed particularly well), but Weis does little to help his offensive line execute. Running the ball is an afterthought, Clausen is almost never tasked with moving the pocket, and the Irish are predictably pass-heavy out of certain personnel groupings and in the shotgun.

Against Pittsburgh Clausen completed 64.3 percent (27 of 42) of his passes for 283 yards, one touchdown and one pick. The interception was arguably the first truly poor decision he has made all year. Clausen averaged 6.7 yards per attempt and 10.5 yards per completion, both near the bottom of the season totals.

Four completions exceeded 20 yards and amassed 27.5 yards per play, good for nearly 39 percent of the passing yardage. Without these plays Clausen averaged only 4.6 yards per attempt and 7.5 yards per completion. The former is a season-low while the latter is second only to Michigan State.

Tate and Floyd both continue to torch opposing secondaries. The former caught nine balls for 113 yards (12.6 yards per reception) and a touchdown while the latter hauled in seven passes for 107 yards (15.3 yards per catch). There is little doubt that the Irish receiving tandem is the best in the country.

Defense

For the defense this game was characterized by bipolar production on first down and an inability to stop the run. The defense also failed to force a turnover for the second consecutive week after recording at least one in their first six games.

The Panthers racked up 429 yards of offense and 17 first downs on 59 plays (7.3 yards per play) with nearly even play-calling (32 rushes to 27 passes) and nearly even production on the ground (45 percent of total offense) and through the air (55 percent of total offense). In other words, Pittsburgh was the very definition of balance.

Six plays went for 232 yards, a season-high average of 38.7 yards per explosive gain. These six plays accounted for better than 54 percent of the total offense. The Panthers also scored three times in four red zone opportunities, two of which were touchdowns.

Out of 26 first downs, the Irish defense held Pittsburgh to two or fewer yards 16 times (61.5 percent). However, Notre Dame allowed a mind-boggling 9.7 yards per first down play, allowing 10 plays to exceed five yards including gains of 36, 51, 53 and 50 yards. The balanced Panther offense kept the Irish guessing incorrectly on virtually every first down.

This poor first down defense made the third down production largely irrelevant. While the defense held the Panther offense to only three of 12 on third down, the reality was that Pittsburgh's offense didn't need third downs on many of their play series.

Notre Dame currently ranks poorly in multiple categories including 102nd in yards per play (6.2), 93rd in yards per rush attempt (4.6), 72 in rushing yards per game (153.2), 103rd in yards per pass attempt (eight), 114th in yards per completion (13.9), and 85th in passing yards per game (237.3).

With so many returning starters from last year's squad, it is difficult to understand how the defense has regressed. Shifting coordinators (Rick Minter, Corwin Brown and Jon Tenuta) and schemes (4-3, 3-4 and a pressure-heavy 4-3) has stunted player development. At some point more change begets more inconsistency.

Rushing

Against the run, Notre Dame allowed 193 yards on 32 attempts (six yards per carry), the second highest yardage output and per-rush average of the season.

Three runs went for 124 yards and averaged 41.3 yards per attempt, a season-high value. In other words, three rushing attempts gained over 64 percent of the total yardage on the ground. Without these big gains Pittsburgh only averaged 2.4 yards per carry.

On first down the Irish allowed 8.9 yards per rush, only 2.3 yards per carry in the first half but 13.3 yards per rush attempt in the second.

Freshman running back Dion Lewis had an excellent game, gaining 154 yards on 21 attempts (7.2 yards per carry) and scoring a 50-yard touchdown on the ground. Fellow freshman Ray Graham added 57 yards on only three attempts (19 yards per rush), and a touchdown of his own.

Passing

For the third time this year, the Irish didn't notch a sack. Despite frequent blitzing and a scheme predicated on pressuring the passer, the Irish have only recorded one sack per 16.4 passing attempts.

The pass defense on first down was the primary problem. In the first half Pittsburgh averaged 7.3 yards per first down pass attempt. In the second half, however, the Irish allowed 51 yards on only two first down pass attempts.

The Irish defense allowed 236 yards through the air on 15 of 27 passing (55.6 percent). Quarterback Bill Stull averaged 8.7 yards per attempt and 15.7 yards per completion.

Three big gains went for 108 yards (36 yards per pass attempt) and accounted for 45.7 percent of the passing offense. Without these big gains Stull averaged 5.3 yards per attempt and 10.7 yards per completion.

Stull's favorite target was wide receiver Jonathan Baldwin who caught five passes for 142 yards (28.4 yards per reception) and a touchdown.

Special Teams

Notre Dame's punting has gone from awful to inept. Punter Eric Maust averaged 24.8 yards on five punts with a long of 35 yards. Maust's performance included punts of 17, 19 and 20 yards. Weis tried to play a game of field position early in this contest, and it appears this is an effort in futility.

Entering Saturday's game the punt return unit was largely ineffective. Only 11 returns were attempted for an average of nine yards per return. With 7:16 remaining and the Irish desperately in need of an energy injection, Tate took a 44-yard Dan Hutchins punt 87 yards for a touchdown.

Summary

The inability to stop the run combined with an offense that is overly reliant on the pass is never a good combination. The Irish defense ranks 93rd in yards per carry and 72nd in rushing yards per game while the Irish offense ranks 114th in rushing attempts when sacks and Clausen's carries are excluded.

Pittsburgh made plenty of mistakes that kept the contest close, particularly early in the game. But there is a lot more margin for error for a team with dominant line play.

The Panthers used the now too familiar technique to foil the Irish offensive game plan-get pressure with four and drop seven-as the offense couldn't sustain execution due to untimely penalties and constant pressure on Clausen. It shouldn't have come as a surprise, Weis' offense has always struggled against teams that can routinely get pressure with their front four.

Save one fourth down play-action pass, the dynamic downfield passing game was also missing as Weis abandoned the running game and failed to force Pittsburgh Bennett to bring additional help into the box.

On the other side of the ball, the Irish produced their worst first down defense of the year and couldn't stop the run. Coupled with the inability of the offense to sustain drives and a terrible punting game, this cost valuable field position for the duration of the first half. Through the first two quarters the Irish suffered through an 11-yard deficit in field position including drives that began on the Notre Dame nine, 13, 10 and 17-yard line.

The Irish defense has been well below average the past two seasons. The offense has looked good at times over the same duration, but much of the success is artificial. Notre Dame doesn't run the football and isn't efficient on third down or in the red zone. The problems are both fundamental and numerous, and this team rarely plays with any sense of urgency until the situation is dire.

It is tough to know where the Irish will go from here. Connecticut travels to South Bend next weekend for the final home game before the Irish travel to Stanford after the Thanksgiving holiday. The former isn't a guaranteed victory and the latter is looking more and more like one of the tougher games of the 2009 season.

It appears as though a second consecutive second-half season slide is a real possibility.

Similar Posts

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Washington

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Nevada

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Washington State

This article is © 2007-2009 by De Veritate, LLC and was originally published at Clashmore Mike. This article may not be copied, distributed, or transmitted without attribution. Additionally, you may not use this article for commercial purposes or to generate derivative works without explicit written permission. Please contact us if you wish to license this content for your own use.

Notre Dame vs. Pittsburgh: Keys to an Irish Win

Anthony Pilcher — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:30:07 -0500

The Fighting Irish travel to Pittsburgh Saturday. Notre Dame visits the Panthers in the wake of a stunning loss to the Midshipmen, a game where the defense was repeatedly gashed up the middle and the offense struggled mightily in the red zone. The latter has been a theme all season while the former has also been an Achilles' heel.

In what seems to be a can't-lose game for head coach Charlie Weis, the Irish face a formidable opponent on the road. For the Panthers, this falls into the classic "trap game," an underdog opponent coming coming off the heels of a tough loss with their back against the wall.

Pittsburgh Version 2009

Pittsburgh is led by coach Dave Wannstedt and boasts strong line play on both sides of the ball, a stingy run defense, and balanced offense that do a good job protecting the ball and forcing turnovers. On the year the Panthers get off to a good start early, outscoring their opponents by 87 points in the first half.

There are few apparent weaknesses in Wannstedt's team, but they are also largely untested. Pittsburgh enters the game at 8-1 with the 11th best AV Ranking, the lone loss coming to North Carolina State. However, the Panthers have only faced the 83rd toughest schedule and have struggled to defend against the pass in several contests.

The Panthers have forced seven fumbles and 10 interceptions to go along with only five fumbles and four interceptions of their own. The plus-eight turnover margin ranks 14th in the country, and has come against teams that typically take care of the ball.

Despite the balance on offense and good defense, Wannstedt's squad doesn't possess the ball that well. Additionally, the Panthers suffer from rather undisciplined play ranking 81st in penalties at 60 yards per game.

Offense

Gone is running back LeSean McCoy and offensive coordinator Matt Cavanaugh, but that has hardly slowed down the Pittsburgh offense. Cavanaugh's replacement, Frank Cignetti, Jr., has developed a very balanced offense that relies on running behind a strong front five and keeping opposing defenses off balance with the run and pass. The result is a productive ground game and efficient passing attack.

On the year, Cignetti has called a 58.2/41.9 percent run/pass split, resulting in nearly even production on the ground (45.8 percent of total offense) and in the air (54.2 percent of total offense).

The production on the ground has led to an efficient offense, as quarterback Bill Stull and company rank in the top 40 in third down (47.8 percent) and red zone efficiency (90 percent) against teams that are fairly strong defending both.

The Panther offense also ranks in the top 20 in points per game and yards per play, averaging almost 11 points per game and one yard more per play than their competition typically allows.

Even with the departure of McCoy and facing above average run defenses, the rushing offense has performed well. Freshman Dion Lewis leads the way with 1176 yards on 203 carries (5.6 yards per attempt) to lead a Panther rushing offense that ranks 26th in yards per game (187) and 14th in yards per carry (5.2). Additionally, Pittsburgh has scored 18 rushing touchdowns on the ground, good for 20th best in the country.

Behind Lewis are Ray Graham and Henry Hynoski. Both average 4.6 yards per carry or better and have combined for 73 rushing attempts, 385 yards and four touchdowns. The strong rushing offense has also paid off in the passing game. While Stull hasn't been overly productive, he certainly has been efficient.

The Panthers rank only 61st in yards per game (221.4) but have a passing efficiency of 161 (6th ranking), average 8.4 yards per attempt (16), and complete 67 percent of pass attempts (12). Moreover, the play-action pass game has proven a valuable weapon as Stull is credited with 17 touchdowns through the air. When Stull looks downfield he typically goes to standout wide receiver Jonathan Baldwin.

The front five also protect their signal caller, allowing only nine sacks (12) or one per 26.2 pass attempts (25) on the year.

See the tables below for a more in-depth look at the Panther offense.

Due to problems embedding the tables, the data can be seen here.

Defense

Defensive coordinator Phil Bennett is back after giving the Irish all sorts of second half fits in last year's meeting. If there is one strength of this defense, it is the front four, both against the run and pressuring the passer.

The Panthers rank first in the country in sacks (39) and sacks per pass attempt (6.7), with over 70 percent of the production coming from the defensive line. Senior Greg Romeus leads the way with 7.5 quarterback sacks while fellow defensive linemen Myles Caragein, Brandon Lindsey and Chas Alecxih have four each. The last time the Irish offense faced a front four this good they struggled to protect Clausen for much of the day.

Pittsburgh's defense is also strong on third down and in the red zone. Bennett's unit allows only a 35 percent conversion rate on third down and ranks 17th in red zone scoring (74 percent). The Panthers are 19th in scoring (17.1 points per game) and 21st in total defense (310.9 yards per game), allowing only 4.9 yards per snap (33). Dom DeCicco leads a defense in tackles that is stout against the run and pass.

DeCicco and company allow only 106.8 yards per game on the ground (26) and a paltry 3.1 yards per carry (16), surrendering only eight rushing touchdowns (21). And this production has come against teams that favor the run over the pass.

Against the pass things look decidedly worse, even against a slate of rather pedestrian passing teams. Excluding sacks, the panthers rank no better than 38th in any major passing category and allow 7.1 yards per attempt (65) and 12.5 yards per completion (86). See the tables below for a more in-depth look at the Panther defense.

Due to problems embedding the tables, the data can be seen here.

Summary

Pittsburgh has a very efficient and balanced offense predicated on a run-first approach that maintains favorable down and distances and produces excellent play-action passing opportunities. The front five open holes for Lewis and protect Stull with equal profeciency and Baldwin is a terrific downfield receiving threat.

On defense, Bennett has built a front four that can generate pressure on the passer and a front seven that is strong against the run. The Panther secondary is suspect, but has improved in the last few weeks and is typically able to drop seven or eight defenders into coverage due to the pass rushing prowess of the front four. Getting opponents into obvious passing downs is essential to success.

So what must the Irish do to defeat a formidable ranked opponent?

Offense

If you can't protect Clausen with five, it's all over. The Irish front five struggled against the Trojan front four. While the Panther secondary doesn't match that of USC, it will be imperative that the Irish offensive line protect quarterback Jimmy Clausen. Weis' play-calling is obviously pass-heavy, and also favors spread formations and personnel groupings. For Notre Dame to be successful throwing the ball they must have multiple receivers out in routes.
Calling Old Spice. It is obvious the Irish struggled in the red zone last week, but this has been a problem all season. Weis must use the running game inside the 20-yard line and work the play-action pass into his game plan. If he doesn't, this week will be more of the same, tons of yards outside the red zone, but offensive futility on a short field.
This is a game about fast starts. North Carolina State forced Pittsburgh into a bit of desperation. The Panthers never established a strong lead and maintained their balance on offense, instead, relying on a more wide-open passing game. Cignetti's offense isn't built for this and generating an early lead will go a long way to keep the Panther offense out of its comfort zone and help the confidence of a team reeling from the Navy loss.

Defense

Win first down. Pittsburgh has balance, both in production and play-calling. Cignetti likes to use a heavy dose of run on first and second down to achieve manageable third downs. If the Irish allow the Panther offense to maintain balance, it doesn't bode well for a unit that has struggled to defend the run and pass all year. Notre Dame's defense must use down and distance to force the hand of Stull and company.
Force Stull to win it. The only game Pittsburgh lost was a game in which they played even or from behind. Stull isn't a gunslinger and the Panthers lack multiple weapons at wide receiver, Cignetti needs to rely on the running game to open up the pass. Against North Carolina State the Panther offense was forced to spread the field and throw the ball, something that doesn't suit their strengths or offensive philosophy.
Field goals are fine. Pittsburgh has the 36th ranked red zone touchdown offense in the country. They have a solid kicker in Dan Hutchins, but so do the Irish in Nick Tausch. With an Irish offense that is woeful at scoring touchdowns in the red zone, it is imperative that the Irish defense rise to the occasion a la the Washington game and force field goals rather than allow touchdowns.

Summary

In many ways the Panthers are like the Irish coming off their bye week earlier this year. Notre Dame's offense appeared to be very good, but was largely untested. In somewhat opposite fashion the Irish defense struggled through the first part of the season but graded-out better when benchmarked to the competition.

Pittsburgh hasn't faced a great passing offense and Clausen and company certainly pose a unique challenge. If the Irish front five can handle Romeus and company it could be a long day for the Panther secondary. Likewise, if Cignetti is able to maintain balance and keep Notre Dame's defense off balance it could be a long day for the Irish defense.

In many ways this game favors strength on strength, weakness on weakness. Coming off the heels of a rather inexcusable loss it's difficult to know what the Irish will do. Come out fighting tough early, build a big lead, and the upset is in hand. Come out flat, face a deficit, and fold in earnest, is also a real possibility. This Irish squad has shown no quit all year, but last week may have been too much to handle.

The Irish offense should keep them in this one, but the defense hasn't proven capable of playing well on first down and against the run. The strong, physical play of both Panther lines is too much for the talent at the skill positions for the visiting Irish.

Notre Dame 27, Pittsburgh 31

Similar Posts

Notre Dame vs. Pittsburgh: Keys to an Irish Win

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Pittsburgh

Notre Dame vs. Boston College: Keys to an Irish Win

This article is © 2007-2009 by De Veritate, LLC and was originally published at Clashmore Mike. This article may not be copied, distributed, or transmitted without attribution. Additionally, you may not use this article for commercial purposes or to generate derivative works without explicit written permission. Please contact us if you wish to license this content for your own use.

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Navy

Anthony Pilcher — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:45:31 -0500

Notre Dame lost at home to the Midshipmen for the second consecutive time Saturday. The Irish looked unprepared on both sides of the ball and the players appeared to play without emotion for the first time this season-a costly mistake when facing a Navy team that always gives maximum effort.

As expected, the determining factors of the game were red zone offense and first down run defense. The Irish offense had its worst red zone performance of the season while the Irish defense surrendered big gains on first down that allowed the Midshipmen to maintain favorable down and distances for much of the day.

Turnovers obviously played a part in the loss, but it was where they occurred that made them so costly. Quarterback Jimmy Clausen's fumble and interception both occurred inside the five-yard line, leaving 14 potential points on the field, while a turnover on downs occurred after first and goal from the two-yard line.

Offense

Officially, the offense ran the ball 20 times to 51 pass attempts. Unofficially, head coach Charlie Weis called a pass on over 75 percent of plays.

The result was 32 first downs, 7.2 yards per play, 512 yards of total offense, and zero punt attempts. Additionally, Notre Dame outgained Navy by 108 yards, recorded 12 more first downs, and averaged a half yard more per play.

Clausen and company were certainly effective, but the offense was also efficient.

The Irish had only four negative plays and converted five of nine (55.6 percent) third down attempts. Both were season-best values. Six big plays went for 154 yards, or just over 30 percent of the offense. Without these big plays the Irish averaged 5.5 yards per snap, another season-high. More than any other game this year, the offense was productive without relying on the big play.

In other words, moving the ball and sustaining drives wasn't the problem, scoring in the red zone was.

The 10 Irish possessions were as follows:

Three plays, 20 yards, fumble
Eight plays, 44 yards, 41-yard missed field goal
11 plays, 58 yards, 1st and goal from the 2-yard line, two runs for -1 yards, two incomplete passes, turnover on downs
Eight plays, 33 yards, 30-yard missed field goal
10 plays, 80 yards, 1st and goal from the 1-yard line, two runs, the second of which was good for a touchdown
10 plays, 66 yards, fumble by Clausen on the one-yard line
Seven plays, 68 yards, Clausen's pass to wide receiver Michael Floyd intercepted at the five-yard line
Nine plays, 90 yards, 1st and goal on the 2-yard line, two penalties, 12-yard touchdown pass to Floyd
Four plays, minus 13 yards, safety
Three plays, 66 yards, 31-yard touchdown pass to wide receiver Golden Tate

In summary, the Irish had 10 possessions, six of which reached the red zone. On these six opportunities three resulted in turnovers (including the turnover on downs), two in touchdowns, and one in a missed field goal. The red zone performance beat out the Washington game for worst of the year, but poor touchdown production inside the 20-yard line is hardly a new problem.

Rushing

With only 11 percent of the total yardage coming in the ground, there is little to discuss.

Even though running back Theo Riddick (five carries, 35 yards, seven yards per attempt) had success and the Irish held a decided size advantage on the offensive line (over 52 pounds and three inches per man), Weis only called roughly 15 running plays and no attempt was made to consistently run the ball at any point during the contest.

Running the football is an undisputed necessity, something Weis recognized at the beginning of the season when he benchmarked his team's rushing production in 2008 to the teams in the BCS. But despite this and size advantages along the front five in virtually every game the Irish have played, the running game is still underutilized.

Passing

Clausen finally looked human as two costly turnovers by the junior signal caller marred an otherwise excellent performance.

The Irish quarterback was 37 of 51 (72.5 percent) for a career-high 452 yards, two touchdowns, and one interception, the second catchable ball this season that has bounced off an Irish player.

Clausen averaged 8.9 yards per attempt and 12.2 yards per completion with only one sack per 25.5 pass attempts. Five passes went for more than 20 yards and accounted for 30 percent of the total production through the air. Without these five gains Clausen still averaged 6.9 yards per attempt and 9.9 yards per completion, both season-best values.

Floyd and Tate did most of the damage. The Irish receiving duo is arguably the best in the country and combined to catch 19 passes for 273 yards (14.4 yards per reception) and two touchdowns.

Besides the interception, about the only other negative aspect of the passing game was quarterback protection as the Irish struggled at times against three and four man rushes. The front five made dramatic progress in 2008, but have regressed this year, allowing a sack every 14.1 pass attempts over the past seven games.

The play-calling isn't forgiving in this regard. Weis rarely moves the pocket, predictably throws from shotgun often with an empty-or nearly empty-backfield, doesn't effectively run the ball when not under center, and has ceased to employ screens and draws to slow down opposing pass rushes. This makes successful pass blocking a difficult execution proposition.

Defense

The Navy option offense operated with a high level of efficiency, particularly on first down. The run-heavy attack garnered better than a four-minute advantage in time of possession, only the second time this season Notre Dame has failed to control the ball more than their opponent.

Out of 26 play series by the Midshipmen, only 13 reached third down. Navy converted about half of these opportunities (6 of 13 for 46.2 percent), right around their season average.

This was, in no small part, due to poor first down defense.

Navy averaged 6.2 yards per snap on first down, as the Irish allowed nine plays of more than five yards including runs of 11, 12, 16, 22, 39 and 12 yards. The Irish defense only held the Midshipmen to two or fewer yards on nine out of the 26 first down opportunities (34.6 percent).

Eight of the 13 third downs were long distance situations. This hardly phased the Midshipmen who used a potent ground game to convert four of these opportunities.

Ken Niumatalolo's offense ran the ball on 57 of 60 plays for 348 yards. The 6.1 yards per carry average was the most allowed by the Irish all season. Seven explosive rushes, another season-high, went for big gains and amassed 171 yards (24.4 yards per attempt).

In other words, 50 percent of Navy's offensive production came from eight plays. Without these gains the Midshipmen averaged 3.5 yards per rush, the second highest total for the Irish defense this year.

Fullback Vince Murray did most of the damage. The primary triple-option threat gained 158 yards and a touchdown on only 14 carries (11.3 yards per rush attempt). Quarterback Ricky Dobbs pitched in with 114 yards and a touchdown on 31 attempts (3.3 yards per carry), repeatedly converting short yardage situations for the Midshipmen.

Dobbs only attempted three passes, but one was a beautifully executed play-action pass to Greg Jones that went for 52 yards and a touchdown.

Special Teams

Kicker Nick Tausch missed two field goals that proved costly, but the freshman kicker is 14 of 17 on the season (82.4 percent) and has proven to be more than reliable.

Kicker David Ruffer recorded the first touchback of the year (only the second touchback for the Irish in the last two seasons), as the Irish recorded their best average net kickoff yardage of the season.

Summary

Weis has directed much more than the usual amount of criticism at the players after this loss, but the reality is that there is no excuse for losing this game, the Irish are far more talented than the Midshipmen.

Notre Dame's performance in this game wasn't starkly different from any other this year. The offense struggled to score in the red zone the defense couldn't stop the run, particularly on first down.

The latter has been a problem in nearly every game this season while the former has been a lingering issue for the last two. Notre Dame is currently 86th in red zone touchdown efficiency and was 91st in the same category last season.

The difference in this contest was that these factors were more critical to the outcome.

Offensively, Temple showed exactly how to beat Navy last week as they ran for 274 yards. Despite the huge size advantage of the Irish offensive line and success of Riddick, Weis didn't attempt it. If this game doesn't show the benefits of an effective ground attack, no game will.

Against teams with inferior talent there is no need to out-scheme the opposition and require a high level of execution to sustain drives and score points.Taking advantage of the talent disparity through simple avenues is all that is required. With a massing offensive line and a backfield with ample speed, running the ball more would be a good place to start.

Instead, Weis is determined to win via a precision-based, predictable passing offense. Thanks to an absolutely phenomenal year by Clausen, this has worked more often than not this season. Even in this contest the Irish had arguably their most efficient passing performance of the year. But they also had their worst red zone production.

This is no coincidence, a spread passing attack is ineffective on a short field. Opposing defenses are content to let the Irish offense pass the ball with success outside the 20-yard line, only to stall in the red zone where no attempt is made to use the run game and complement it with play-action, the best red zone weapon.

Defensively co-defensive coordinator Jon Tenuta blindly used the same defensive game plan that worked so well in 2008, but with no adjustment. The result was a dominant rushing performance by the Midshipmen. Navy had a plan to thwart last year's alignment and executed it to perfection, living off big gains by the fullback and crisp decision making by Dobbs.

In summary, the Irish didn't do the things needed to win on either side of the ball: score touchdowns in the red zone and play good run defense on first down. Without the turnovers there is little doubt Notre Dame would have won, but it is tough to sustain winning based on turnover margin. The Irish had been nearly flawless protecting the ball this year and were certainly due for a few hiccups.

The fallout from this loss could be huge for the Irish football program. It could be the last straw for Weis, the latest example of his team underperforming, a trend that is more rule than exception. This would undoubtedly cause recruits to jump ship and mostly like prod Clausen and Tate to enter the draft.

But for right now Weis must rally the troops after a devastating loss. The Irish have three tough games left and can still finish the season 9-3 with a decent bowl bid.

Similar Posts

Notre Dame vs. Navy: Keys to an Irish Win

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Navy

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Boston College

This article is © 2007-2009 by De Veritate, LLC and was originally published at Clashmore Mike. This article may not be copied, distributed, or transmitted without attribution. Additionally, you may not use this article for commercial purposes or to generate derivative works without explicit written permission. Please contact us if you wish to license this content for your own use.

Notre Dame vs. Navy: Keys to an Irish Win

Anthony Pilcher — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:45:57 -0500

Notre Dame returns home to face the Midshipmen Saturday, one week after crushing the hapless Cougars in San Antonio and one week before an away showdown with the 14th ranked and 7-1 Pittsburgh Panthers.

The Navy offense is potent and always offers a unique challenge for the Irish defense, but it is the Midshipmen defense that comes into South Bend as the best in recent memory.

Navy Version 2009

The Naval Academy is led by head coach Ken Niumatalolo who has maintained the rush-heavy, option-based offensive attack so productive during Paul Johnson's tenure. The Midshipmen return 11 starters from a squad that finished 9-4 in 2008, ending the season with a 29-19 bowl loss to Wake Forest.

Niumatalolo's troops enter Saturday's contest with the 33rd best AV Ranking and a 6-3 record against the 72nd toughest strength of schedule.

On offense, the Midshipmen only run a handful of plays, but execute them to perfection-only fumbling six times despite read hand-offs and option pitches on virtually every play. Defensively, Navy plays a lot of base scheme with mostly zone coverage but are very active and swarm to the football.

Not surprisingly, the Midshipmen enter Saturday's contest showing incredible discipline, ranking first in the country in penalty yards per game (31.2 yards) and ranking 36th in turnover margin (+4). Navy also controls the clock with an average possession time of 34:18 (2) due in no small part to an effective rushing offense and defense that excels on third down.

Offense

In 2008 the Navy offense garnered its fourth consecutive national rushing title. Obviously, the strength of this unit is the ground game. Because of this the total offensive numbers-42nd in scoring offense at 29.4 points per game, 79th in yards per game at 351.4, and 90th in yards per play at 5.1 yards per snap-are rather pedestrian.

But this ground attack is precisely what contributes to excellent offensive efficiency on third down (48.9 percent conversion rate) and scoring touchdowns in the red zone (75 percent) with a rank of 12th for the former and eighth for the latter.

The ground game isn't overly efficient, but it certainly is effective. The offense averages 4.6 yards per carry (34), better than 279 yards a game (3), and have rushed for 30 scores (2), routinely performing at a much higher level than their defensive competition.

In other words, the loss of quarterback Kaipo-Noa Kaheaku-Enhada and fullback Eric Kettani haven't done much to slow the Navy running game.

Quarterback Ricky Dobbs and fullback Vince Murray lead the charge for the option offense. The former averages 3.5 yards per carry and nearly 75 yards per game while the latter gains 4.7 yards per rush and almost 71 yards per game. Running (or slot) back Marcus Curry rounds out the top three rushers with 8.5 yards per carry and just over 56 yards per game.

As expected, most of the numbers in the passing game are fairly average. Dobbs has completed 50 percent of his passes on the year for 77.2 yards per game, three touchdowns, and two interceptions. However, the Midshipmen passing attack is efficient, ranking fifth in yards per attempt (9.1 yards). Moreover, when Dobbs decides to go downfield, he has success. Navy is second in the country averaging a remarkable 18.4 yards per completion.

See the tables below for a more in-depth look at the Midshipmen offense.

Due to problems embedding the tables, the data can be seen here.

Defense

Lacking athleticism in the front four, Naval Academy defensive coordinator Buddy Green prefers to sit back, react to the ball, and force consistent execution. In this way Green's defense looks much like that of Boston College.

Linebackers Ross Pospisil, Tyler Simmons and Tony Haberer lead the charge, each notching 50 or more tackles on the year. All three are very active and a very nice complement to standout safety Wyatt Middleton.

The defense is the surprise of the team in 2009, ranking 38th in scoring (21.4 points per game) and 27th in yards allowed (315.6 yards per game). Both values are primarily due to excellent play on third down, as the defense has allowed a paltry 29 percent conversion rate (6).

When opposing offenses manage to stay on the field they fare well as Navy's defense struggles in the red zone (55th in red zone efficiency, 73rd in red zone touchdown efficiency) and gives up 5.3 yards per snap (61).

The run defense is fairly average as the Midshipmen allow 4.3 yards per carry (85) and 137.4 yards per game (59) against teams that don't run the ball particularly well.

The defense appears much better against the pass. Despite an inability to generate pressure on opposing quarterbacks, Navy allows only 178.1 passing yards per game (23), has a pass efficiency defense of 116.8 (36), and has allowed only nine touchdowns through the air (31).

This production does however, come with an asterisk-seven of Navy's nine opponents rank 60th or worse in passing yards per game.

See the tables below for a more in-depth look at the Midshipmen defense.

Due to problems embedding the tables, the data can be seen here.

Summary

The Midshipmen feature a potent rushing offense coupled with a downfield passing game predicated on play-action. They will lull a defense to sleep with a barrage of repeated, well-executed running plays with complementing post-snap motions, and then go deep when opposing safeties come up to stop the run.

Defensively, this is the best unit Navy has fielded in some time. Green's scheme is very read-and-react and the 11 on that side of the ball excel in this capacity. The production is excellent on third down and very balanced against the run and pass.

Despite the obvious disadvantage in talent, this opponent always poses a unique challenge for Notre Dame. So what must the Irish do to win?

Offense

It's all about first down. Against a Navy defense that is exceptional on third down and likes to keep everything in front, good gains on first down become critical to sustaining drives. Head coach Charlie Weis must mix the run and pass on first down and keep the Midshipmen guessing. Running back Robert Hughes needs to continue the recent trend of strong, decisive running and quarterback Jimmy Clausen must remain efficient and take the underneath gains. Long distances on third down don't bode well.
Red zone, red zone, red zone. Both the Irish and Midshipmen offenses are very good ball control units. In other words, there will be few scoring opportunities. Good red zone offense---particularly red zone touchdown efficiency---will be a necessity in this contest.
It's a game of plus territory. Navy is an effective running team and Niumatalolo has nothing to lose as the underdog. Both make defending the Midshipmen offense particularly difficult on the Irish side of the field. Inside the Irish 40-yard line Niumatalolo is just as likely to use four downs to move the chains as he is to attempt a field goal. It is extremely difficult to hold a run-heavy, option-based offense to 10 yards in four downs. The offense must change field position with each possession and good punting will be a necessity.

Defense

Open the tackle-box. There will be one-on-one tackling opportunities all day for Irish defenders. Navy likes to use the fullback up the middle, but they also attack the edge with various sweeps and option plays. The Midshipmen receivers block well such that Notre Dame's linebackers and safeties will frequently be isolated. Missed tackles will be very costly.
Don't let it be the Trojans and Eagles all over again. The Midshipmen may be a run-first team, but they can certainly go downfield with the pass, particularly off play-action. Against USC and Boston College the Irish defense surrendered a host of big plays in the passing game allowing both to sustain drives. The Irish must manage the opposing running attack with front seven to free up the safeties for the play-action pass. If Dobbs is allowed to extend drives through the air the Irish are in for a long day.
Be disruptive, B-E DISRUPTIVE. There are two ways to defend the option: assignment football or attacking and penetrating. The Irish are far more suited for the latter, especially since Kyle McCarthy and Sergio Brown will be needed to defend against the vertical passing game. The front four must penetrate, force the issue, and cause quick decisions from Dobbs.

Summary

As always, possessions are limited against a strong rushing team like Navy. But opportunities will be even more rare with both teams ranked fifth or better in ball control. Scoring on each possession will be critical to the outcome of the game.

For the Irish offense this means improving their woeful red zone touchdown efficiency (54.5 percent).For the Irish defense, this means playing well against the run, particularly on first down.

The addition of Michael Floyd should help the former, particularly if Weis utilizes a running game that was dominant in the win over Washington State.

The Irish run and first down defense has also shown signs-albeit mixed ones-of recent improvement. Against USC and Boston College Notre Dame held both team's primary ground threats in check, stuffing Joe McKnight and Montel Harris for the duration of each game. Against Washington State, however, the Irish struggled to stop a spread rushing attack.

First down defense has been eerily similar. Notre Dame allowed only 4.4 yards per first down play to Washington State and only 3.4 to Boston College. But the Irish surrendered seven yards per first down snap against USC.

Moreover, co-defensive coordinator Jon Tenuta must protect against Navy's vertical passing game. The defense surrendered 18 gains of 20 or more yards through the air against USC and Boston College before settling in and allowing none against Washington State.

Ultimately Notre Dame's athleticism should win out. The Irish boast too much talent, particularly on the offensive side of the ball, and should have little trouble protecting Clausen against a defense that doesn't pressure the passer. With Floyd back in the lineup and a defense that is building confidence, this one shouldn't be close.

Notre Dame 31, Navy 17

Similar Posts

Notre Dame vs. Navy: Keys to an Irish Win

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Navy

Notre Dame vs. Washington State: Keys to an Irish Win

This article is © 2007-2009 by De Veritate, LLC and was originally published at Clashmore Mike. This article may not be copied, distributed, or transmitted without attribution. Additionally, you may not use this article for commercial purposes or to generate derivative works without explicit written permission. Please contact us if you wish to license this content for your own use.

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Washington State

Anthony Pilcher — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:25:40 -0500

Head coach Charlie Weis used a bruising performance by Notre Dame's offensive line to grind out a convincing win in San Antonio. I'm sure Irish fans would like to see more wins like this occupy the "1" of "7-4-1," albeit against stronger opponents and in more travel-friendly destinations.

The Irish had an unheard of 21:48 edge in time of possession, ran 32 more plays than the Cougars, and had 20 more first downs, dominating in virtually every phase of the game. The lopsided nature of all three categories was largely due to a potent rushing attack.

Offense

The Irish offense was tremendously efficient and effective.

Notre Dame ran 81 plays for 592 yards (7.3 yards per snap) and 32 first downs. The play, yard and first down totals are the most all year for the Irish, while the 7.3-yard per play average trails only Washington and Nevada. The play-calling was tilted towards the run (59.3 percent of called plays were runs), but fairly balanced during the meaningful moments of the game.

The yardage came in extremely methodical fashion as the offense recorded seven big plays for 217 yards (36.7 percent of the total offense). Without these big gains the Irish averaged 5.1 yards per snap, the highest total of the season.

The Irish also surrendered their sixth turnover of the year, at least two of which have been meaningless. Notre Dame ranks fourth in the country in turnover margin, a truly remarkable accomplishment and a strong testament to running backs coach Tony Alford and the mistake-free play of quarterback Jimmy Clausen. The ball protection reputation of the former has proven to be a strong asset this season.

The offense played well on third down, particularly in the first half. Through two quarters of play Notre Dame's offense converted 60 percent of third down tries, finishing just under 43 percent for the game.

About the only downside to this performance was red zone scoring and pass protection. The Irish scored two touchdowns on four appearances inside the 20-yard line, right about their season average. The offensive line also surrendered two sacks through 27 Clausen pass attempts (one sack per 14.5 attempts) against a team that doesn't get after the quarterback. Given the health of the Irish signal caller and the recent struggles in this area, this has to be a concern.

Rushing

It is no coincidence that the most prolific Irish offensive performance of the year coincides with the best rushing performance of the season.

Notre Dame ran the ball 48 times for 255 yards and 15 first downs, both season-highs. The 5.3-yard per carry average tops the Michigan game for the best all season and climbs to nearly six yards per carry excluding a couple clock killing drives late in the game.

Four runs were big gains (more than 15 yards) that accounted for 82 yards (32.3 percent of the rushing offense). Without these runs Notre Dame averaged 3.9 yards per carry, also second only to the contest with Michigan. Excluding the two sacks and these big gains results in a 4.3-yard per carry average, the highest all year.

The ground attack was led by Robert Hughes who used repeated isolation draw plays to amass 138 yards and one touchdown on 24 attempts (5.5 yards per carry). The junior from Chicago seemed to get better as the game progressed and is capable of wearing down opposing defenses.

Freshman Theo Riddick gained 51 yards on only 9 carries (5.7 yards per attempt), showcasing elusive cutting ability and good speed while Golden Tate showed flashes of brilliance gaining 61 yards and a touchdown on four carries (15.3 yards per rush).

Passing

Clausen was extremely efficient, completing 22 of 27 attempts (81.5 percent) for 268 yards and two touchdowns. Many of the incompletions were balls thrown away to avoid sacks without which the numbers would be even better. His performance was good for nearly 10 yards per attempt and 12.2 yards per completion, both very high values.

Backup Dayne Crist even got involved in the action. While he only completed two of six attempts, the second completion showed his talent as he fired a laser on a post route that went 64 yards for a touchdown.

Eight different Irish players caught a pass. Tight end Kyle Rudolph reemerged as a threat with a six catch, 59-yard performance while Tate continues to impress with a four catch, 80-yard outing that included an incredible 50-yard Hail Mary reception.

As a team the Irish gained 337 yards through the air, averaging a 10.2 yards per attempt and 14 yards per completion. Three explosive pass plays totaled 135 yards (40.1 percent of passing offense) without which the Irish still managed 6.7 yards per attempt and 9.6 yards per completion, both very nearly season-highs.

Defense

The defense was almost as impressive as the offense. The Cougars only put together one drive against the first team defense who otherwise shut down their opposition.

The Irish held the Cougar offense to only 206 yards at a rate of 4.2 yards per snap. Washington State managed to convert only two of 11 third downs and only gained 12 first downs while recording three big gains for 55 yards (18.3 per play) and 26.7 percent of the total offense. Notre Dame also racked up five sacks.

Every value stated above is a season-best performance as about the only poor aspects of this outing was a mixed bag of first down play and poor run defense (see below).

The defense held Washington State to two or fewer yards on nine of 23 first down plays, but allowed 11 plays to gain five or more yards en route to allowing only 4.4 yards per first down play. Most of the yards came on the ground as the pass defense was exceptional on first down.

Rushing

Washington State gained 102 yards on 26 carries for only 3.9 yards per rushing attempt, but the run defense wasn't as solid as it appeared.

Five sacks accounted for 40 negative rushing yards. Without these five plays the Cougars averaged 6.8 yards per carry, the worst all year for the Irish.

The story on first down is very similar where the defense allowed 7.4 yards per first down rush, most of which came against the first unit. In the first two quarters of play the defense allowed a gaudy 9.2 yards per carry on first down. Without a large lead this type of play can become a liability.

Most of the damage was done by Dwight Tardy who average nine yards per carry (eight attempts for 73 yards).

Passing

It seems that the poor run defense was due to attention on the Cougar passing game.

Notre Dame allowed a season-low 104 yards passing. Quarterback Jeff Tuel completed only 12 of 23 attempts (52.2 percent) for a paltry 4.5 yards per attempt and 8.7 yards per completion. The freshman signal caller managed two touchdown passes but also threw two interceptions.

Perhaps more impressive was the first down pass defense. Including sacks the Irish held Tuel and company to only 1.8 yards per first down pass attempt. The first half was particularly well-played as Washington State gained -0.6 yards per pass attempt on first down.

Additionally, after surrendering 18 gains of 20 or more yards in the previous two outings, the Irish allowed zero big passing gains against the Cougars and sacked Tuel once every 4.6 pass attempts. Both are the best values all season.

Special Teams

Kicker Nich Tausch continues to be about the only bright spot for the Irish special teams.

Punting continues to be problematic as the Irish averaged just over 33 yards per punt including boots of 10 and 20 yards. Kickoff coverage was also poor and the return games are anything but special.

If it weren't for turnovers the field position battle would have been a decided advantage for Washington State.

Summary

About the only disappointing aspects of this game were penalties, inconsistent and poor special teams play, a struggling red zone offense, and a rash of injuries-some to key personnel. The poor competition certainly aided the performance of the Irish, but this was a dominant effort by any standard and against any level of competition.

The Irish now rank 81st in the country in penalties, averaging just under 61 yards per game. But it isn't the number of penalties that is the problem. Personal fouls have been very costly for the Irish this season, many derailing drives at critical moments. While the added aggression is a welcomed addition to the 2009 squad, players must learn to stop at the whistle and play smarter football.

The kickoff coverage, return units and punting continue to be problematic and while Tausch continues to be excellent, these other units are costing the Irish valuable field position. In a close game, this could prove the difference.

While the offense scored all four times they were in the red zone, they settled for field goals twice against a defense that isn't particularly good preventing touchdowns inside their own 20-yard line. Weis must resolve the red zone problems quickly as this is one of the largest issues looming with the offense. Notre Dame currently ranks 79th in red zone touchdown efficiency, only notching seven points on 54.5 percent of appearances.

Many fans have to be thankful that fifth year senior Evan Sharpley returned this year. Should Clausen's turf toe prevent him from playing and Crist's knee injury prove serious, Sharpley should provide a dependable backup if called upon. The injuries to Kapron Lewis-Moore and Trevor Robinson appear to be less serious in nature, and both may only miss a game.

It seems that the defense improves from one week to the next in one or two areas, only to regress in another. While this may be disheartening, it is also an indication of how close the Irish are to putting it all together on that side of the ball.

On offense, improvement in the red zone will make an otherwise good unit something special. The imminent return of Michael Floyd should help, but more commitment to running game and establishing the play-action pass would go a long way to aid red zone scoring. If this game proved anything it is a direct correlation between running the ball well and not relying on the big gain.

Similar Posts

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Washington

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. North Carolina

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Nevada

This article is © 2007-2009 by De Veritate, LLC and was originally published at Clashmore Mike. This article may not be copied, distributed, or transmitted without attribution. Additionally, you may not use this article for commercial purposes or to generate derivative works without explicit written permission. Please contact us if you wish to license this content for your own use.

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Boston College

Anthony Pilcher — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:37:39 -0400

The Irish opened 2009 with a resounding 35-0 defeat of Nevada. While the Wolfpack offense turned the ball over three times—twice in potential scoring position—the game was a fairly one-sided affair. Notre Dame ran the ball well, controlled the clock, and displayed a dynamic downfield passing attack.

Since then, games have been anything but one-sided. Nevada may not be as talented as Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Washington, USC or Boston College, but upgraded talent doesn’t explain the close games that have become routine.

The Irish are unwilling or unable to dominate an opponent with inferior talent. The result is close games that could break either way. Had Montel Harris not fumbled inside the five yard line, Boston College would likely have extended their 16-13 lead, making it very difficult for an inconsistent Notre Dame offense to overcome a two-score deficit.

This game was decided by turnovers but remained close due to big pass plays from the Eagle offense and costly penalties by Notre Dame. The Irish were fortunate enough to force five turnovers (and not surrender any), but big gains from Eagle quarterback Dave Shinskie allowed Boston College to convert multiple long down and distance situations and keep the game close.

On offense, Notre Dame had its worst performance of the year. Penalties stalled multiple drives and quarterback Jimmy Clausen and company were unable to change field position in the early going. Furthermore, a lack of downfield passing contributed to poor red zone offense that is more problematic with each passing week.

For head coach Charlie Weis, there is plenty to correct on both sides of the ball. It seems that some aspects of the team have improved, while others have clearly regressed.

Offense

The Irish had 12 meaningful drives but only scored 20 points (two field goals and two touchdowns), their lowest total of the year. The offense gained 22 first downs (eight rushing, 12 passing, 2 via penalty) and 352 yards on 4.6 yards per play. The total yards and per play average are both season-lows and suggest that the offensive dominance in the first five games was at least partially due to poor defensive competition (discussion continued below).

The play-calling balance appeared to be even, but was actually pass-heavy. Officially, the Irish ran and passed the ball at a nearly even clip (37 runs to 39 passes). Unofficially, removing quarterback scrambles and sacks, a pass was called on more than 65 percent of plays.

The offense continues to struggle on third down, converting only five of 15 attempts (33.3 percent). The Irish spent better than half (eight of 15, or 53.3 percent) of their third downs needing five or more yards and only converted one of them. Many of the long third down distances were the result of untimely penalties as Clausen was sacked only once and Notre Dame recorded only six negative plays.

Scoring touchdowns in the red zone also continues to be problematic. While kicker Nick Tausch has proven to be a reliable weapon, getting seven points inside the 20-yard line is critical to putting teams away. The Irish crossed the goal line only once in four red zone tries and are only 16 of 29 (55 percent) on the year.

Similar to the game against USC, the offense only recorded three big plays for 74 yards that accounted for a season-low 21 percent of the total offense. Excluding these plays the Irish gained 3.8 yards per snap, about the average over the past four outings.

Like last year, an over-reliance on the big play coupled with infrequent use of the running game has proven limiting over the past two games. The blueprint on stopping the Irish is the same as it was a season ago: rush three or four, drop seven or eight, and force the offense to methodically march down the field. Without wide receiver Michael Floyd, this is not an overwhelmingly difficult proposition for opposing defenses. The Irish passing game lacks the requisite execution to consistently move the chains and Weis lacks the patience to run the ball.

The results are obvious. The decrease in scoring and production over the past two games is directly correlated to the inability to generate big gains in the passing game.

Over the first five games of the season Notre Dame average seven yards per play. Over the last two the Irish offense has gained 4.8 yards per snap. Correspondingly, over the first five games the offense averaged 7.2 big plays per game; over the last two, only three.

The absence of downfield throws against Boston College may have been by design, but without the big gains in the passing game the decrease in offensive production will continue until the running game is better utilized.

Rushing

What began with promise, has taken a turn for the worse. The Irish averaged 158 rushing yards per game through their first four contests, but only 98.7 yards per game over the last three.

Against Boston College Notre Dame gained 2.9 yards per rush, a number that increases to 3.4 removing the single sack. However, the Irish recorded only one run greater than 15 yards. Excluding the sack and this play the per carry average is a paltry three yards per attempt.

Running back Armando Allen led the way for the ground game. The junior from Florida gained 102 yards on only 21 carries (4.7 yards per attempt) and was particularly effective in the early going.

The ground game also continued its trend of strong short yardage efficiency. Excluding the fake field goal Weis called a run five times in short yardage situations and the front five paved the way for four first downs (80 percent). The only failed attempt was the fourth and goal run by Robert Hughes in the fourth quarter.

Passing

It seemed that Clausen’s pocket presence has regressed. The junior signal caller failed to step up in the pocket numerous times Saturday and created unnecessary pressure in the process.

Apart from this and low production in the passing game, Clausen was his mistake-free, efficient self.

He completed 26 of 39 passes (66.7 percent) for 246 yards, two touchdowns, and no interceptions. For the year Clausen has 16 touchdowns to only two interceptions (one per 115 pass attempts), both indicative of his maturation and steady improvement from last season.

The performance was good for 6.3 yards per attempt and 9.5 yards per completion, both season-low values and indicative of the more conservative game plan. Only two passes were completed for more than 20 yards, accounting for 23.6 percent of the passing yardage. Without these plays the Irish averaged 5.1 yards per attempt and 7.8 yards per completion, both very respectable values.

Pass protection improved from previous weeks. Boston College didn’t blitz much but the front five largely controlled the Eagle defensive line and surrendered only one sack through 39 pass attempts. This performance is in stark contrast to the previous four games where the Irish surrendered one sack per 10.4 attempts.

Apart from Clausen, the brightest spot of the Irish passing game has to be the receiving corps. Ten receivers and tight ends have caught passes on the year and the reserves have filled in admirably with injuries to Floyd and (now) Robby Parris.

Additionally, Golden Tate has been outstanding. Despite being the number one focus of opposing defenses, Tate continues to deliver. Against Boston College the junior hauled in 11 receptions for 128 yards (11.6 per catch) and two touchdowns.

Defense

The Irish have progressed well in multiple phases of the game (against the run and on first down), but this progress seems to have come at the expense of the pass defense. The latter has contributed to poor third down defense and a plethora of big gains through the air.

This game was a microcosm of this phenomena.

The Eagles recorded 16 first downs (three rushing, 12 passing, one via penalty) and 349 yards en route to 14 points. Additionally, Notre Dame allowed 5.5 yards per play, tied for their lowest this season (Nevada).

First down defense was exceptional. Boston College ran 28 first down plays for only 3.4 yards per play. Only six of these plays gained five or more yards (24 percent) while 19 went for two or fewer yards. Each of those are season-best—or nearly season-best—values (against Michigan Notre Dame allowed only 3.3 yards per first down play).

But that is where the good news ends.

Entering Saturday’s contest the Eagle offense was atrocious on third down (32.2 percent conversion rate, 102nd in the country), but the Irish defense allowed them to convert 6 of 13 opportunities (46.2 percent). The second and third quarters were particularly problematic as Boston College converted five of their six (83.3 percent) third down tries.

The success came largely via big play. Twelve of 13 third downs were for seven or more yards. The Irish allowed five of these to be converted, all through the air.

Four of these five conversions were big plays. For the game Boston College had 11 explosive gains for 258 yards. The 11 plays ties a season-high and the 258 big play yards is second only to last week’s contest with USC.

These plays averaged 23.5 yards and comprised 74 percent of the total offense, another season-high. Without them the Irish defense only allowed 1.7 yards per play, by far the lowest value of the season. In other words, the Irish played very sound defense on 53 of 64 (82.8 percent) snaps, but the other 11 plays sustained drives.

Rushing

Any way you slice it, the run defense was great as the Irish stopped the strength of their opponent for the second straight week.

Notre Dame allowed just 70 rushing yards on 29 carries (2.4 yards per rush), only three rushing first downs, and a long gain of 15 yards. The yards and yards per carry were both well below the season averages for Boston College. The defense allowed a paltry 2.5 yards per first down carry, and only 0.4 yards per first down rush in the first half. After a big game last week, Harris gained only 38 yards on 22 carries for a 1.7-yard average.

A liability at the midpoint of the season, stopping the run now looks to be a strength. However, it seems to have come at the expense of the secondary.

Passing

With one very specific exception, the pass defense played well.

The Irish allowed Shinskie to complete only 48.6 percent of his passes (17 of 35) for 279 yards and one touchdown while forcing three interceptions, the last of which sealed the game. Notre Dame surrendered just 5.9 yards per first down pass, but only 1.5 yards in the second half (compared to 10.3 in the first). The problem stopping the pass was mostly on second and third down and in obvious passing situations.

Typically, low completion percentages result in low per pass attempt averages. This is not the case here.

Shinskie averaged eight yards per attempt and 16.4 per completion (the latter just behind Trojan quarterback Matt Barkley for the second highest this season), largely by going deep on long down and distance situations.

Boston College completed 10 big passes for 243 yards (24.3 yards per reception). These 10 plays accounted for nearly 70 percent of the total offense, and excluding them results in season-lows values for yards per pass attempt (1.4) and completion (5.1).

Eight of these gains took place in long down and distance situations. Three came on second down needing 10 or more yards to move the chains. Four came on third down needing eight or more yards for a first down. And the last came on fourth and 16, with the outcome of the game in the balance.

These types of breakdowns in the secondary are inexcusable. Shinskie had to throw the ball to sustain drives, the running game wasn’t working and the Eagle offense was frequently behind the chains. But time and time again Eagle receivers found wide open spaces.

Given the fact that the Irish recorded zero sacks through 35 pass attempts, a lack of pressure is at least partially to blame. But co-defensive coordinator Jon Tenuta has to find a way to stop making freshman quarterbacks look like All-Stars in Notre Dame Stadium.

Special Teams

Special teams continue to be good and bad.

The punting game was completely inept, averaging only 32.7 yards per punt. The return units were also ineffective with Tate returning one punt for eight yards and the kickoff unit averaging a paltry 17 yards per return. Both cost the Irish valuable field position.

The punt coverage, however, continues to be a strength. Opponents have only attempted three returns all year and Tausch also continues to impress. The freshman kicker is 12 of 13 for the season.

Summary

It is difficult to believe the Irish scored 20 points and won by only four with a 76 to 64 advantage in plays, five Boston College turnovers, and more than a five-minute advantage in time of possession.

The offensive game plan and play-calling was largely suspect.

Generically speaking, Boston College runs a soft cover-2 zone designed to prevent the big play and force consistent execution from opposing offenses.

The apposite offensive game plan is flooding the zone, using vertical routes to test the deep thirds, and running between the tackles. Given the 50-plus pound per man weight advantage of the Irish offensive line, the injuries in Notre Dame’s receiving corps, and the ancillary benefits of a strong running game, the last of these three options seemed like the most appropriate choice.

Additionally, Allen enjoyed great success in the early going. Through Notre Dame’s first four drives he carried the ball nine times for 59 yards (6.6 yard per carry average) and four first downs. For the remaining eight drives Allen only carried the ball 12 times, largely using stretch plays that were frequently ineffective and failed to utilize the previously mentioned size advantage of the Irish offensive line.

Moreover, if Weis was intent on a pass-heavy approach, the incessant quick outs and hitches would have been nicely complemented by double move routes.

More specifically, the deep route to Tate following Harris’ fumble was far too risky. Of the possible outcomes of that play-call, only one ends well for the Irish. Boston College had already recorded a safety and had a three-point lead. The Irish were on their own three yard line. There was a low probability of a big gain, but a high possibility of a big loss.

If opposing defenses can take away the deep pass, there is little left. Weis must have the patience to stick with the run as well as use a more diverse play-action package to open up the passing game.

Defensively, allowing 10 big pass plays to the 106th ranked passing offense is egregious and was the difference between a decent and dominant performance. In other words, a small amount of improvement would have made a huge difference.

In this game the defense maximized their chance of success. Solid first down play forced a host of long down and distance situations, but Tenuta’s blitzing frequently left holes in zones or one-on-one man coverage. On fourth and 16 with the game on the line you simply cannot let two receivers get wide open. If blitzing puts too much pressure on the back four, then it must be shelved.

The secondary plays with hesitation and consistently looks confused prior to the snap, both stemming from the incessant defensive change over the past several years. There is little reaction and few instances where members of the Irish secondary make a play on the ball while it is still in the air.

The effort of this squad is there, but the team continues to play down to their competition. It is much easier to be critical after a win, and Weis needs to be. This team is not playing to their potential and hasn’t for most of the season.

Similar Posts

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Boston College

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Washington

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Nevada

This article is © 2007-2009 by De Veritate, LLC and was originally published at Clashmore Mike. This article may not be copied, distributed, or transmitted without attribution. Additionally, you may not use this article for commercial purposes or to generate derivative works without explicit written permission. Please contact us if you wish to license this content for your own use.

Notre Dame vs. Boston College: Keys to an Irish Win

Anthony Pilcher — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:14:47 -0400

After suffering a tough loss—the eighth straight—to rival USC, the Irish host Boston College Saturday. Notre Dame head coach Charlie Weis will earn his pay this week, as navigating the psyche of his team and ensuring they are prepared to play will be a daunting task.

The Boston College losing streak isn’t as lengthy and one-sided as the one to USC, but it certainly isn’t favorable either. Notre Dame has lost six straight to Boston College, including the game in 2002 when the Eagles defeated the number four ranked Irish 14-7 and put an end to their undefeated season.

Perhaps more notable was 1993, when Boston College came to South Bend and defeated the number one ranked Irish team on a last second field goal from David Gordon.

If the six-game losing streak isn’t enough motivation, last year’s 17-0 thrashing in Chestnut Hill should be.

Boston College Version 2009

After a host of years working as an assistant coach, Frank Spaziani now leads the Eagles. Spaziani has a background on the defensive side of the ball and is a steady, deliberate coach.

The Eagles enter Saturday’s contest with the 42nd best AV Ranking and a 5-2 record against the 97th most difficult strength of schedule. The five wins have come against Northeastern, Kent State, Wake Forest (in overtime) and Florida State. The two losses have been routes at the hands of Clemson and Virginia Tech.

The Eagles are disciplined, and commit very few penalties. This is, in no small part, due to the wealth of upperclassmen that has become a staple at Boston College. Only seven underclassmen start for Spaziani, three of which are freshmen.

Offense

In a nutshell, the Eagle offense takes advantages of scoring opportunities and can run the football.

The offense is very efficient in the red zone, ranking in the top ten in red zone efficiency (3) and red zone touchdown efficiency (10). However, the Eagles struggle on third down converting on 32.3 percent (102).

This excellent red zone offense has led to over 30 points per game despite not moving the ball particularly well. While the Eagle offense only averages 326 yards per game, they have generated 27 touchdowns (compared to 453 yards per game and 23 touchdowns for the Irish) and typically score about a touchdown more than their defensive opposition allows.

It’s no secret that offensive coordinator Gary Tranquill wants to run the ball. Nearly 60 percent of called plays are runs, and the ground game is the strength of the offense despite fairly mediocre numbers

The Eagles average 155.3 yards per game on the ground (51), gaining 4.2 per carry (54), a value that climbs to 4.7 without sacks. Three backs share the load as Montel Harris, Josh Haden and Rolandan Finch all have over 25 carries. The workhorse, however, is Harris, with 134 carries for 807 yards (5.6 yards per rush) and 12 touchdowns.

The passing offense is not as impressive.

Four quarterbacks have seen significant action, but former minor league baseball player Dave Shinskie is the leader of the group in his first year starting. As the saying goes, if you don’t have one quarterback, you don’t have any.

The front five have done a decent job protecting the passer, allowing only 11 sacks on the year (16 pass attempts per sack) facing some decent pass rushing teams.

Despite this protection, the Eagle quarterbacks haven’t played with a high level of efficiency. The Boston College signal callers have completed 51.1 percent of their passes (113) for only 6.8 yards per attempt (77).

The bright spot is the vertical passing game. The Eagles enter Saturday’s contest averaging 13.3 yards per completion (25) largely due to the running game and the capability to execute play-action. When Tranquill decides to go deep it is usually to Colin Larmond (21.6 yards per reception) but no receiver has been overly productive as Rich Gunnell leads the group with only 22 receptions.

These numbers also come with an asterisk as Boston College hasn’t faced a murderer’s row of defensive teams.

Due to problems embedding the tables, please view the data here.

Defense

Gone is the core of the Boston College defensive line as B. J. Raji (eighth overall pick in the 2009 NFL draft) and Ron Brace (40th overall) departed for greener pastures.

What remains is an above average defense that makes opposing offenses work for yards and doesn’t give up big plays. The natural corollary is good third down defense (29.6 percent conversion rate, 11th rank) and excellent efficiency on a short field (12th ranked red zone touchdown efficiency).

Moreover, the Eagle defense allows about a touchdown less per game than their offensive competition averages and has forced 14 turnovers in seven games.

The front seven for Boston College are very active, largely to make up for size deficiencies. The Eagle defensive line average less than 6-4 and 262 pounds while the starting linebackers average less than 6-2 and 230 pounds. Freshman linebacker Luke Keuchly leads this undersized front seven, and the team, with 69 tackles (almost 10 per game) and epitomizes the blue collar work ethic of the defensive unit.

Despite the lack of size in the front seven, the Eagle defense is fairly stout against the run allowing only 117.1 yards per game (39) and 3.2 yards per carry (29), while largely outperforming their offensive competition.

The Eagles have had less success against the pass where they rank worse than 30th in every meaningful statistical category. However, as note above, they don’t surrender many long plays in the passing game allowing only 10.9 yards per completion (32).

Additionally, Boston College doesn’t have a very good pass rush. Only half of the 10 sacks (86) have come from the front four and the unit as a whole is only registering one quarterback sack per 22.3 attempts (91). In other words, they typically have to blitz to generate pressure.

To be fair, Boston College is routinely holding the opposing passing offenses to less than they are accustomed. But most of this is due to the bend-but-don’t-break style of play.

Due to problems embedding the tables, please view the data here.

Summary

The Eagle offense isn’t flashy, but they do take advantage of scoring opportunities and attack defenses on the ground. Boston College fields an offensive unit with very average rankings that has played against very mediocre competition, but in this game previous results usually mean little.

The Irish defense must be concerned with a team that can grind it out with the running game, and then play-action and stretch the field. If the game against USC proved anything, it’s that the secondary is extremely vulnerable when the front seven has to sell-out to stop the run.

On defense the Eagles look a lot like last year minus two excellent interior defensive linemen. Kuechly and company play solid, base defense, keep everything in front, and force opposing offenses to work for every yard. This goes hand in hand with strong third down and red zone defense, as well as their 4.8 yard per play average (31).

On paper the Irish are much more talented and should have the edge, even defensively, but it would be a mistake to underestimate this team.

Offense

Don’t force it. Quarterback Jimmy Clausen threw four interceptions in Chestnut Hill last year. Then the defensive coordinator, Spaziani was content to sit back, play soft zone, and rely on the pass rush of his interior defensive line. Gone are Raji and Brace, but the defensive modus operandi hasn’t changed much. Clausen will need to be patient and use his check-downs to efficiently and methodically move the ball. Execution trumps explosive plays in this contest.
Beware of Luke. Similar to Greg Jones of Michigan State, Kuechly is a tackling machine. The Eagle linebackers are small, but active. The agility of the Eagle linebacker corps will test the Irish front five who need to be effective engaging and finishing blocks down the field.
Lean on them, and then pounce. The front five own a decided size advantage in this contest. Boston College may rotate Nick Rossi and Damik Scafe to mitigate this problem, but the starting front four average 262 pounds. This gives the Irish more than a 50 pound per man advantage along the offensive line. Weis must use this advantage to get the running game on track, then utilize the rarely used play-action passing game to go over the top.

Defense

Watch it on the right. The front five for Boston College feature experience and size on the right side. Between center Matt Tennant, guard Thomas Claiborne, and tackle Rich Lapham, the right side of the Eagle offensive line averages 6-5 and almost 313 pounds. When a few short yards are needed, this is likely where Tranquill will go. Co-defensive coordinator Jon Tenuta must be aware of this and play to the tendency.
Force them to be one-dimensional. By far, the strength of the Eagle offense is the ground game. But as Virginia Tech proved, take away the run, and there is little left. Tenuta must take away this strength, force Boston College to be one-dimensional, and apply pressure on Shinskie when obvious passing downs arrive. The Eagles don’t have the athleticism at quarterback or wide receiver of USC, and selling out on the run shouldn’t be as risky of a proposition.
Get off the field. To put it simply, Boston College is not good on third down. But the same was true with USC, and they converted nearly half of their opportunities including two big gains on third and one. The third down defensive package must be better conceived to help this unit get off the field. Crisp tackling would be a good start.

Summary

The Eagles aren’t overly impressive. Five wins have come against weak foes and virtually every area on both sides of the ball is very average. If the Irish play within themselves, this game won’t be close. But if the Irish defense plays down to their competition, this game could again be decided in the final moments.

And that is really where this game will be won or lost. Clausen and the offense face an above average defense, but they should score plenty of points, even without Floyd and (potentially) Parris.

The run defense has improved considerably over the past few games and should be up for the challenge. But this is only helpful if the secondary doesn’t turn wide receivers loose a la last week’s game against USC.

Perhaps most importantly, the Irish cannot come out flat. Boston College has a 39 point first quarter scoring deficit, largely due to the one-sided opening quarter of their two losses.

The psyche of the Irish is important and it’s a rivalry game, Boston College will be juiced. Notre Dame needs to put last week to bed, not let it linger, and take care of business early and often. One losing streak may be intact, the other shouldn’t be allowed to continue.

Similar Posts

Notre Dame vs. Boston College: Keys to an Irish Win

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Boston College

How Good Are the Irish? A Year-End Notre Dame Defensive Statistical Review

This article is © 2007-2009 by De Veritate, LLC and was originally published at Clashmore Mike. This article may not be copied, distributed, or transmitted without attribution. Additionally, you may not use this article for commercial purposes or to generate derivative works without explicit written permission. Please contact us if you wish to license this content for your own use.

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. USC

Anthony Pilcher — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 07:24:41 -0400

The Irish lost another heart-breaker in South Bend Saturday. The latest defeat at the hands of the Trojans makes it eight straight and 0-5 for head coach Charlie Weis against one of Notre Dame’s chief rivals.

In many respects, this game was more of the same. Numerous missed tackles and breakdowns in the secondary combined for poor defensive play while the offensive line continued to struggle against a three and four man pass rush.

The players fought until the bitter end, but three plays from the four yard line weren’t enough to pull out a victory.

Offense

The offense wasn’t dominant, in fact many of the numbers are season-low totals. But they scored four touchdowns against a unit that had allowed only three all year and certainly did enough to win against a very tough defensive team. In large part the production wasn’t there, but the efficiency was pretty good considering the competition.

Notre Dame averaged 4.9 yards per play and gained 367 yards of total offense, both season lows. The Irish tied their season-high output against Michigan with 27 first downs (five on penalties), fairly evenly dispersed on the ground (10) and through the air (12). Weis’ play-calling was pass-heavy (31 rushes to 44 pass attempts), but he did turn to the ground game on multiple short yardage situations.

Seven runs were called on nine short yardage opportunities (two or fewer yards), and the ground game achieved a first down five times (71.4 percent). Just like the first five games, the Irish offensive line delivered when tough yards were needed.

The negative and big plays were in opposite directions. Only seven negative plays (including five sacks) were recorded, but the Irish also generated a paltry three explosive gains (all passes), their lowest of the season. These three plays averaged a respectable 30.3 yards, but only accounted for season-low 24.8 percent of the total offense. Without these three plays the Irish averaged 3.8 yards per snap.

The offense was nearly perfect in the red zone, only failing to score a touchdown on the final drive of the game. Additionally, the Irish converted 35.7 percent of third down opportunities despite needing more than five yards on half of them.

Rushing

The running game appeared stagnant, but the numbers tell a slightly different story, particularly when accounting for the dominant Trojan run defense.

Notre Dame was surprisingly efficient on the ground, albeit not overwhelmingly productive. The offense rushed for only 82 yards on 31 carries, but gained 110 yards on 26 carries when sacks are not included. The former is good for a paltry, season-low 2.6 yards per carry, but the latter is worth 4.1 yards per carry.

Considering there were no big running gains to boost these values, the rushing attack was very efficient, albeit lacking in explosive plays. Moreover, the ability to convert short yardage situations on the ground speaks to solid run blocking by the offensive line.

Had the Irish not played from behind most of the game, it is possible the rushing attack would have helped control the clock and keep the porous defense off the field.

Passing

It is unfortunate that the Heisman race is all about perception and momentum because Clausen played as well as he could given the situation.

Officially, his stat line reads 24 of 43 for 260 yards, two touchdowns passing and one rushing.

Unofficially, excluding five balls he threw away, he completed 63.2 percent of his passes at 6.8 yards per attempt and 10.8 yards per completion despite fives sacks, countless hurries, and increasingly small passing windows.

He didn’t force the ball, managed the game, and nearly led the Irish to a fourth consecutive comeback win in the final moments of the game. And he did it all against a defense that had allowed no passing touchdowns and only 173.8 yards per game through the air.

He is a gutsy, competitive leader with unquestionable toughness and quite possibly the best arm in college football.

Wide receivers Golden Tate and Robby Parris were the two primary beneficiaries of Clausen’s passing. The former hauled in eight balls for 117 yards (14.6 yards per reception) and two touchdowns while the latter caught nine passes for 92 yards including a crucial 13-yard gain on fourth and ten during the final drive.

Tate proved again to be a lethal receiving threat and always seems to rise to the occasion when it is needed most. Parris has emerged as a legitimate third option (assuming the injury isn’t serious) for Clausen.

The real negatives of the passing game were a lack of big play ability and the inability to protect the quarterback.

The Irish had a season-low three explosive pass plays (more than 20 yards) and one came via a fake field goal. While these gains averaged 30.3 yards, they were only good for 24.8 percent of the total offense, the lowest in any game this year. Without Michael Floyd the Trojan secondary was content to play press-man coverage, disrupt the timing of routes, and pressure Clausen to prevent down field throws.

Additionally, pass protection has to be a concern. USC is a dominant pass rushing team, but allowing three and four defenders to consistently generate pressure is inexcusable. After considerable progress last year and zero sacks in the first two games, the offensive line has allowed 14 sacks (one per 10.4 pass attempts) over the past four outings. With all but one starter returning from last year’s front five, it is puzzling how much the pass blocking has regressed.

Defense

It is difficult to sugarcoat how poorly the defense played. Notre Dame was only effective in containing the Trojan rushing attack, and selling out to stop the run cost them dearly in other areas. In what has become a recurring theme, Irish defenders tackle poorly and allow the play to come to them rather than attacking.

The Irish allowed a season high 501 total yards on only 62 plays for a gaudy 8.1 yards per play and surrendered more than 30 points for the fourth time in six games. Despite running 13 fewer plays, USC outgained the Irish by 134 yards.

The Irish defense allowed five scores in five red zone appearances and a 46.2 percent third down conversion rate, the latter despite forcing third and long (more than five yards) on nine of 13 third down plays (69.2 percent). Entering the game USC’s offense struggled in both areas, scoring touchdowns on only 60 percent of red zone appearances (61) and converting third downs at a rate of only 28.8 percent (113).

And the bad news doesn’t stop there.

Better than 63 percent of the Trojan offense came from big gains as 11 plays accounted for 319 yards (29 yards per play). The percentage of big-play offense and number of explosive plays are both season-highs for the Irish defense.

This was a problem through the first five games and will continue to be a huge liability for this defense and this team. Without these big plays USC averaged 3.6 yards per play, only better than Irish opponents Purdue and Washington.

First down defense was also problematic before the bye week, and it hasn’t been corrected. The Irish held the Trojans to two or fewer yards on 55.2 percent of plays, but surrendered five or more yards 44.8 percent of the time. In other words, it was completely hit or miss. This inconsistent play allowed USC to average seven yards per first down play.

Rushing

The one bright spot of the day was the run defense. Unfortunately, co-defensive coordinator Jon Tenuta had to stack the box and sell-out to stop the Trojan rushing attack. The result was wide open USC receivers all game long.

USC gained only five first downs and 121 yards on 33 attempts for a 3.7 yard per carry average. Without sacks that number grows to 4.6 but three big gains accounted for 65 yards (21.7 yards per rush). Without these big plays, the Trojans managed only 2.7 yards per carry.

Entering the game USC averaged 208 rushing yards per game at 5.5 yards per carry. Holding them to the totals noted above is a significant feat.

Additionally, the Irish defense held USC to only 3.4 yards per first down rush. In the first half the performance was even better as the Trojan offense averaged only 2.6 yards per carry on first down.

Perhaps most significant was holding the explosive Joe McKnight to only 4.2 yards per carry after averaging 7.1 yards per rush in his first five games.

The only negative was short yardage run defense. USC faced short yardage nine different times and called a running play on seven of them. Five (71.4 percent) went for first downs.

Passing

Easy releases and soft coverage proved costly for the Irish Saturday. The passing numbers are simply staggering.

USC quarterback Matt Barkley completed 65.5 percent (19 of 29) of his passes for 380 yards and two touchdowns in a career outing. If the production wasn’t enough, the efficiency certainly was.

Barkley averaged an absurd 13.1 yards per attempt and 20 yards per completion. The 13.1 yards per attempt is more than four yards higher than any other game this year while the 20 yards per completion is the season-high value by more than six.

Eight Barkley passes tallied 254 yards (31.8 yards per attempt) and accounted for 66.8 percent of the passing yardage and 50.7 percent of the total yards. Put another way, 13 percent of the plays produced over half the yards.

But even without the big plays Barkley averaged six yards per attempt and 11.5 per completion. The former is the second highest total surrendered by the Irish defense on the year while the latter is a season-high.

Particularly troubling was the susceptibility to play-action and poor first down pass defense. On two separate short yardage third downs, Barkley completed passes for 23 and 60 yards. On first down the Irish allowed 8.9 yards per pass attempt, including sacks as negative passing yardage. Excluding the three sacks elevates this value to 11.7 yards per first down pass attempt.

Tight end Anthony McCoy and wide receiver Damian Williams enjoyed excellent days. Despite being a known deep threat, McCoy did the most damage with 153 yards receiving on only five catches (30.6 yards per reception) while Williams hauled in four balls for 108 yards (27 yards per catch) and two touchdowns.

About the only bright spot of the pass defense was the ability to get pressure on the freshman signal caller. The Irish managed to record a sack once every 9.7 pass attempts.

Special Teams

It was a mix of good and bad on special teams.

The Irish averaged only 37.8 yards per punt and 20.7 yards per kickoff return in addition to allowing a blocked extra point attempt.

However, the fake field goal was one of the best calls of Weis’ tenure and directly led to a touchdown.

Summary

When a team always needs last second heroics to win, things aren’t always going to break their way. The Irish were living on borrowed time, needing plays in the final moments of their previous three contests to seal the deal. Nevertheless, the team came out fired up and ready to play.

That is the biggest positive from this game. There is no quit on this team. Some of of that is due to (finally) having talented leadership in the upper classes, but some of it is undoubtedly a result of Weis’ aggressive coaching style and all-in attitude. He deserves a lot of credit for the heart and determination this team exhibits on a weekly basis.

Offensively, the Irish struggled against a USC defense that followed the New York Giants 2008 Super Bowl game plan: get pressure with four and play one or two-deep, press-man coverage. The game plan worked to perfection as head coach Pete Carroll and defensive coordinator Rocky Seto took advantage of their deep and talented defensive line. It wasn’t complicated, but it was certainly effective.

The press-man coverage slowed the release of the Irish receivers, relegated tight end Kyle Rudolph ineffective, and prevented quick throws to counter the Trojan pass rush. Clausen had precious little room to operate and spent much of the day avoiding pressure. When Weis used max protection the seven defenders in coverage made open targets more exception than rule.

It is puzzling how the offensive line’s pass protection has regressed, but Weis’ play-calling didn’t make protecting the passer easy. Screens and draws were rarely used to keep USC’s defensive linemen off balance and Weis did little to disguise the intent of the play, often putting Clausen in the shotgun and spreading the field. These types of tendencies needed to be avoided. Against a talented Carroll defense, tendencies are unforgivable and make execution extremely difficult.

The lack of commitment to the running game was also puzzling. Counting sacks as passes the Irish only ran the ball 34.7 percent of the time, i.e. a pass was called on better than 65 percent of snaps. Playing from behind can slant the play selection but given the success of the running game and inability to consistently protect Clausen, it seemed ill-advised to be so pass-heavy.

On defense, the game plan wasn’t bad. Tenuta tried to take away USC’s best offensive weapon—their ground attack—by stacking the box and forcing Barkley to win the game. Everything worked except the part where Trojan receivers ran to wide-open spaces.

The reality is that Tenuta has to pick his poison.

He can opt to not blitz but will rarely generate pressure with only the front four. Opposing quarterbacks will have time to throw and eventually their receivers will get open. Under normal circumstances this leads to a bend-but-don’t-break approach where defenders keep everything in front of them and force consistent execution. Poor tackling all but undoes this advantage.

The alternative is blitzing to generate pressure. This leaves the Irish secondary in a precarious position which, as this year has demonstrated, does not produce favorable results.

It seems that the constant shift in defensive philosophies (Rick Minter’s 4-3, to Corwin Brown’s 3-4, to Tenuta’s blitz-happy 4-3) and unorthodox defensive coaching responsibility (co-defensive coordinators with somewhat conflicting defensive philosophies) is preventing the Irish defense from playing to their potential. Constant change with young players has a way of doing that.

The close outcome of the game seems to point to a step in the right direction. But the reality is that the Irish only did some of the things necessary to win the game (win turnover battle, big special teams play, multiple defensive looks), and failed to do others (avoid establishing play-calling tendencies, protect Clausen, bend-but-don’t-break).

The game wasn’t as close as it seemed (8.1 to 4.9 yards per play, 134 yards more offense for USC) and a lot of luck went Notre Dame’s way including four fumbles, none lost, and five first downs from penalties. The determined effort from the Irish players took advantage of these opportunities, but this only serves to mask several, fundamental coaching deficiencies.

Good offenses don’t allow the opposition to consistently pressure the passer with three or four defenders, good defenses don’t have multiple breakdowns in coverage, and average teams tackle much better than the Irish. Additionally, no game should end with an extra down and timeout. The clock management at the end of the contest certainly cost Clausen and company another play.

There is plenty that needs remedied on this team, and a close loss to a good opponent shouldn’t overshadow that. With an average defense this Irish squad is staring 5-1, or possibly 6-0, directly in the face.

Regardless, it is time to move on. After a deflating loss the Irish must maintain focus and continue to play emotional football over the second half of the season. If Notre Dame can show the heart they did against the Trojans for the remaining six games, they could very well win out.

Similar Posts

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. USC

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Washington

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Nevada

This article is © 2007-2009 by De Veritate, LLC and was originally published at Clashmore Mike. This article may not be copied, distributed, or transmitted without attribution. Additionally, you may not use this article for commercial purposes or to generate derivative works without explicit written permission. Please contact us if you wish to license this content for your own use.

670 The Score Radio Interview Audio and Reflections

Anthony Pilcher — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:07:07 -0400

After Saturday's loss to USC, Clashmore Mike staff writer Anthony Pilcher conducted an interview with Chicago's 670 The Score (670am). The audio of the interview itself can be found at the bottom of this article.

What follows are some further responses and elaboration on topics from the interview itself.

On The "Must Win" Game For Charlie Weis...

One game does not define a coach.

For some the USC loss may be the proverbial "nail in the coffin" for Weis, but that is only because of what has come before it. There has been plenty of good and bad during Weis' time in South Bend, and-save a colossal second-half meltdown-Notre Dame director Jack Swarbrick should evaluate Weis' entire body of work.

That includes the bad: his dubious 9-21 record against winning teams and 1-11 record against teams in the AP Top 25 as well as allowing opponents to score 28 or more points in more than 40 percent of the games he has coached.

But it also includes the good: Weis' recruiting prowess and the significant talent upgrade over the past four years, implementing a modern, professional-style offense, and his level of effort and commitment to Notre Dame and the Irish players. If there is one thing that separates Weis from his immediate predecessors it is a work ethic that is beyond commendable.

Moreover, the Irish have played emotional, determined football over the better part of the last six games. Some of this is due to (finally) having talented upperclassmen leadership. But some of it is undoubtedly due to Weis' all-in style of coaching, and the players have rallied around him because he plays to win. The natural by-product is a determined effort, and the greatest compliment a coach can receive is that his team plays with heart.

Weis' fate will be determined at the end of the season. The only pertinent question at that point is, "Can he consistently compete for BCS game appearances and national titles?" A close loss, even to a hated rival, is not enough to tilt the scales one way or the other.

On Jimmy Clausen And His Heisman Chances...

It is highly unlikely Clausen will win the Heisman Trophy. It won't be because he isn't deserving, it will be because it is no longer given to the best player in college football.

That isn't to say that Clausen is the best player in the country, but the Heisman Trophy is awarded to the best player on one of the top five or 10 teams in college football. The Irish are a far cry from the latter, and in all likelihood will not register that coveted "signature win."

Notre Dame's poor defense will force Clausen and company into shootouts which should elevate his production, but the bottom line is that this team will not beat a good opponent unless they improve dramatically on the defensive side of the ball.

Clausen is an exceptional passing quarterback, perhaps the best in the country, but he's only as good as his supporting cast and if the front five are unable to provide protection (14 sacks or one per 10.4 pass attempts over the past four games), he won't be able to consistently operate at a high level.

His performance against USC was as good as could be expected given the hand he was dealt. Sacked five times and hurried countless others, he threw for 260 yards and two touchdowns while completing 63.2 percent of his passes (removing five balls he threw away to avoid a sack). Considering the Trojan defense surrendered zero touchdown passes and only 173.8 yards per game through the air entering the game, Clausen played very well.

His poise and leadership have progressed rapidly this season, and Irish fans should feel proud to have such a fiery, competitive signal caller. He has brought the Irish back from deficits on several occasions, many while partially-crippled with an injury.

Ultimately he came up short in the waning moments of this game. He had his opportunities, but three failed pass attempts to force overtime or win the game all fell incomplete. In a race where perception and momentum is all that matters, that will be all that is remembered by the Heisman voters.

On The Unmentioned...

The silent hero of Saturday's contest was Robby Parris.

The injury to Michael Floyd left a hole in the Irish receiving corps. Through the remainder of the contest with Michigan State, and the Purdue and Washington games, the production of Golden Tate largely offset the loss of Floyd. Still, it was inevitable that a third receiving option would be needed to complement Tate and tight end Kyle Rudolph.

Parris has emerged as that third option. With several clutch plays down the stretch in the Washington game and many more-including a 13-yard reception on fourth and ten to preserve the final drive-against USC, Parris has proven equal to the task. Hopefully his injury isn't serious and he can continue to be a weapon in the Irish passing game.

In some ways the Irish did what they needed to win this game. In other ways, they did not.

Notre Dame executed a fake field goal to perfection in one of the best calls of Weis' tenure. They also won the turnover battle, as the defense forced an interception at a moment when it was desperately needed.

But the Irish couldn't block four defensive linemen with five on offense and the defense consistently surrendered big plays (eight passes of more than 20 yards), particularly on third and short. Going into the game both were desperately needed and neither were delivered.

There was a lot of luck (four fumbles, none lost, as well as five first downs from Trojan penalties) involved to keep the game close, but the Irish made the most of every opportunity. Playing hard has a way of doing that, and Weis deserves credit for having his team ready to go toe-to-toe with a very good opponent.

Click here to hear the audio of the interview.

Similar Posts

Tim Brown: Like Smoke Through a Net

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Pittsburgh

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Nevada

This article is © 2007-2009 by De Veritate, LLC and was originally published at Clashmore Mike. This article may not be copied, distributed, or transmitted without attribution. Additionally, you may not use this article for commercial purposes or to generate derivative works without explicit written permission. Please contact us if you wish to license this content for your own use.

Anthony Pilcher Interview With Chicago's 670 the Score (670am)

Anthony Pilcher — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:50:57 -0400

Clashmore Mike is proud to announce that Anthony Pilcher will be interviewed live on 670 The Score tomorrow night after the Notre Dame – USC game on the Joe O. & Rock Show between 10:30 and 11pm. Listeners in the midwest can tune in to 670am and those out of range can listen via the web at 670thescore.com—click on the “Listen Live Now!” link in the upper-right corner of the frontpage—or simply click here.

Anthony will provide post-game thoughts and analysis on the Irish performance against USC on Saturday while being interviewed by Joe Ostrowski and sports personality John “Rock” Mamola. Clashmore Mike will also follow-up with a brief response to the interview along with a permanent link to an audio recording of the show.

Our thanks go out to 670 The Score for the opportunity. Go Irish!

Similar Posts

Clashmore Mike Welcomes Anthony Pilcher

Live Coverage of the 2009 Blue-Gold Game

Clashmore Mike Welcomes Michael Collins

Notre Dame vs. USC: Keys to an Irish Win

Anthony Pilcher — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:14:44 -0400

Notre Dame faces rival USC Saturday in South Bend.

Both teams enter the contest coming off a bye week and, save wide receiver Michael Floyd, the Irish are as healthy as they’ve been since the season opener.

Lately the series has been owned by the Trojans, with seven straight victories by an average margin of 27 points. Over these same seven meetings only the 2005 and 2006 contests have been decided by fewer than 31 points.

As head coach Charlie Weis said in his weekly press conference, Notre Dame fans, coaches and players needs this win in a big way.

USC Version 2009

It is amazing what USC head coach Pete Carroll has accomplished. Carroll is 88-15 (85.4 percent) in his eight years with the Trojans. Since 2002 he is 23-1 against non-conference foes and he consistently fields physical, talented teams despite losses to the NFL and staff turnover.

This year is no exception. Despite the loss of offensive coordinator Steve Sarkisian and defensive coordinator Nick Holt from last year’s Rose Bowl champion team, the Trojans haven’t missed a beat.

In typical Carroll fashion the Trojans get off to quick starts, outscoring their opponents by 65 points in the first half, compared to 36 in the second half.

In atypical Carroll fashion this team hasn’t established a decided advantage in turnover margin. The Trojans have nine turnovers on the year (three interceptions and six fumbles) and have only forced eight of their own (three interceptions and five fumbles).

USC is also fairly undisciplined. Entering Saturday’s game the Trojans rank 95th in penalty yards racking up 69.4 per game.

Offense

The 2009 Trojan offense isn’t the juggernaut of the past, but it isn’t bad either. With few exceptions USC’s offense is performing at the rate their competition allows.

New offensive coordinator John Morton has been fortunate to ride a strong running game through the early part of the schedule as there has been little need to open up the playbook and put the game on the shoulders of freshman quarterback Matt Barkley.

The primary offensive weakness is third down and red zone efficiency. The Trojans rank 113th with a 28.8 percent conversion rate on third down and only score 85 percent of the time they cross the oppositions’ 20-yard line. Moreover, a paltry 60 percent (61) of red zone opportunities have resulted in touchdowns.

What they lack in efficiency, they make up for in production averaging 430.6 yards per game and 6.7 yards per play. Most of this production has come on the ground and it’s no secret Morton prefers to run the ball behind the strength of the offense, a veteran and agile front five that may be the best offensive line in the country.

Morton has called 189 runs to 134 pass attempts (58.5/41.5 percent run/pass split) and the yards have come nearly evenly on the ground and through the air (1040 yards rushing, 1113 yards passing).

USC’s offensive line has opened holes for a running game that averages 5.5 yards per carry and 208 yards per game. Throw in 13 rushing touchdowns and the Trojans rank in the top 25 in every rushing category. And these rankings haven’t come with the help of poor competition. While the offense hasn’t faced an exceptional run defense every week, Ohio State and California have solid units and the Trojans have been routinely outperforming their defensive counterparts.

Joe McKnight and Allen Bradford lead the attack. The former averages 7.1 yards per carry while the latter averages 6.5 yards per attempt. McKnight also has six touchdowns on the ground and is the workhorse with 67 carries on the year.

The passing game is rather pedestrian, but that’s really all Morton has wanted from it. Barkley has largely been asked to manage the game—not win it—and he has responded by throwing only two interceptions and completing almost 240 passing yards per game.

The favorite receiving target is Damian Williams who has caught 24 passes for 359 yards (15 yards per reception), but Barkley has spread the ball around as seven receivers have caught five or more passes. The deep threat comes in the middle of the field as tight end Anthony McCoy is averaging 21.9 yards per catch.

Finally, the offensive line has only allowed six sacks but this slightly overvalues the pass protection. With only 134 attempts, the Trojans have allowed one sack per 22.3 attempts, not an overwhelmingly impressive number.

See the tables below for a more in-depth look at the Trojan offense.

Due to problems embedding the tables the can be seen here.

Defense

It is amazing that Trojan defense has been so dominant despite losing eight starters from a unit that was one of the best in the country last year.

Led by Taylor Mays, arguably the best safety in the country, USC is outperforming their offensive competition by large margins and has yet to show a weakness.

It has largely been plug-and-play for new defensive coordinator Rocky Seto, who has favored simple over clever. The result is a unit that is incredibly effective and efficient.

The Trojan defense ranks in the top 15 in all three efficiency categories, but is extremely stingy on third down (29.5 percent conversion rate) and has allowed only two red zone touchdowns all year.

In total defense Mays and company rank sixth or better in every category and only allow 8.6 points per game (4) and 3.7 yards per play (4). About half of the scoring has come on field goals as USC has allowed only three touchdowns (all rushing) through five games.

The run defense has been particularly strong. Chris Galippo (32 tackles) leads a front seven that has stifled opposing offenses allowing fewer than 65 rushing yards per game at a 2-yard per carry rate. Every rushing defense category ranks 10th or better.

Against the pass, things aren’t much different. While the Trojans have given up some big plays through the air (11.1 yards per completion) they have been overwhelmingly efficient allowing only 5.4 yards per attempt and a 48.5 percent completion rate. The pass efficiency rating of 90 is good for eighth in the country and the secondary has yet to allow a touchdown pass.

But perhaps the most impressive part of the defense is the ability to get to opposing signal callers. USC has recorded 21 sacks on only 161 passing attempts, good for one sack per 7.7 pass attempts. The front four are particularly adept at rushing the quarterback, with 15 of the 21 sacks coming from defensive linemen.

See the tables below for a more in-depth look at the Trojan defense.

Due to problems embedding the tables the can be seen here.

Summary

The Trojan offense isn’t flashy, but is efficient and wields a potent ground game that matches a strength against a weak Irish run defense.

USC’s defense is the best Notre Dame will face in the regular season, has dramatically outperformed their offensive competition, and can really get after the quarterback.

This all seems to add up to an impossible task for Notre Dame. So what can Weis and the Irish do to win?

Offense

Don’t force it. Seto’s unit relies on good fundamentals, talent and athleticism. Consequently, the Trojans play as much base defense as any team. Against this scheme quarterback Jimmy Clausen can’t get greedy, and Weis must take calculated risks with his play-calling. The methodical drives that were a staple of the Brady Quinn era will be a commodity in this game.
Don’t establish tendencies. Against Nevada, Notre Dame ran behind tight end motion 90 percent of the time. It was obvious, but it worked because of a decided advantage in talent. It won’t against USC. The athleticism and talent of the Trojan defense makes the execution margin of error very small. Play-calling must be balanced and unpredictable, and the Irish offense must stay ahead of the chains to prevent Mays and company from honing in on tendencies. If USC is able to identify trends, they will quickly become dominant.
Protecting Clausen is imperative. USC can pressure the passer, and they typically don’t need more than their front four to do it. The Irish must be effective executing screens and draws to keep the Trojan defensive line off-balance, and must establish an effective running game to prevent them from pinning back their ears and rushing Clausen without pause. It is critical for the front five to provide pass protection without committing extra players, particularly when Weis spreads the field and Clausen is not under center. The matchup between Notre Dame’s front five and the defensive front of USC will be the deciding factor in offensive production for the Irish. If USC can get pressure with four, it will be a long day for Clausen and company.

Defense

Switch it up and hit ‘em. Barkley has been poised, but he is a freshman. Co-defensive coordinator Jon Tenuta needs to mix blitzes, personnel packages, coverages, etc. to give similar pre-snap looks coupled with different play-calls. The confusion should go a long way in forcing a mistake. Additionally, the Irish need to punish the freshman at every permitted opportunity.
The athleticism in the front seven must pay dividends. The most critical factor in this game will be the play of the Irish front seven. They have plenty of talent and athleticism, but have not played to their potential. There is no better time to breakout than now. Manti Te’o, Brian Smith and Darius Fleming must play well in space and prevent McKnight from ripping off big gains. Kapron Lewis-Moore, Ethan Johnson, Ian Williams and Kerry Neal must shed blocks and shoot the gaps. Without a solid game from these players, the Irish have little chance of winning.
Bend-but-don’t-break will actually work. The Irish defense has yielded plenty of yards, mostly via a bend-but-don’t-break style of defense that blends soft coverage with quarterback pressure. Against USC this is actually preferred. The Trojan offensive line and backfield are too talented to stop, but the running game becomes less effective in the red zone. USC should move the ball well outside the 20-yard line but the Irish must buckle down on a short field and continue to frustrate a poor red zone offense. Additionally, USC struggles on third down. Forcing them to methodically move the ball the length of the field favors the defense.

Summary

Offensively, the game plan comes down to the numbers in the box. If USC is allowed to play base defense there is little chance of success. Notre Dame must establish an effective running game and maintain balance to force an extra man in the box. The front five must protect Clausen and force Seto to bring the blitz and sacrifice a defender in coverage.

If the Irish can do these two things, they will have success. Most of the burden falls on the offensive line, and this game will be won up front.

On defense Notre Dame must force third down and make Barkley and company consistently execute. On a short field the advantage tilts towards the home team as Tenuta can afford to use the secondary in run support.

The Irish have yet to play up to their potential but will need their best performance of the year to win this game, particularly on defense. Even then they will likely need a big special teams play or some help from the visitors. If USC plays to their potential, the probability of victory is not high, and the Irish will need some gambles to pay off.

USC gets off to fast starts, so the Irish cannot afford to come out flat. But there is plenty of material to motivate. The Trojans have owned this series under Carroll’s tutelage. Weis has yet to beat an elite opponent. There are plenty of Irish doubters. And Clausen needs a signature win.

In other words, a victory is needed in the worst way, for Weis, for Clausen, and for Notre Dame. The Irish are certainly capable of the upset, and the vibe of the team and campus has the arrow pointed in the right direction.

Similar Posts

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. USC

Notre Dame vs. Pittsburgh: Keys to an Irish Win

How Good Are the Irish? A Year-End Notre Dame Defensive Statistical Review

How Good Are the Irish? A Mid-Year Defensive Statistical Review

Anthony Pilcher — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:33:41 -0400

With the offensive analysis out of the way, it’s time to focus on the mid-year statistical review of Notre Dame’s defense. But before getting to the numbers some logistical details must be outlined.

As was the case with the offense, the individual game performances (Nevada, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue and Washington) tell part of the story, but looking at the first half of the season as a whole tends to remove situational effects and give a better overall picture. Admittedly, this is a more facile proposition at the end of the year, but five games are enough to get a decent start.

The statistical analysis below focuses on benchmarking to adjust for the level of competition. As outlined here and here, this is important for multiple reasons. The benchmarking metric of choice is termed a performance ratio (PR) and is used to adjust the Irish defensive performance to account for the play of opposing offenses.

For a detailed discussion on performance ratios go here and/or here. Simply speaking, values greater than zero indicate the Irish are performing above the average level of their competition and values less than zero are indicative of below average performance.

The data below is presented in tabular form and a description of the column headers is provided here. All numbers were taken from the NCAA statistics website and are accurate as of October 4, 2009, i.e. these values do not incorporate the performance of Notre Dame’s opponents over the previous bye weekend.

For comparison purposes, the mid-year and year-end defensive assessments for last year can be found here and here.

Now that logistics are covered, in the words of head coach Charlie Weis, “let’s dive right in.”

What Happened First?

First down defense is always important, but even more so for the Irish.

First, the Irish defensive personnel are better suited for long down and distance situations. Even though the secondary has not performed up to expectations, it is the strength of this unit. The front seven are athletic and can—in theory—get to the passer, but lack experience and a dominant player that forces offenses to alter game plans.

Second, co-defensive coordinator Jon Tenuta’s scheme is based on bringing pressure early and often. This is most effective in longer down and distance situations that occur later in the play series, i.e. where passing is a more obvious play-call. Forcing these down and distance situations depends primarily on the quality of the defensive play on first down.

Whether this problem hasn’t been identified by the coaching staff or isn’t being appropriately corrected is irrelevant, the Irish have been anything but stellar on first down and several additional problems stem directly from this deficiency.

Against an even play split (75 passes and 75 runs) the Irish have allowed 5.8 yards per first down play. Moreover, only 39.3 percent of first down plays (59 of 150) have gone for two or fewer yards but over 48 percent (73 of 150) have gone for five or more yards.

This frequently results in second and five (or fewer) yards, a down and distance that keeps the opposing offensive playbook open and allows for an equal run/pass threat for the duration of drives.

If Tenuta and company want to improve going forward, first down is the place to start. The Irish must minimize the weaknesses in the front seven by generating down and distance situations that force obvious play-calling tendencies.

They Call It Efficiency For A Reason

Third down is a struggle, but on a short field, the defense is solid.

Due to problems embedding the tables, the data can be seen here.

To be fair, the Irish have faced fairly efficient offensive teams.

While they haven’t been dominant, they have performed better than their offensive competition as indicated by the 0.19 average defensive efficiency PR ranking. Third down defense is the most glaring weakness, but the primary defensive problem is actually getting to third down.

Only 44.7 percent (67 of 150) of play series have resulted in a third down and only 19.6 percent (11 of 56) of drives have been three-and-out. The poor first down defense outlined above and a penchant for surrendering big plays (see below) are largely to blame.

When the Irish defense manages to force a third down the conversion rate for opposing teams is pretty independent of the down and distance situation.

Almost 84 percent of third down plays required three or more yards to move the chains (67.2 percent required five yards or more) but an ineffective pass rush and soft coverage enabled a conversion rate of nearly 39.3 percent (22 of 56). More often than not the guilty culprit is poor tackling.

In short yardage the results are only slightly better. The Irish defense has faced 11 third and short (two or fewer yards) situations and allowed 36.4 percent (three of nine runs, one of two passes) to be converted.

In other words, poor tackling and first down execution keep the Irish defense on the field. Averaging nearly six yards per first down play has enabled 55.3 percent of play series to move the chains without a third down and made three-and-out’s the exception. But even after good first down defense poor tackling has allowed middle and long yardage third down situations to be converted at nearly the same rate as the short yardage ones.

In the red zone things are a bit different. Tighter coverage, a reduced big play threat, and determined play from the front seven have combined to stall opposing drives mostly by creating turnovers or forcing a turnover on downs.

Totally Offensive, er Defensive

It’s pretty ugly.

Due to problems embedding the tables, the data can be seen here.

Aside from scoring and touchdowns (the two are obviously closely linked), the Irish have performed at about the level of their competition.

However, both categories are largely slanted by the opening game shutout against Nevada. Excluding this game the Irish have allowed nearly 30 points per contest, a number that would rank 95th in the country. Most of the points (60.5 percent) have come in the first and fourth quarters. In particular the Irish have allowed 41 fourth quarter points, a testament to a lack of depth in the front seven.

Aside from scoring, the Irish rank in the bottom quarter of all FBS schools and have been very average in both production (403.2 yards per game) and efficiency (six yards per play).

This production has come against a few decent offensive teams. Nevada ranks in the top 15 in yards per play (6) and yards per game (12), Michigan ranks in the top 25 in scoring (24), and Michigan State ranks in the top 30 in yards per play (25) and yards per game (21). But none have the talent and athleticism to consistently post these kind of numbers against the Irish.

Runnin’, Runnin’, Runnin’

A known weakness has developed into a liability.

Due to problems embedding the tables, the data can be seen here.

The rushing totals and rankings are consistent with the total defensive numbers above. This doesn’t bode well for Tenuta’s “if you can’t stop the run you’ll bleed to death” mantra.

Notre Dame fields a run defense that ranks 40 or below in every category and has allowed 4.5 yards per carry (92) and nearly 140 yards per game (67) on the ground. Both are problematic but the former is particularly troubling considering the rush average increases to 5.2 yards per attempt when sacks are excluded.

The Irish also struggle on first down and in short yardage situations. Opposing offenses are average 5.3 yards per first down carry and have picked up a first down on 56.5 percent (13 of 23) of short yardage runs.

The Irish run defense has faced some teams with decent rushing production (Nevada and Michigan) and efficiency (Nevada, Michigan and Purdue) that undoubtedly amplify the numbers. But it is inconsistent play that has largely been the problem.

Michigan State and Purdue rank 70th and 56th respectively in yards per game. Against these two foes the Irish surrendered only 179 yards and 3.5 yards per carry. But the defense also struggled to stop a woeful Husky running game that entered their contest with the Irish averaging under 110 yards (94) and 3.3 yards per carry (96).

What Was Once Thought To Be A Strength

Against pedestrian competition, the secondary has struggled.

Due to problems embedding the tables, the data can be seen here.

Prior to the season many felt the Irish secondary would be among the best in the country. The numbers hardly support this as the Irish rank 41st or worse in every category and virtually every pass defense metric is worse this year than last.

Teams have been very effective (263.6 yards per game) with only Nevada throwing for fewer than 240 yards. Efficiency has also been problematic as opposing quarterbacks have completed nearly 60 percent of their passes for 7.5 yards per attempt (84) and 12.4 yards per completion (87).

Additionally, Tenuta’s blitz-heavy play-calling isn’t generating sacks, as the Irish have only recorded nine on the year (one per 19.8 pass attempts).

The pass defense has to be a concern heading into the second part of the season.

The Irish have only faced one decent passing offense (Michigan State) but opponents prefer to pass (53.1 percent of play-calls) even though Notre Dame’s run defense is suspect. When pressed the pass is also preferred as over 62 percent of opponents’ first downs have been through the air (excluding first downs from penalties).

This is another indication of poor first down defense as less than prolific passing offenses maintain balance via manageable down and distance situations that create an equal run/pass threat.

Looking For Consistency

Definition: Big—or explosive—plays are rushing gains of more than 15 yards and pass completions of more than 20.

Through five games the Irish have allowed 15 big gains on the ground and 19 through the air for 901 yards (26.5 yards per play). Stated differently, 10.1 percent of plays have accounted for 44.7 percent of opponents’ total yardage. Without these big plays the defense is only allowing 3.7 yards per snap.

Projecting these values to 12 games results in 36 explosive rushes and 46 big pass plays, both more than last year and hardly consistent with good defensive play.

Without big gains the Irish are fairly respectable against the run. The 15 big runs averaged 21.3 yards per attempt and accounted for 45.7 percent of the total yards on the ground. Excluding these plays results in a respectable 2.7-yard per carry average. Even without sacks this value only increases to 3.4 yards per attempt.

Through the air, however, the story is different. The explosive pass plays are good for a 30.6-yard average and have accounted for 44.2 percent of the passing output. But excluding these plays the Irish have still allowed 4.6 yards per pass attempt and 8.5 yards per completion. Both numbers are quite high and very similar to quarterback Jimmy Clausen’s performance this season.

In many ways it is odd that the defense has allowed so many explosive plays through the air.

The Irish secondary has played mostly soft on the outside and tight in the middle. Coupled with a pressure scheme, this usually prevents the big play as the defense keeps everything in front and forces quick throws. But much of this bend-but-don’t-break approach has been undermined by poor tackling that enables big gains via yards after the catch (and after contact for that matter).

Is That The Best You Can Do?

There is little good news in the numbers above. It does appear that the Irish defense is better than advertised when benchmarked to their offensive competition, but being better than awful is hardly an achievement.

Moreover, the numbers could be far worse. The Irish have had a decided time of possession advantage in every game but their contest with Washington. This has undoubtedly reduced the production of opposing offenses and helped the defense stay fresh, particularly in the front seven where there is little quality depth. Additionally, the Nevada game appears to be more exception than rule and excluding that contest makes the numbers look much worse.

There is, however, a silver lining: this unit has yet to play to its potential and many of the problems are fairly easy to correct. Better play on first down and crisp tackling will help the defense get off the field and minimize big plays. Both negate the advantage(s) of Tenuta’s scheme and must be corrected.

With a dominant Trojan offensive line and running game coming to town, correcting them sooner rather than later will be necessary for the Irish to continue their winning ways.

Similar Posts

How Good Are the Irish? A Mid-Year Defensive Statistical Review

How Good Are the Irish? A Year-End Notre Dame Defensive Statistical Review

How Good Are the Irish? A Mid-Year Offensive Statistical Review

How Good Are the Irish? A Mid-Year Offensive Statistical Review

Anthony Pilcher — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 00:27:16 -0400

Bye weeks are good for many things.

For head coach Charlie Weis this week was an opportunity to rest key personnel with injuries, self-scout the first five games, and get the reserves meaningful practice repititions.

For fans it is a chance to reflect on (and potentially readjust) their season expectations and, this year, to get a break from the heart palpitations that accompany nail-biting wins.

But here at Clashmore Mike we use the bye week to review the statistical performance of the team. While the individual games (Nevada, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue and Washington) provide some insight, a mid-year review in the context of the competition is a better indication of how the Irish are playing.

So, just like last season, the bye week will be used to benchmark Notre Dame’s production on offense (2008 mid-year and year-end) and defense (2008 mid-year and year-end) to the competition.

This discourse focuses on the resurgent Irish offense saving the defense for a future installment.

Why Benchmark?

Last season the Irish began 4-2 and looked the part of a vastly improved team.

However, at the time of the bye week the first six opponents had an average AV Ranking of 65.3 and the Irish strength of schedule was only 80th best in the country. Additionally, the four wins came against teams ranked lower than 50 in the AV Ranking while the two losses came against two teams ranked better than 30. The second half of the season featured stiffer competition and Notre Dame struggled through a 3-4 finish.

This year is eerily similar as Notre Dame has four wins against teams that have combined for only 10 victories, losing to the only opponent with a winning record. The first five opponents have an average AV Ranking of 67.6 with only two teams—Michigan and Washington—ranked higher than 40. Currently, the Irish have played the 82nd toughest schedule.

In other words, the numbers only tell part of the story. Poor competition can artificially inflate/deflate a team’s offensive/defensive production. Benchmarking to the competition (at least partially) removes this bias by appropriately and accurately measuring a team’s performance.

This doesn’t mean the 2009 Irish aren’t improved from last year, especially on offense. It also doesn’t mean they will falter down the stretch for another mediocre record. But it does mean that a closer look is needed to accurately assess the magnitude of the team’s production.

First Things First, Let’s Get Logistics Out Of The Way

While college football isn’t professional baseball, there are still a litany of statistics. It isn’t necessary to pour through them all. Not only is this a daunting task, but some metrics are more pertinent than others and incorporating every statistic can detract from the purpose of the evaluation.

As such, I have parsed the available data into 23 statistics divided into the following five categories:

Miscellaneous
Offensive efficiency
Total offense
Rushing offense
Passing offense

The pertinent statistics for each category are presented in tabular form and include the numbers for Notre Dame and the averages of their first five opponents.

Each table has six columns:

Statistic — The statistical quantity of interest
Notre Dame — The value of 1. for the Irish offense
Notre Dame Rank — The rank of 1. for the Irish offense
Opponent Average — The average defensive value of 1. for Irish opponents
Opponent Average Rank — The average defensive rank of 1. for Irish opponents
PR — The performance ratio of 1. for Notre Dame (for a detailed description of performance ratios see the discussion here and here). Values greater than zero indicate the Irish are performing above the average level their competition allows, values less than zero are indicative of below average performance.

These numbers were taken from the NCAA statistics website and are accurate as of October 4, 2009. Nota bene: these values do not incorporate the performance of Notre Dame’s opponents over the bye weekend.

Looking At The Category-less

Ball control is phenomenal, penalties have been costly, and continued minimization of turnovers will produce more victories.

Due to problems embedding the tables, the numbers can be seen here.

There are two primary corollaries to good ball control, a fresh Irish defense and tired opposing defenses. Notre Dame is first in the country in time of possession and have owned a clock advantage in four of their first five contests (Washington is the only exception).

Much of this is due to only five (four meaningful) turnovers. While the Irish defense hasn’t forced an overwhelming number of fumbles (four) or recorded many interceptions (five), the offense has taken especially good care of the ball. Without such good ball protection Notre Dame could easily be 1-4 rather than 4-1.

Quarterback Jimmy Clausen has only thrown one interception per 74 passes, and it can be argued that one of those two picks was not his fault. Moreover, the Irish running backs have only two fumbles on 180 rushing attempts. Both are very impressive.

Penalties are really the only area of concern, and it isn’t the number (seven per game) or yards (58.6 per game) as much as it is the timing. Several big gains and scoring opportunities have been negated by penalties. Procedural miscues, in particular, are rarely excusable.

Effective Is Nothing, Efficiency Is King

While the kicking has been good, there is room for plenty of improvement scoring touchdowns in the red zone and on third down.

Due to problems embedding the tables, the numbers can be seen here.

Relative to 2008, the offense has increased the efficiency of all three categories in the table above. Red zone touchdown and third down efficiency have improved moderately, while red zone efficiency has increased dramatically. In all three categories the Irish perform at about the level their competition allows.

The pedestrian third down conversion rate is puzzling given the time of possession numbers above, but the reality is that Notre Dame doesn’t get to third down that often.

The Irish have faced 162 play series, needing a third down play only 62 times (38.3 percent) to move the chains. In other words, Weis is doing a good job with play-calling on first and second down and the execution has followed.

However, when the Irish do reach third down, they are frequently in third and long (62.9 percent) or need three or more yards (74.2 percent). In these down-and-distance situations running the ball is a less viable option and the offense becomes pass-heavy (32 passes to 14 runs). One-dimensional offenses aren’t overly difficult to defend, even on a down-and-distance basis.

On third and short (two or fewer yards) the conversion rate is much higher, mostly because Weis has been able to rely on the ground game. Out of 16 third and short situations, only two pass plays have been called (12.5 percent). Nine of the 14 runs have been good for first downs (64.8 percent) but two failed attempts came in garbage time against Nevada.

Excluding these two plays Notre Dame has converted on an astounding 75 percent of its third down short yardage running plays. It isn’t easy to pick up two yards on the ground when a defense knows its coming, and the front five and running back Armando Allen deserve a lot of credit for such a high success rate.

Red zone touchdown efficiency has been marred by mistakes as Clausen and company managed to score touchdowns only 57.1 percent of the time they cross the opponent’s 20-yard line. The red zone offense was particularly bad last week, struggling to punch it in against the best red zone defense they faced through the first five games.

Cute play-calling (a quarterback draw on third and five at the Michigan 10-yard line?), a fumbled snap, penalties, and dropped and overthrown passes have all contributed to a poor red zone offense that frequently has to settle for field goals over touchdowns.

To remedy this it might be a good idea to use the running game. The Irish have proven they can run the ball in short yardage situations but the relatively few number of rushing touchdowns (see below) suggest the ground game is underutilized in the red zone.

With a small improvement in red zone touchdown efficiency the large increase in red zone efficiency is indicative of an improved kicking game. Freshman Nick Tausch has proven to be a reliable addition to the roster connecting on 10 of 11 field goal tries for the season (seven for eight in the red zone).

The Totalitarian State Of Affairs

At a cursory glance it looks good, but red zone touchdown efficiency rears its ugly head again and the inflated numbers don’t stack up well against elite teams.

Due to problems embedding the tables, the numbers can be seen here.

At first glance, nearly everything looks good. The Irish rank in the top 10 in three out of the five categories and have produced PR’s at a rate near—or above—20 percent. Only two categories are the exception, points per game and touchdowns, and both are directly tied to the poor red zone touchdown efficiency outlined above.

The 32.6 points per game have come by winning the second quarter where the Irish hold a 41-point edge in scoring (minus 4-point combined differential in the other three quarters). It seems that halftime adjustments are made by the opposition but are not countered by Weis and his staff.

The caveat is competition.

The gaudy numbers and high rankings above have come against many below average defenses. A comparison to (arguably) the top two teams in the country shows that Weis’ offense is good, but not great.

For example, while the Irish are averaging 470 yards per game, they have faced defenses that surrender almost 395 yards per contest. The positive PR’s are a good sign of above average production and efficiency, but do not rank near the top of the country.

Florida and Alabama have average total offense PR’s of 0.62 and 0.39 respectively (compared to 0.21 for the Irish). This has come against teams with an average total defense rank of 59 for Florida and 73 for Alabama, both better than Notre Dame (average total defense rank of 82).

So while Notre Dame’s offense is routinely performing at a level higher than their competition typically allows, it isn’t on par with the dominant teams in the country who have generated much better PR’s while playing better defensive competition.

What About That Pound-It Running Game?

Improvement yes, dominant no.

Due to problems embedding the tables, the numbers can be seen here.

It’s nice to see the emphasis of the off-season coaching hires show up in the box score. Last season the offensive line dramatically improved their pass protection. This season the running game is markedly better.

Running backs coach Tony Alford has certainly upgraded his corps of backs who have shown excellent ball protection, better vision, and a much more decisive running style. Offensive line coach and running game coordinator Frank Verducci has reduced the number of missed assignments by the front five as offensive linemen consistently get hat-on-hat at the line of scrimmage and at the second level.

The result is an improved rushing attack that nearly meets the minimum production needed to consistently compete at an elite level. The running game will never be a first-strike weapon in Weis’ offense, but it doesn’t need to be to have success.

The Irish have proven they can run the ball when they need to (as indicated by the 75 percent short yardage third down conversion rate), and that may be the biggest differentiating aspect between this season and the previous two.

Additionally, the Irish have averaged 148 yards per game and 4.1 yards per rushing attempt through the first five games. Those numbers are awe-inspiring, but they are certainly better than last year.

Without sacks the Irish yard per carry average increases to 4.7 and without Clausen’s runs this value improves to five yards per attempt. The top two running backs—Allen and fellow junior Robert Hughes—are producing above both rates, averaging 5.1 and 5.3 yards per carry respectively. After showing a penchant for timid and soft running last season, both Allen and Hughes have looked much more imposing this year.

The production on the ground does, however, come with an asterisk. Even with the improvement from 2007 and 2008 and the ability to convert short yardage situations on the ground, the Irish are far from dominant.

The PR’s for the rushing offense average out to nearly zero indicating the running game is just about what opposing defenses allow. For comparison purposes Florida’s PR average in the running game is just over one (i.e. on average they nearly double the output of their defensive competition).

Notre Dame’s effectiveness (yards per game) and efficiency (yards per carry) PR’s just over zero, and it isn’t because Weis has focused his play-calling on the passing game. The offense is nearly at an even split, running the ball 180 times compared to 163 pass attempts.

Is This The Best Air Attack In The Country?

It’s the biggest contributor to the total production and the efficiency ain’t half-bad either.

Due to problems embedding the tables, the numbers can be seen here.

There is no doubt that Clausen’s right arm and the passing game is the strength of the Irish offense. Even without wide receiver Michael Floyd, Clausen has plenty of weapons including wide receiver Golden Tate, tight end Kyle Rudolph, and Allen. The rest of the receiving corps has good top-to-bottom depth and matches up well with most secondaries in the country.

The passing offense has been both effective and efficient. The Irish rank better than 15th in six of the eight passing offense categories. Additionally, the interception ranking would be 15 spots higher if Crist’s Hail Mary pass against Michigan State were excluded.

Perhaps most impressive are the 9.9 yards per attempt and 172.5 passing efficiency numbers. Both rank second best in the country and are a true testament to Clausen’s upgraded pocket presence, accuracy, and improved decision making. It is rare for a passing offense to operate at this level of efficiency regardless of competition.

About the only negative is protecting the quarterback. The front five has allowed nine sacks in the last three contests after surrendering none in the first two games. A few (two) against Purdue can probably be attributed to Clausen’s injury-degraded mobility, but even with only seven sacks the Irish would rank 38th and allow one sack per 23.3 pass attempts.

Like the total offense, the production in the passing game has been (at least partially) inflated by poor defensive competition. The Irish have faced defensive teams with an average passing defense rank of 78, generating an average passing PR of only 0.21 (compared to 0.33 for Florida and 0.29 for Alabama). But this is likely artificially low as there isn’t much room for improvement.

Going For Broke

Definition: Big—or explosive—plays are rushing gains of more than 15 yards and pass completions of more than 20.

Last year the offense relied heavily on big gains. The Irish had 58 explosive plays for 1583 yards (27.3-yard per play average) that accounted for 38.3 percent of the total offense. Without these big plays Notre Dame averaged 2.5 yards per rush, 4.2 yards per pass attempt, and 3.3 yards per play.

Through five games this year Clausen and company have recorded 36 big gains for 1126 yards (31.3 yards per play). These plays have accounted for nearly 48 percent of the total offense.

Not unexpectedly, the majority of these plays have come through the air as 23 passes have accounted for 859 yards (37.3 yards per play), or 53.4 percent of the passing offense. Without these gains Notre Dame has averaged 5.4 yards per pass attempt and 8.7 yards per completion.

So the passing game has not only increased the frequency and production of the down field throws, it has also been dramatically more efficient without them. This is indicative of a methodical offense that takes calculated risks, i.e. does not force throws down the field and takes underneath routes when deep patterns are covered.

On the ground the story is quite different as 13 big runs have accounted for 267 yards (20.5 yards per carry). This is good for 36.1 percent of the total rushing output. Excluding these plays the Irish average a paltry 2.8 yards per carry.

So while the production in the running game is up, the consistency is lacking. The Irish are on pace for over 31 runs of more than 15 yards, nine more than last year, but the per carry average without them is only 0.3 yards per carry better than 2008.

Where Do The Irish Go From Here?

The Irish are a good, but not elite, offense.

Third down and red zone touchdown efficiency both need improvement. Fortunately, the Irish haven’t needed third down conversions too often and the red zone touchdown efficiency problems are easily correctable.

Eliminating self-inflicted mistakes will go a long way in helping this team reach it’s scoring potential. It’s tough to complain about nearly 33 points per game, but with such an advantage in time of possession more points are certainly desirable.

The running game would also benefit from better efficiency and more consistency (read less reliance on the big play). Averaging 4.1 yards per carry is nothing to balk at, but it has been largely aided by the 13 big rushes, and isn’t the self-imposed standard of 4.6 set by Weis in the off-season.

While the efficiency numbers in the passing game are about as good as it gets, there are many other statistical categories where the production is likely inflated by poor defensive competition. The Irish offense doesn’t measure up particularly well against Alabama and Florida, both of whom have faced tougher defensive competition.

But the reality of the matter is that the Irish—through no fault of their own—haven’t faced a good defensive team. Former athletic director Kevin White’s scheduling has produced a very modest early season slate. Since they are largely untested, the Irish offense is really an unknown commodity.

This will change after the bye week when USC arrives. The Trojans boast a stellar defensive unit that ranks in the top five in points per game (3), yards per game (5), rushing yards per game (5), and pass efficiency (3). Notre Dame won’t face a better defense all season.

To further the cause, Boston College and Connecticut also field solid defensive units. The Eagles have the 20th ranked scoring defense and rank in the top 30 in four other major defensive categories while the Huskies rank fourth in total defense and are in the top 20 of four other major defensive categories.

In other words, the second half of the season will determine if the Irish offense is for real.

Similar Posts

How Good Are the Irish? A Year-End Notre Dame Defensive Statistical Review

How Good Are the Irish? A Mid-Year Defensive Statistical Review

How Good Are the Irish? A Mid-Year Offensive Statistical Review

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Washington

Anthony Pilcher — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:52:07 -0400

You can say the Irish are a lot of things, but boring isn’t one of them.

If last week was good for hypertension, this week was enough to incite a heart attack. In what is becoming a recurring trend, Notre Dame needed late-game heroics from quarterback Jimmy Clausen to secure victory.

The Huskies deserve credit. Washington head coach Steve Sarkisian led a determined squad that played well throughout the contest. The Huskies went punch for punch with the more talented Irish who had no answer for defensive coordinator Nick Holt’s red zone scheme.

As the numbers below illustrate, two themes resonate throughout. The game was ripe with big plays (seven runs for more than 15 yards and 12 passes of more than 20 yards between the two teams) and was also largely decided by red zone defense as the Irish managed only 16 points on four first and goal opportunities and the Huskies scored only 10 on four first and goal second half tries.

Head coach Charlie Weis should be thankful that the defense—and Clausen—stepped up when it mattered most.

Offense

It was a bipolar affair. In several categories the Irish offense was more prolific than any game this season, in others it was the worst performance of the year.

Notre Dame ran the least number of plays (60) for the most yards (530) en route to 23 first downs. The play-calling was almost perfectly balanced with 29 runs and 31 passes, but it was the air attack that flourished as almost 80 percent of the total yards came via Clausen’s right arm.

Additionally, the offense netted its highest per play average on the year, edging their output against Nevada (8.4 yards per play) with a staggering 8.8 yards per play.

But that’s where the good news ends.

While it’s difficult to find fault with the numbers above, the Irish had season-high totals in negative plays (11) and turnovers (two), a season-low in third down efficiency (20 percent), and failed to control the clock for the first time all year.

Moreover, there was a heavy reliance on the big play. Notre Dame had 11 big gains for 371 yards (33.7 yards per play), accounting for 70 percent of the offensive production. Without these plays the per snap average falls from 8.8 to a season-low 3.2 yards per play.

But the biggest negative was red zone efficiency.

Officially, the Irish scored five times in five red zone tries. Unofficially, the Irish had six red zone appearances (they reached the Husky 20-yard line on their third drive) that resulted in only 26 points (out of a possible 42).

On first and goal the offense was even worse.

Notre Dame faced first and goal four times and ran 10 plays (five runs, five passes), averaging -1 yards per rush and -0.4 yards per pass. The result was only 16 points (out of 28). Whatever Holt was doing, it worked, and Weis can expect future opponents to study and replicate it.

While this red zone production is troubling and potentially due to lack of proper preparation, Weis deserves credit for taking field goals when given the opportunity. Points figured to be a commodity in this contest as the Husky defense entered the game ranked 31st in red zone efficiency and and 13th in red zone touchdown efficiency.

Rushing

The running output in this game was artificially slanted by big plays and the five times Clausen slipped on the wet field.

With these slips the Irish attempted 29 rushes for 108 yards (3.7 yards per carry), but these numbers are inflated by big gains. Four runs were good for 104 yards (26 yards per attempt) without which the Irish averaged 0.2 yards per carry. Subtracting sacks increases this value, but only to 1.2 yards per rush.

Without Clausen’s slips, the Irish attempted 24 rushes for 118 yards at 4.9 yards per carry, a much more respectable number. Subtracting the four big gains, however, results in only 0.7 yards per carry (2.1 yards per rush without sacks).

In other words, four runs accounted for the overwhelming majority of the rushing output and the Irish struggled to consistently move the ball on the ground against a woeful run defense.

Consistency in the ground game wasn’t a problem on first down where the Irish enjoyed the most success (7.6 yards per carry). Despite this, runs were only called on 39 percent of first down plays. This is particularly puzzling considering the game situation: rain, porous Irish defense, opponent that converts third downs at nearly a 60 percent rate on offense and can’t stop the run on defense (5.8 yards per rush, 195.8 yards per game entering the contest).

As far as personnel goes, the highlight of the game had to be running back Robert Hughes. For the second straight week Hughes ran with purpose, determination and conviction, making decisive cuts to gain 71 yards on only eight carries (8.8 yards per attempt).

Perhaps even more important was his two-point conversion run. After being briefly stopped by the Husky defense Hughes bullied his way into the end zone showing the type of power fans have been craving for.

If fellow running back Armando Allen gets healthy and Hughes keeps up his bruising style, this duo could be a great one-two punch moving forward.

Passing

Simply put, Clausen is playing out of his mind. Only two poor decisions on the year (the fumble this week and interception last week) have marred otherwise superb performances.

His pocket presence has dramatically improved from last year as he routinely extends plays and connects with receivers down the field.

This was constantly on display Saturday as he completed 23 of 31 passes (74.2 percent) for 422 yards and two touchdowns. The 13.6 yards per attempt and 18.3 yards per completion were second only to his performance against Nevada.

Additionally, Clausen completed seven throws for big gains (more than 20 yards) that totaled 267 yards (50.4 percent of the total offense), a 38.1 yard per completion average. But while the running game relied on these big gains, Clausen did not. Even without these seven plays he averaged 6.5 yards per attempt and 9.7 yards per completion, both season-highs.

About the only negative of his performance was three sacks and unsure footing on the wet field, neither entirely under his control. After allowing seven sacks in he last two games, pass protection has to be a concern for Weis (one sack per 18.1 attempts on the year).

Most of Clausen’s production came via junior wide receiver Golden Tate whose production has sharply increased since the injury to Michael Floyd. Tate caught nine balls for a ridiculous 244 yards (27.1 yard average) and a touchdown. He also took a reverse 31 yards on the first offensive play of the game.

Defense

Like the offense, it was a mixed bag for the defense.

The Irish came up big three times on the goal line (see below), but played poorly on first down, surrendered 30 points (for the third time this season), several big gains, 457 yards of offense, and 5.8 yards per play.

Additionally, the defense allowed a last minute drive to force overtime. A three point lead with 1:20 to play and the ball deep in the opponent’s territory should be enough to win.

Yards came on the ground and through the air as Washington ran 19 more plays (nearly five minutes more time of possession) with balanced play-calling (39 rushes, 40 passes) and production (176 yards rushing, 281 yards passing).

Washington didn’t consistently move the ball and recorded a season-high (tied with Purdue) eight explosive plays for over 55 percent of the total offense (252 yards, 31.5 yards per play). Excluding these big plays the Irish held their opponents to only 2.9 yards per play, a very respectable number and tied with Purdue for a season low.

Additionally, the Huskies converted almost 44 percent of third downs and stayed ahead of the chains for most of the day (less than 65 percent of third downs were for five or more yards).

These favorable down and distances came as the Irish allowed 5.5 yards per first down play and held the Huskies to two or fewer yards on only 14 out of 34 first downs (41 percent).

Much of the Husky offensive production was enabled by atrocious tackling persistent throughout the contest. Perhaps the only exception was freshman linebacker Manti Teo (10 tackles) whose instincts and physicality are far better than the other members of the Irish linebacker corps. In some respects it is troubling that the more experienced players at this position haven’t developed more.

But in the red zone, particularly on first and goal, the Irish came up big.

On three second half drives the Huskies had first and goal.

The first started on the Irish six yard line and resulted in a touchdown. The second started on the eight yard line and resulted in a turnover on downs. Twice quarterback Jake Locker sneaked the ball from inside the one, and twice he was repelled. On the third drive Washington had first and goal from the one yard line not once, but twice. The Irish defense held both times to force a field goal.

It is virtually impossible to stop an offense so close to the goal line so many times. The magnitude of this performance cannot be understated.

Rushing

The run defense struggled against a team that entered Saturday averaging 3.3 yards per carry and less than 110 rushing yards per game.

The Huskies gained 176 yards on the ground at 4.5 yards a clip. But it was really about big plays as three runs went for 77 yards (25.7 yards per attempt). Without these three plays Washington averaged only 2.8 yards per carry, a number that increases to 3.7 yards subtracting sacks.

The performance on first down was particularly poor as Notre Dame’s defense allowed 4.9 yards per rush. In the second half, despite several stops at the goal line, the Irish allowed 5.2 yards per first down rush.

Running back Chris Polk did most of the damage, repeatedly breaking tackles and totaling 136 yards on only 22 carries (6.2 yards per rush). Quarterback Jake Locker also chipped in with 33 yards on 16 carries (2.1 yards per attempt) but was sacked three times for a loss of 19 yards. Without sacks Locker was more efficient, averaging four yards per carry.

Passing

Locker wasn’t overly efficient, but he was especially effective down the field.

For the day the Husky signal caller completed 22 of 40 attempts (55 percent) for 281 yards at seven yards per attempt and 12.8 yards per completion. The completion percentage and yards per attempt values were the second lowest (Nevada) for the Irish defense.

Five of Locker’s passes went for 175 yards (35 yards per attempt) accounting for 38.3 percent of the total offense and 62.3 percent of the passing yards. Without these five plays the Huskies averaged only three yards per attempt and 6.2 yards per completion. Both values are season-lows for the Irish secondary.

Perhaps the most impressive feat for the Irish defense was recording three sacks on the day (one per 13.3 pass attempts) against a strong, mobile quarterback.

Special Teams

With the exception of the return game, the Irish played well in special teams. Notre Dame did not attempt a punt return and averaged only 21.5 yards per kickoff return.

Freshman punter Ben Turk saw his first collegiate action and averaged a modest 39.5 yards per punt return. Kicker Nick Tausch connected on all five field goal attempts and both point after tries. For the year Tausch has hit 10 of 11 field goal attempts, with a long of 46.

The Irish coverage units also played well holding Washinton to only 18.4 yards per kickoff return and allowing zero punt return attempts.

Summary

The defense played well enough in the first half to build an early lead. Washington scored on the first drive but didn’t cross the Irish 20-yard line again until the second half. The Irish offense, however, struggled in the early going and couldn’t score touchdowns on a short field.

Had the offense scored touchdowns instead of field goals, the game could have been far more one-sided. But that plays both ways, as Washington also had several excellent opportunities to put the game away in the second half.

This Irish squad—particularly the defense—may not play up to their potential, but they certainly have no quit in them. It is the former that is the problem, not the latter. The Irish have delivered in the clutch for three straight weeks, but games against inferior competition shouldn’t be so close.

Losing double-digit leads to UNC, Pittsburgh and Syracuse in 2008 didn’t teach this team not to play down to their competition. The difference between this year and last is luck at the end of contests, not the ability to protect leads and close out an opponent.

It is important to get to the bye week at 4-1, but those four victories have come against the 82nd most difficult AV Ranking strength of schedule and against teams that have combined for only 10 wins. The “winning is all that matters” mantra is only valid against a certain level of competition, and the Irish have proven little by winning four close games against mediocre opponents.

The situation will be decidedly different in two weeks as the Trojans come to town after a much-needed bye. The talent disparity will be much closer than any previous contest. Pete Carroll is 23-1 in non-conference games since 2004. USC runs the ball effectively on offense and, as always, fields a strong, physical defense.

The Irish can’t stop the former and have yet to face the latter and this will be the first time Notre Dame faces a quality opponent.

One thing is for sure, after October 17th the Irish will know just how good they are.

Similar Posts

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Washington

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Navy

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. USC

Notre Dame vs. Washington: Keys to an Irish Win

Anthony Pilcher — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 01:05:13 -0400

Notre Dame begins a three game homestand against the Washington Huskies this weekend. Coming off consecutive last-minute victories and laden with injuries to key personnel, the Irish need a convincing win to build confidence and the subsequent bye week to nurse the wounded.

Washington enters the game with victories against Idaho and mighty USC, a close loss to LSU, and a rather one-sided defeat at the hands of Stanford. The Huskies have played inconsistently at times, showing that the rebuilding effort is still a work in progress, but are certainly nothing like the winless squad the Irish faced last season.

Head coach Steve Sarkisian and assistant head coach/defensive coordinator Nick Holt certainly have the Huskies pointed in the right direction. The team plays with a decidedly different attitude from the recent past and is certainly capable of the upset in South Bend.

On offense the Irish will need a concerted effort to defeat the visitors, particularly if quarterback Jimmy Clausen and running back Armando Allen aren’t full speed. The Irish defense needs to build upon their improved play from last week, especially on first down and against the run.

Washington Version 2009

Despite the coaching change, the Huskies haven’t altered their scheduling trends. After finishing the 2008 regular season with the most difficult schedule, Washington enters Saturday’s game having played against the AV Ranking’s second most challenging slate of teams.

The Huskies feature almost entirely new offensive and defensive schemes, installed by Sarkisian and Holt over the off-season. With few exceptions, these new philosophies have been implemented and executed with very good success.

In the first year of a coaching change, this is more exception than rule. Part of this success is due to 18 returning starters with hardened game experience from last year’s 0-12 campaign. But part of it is also due to the coaching performance of Sarkisian and his staff.

Despite solid execution on both sides of the ball, the Huskies haven’t played mistake-free. Entering Saturday’s game Washington has averaged seven penalties for 57 yards per outing, and have turned the ball over six times in four contests.

Offense

The heart and soul of the Husky offense is quarterback Jake Locker. The dual-threat signal caller directs an efficient unit, and may be the most talented quarterback the Irish face all season. Accordingly, most of Washington’s success has come through the air.

The Husky offensive efficiency is present on multiple fronts.

Washington averages a remarkable 58 and impressive 93 percent in third down and red zone efficiency, respectively. The former is the result of Locker’s ability to extend drives with his feet. The latter has come against teams that are fairly stingy giving up red zone scores. Moreover, the Huskies are gaining nearly a yard better per play than their opposition allows.

With this level of efficiency it’s surprising Washington only holds a two-minute per game advantage in ball control, a number that undoubtedly climbs higher without the six turnovers.

But that’s about where the good ends.

Most of the offensive rankings are in the bottom half of FBS and this has come against defensive teams that average roughly 41 (LSU), 65 (Idaho), 11 (USC), and 49 (Stanford) in four major defensive categories (points per game, yards per play, rushing yards per game, and passing yards per game).

If there is a glaring weakness, it is the front five. Despite averaging 6-6, 323 pounds along the left side of the offensive line, Washington has struggled to run the ball. Additionally, the Husky offensive line has allowed seven sacks with a very mobile quarterback.

See the tables below for a more in-depth look at the Husky offense.

Due to problems embedding the tables, they can be viewed here.

Defense

The strength of the Husky defense is their play inside the red zone as the unit’s modus operandi has been “bend but don’t break.”

Holt’s boys have held opponents to only six touchdowns in 16 red zone trips, allowing six more field goals. Offenses have been able to move the ball well, but the defense buckles down on a short field.

At first glance it appears Washington has defended the pass well, but struggled to defend the run. A deeper look tells a different story.

The run defense has been porous, allowing over 195 yards per game at 5.8 yards per carry. To be fair, USC and Stanford both have good rushing offenses, but the Huskies’ numbers rank near the bottom of FBS teams.

This artificially underestimates opponents’ passing production because they haven’t needed to throw the ball (about 60 percent of plays against the Husky defense have been runs).

Moreover, even though offenses haven’t put up huge passing numbers, they were efficient.

Opposing quarterbacks have completed 60 percent of their passes for 7.7 yards per attempt and 12.9 yards per completion with only two interceptions (one per 47.5 pass attempts).

This is good for the 76th best pass efficiency defense in the country against a slate of teams that don’t throw the ball with overwhelming efficiency (opposing offenses average a 38th placed ranking in passing efficiency).

See the tables below for a more in-depth look at the Husky defense.

Due to problems embedding the tables, they can be viewed here.

Summary

Sarkisian and Holt may have Washington pointed in the right direction, but the 2009 squad lacks the star power to routinely compete against talented competition.

Washington plays well inside the twenty on both sides of the ball and this may be their saving grace, they thwart opposing scoring opportunities and take advantage of their own.

Locker is the strength of the offense. He is an above average passer with mobility that can extend drives. But the Huskies have a woeful rushing offense and struggle up front. Shut down Locker, and you stop Washington.

Defensively, the Huskies can’t stop the run and haven’t defended the pass well offenses that are far from prolific throwing the ball.

On paper the game seems to easily favor the Irish, but what are the critical elements of success?

Offense

Run the ball. The improved Irish running game will be critical in this contest. Head coach Charlie Weis must resist unnecessary pass calls and utilize his stable of backs to wear down a suspicious Husky run defense, take pressure of Clausen and the passing game, and keep Locker off the field. This is especially true if Clausen still feels lingering effects of his turf toe injury and/or if backup Dayne Crist must provide relief.
Take points when you get them (inside the red zone). Washington isn’t Purdue. The Husky defense has played well inside the 20-yard line, even against good running teams. Points will be a valuable commodity and opportunities to score cannot be wasted.
PA stands for play-action. If there is one lacking area of the 2009 Irish’ offense, it is the play-action passing game. It isn’t that Clausen hasn’t been effective throwing the ball off a run fake, it’s that all the run fakes look virtually identical. In a game where Washington expects the Irish to use the run to offload pressure on Clausen and/or Crist, more diversity in the play-action pass game would pay dividends.

Defense

It’s all about Locker. The Husky offense goes as Locker goes. He has a strong arm, mobility, accuracy and is difficult to tackle. Irish co-defensive coordinator Jon Tenuta must learn from the Michigan loss and stop Locker from scrambling. Using a linebacker to spy is a good start, and freshman Manti Teo may be the best candidate for the job. If Locker is allowed to improvise, a la Tate Forcier, the Irish defense is in for a long day.
Fix the other piece. Improvement in first down and rushing defense was readily apparent against Purdue. The secondary, however, continues to struggle. Washington has few legitimate threats at the receiver position and the Irish secondary hold a decisive athletic advantage. Soft coverage will be useless against a mobile and accurate quarterback. Darrin Walls, Raeshon McNeil, Robert Blanton, Gary Gray, et. al. must force the issue and suffocate the Husky receivers with press coverage.
Exploit the front five. The left side of the Husky line is big, but slow. The right is small and inexperienced. Both sides should be vulnerable to gap stunts and heavy blitzing. Exploiting this weakness is key, but Irish defenders must maintain control, as blitzing out of position has led to poor tackling far too often.

Summary

The Husky victory over USC has many Irish fans rightfully concerned about Saturday’s game. While there were certainly favorable circumstances surrounding the win (USC coming off a tough road win, Sarkisian and Holt’s familiarity with the Trojan personnel, a “down” year for Carroll’s team), it was a monumental achievement given the decided talent advantage of the Trojans.

As the game against USC (and LSU) indicates, Washington is not to be taken lightly. They will be motivated to play well and prove that their big win was not a fluke, and there are few better stages than Notre Dame stadium.

Similar to last week, the Irish have a decided talent advantage over their opponent. But Sarkisian and Holt have the Huskies playing well above their potential and talent advantages haven’t translated into dominating performances for Notre Dame.

The Irish need this win in several ways. The past two victories over Michigan State and Purdue have been anything but convincing, and entering the mid-season showdown with USC at 4-1 has a wholly different feeling than 3-2.

The former is requisite to build confidence through the bye week. The latter would be a disappointing start to the 2009 season, especially given the quality of Notre Dame’s opponents.

Similar Posts

Notre Dame vs. Washington: Keys to an Irish Win

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Washington

Let’s Get Husky, Notre Dame vs. Washington News and Notes

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame Vs. Purdue

Anthony Pilcher — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:12:38 -0400

Notre Dame fans need treatment for hypertension. The last three games have been decided in the waning moments, with the the last two needing gifts from the opposing team to secure a victory.

Against Michigan State it was quarterback Kirk Cousins overthrowing a wide open Larry Caper in the back of the end zone followed by a poor pass on the next play that was intercepted by safety Kyle McCarthy.

This week it was a head-scratching timeout from Purdue head coach Danny Hope that allowed quarterback Jimmy Clausen to avoid spiking the ball and run an extra play for the deciding score of the game.

To be certain, it was a defining moment for the Irish signal caller.

On the road in West Lafayette and without many key personnel, the Irish offense played well enough to win. The Irish defense was also improved, holding Purdue running back Ralph Bolden (second in rushing yards per game entering Saturday's contest) in check for the duration of the evening.

Notre Dame dominated the time of possession (8:50 advantage), first downs (23 to 16) and plays (79 to 64), but questionable coaching strategy (more on this later) and poor fourth quarter defense nearly lost the game as the Irish surrendered a ten point lead before notching the winning score with 0:25 remaining.

Offense

It wasn't like the first three games, but on the road, without running back Armando Allen and wide receiver Michael Floyd, and with a half-injured Clausen, the Irish offense was still relatively effective and efficient.

The second quarter was particularly dominant as head coach Charlie Weis used the previously ineffective Wildcat formation and a physical running game en route to 14 unanswered points.

Notre Dame gained 383 yards at a modest 4.8 yards per play. Weis used balanced play calling (43 runs and 36 passes) that resulted in nearly equally balanced production in both yards (167 yards rushing to 216 passing) and first downs (ten first downs rushing, 11 through the air).

The efficiency was also on display as the Irish recorded only eight negative plays, scored on four of five trips inside the red zone, and converted 40 percent of third downs despite needing more than five yards 80 percent of the time.

About the only negatives were allowing four sacks and a reliance on the big play. Six big gains accounted for 120 yards (31.3 percent of the total offense) without which the Irish only averaged 3.6 yards per play, the lowest total of the season and about the average for last year.

Given how banged up the offense was, this is entirely understandable.

Rushing

The Irish running game was productive, even though Purdue knew it was coming.

Notre Dame gained 167 yards on 43 attempts for a 3.9 yard per carry average, numbers skewed due to the four sacks. Without sacks the average rushing attempt was good for 4.8 yards per carry.

Additionally, the Irish recorded four big runs for 75 yards, the most for both categories in any game this season.

Running back Robert Hughes led the way with 68 yards on 15 carries (4.5 yards per attempt) and a touchdown, reminding many of the promise he showed as a freshman. Wide receiver Golden Tate also chipped in 57 yards on only nine carries (6.1 yards per carry) and another touchdown.

Passing

The Irish had their worst passing performance of the young season, but it was largely expected given the circumstances surrounding Clausen's injury and the absence of Floyd.

Clausen and backup Dayne Crist combined to complete 55.6 percent of 36 passing attempts for season lows in yardage (216), yards per attempt (six), yards per completion (10.8), big gains (two), and big play yardage (45). The yards per attempt and completion dip to five and 9.5 respectively without the two explosive plays.

But the passing game wasn't about production, it was about closing.

Playing through noticeable pain and with limited mobility, Clausen delivered when it mattered most. It wasn't his most efficient or productive outing (57.7 completion percentage, 171 yards, one touchdown, one interception), but it certainly was gutsy.

The Irish offensive line also had their worst pass protection outing of the year, allowing four sacks on only 36 passing attempts (one sack per nine attempts). However, Clausen's injury certainly played a part in those rather dubious results.

Defense

It's no coincidence that arguably the best defensive performance of season came when the Irish played well on first down and against the run.

Sporting improved-albeit not great-tackling and a more conservative game plan from co-defensive coordinator Jon Tenuta, Purdue averaged only 4.8 yards on first down. Of Purdue's 26 first down plays, 13 resulted in two or fewer yards.

Despite this more conservative approach, big plays were problematic and prevented what could have been a fairly flawless outing.

Purdue gained 363 yards on 64 plays for 5.7 yards per snap. However, eight plays went for 199 yards and accounted for almost 55 percent of the total offense. Without these plays the Irish defense held Purdue to under three yards per play.

Many of these gains were on third down as the Irish allowed a 46.7 percent third down efficiency despite keeping Purdue in third and five-plus yards on 86.7 percent of their attempts.

Rushing

Over 40 percent of Purdue's plays were runs that accounted for only 20.4 percent of their total yardage.

The Irish front seven played their best game of the year holding running back Ralph Bolden to 75 yards on 17 carries. The 3.9 yards per attempt pales in comparison to the 6.8 yards per carry he averaged entering the weekend.

As a team Purdue only rushed for 74 yards at 2.8 yards per carry. Subtracting the two Irish sacks this average increases to 3.8 yards per attempt, but falls to 1.8 yards per rush when three big runs of 55 yards aren't included.

Moreover, the Irish only allowed 2.5 yards per rush on first down, a dramatic improvement from their performance against Nevada, Michigan and Michigan State.

In other words, the run defense was stout against a good rushing team that averaged 210.7 yards per game and six yards per carry coming into the contest. More production like this is needed in the future.

Passing

While the run defense improved, the secondary play continues to be a work in progress. Soft coverage was still problematic for an Irish defensive backfield that allowed three scores through the air.

Quarterback Joey Elliott completed nearly 58 percent of his passes for 289 yards and three touchdowns at 7.6 yards per attempt and 13.1 yards per completion. The Irish also surrendered five big pass plays for 144 yards (28.8 yards per play). Without the big plays the numbers are far more respectable (145 yards, 4.4 yards per attempt, and 8.5 yards per completion).

Despite blitzing with less frequency, Notre Dame did manage to notch two sacks, with freshman Manti Teo getting the first of his young career.

Special Teams

Kickoff coverage continues to be a strength for the Irish as Notre Dame allowed only 86 yards on five returns (17.2 yards per return). Kicker Nick Tausch is also improving and averaged 67.4 yards per kick Saturday.

But the punting production has significantly deteriorated and the Irish covered punts poorly for the first time this season. Eric Maust averaged only 37.8 yards per boot, but netted only 25.5 yards per punt as Purdue gained 49 yards on two punt returns (24.5 yards per return).

The Irish must find an answer for the punting woes as they are surrendering valuable field position at every exchange.

Summary

It is difficult not to question Weis' play-calling and coaching decisions in this game.

The Irish scored 14 unanswered points in the second quarter, largely due to the success of a rejuvenated Wildcat offense, creative use of Tate in the backfield, and inspired running by Hughes. Despite this success, these packages and plays were largely absent in the second half.

What happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?" The Boilermaker defense didn't adjust and or prove they could stop it, Weis simply stopped calling it. Why abandon something that is working in lieu of an offensive strategy that places the burden of execution on a backup or half-injured quarterback?

Additionally, Weis continues to suffer from two strategic coaching deficiencies.

First, he seems to view punting and field goal attempts as offensive failures. Second, he either believes the best chance to win is by taking uncalculated risks on offense or has a control fixation and needs to make the play call that determines the outcome of the game.

The former left valuable points on the field early in the game, while the latter conspired to put the Irish defense in a bad position in the fourth quarter.

After Purdue went the length of the field and scored on their opening drive, Clausen directed the Irish offense to the Boilermaker 22 yard line. With one yard to go on fourth down Weis elected to gamble rather than attempt a 39-yard field goal.

Irrespective of the play call (running from the shotgun on fourth and one?), it is decidedly unwise to leave points on the field early in a road contest with an offense missing several critical players.

The more egregious error, however, occurred at the end of the third quarter.

The Irish defense had performed well except for the opening drive of the game. Notre Dame was up two scores with less than 19 minutes to play. It was fourth and ten on the Purdue 34 yard line. And Weis decided to gamble again and go for it.

The success rate of converting a fourth and ten is minimal, and even smaller with a backup quarterback.

Backup quarterback Dayne Crist was sacked and the Boilermakers used the momentum-and good field position-to reel off a scoring drive that covered 59 yards in only 3:21.

At times gambling isn't needed to win. At times it's better to play the percentages. At times it's better to punt, pin the opposition deep, force them to move the ball the length of the field, and maximize the chance of success for the defense.

One of those times is on the road, with a backup quarterback, facing fourth and ten, up two scores, with less than 19 minutes to play, and a defense that has held the opponent to one touchdown.

The Irish are 3-1 but the three victories have come against teams that have combined for only two wins (against Toledo and Montana State). With the exception of USC the schedule doesn't figure to get much more difficult, but improvement will be needed to continue winning.

Luck, as much as skill, is responsible for the last two victories. And the ball won't always bounce in Notre Dame's favor.

Similar Posts

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Washington

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Nevada

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. North Carolina

This article is © 2007-2009 by De Veritate, LLC and was originally published at Clashmore Mike. This article may not be copied, distributed, or transmitted without attribution. Additionally, you may not use this article for commercial purposes or to generate derivative works without explicit written permission. Please contact us if you wish to license this content for your own use.

Notre Dame vs. Purdue: Keys to an Irish Win

Anthony Pilcher — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:15:56 -0400

Notre Dame takes on annual foe Purdue in West Lafayette this weekend. After consecutive nail biters, many Irish fans just hope the game won't be decided in the final seconds.

From a talent perspective Purdue doesn't figure to present the same challenge as Michigan or Michigan State. But talent may not mean much when a porous Irish defense faces a potent, balanced offense.

Two weeks ago the Irish defense struggled in the Big House. Last week they gave up 30 points and 459 yards (including 354 yards passing) despite being on the field less than 26 minutes. In many ways it is inexplicable how much the Irish defense has underperformed.

Entering the season the defensive line was a known weakness. To date they have proved to be a critical liability.

Additionally, an athletic linebacker corps has been ineffective in co-defensive coordinator Jon Tenuta's blitzing schemes, and the deep and talented Irish secondary-the supposed strength of this unit-has been repeatedly victimized.

An Irish victory Saturday may very well depend on whether the defense has made strides in the right direction.

Purdue Version 2009

Purdue enters Saturday's contest at 1-2 with a win against Toledo and close losses to Oregon and Northern Illinois.

Head coach Danny Hope is in his first year of the post-Joe Tiller era, but schematically the Boilermakers look very similar to Tiller's teams of the past.

In the early going against rather pedestrian competition the Boilermakers have struggled, giving up nearly three minutes in ball possession and surrendering nine turnovers. They have, however, managed to play fairly penalty-free football (two penalties for 23 yards per game).

Offense

The Irish will face the spread offense for the second time this season, as Purdue employs shotgun, multiple wide receiver sets to spread the field, empty the box, and get the ball to players in open space.

This hasn't changed from when Tiller roamed the sidelines. But in a trend that differs from the recent past, the Boilermakers feature more balanced play-calling (106 rushes vs. 103 passing attempts) and more production on the ground.

Hope would likely prefer to throw the ball with greater frequency, but the loss of quarterback Curtis Painter, wide receivers Greg Orton, Desmond Tardy and Brandon Whittington, and tight end Jerry Wasikowski left the cupboard pretty bare.

The strength of the offense is the front five. Four returning starters anchor a unit that has performed well opening holes for the running game (see tables below) and keeping Elliott upright (one sack per 51.5 passing attempts).

Despite this strong running game and solid protection, Elliott hasn't enjoyed a very efficient start to the season (72nd in passer efficiency with a 120.82 rating). While the redshirt senior has a respectable completion percentage, the rest of his numbers are average and the five interceptions have proven costly.

Without a doubt, the strength of Purdue's offense is the running game. The Boilermakers rank in the top 25 in all four major statistical categories including averaging six yards per rushing attempt, a large contributor to the 6.3 yards per play and 36.3 points per game averages.

Sophomore running back Ralph Bolden leads the way with 421 yards on 62 carries (6.8 yards per attempt). Bolden is second in the country in yards per game (140.33) and 14th in per carry average. Fellow running back Jaycen Taylor (23 carries, 106 yards, 4.6 yards per attempt) and Elliott (16 carries, 80 yards, 5 yards per attempt) are also effective running the ball.

While the rushing production has been at the expense of some less than stellar run defenses, Purdue has been a large contributor to the inflated defensive numbers of their opposition.

Typically teams that run the ball well thrive on third down (due to manageable distances) and in the red zone where play-action is a valuable weapon and a short field doesn't hamper the offense.

Purdue seems to be the exception.

Despite the potent running game the offense has struggled on third down and in the red zone, even against defenses that aren't overwhelmingly good at getting off the field (opposing defenses allow nearly a 45 percent third down conversion rate) or stopping teams from scoring (Toledo, Oregon and Northern Illinois rank 76, 43, and 101 respectively in red zone defense).

See the tables below for a more in-depth look at the Boilermaker offense.

Due to problems embedding the tables, the data can be viewed here.

Defense

The departure of defensive coordinator Brock Spack hasn't improved Purdue's defense. As the tables below indicate, the Boilermakers rank in the bottom third of the country in nearly every statistical category.

Defensive coordinator Donn Landholm uses a 4-3 scheme similar to Spack's with size in the interior defensive line (Mike Neal - 6-2, 302 and Kawann Short - 6-4, 310) and speed in the linebacker corps (Joe Holland - 6-1, 220, Chris Carlino - 6-2, 215, and Jason Werner - 6-4, 221).

The similar scheme has largely produced similar results as Landholm and company haven't been able to stop opponents from scoring, possessing the ball, or gaining yards on the ground or through the air.

Third down and red zone efficiency have been particularly problematic for the Boilermakers. Opponents have converted 22 of 50 third down opportunities and scored touchdowns on nine of 11 red zone tries. While the defense has faced some moderately efficient offensive teams, those numbers are bad by any standard.

It appears that the secondary is the strongest unit on the defense, but this is largely a function of the competition. Toledo finished with 423 yards through the air. Oregon and Northern Illinois averaged only 168.5 yards passing, but this was largely because they chose to run the ball (236.5 yards per game on the ground). In other words, the strong passing team threw the ball well and the run-first teams did so with ease.

See the tables below for a more in-depth look at the Boilermaker defense.

Due to problems embedding the tables, the data can be viewed here.

Summary

Purdue possesses an effective-but not overly efficient-offense. The Boilermakers feature a offensive line equally adept at run blocking and protecting the passer. The former has paved the way for a strong ground game, the latter has been undermined by Elliott's poor decision-making.

The defense is another story. Little stands out about a unit that has given up points and yards in large chunks (opponents average a gaudy 5.5 yards per play), and with relative ease.

So what must the Irish do to exploit a suspect defense and stop a potent rushing attack?

Offense

It's just like before. Purdue can run the football. The Irish defense cannot stop the run. The offense must pitch in by controlling the clock and building an early lead. The former aims at playing keep-away, the latter forces the Boilermaker offense to abandon their strength. Methodical and meticulous drives are preferred to quick scores. This has been, and will continue to be, a critical element of success.
Protect your most valuable asset. Prior to his season-ending injury, wide receiver Michael Floyd was the best player on the Irish offense. That doesn't mean he was the most valuable. With Floyd, fellow wide receiver Golden Tate, tight end Kyle Rudolph, and a resurgent running game, quarterback Jimmy Clausen could go down the field with ease. Without a weapon like Floyd, distributing the ball becomes more important and makes the Clausen's job less forgiving. With an injured toe, it is likely Purdue will try and generate pressure. Head coach Charlie Weis must minimize the risk of (further) injury to Clausen.
Adjust the play-calling. Without Floyd Weis must also adjust his play-calling and avoid becoming predictable. The Irish struggled without him last year, largely because spread formations screamed pass and heavy personnel forecasted the run. Much of the early offensive success of 2009 is due to the personnel flexibility that is a core feature of Weis' offensive philosophy. The Irish must maintain this going forward.

Defense

Tend to the biggest concern. First down has been abysmal for the Irish this year. Against Nevada, Michigan and Michigan State, Notre Dame has allowed over 6.2 yards per first down play (six yards per rush, 6.5 yards per pass). To effectively run the ball Purdue must stay ahead of the chains and keep the playbook open, i.e. maintain the run as a viable option. This makes first down defense of vital importance. The Irish will undoubtedly focus on stopping the run, but failure to play better first down defense will present an additional challenge as favorable down and distances allow Elliott to mix in passes and keep Tenuta's unit off balance.
There are really 13 defenders. Purdue's running game is similar to that of Michigan. They run some inside and outside zone, but they like to use the stretch to take advantage of their speed and quickness in the backfield. Against Michigan the Irish played with outside-in leverage, trying to force runs back to the inside pursuit. The inability to shed blocks foiled the success of this plan. Tenuta would be better served taking advantage of the athleticism of the front seven and stringing plays to the sidelines, using them as extra defenders. If the Irish can maintain blocks and extend the running plays, they should have success containing Bolden.
Lock it up. As much as Hope likes to spread the field, Notre Dame should get pressure on Elliott, even against a good front five. Purdue's apposite counterattack is quick throws to the flats and over the middle, i.e. to the vacated area(s). The secondary must play tighter coverage to prevent these easy outlets. This was problematic last year against the Boilermakers. Allowing short, consecutive passes will build Elliott's shaky confidence and keep Purdue in the game.

Summary

Notre Dame certainly has better talent than Purdue. But the previous two games featured a similar situation that didn't result in an advantage for all three phases of the game. In other words, Purdue should not win, but the Irish could certainly lose.

This game features strength on weakness for the Notre Dame defense. While quarterback Jimmy Clausen and the Irish offense should put up plenty of points, the front seven will be repeatedly tested by Bolden and a veteran offensive line.

After an emotionally-charged win over Michigan State it will be important for the Irish to come out focused. Penalties will be particularly costly against a team that doesn't commit them.

If the defense plays well and stops the run, particularly early in the contest, this game shouldn't be close. If the Boilermakers are allowed to hang around, the lack of size, strength and depth in the Irish front seven may enable an upset.

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Michigan State

Anthony Pilcher — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 02:10:35 -0400

Christmas came early this year in South Bend. Notre Dame squeezed out a victory at the expense of the visiting Spartans Saturday, a game Michigan State had ample opportunity to win.

To be certain, the Irish did not win the game as much as Michigan State lost it.

All of the strategic coaching decisions favored head coach Mark Dantonio, and the Irish had no answer for quarterback Kirk Cousins and the Spartan receiving corps.

But despite solid execution throughout the contest, Cousins couldn’t deliver when it mattered most. On the second-to-last offensive play, Cousins overthrew a wide open Larry Caper in the back of the end zone. On the pivotal defensive play of the game, Notre Dame’s secondary was nowhere to be found.

The next play linebacker/defensive end Darius Fleming applied nearly the only pressure the Irish managed all game, forcing a poor throw from Cousins that safety Kyle McCarthy intercepted.

Multiple penalties nearly cost the Irish their second straight game. If head coach Charlie Weis focused on this during the previous week of practice, it didn’t show. Notre Dame committed 11 penalties for 99 yards, four of which resulted in Spartan first downs.

Offensively, quarterback Jimmy Clausen and company were fantastic. Nearly flawless execution is becoming routine, and one would be hard pressed to find a better performing offense in the country right now.

Defensively, there was little discernible progress from the prior contest. The front four continue to be a huge liability and co-defensive coordinator Jon Tenuta’s aggressive scheme generated very little pressure most of the afternoon (see below).

Offense

The offense is firing on all cylinders under Weis' direction.

Through the first two series of Saturday’s contest Notre Dame ran nine plays (one run, eight passes) for 139 yards (15.4 yards per play) and two touchdowns, gaudy numbers regardless of the opposition.

Had the Irish defense been able to slow Michigan State, Weis might not have pulled back on the reins. But Michigan State owned the time of possession in the first quarter (3:42 advantage), and he had to turn the tables. Subsequently, Weis mixed equally effective runs and passes en route to a 12:42 advantage in ball control over the remaining three quarters of play (nine minutes for the game).

Without a doubt, the offense was both effective and efficient.

The Irish gained 437 yards on 71 plays (6.2 yards per play) via nearly even play-calling (37 rushes, 34 passes), recording 25 first downs (13 rushing, 11 passing, one via penalty) and scoring on each red zone opportunity.

Most of the yardage came in systematic fashion. Five big plays garnered 176 yards (35.2 yards per play) for just over 40 percent of the total offense. Without these gains Notre Dame still managed four yards per play, the lowest number of the young season but still much better than last year.

In what is becoming a trend of offensive efficiency, the offense ran only eight negative plays, had zero (meaningful) turnovers, and converted 45.5 percent of third downs. Moreover, the Irish faced favorable (less than five yards) third down distances more than either of their two previous contests (36.4 percent of third downs).

About the only negative of the day was surrendering the first two sacks of the season, but this hardly spells disaster. Through three games Notre Dame has allowed one sack per 48 passing attempts, a remarkable performance and a credit to both Clausen and the offensive line.

Rushing

Running back Armando Allen continued to impress, gaining 115 yards on 23 carries (five yards per attempt) and a touchdown. The junior is averaging just under 110 yards per game, but, perhaps more importantly, is running efficiently, gaining 5.5 yards per carry .

As a team Notre Dame ran the ball 37 times for 133 yards at 3.6 yards per attempt, but the yards per carry are artificially low due to the two sacks and quarterback kneels at the end of the game. Without these four plays the Irish averaged 4.6 yards per carry, a very respectable number.

Only one run by Jonas Gray went for 15 or more yards, so nearly all of the ground game was methodical (4.3 yards per carry excluding quarterback kneels, sacks and the 15-yard rushing gain).

Passing

Despite playing with an injured toe for most of the game, Clausen turned in another stellar performance. The junior signal caller has come into his own this season, showing grit and leadership that define the position. Right now there may not be a better quarterback in college football.

Clausen completed 71 percent of his passes (22 of 31) for 300 yards, two touchdowns, and no interceptions. It was his fourth consecutive game with 300 or more yards passing and no interceptions. His 9.7 yards per attempt and 13.6 yards per completion speak to both his efficiency and ability to go down the field.

Four Clausen passes totaled 161 yards (40.3 yards per attempt) and accounted for 53 percent of the passing production as Weis was selective—but productive—going down the field. Without these plays the Irish averaged 4.8 yards per attempt and 7.2 per completion.

Wide receiver Golden Tate led the way for the receiving corps, hauling in seven catches for 127 yards (18.1 yards per reception) and a touchdown, including several big plays down the stretch.

Defense

While the offense has been nearly spectacular, the Irish defense has registered consecutive underwhelming performances.

Everything worked for the Spartan offense while defensive adjustments made little difference for the Irish. With the exception of McCarthy (nine tackles, one interception and two broken up passes), there was little to be excited about. It is rarely a good sign when both safeties are the top two tacklers on the team.

The Irish allowed 30 points and 459 yards of total offense at a gaudy 7.1 yards per play. Cousins and company recorded 27 first downs, of which 18 came through the air.

Five plays went for big gains but accounted for less than 33 percent of the total yardage. Without these five plays Michigan State still managed 5.2 yards per snap. In other words, Cousins and company weren’t flashy, but they certainly were effective.

If the production wasn’t enough, Notre Dame allowed Michigan State to convert 50 percent of third downs despite needing five or more yards on each one. The Irish also allowed three red zone scores on four chances.

The first down defense was simply awful. Out of 34 opportunities the Irish only held Michigan State to two or fewer yards eight times (23.5 percent) and allowed 7.6 yards per play.

The numbers are woeful but even worse considering the Spartan offense was on the field for so little time. Despite a nine minute time of possession disadvantage, Michigan State still managed two more first downs, 50 more yards passing, and nearly a yard per play better than the Irish.

Rushing

Notre Dame allowed a season-low rushing total, but it was only because Cousins was so effective Michigan State didn’t need the ground game.

The defense gave up only 105 yards (long gain of 18), but the Spartans only ran the ball only 25 times and averaged 4.2 yards per attempt.

On first down, i.e. when there is nearly an equal run/pass threat, Michigan State gained 5.4 yards per rush. Had Dantonio wanted to play ball control it certainly appears he could have.

Passing

Despite incessant blitzing, the Irish recorded zero sacks. For the year, Tenuta’s blitz-heavy defense has averaged only one sack per 25 pass attempts.

Despite being the perceived strength of the defense, Notre Dame’s secondary allowed 354 passing yards and two touchdowns on 26 of 40 passing (65 percent). For the game Cousins averaged 8.6 yards per attempt and 13.1 per completion, but was particularly effective on first down when he averaged 9.6 yards per throw.

Four passes accounted for 132 yards (37.3 percent of passing yardage) for an average of 33 yards per play. Excluding these plays Michigan State still managed 6.2 yards per pass attempt and 10.1 yards per completion.

Special Teams

Excepting the touchdown return in the Michigan game, the kick and punt coverage units have performed admirably. The Irish allowed only 22 yards per kickoff Saturday and the Spartans attempted zero punt returns. In fact, no opponent has attempted to return through 12 quarters of action.

Freshman kicker Nick Tausch looked noticeably better on his kickoffs and notched two field goals, but also inexcusably missed an extra point attempt.

The return units showed slight improvement, although they still struggle. The Irish managed only 25 yards per kickoff return, but did return two punts for 33 yards.

Summary

To a large extent the Irish won in spite of their play, not because of it. This is particularly true on the defensive side of the ball. A team that averages 34 points through three games should be 3-0.

A win is a win, especially after a heartbreaking loss to Michigan. But the Irish need dramatic improvement on defense and elimination of costly penalties if they expect to continue winning, particularly after the loss of wide receiver Michael Floyd.

What About All That Blitzing?

Going forward the Irish defense must play better in the secondary and adjust schematically to pressure opposing quarterbacks. There is talent on the defensive side of the ball that isn’t showing on the field.

Secondary play has regressed considerably from recent years. With the exception of the Michigan game, opposing quarterbacks have thrown the ball relatively quickly. In other words, open receivers are as much a product of soft coverage as they are the absence of quarterback pressure.

But the lack of pressure is problematic, and it stems from two sources.

First, Tenuta is unable to generate pressure with only the front four as the recruiting shortcomings of Weis’ early years are beginning to show. This leads to more frequent blitzing than even Tenuta would like.

But it isn’t the frequency of blitzing that is the genuine problem. Tenuta has coached and called an aggressive defense for years with well-documented success. The scheme, however, must be adjusted as there is little deception when the Irish blitz.

On the overwhelming majority of plays defenders rush from a pre-snap position near the line of scrimmage. Opposing offenses not only know the blitz is coming, they also know where it is coming from. This negates any advantage blitzing affords by allowing the opposition to adjust protection. Moreover, it is rare that the Irish show a blitz and back out of it.

Notre Dame would be better served showing the same, or similar, pre-snap looks while changing who is blitzing. This gives quarterbacks the same pre-snap read, and doesn’t allow for easy adjustment of the protection scheme.

Additionally, Tenuta needs to show blitz—then back out of it—with greater frequency. With all of the inexperienced quarterbacks the Irish face this year, confusion is just as good as pressure.

But the reality of the matter is that it all starts up front. The same problems that plagued the Irish in 2007 (poor offensive line play) are now showing up on the other side of the ball.

What Does The Loss Of Floyd Mean?

On offense the play-calling must remain unpredictable despite Floyd’s absence.

Last year the Irish offense struggled after Floyd went down in the Navy game. Play-calling against Syracuse and USC became extremely predictable without another potent receiving option opposite Tate.

Much of the early offensive success this season has been out of Detroit (two wide receivers, two tight ends, one running back) and Regular (two wide receivers, one tight end, one fullback, one running back) personnel groupings as the Irish have proven equally adept rushing and passing the ball. Floyd, Tate and tight end Kyle Rudolph provide three dynamic receiving options that keep defenses from loading the box. Without Floyd this will be much more difficult as teams cheat over to guard Tate.

It will be tempting for Weis to spread the field with multiple wide receiver sets to effectively throw the ball. This takes advantage of the Irish depth at wide out as there are few teams with equal secondary depth. All that is needed is protection for Clausen.

But this can also give an advantage to opposing defenses. Defending a one-dimensional offense is a relatively facile proposition, even on a down-by-down (or personnel grouping) basis. Much of the reason Clausen has remained upright this year has been balanced play-calling, i.e. maintaining an equal threat to run or pass on any down and out of any personnel grouping.

Moreover, running the ball is of vital importance to control the clock and keep the defense off the field. If the Irish become predictable passing the ball, the running game follows suit.

There is hope. Whether it is new offensive line coach Frank Verducci, a veteran unit or some combination of the two, the front five have dramatically improved from just a season ago.

The unit has performed well protecting Clausen and running the ball, even when opposing defenses expect it. The Irish have faced third down and short yardage nine times this year (excluding the last couple of drives running out the clock against Nevada). Weis has called a running play on eight of those occasions and was rewarded with a first down six times (75 percent).

This improved play and the expanded depth of the offensive line will prove extremely valuable without Floyd.

Similar Posts

Notre Dame vs. Michigan State: Keys to an Irish Win

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. North Carolina

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Michigan

Notre Dame vs. Michigan State: Keys to an Irish Win

Anthony Pilcher — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:11:05 -0400

Notre Dame returns home Saturday to meet Michigan State for its third game of the season. Both teams enter the contest at 1-1 and coming off tough losses. Last week the Irish lost a heartbreaker in the Big House as freshman quarterback Tate Forcier exposed a porous Irish defense. The Spartans, on the other hand, suffered an uncharacteristic loss to Central Michigan. It will be interesting to see how both teams respond from these disappointing outings.

Michigan State is coached by Mark Dantonio who is 2-0 against Notre Dame head coach Charlie Weis. Dantonio preaches fundamentals and believes in a good running game, strong defense, and physical play. Subsequently, his teams are nearly always disciplined and well-prepared. His team Saturday should be no different.

Michigan State Version 2008

The Spartans return 15 starters (seven on offense and eight on defense) from a 2008 team that finished 9-4 against the 26th most difficult AV Ranking strength of schedule. While the bulk of the team is back from last year, several key pieces are missing on both sides of the ball from units that performed at a fairly average level.

Offense

Dantonio likes to run the ball but it will be tough, if not impossible, to replace running back Javon Ringer’s durability (390 carries) and production (1,637 yards, 4.2 yards per attempt, 22 touchdowns) in the running game.

Moreover, tight end Charlie Gantt and wide receivers Mark Dell and B. J. Cunningham are all back from productive 2008 campaigns. Reserve receiver Blair White also returns after leading the team in receptions a year ago.

These four combined for 139 receptions, 2,168 yards and eight touchdowns in 2008, and should help ease new starters Kirk Cousins and Keith Nichol into the starting quarterback job.

All these signs point to a Spartan offense that favors the pass more than in the past such that the numbers from last season may not be all that meaningful. Nevertheless, a quick look is in order.

Simply speaking, the Spartan offense was below average in 2008.

Michigan State averaged 25.1 points (53rd ranking) and gained 4.9 yards per play (93) for just under 345 yards per game (74). The offense featured a relatively balanced attack with 130.2 rushing yards per game (77) and 213.3 yards per game through the air (62). Production in both categories is mediocre but the rate of production was below average.

Spartan quarterbacks threw 10 interceptions—compared to just 11 touchdowns—and completed just 53.6 percent of their passes (96) at a rate of 6.9 yards per attempt (60) and 13 yards per completion (25), but only allowed 24 sacks (60). With the exception of a fairly potent deep ball, the passing game was lacking.

The running game wasn’t much better and averaged only 3.3 yards per rushing attempt (99). Ringer and company did, however, manage 24 touchdowns (38) on the ground.

Red zone and third down efficiency wasn’t much better. Michigan State converted only 35 percent of their third down tries (98) and scored touchdowns on only 55 percent of red zone opportunities (84).

Defense

The defense returns a good core of players but gone are veteran defensive tackle Justin Kershaw (28 tackles, 8 tackles for a loss, 3 sacks) and standout safety Otis Wiley (78 tackles and four interceptions).

These returning starters include linebacker Greg Jones and defensive end Trevor Anderson. After finishing the 2008 season with 127 tackles, 14 tackles for a loss, and 2 sacks, Jones has made several pre-season awards lists. Anderson comes back after recording eight sacks a year ago.

These two players should provide a strong nucleus for 2009 and improve upon a 2008 defensive story that was only slightly better than the offense.

Dantonio’s defense allowed 22.1 points (41) and 355.8 yards (58) per game last year. Opponents ran for 142.5 yards per game (67) at 4.1 yards per carry (76) and scored 16 rushing touchdowns (45).

The Spartans also surrendered 213.4 passing yards per game (69). However, the yards in the air didn’t come efficiently. Opposing quarterbacks completed roughly 53 percent of their passing attempts (17) for 6.6 yards per attempt (47). Only the 12.4 yards per completion (85) stands as an indicator of the secondary’s susceptibility to big plays in the passing game.

Michigan State’s defense didn’t do well on third down as they allowed a 41 percent conversion rate (74). The red zone was a different story as only 76 percent (19) of opponent appearances resulted in points with 54 percent ending in touchdowns (33).

Michigan State Version 2009, Limited Edition

The early data suggests quite a different team in 2009.

Offensively, the rushing numbers are pretty similar to last season (138 yards per game, 3.9 yards per attempt). But the passing numbers are dramatically improved (57 percent completions, 266.5 yards per game, 8.7 yards per attempt, 15.2 yards per completion and seven touchdowns) as Cousins has settled into his role and is playing particularly well (65.7 percent completion for 347 yards and four touchdowns).

The increased ability to throw the ball has led to good third down efficiency (50 percent) and red zone offense (10 touchdowns and two field goals in 14 tries).

The defense is also improved allowing only 64 rushing yards per game at 2.2 yards per attempt. Opposing quarterbacks have completed 64.4 percent of passes but for only 225 yards per game (6.2 yards per attempt and 9.6 yards per completion). Perhaps most impressive are the six sacks through only eight quarters.

This translates to allowing only a 34 percent conversion rate on third down and six touchdowns in 10 red zone trips.

These numbers have come against rather pedestrian competition but it appears the team the Irish face this year is quite different from the one they faced in East Lansing last year. Michigan State is more capable in the passing game, can stop the run, and has the ability to pressure the passer.

So how does all this add up and what must the Irish do to win?

Offense

Diversity in the ground game. Whether it was personnel flexibility or spreading the field, the Irish have had good production running the football in the early part of the season. This diversity in the running game will be needed again this week. The Irish must establish the run to control the clock and keep the defense off the field. Against Michigan the lack of depth in the defensive front seven led to poor first down defense that plagued Notre Dame in the second half. Additionally, Weis will need to maintain balance and keep the Spartan pass rushers from pinning their ears back and getting to quarterback Jimmy Clausen.
Swallow ‘em up at the second level. Jones leads a solid Spartan linebacker corps that poses a unique challenge for the Irish offensive line. The unit is small (roughly 228 pounds per man), but athletic. As noted above, running the ball effectively will be important so the front five must get to the second level, engage and finish blocks. The athletic linebackers will test the agility of the Irish offensive line, and this will be a crucial battle during the game.
Continue the trend, but cut out the penalties. Against a disciplined squad like Michigan State, minimizing mistakes is very important. Clausen and company have done an excellent job with turnovers (only one through eight quarters) and negative plays (10 in two games), but penalties were especially costly in the loss to the Wolverines. Notre Dame will need crisp play this weekend, with minimal turnovers, negative plays and penalties.

Defense

Don’t blitz your way out of position. In the prior two contests aggressive Irish defenders have blitzed and stunted themselves out of position. On a few occasions Wolfpack quarterback Colin Kaepernick made the Irish pay. Last week, however, over-pursuit and playing out of position cost the Irish dearly as Forcier used his legs to improvise and extend plays for big gains. For co-defensive coordinator Jon Tenuta’s blitz-heavy scheme to work, Irish defenders must stay under control and maintain proper spacing. Both will be counted on against an efficient quarterback and experienced receivers.
Favor the right. Michigan State likes to run left behind returning starters Rocco Cironi, Joel Foreman and Joel Nitchman (or John Stipek). All three lineman are experienced, talented and have good size (nearly 6-5, 305 pounds). The defense must be aware of this, hold the edge, and force the Spartans to run away from their strength. Even against a mediocre running team, Notre Dame cannot afford to be soft against the run.
Zip it up. Last week Forcier scrambled as an apposite reaction to the Irish blitz. But Cousins does not have the mobility of Forcier. Rather, the Spartan signal caller will look to unload the ball quickly when the Irish blitz. This makes tight secondary play critical. Getting pressure on the passer can easily be negated if quick, easy throws are surrendered with consistency.

Summary

Michigan State’s last loss in South Bend was 1993. The Spartans always play tough in Notre Dame Stadium and the Irish must match their intensity. Coming off a deflating loss to Michigan this figures to be a significant challenge.

With a strong secondary, but suspect run defense, it will be crucial for Notre Dame to execute a team strategy throughout the year. The Irish offense must possess the ball, build an early lead, keep the defense off the field, and force opponents to throw to play catch-up. This week is no different.

Stopping the run is always a priority, but Michigan State has struggled to move the football on the ground against relatively weak competition. In theory, this should make the job easier.

Nevertheless, Dantonio is sure to test the Notre Dame’s defensive front seven and battle in the trenches with the Spartan offensive line may determine the outcome of the game. The game will likely remain close if Michigan State can run the ball and control the clock. The longer this occurs, the more the advantage goes to the visiting team.

Notre Dame must rise to the occasion. Starting 1-2 would be an underachieving beginning to a season with high expectations.

Similar Posts

Notre Dame vs. Michigan: Keys to an Irish Win

Notre Dame vs. Navy: Keys to an Irish Win

Notre Dame vs. Pittsburgh: Keys to an Irish Win

Notre Dame-Michigan: Statistically Speaking

Anthony Pilcher — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 03:01:45 -0400

Notre Dame lost a heartbreaker in the final seconds of an offensive shootout Saturday. The game proved to be a rite of passage for Wolverine freshman quarterback Tate Forcier and bolstered the resume of head coach Rich Rodriguez’s latest second-year turnaround effort.

For the Irish, another solid offensive outing was undermined by untimely penalties, a porous defense, and below average special teams play. On two separate occasions, quarterback Jimmy Clausen led Notre Dame back from double-digit deficits only to see Forcier throw a touchdown pass to clinch a victory in the waning moments of play.

The Irish dominated the first half, gaining almost 140 yards more total offense and possessing the ball for over seven minutes more than their counterparts, but only had a three point lead to show for it.

The final statistics were far closer (490 yards of offense for the Irish to 430 for Michigan, nearly a three minute time of possession advantage for Notre Dame), but the game likely should have been over at intermission.

Offense

Notre Dame gained 490 yards of total offense and 27 first downs (12 rushing, 13 passing and one penalty) via play-calling that was tilted toward the pass (58.3 percent passing plays to 41.7 percent runs). The Irish averaged 6.8 yards per play in mostly methodical fashion.

Only 36.9 percent of all yards were produced by explosive plays (runs of more than 15 yards, passes greater than 20 yards) as seven plays (two runs, five passes) accounted for 181 yards (25.9 yards per play). Excluding these plays the Irish still managed 4.8 yards per snap, a very respectable number.

The efficiency was there as well. The Irish converted better than 42 percent of third downs despite spending 71.4 percent of them needing five or more yards to move the chains. Perhaps more impressive, Notre Dame scored on four of its five red zone opportunities and only had four negative plays.

In other words, Weis’ game plan worked well so long as the Irish didn’t hurt themselves. Seven untimely offensive penalties (for 60 yards) negated more than one substantial gain.

Rushing

It was the coming out party for Armando Allen. All the pieces fell into place for the junior running back who carried the ball 21 times for 139 yards (6.6 yards per carry) and a touchdown. More than ever, Allen looked quick, tough and decisive with his cuts.

He even managed to best his previous long run by recording a 24-yard scamper early in the game (that his long gain is only 24 yards is another matter entirely).

As a team Notre Dame ran for 154 yards on only 30 carries (5.1 yards per carry), recording two big runs for 39 yards. Even without the big gains, the Irish averaged 4.1 yards per carry.

For the second straight week, the running game has performed both efficiently and effectively. While not the focus of Weis’ offense, the Irish have exceeded the level needed to compete for a national championship in each of the first two games. This is good news for many who thought the running game could be the Achilles’ heel of the 2009 offense.

Passing

If Saturday was an “off” day for Clausen, Notre Dame is in good shape.

Despite poor accuracy on many long throws, the junior completed nearly 60 percent of his passes (25-for-42) for 336 yards and three touchdowns. It was Clausen’s third consecutive game with more than 300 yards passing and, perhaps more importantly, the third straight contest without an interception.

The yards also came efficiently as the Irish signal caller averaged eight yards per attempt and 13.4 yards per completion. While these aren’t the flashy numbers from last week, both are more than respectable. Even without five big passes for 142 yards, Clausen still averaged 5.2 yards per attempt.

Sophomore receiver Michael Floyd seems to be solidifying himself as one of the top wide receivers in the country. Floyd was open most of the day and dominated the Wolverine secondary with a unique blend of size and speed on his way to catching seven balls for 131 yards (18.7 yards per reception) and a touchdown.

Opposite Floyd, Golden Tate chipped in with nine catches for 115 yards (12.8 yards per reception) and two touchdowns. With this receiver duo it is difficult to imagine anyone stopping the Irish passing game without consistently pressuring Clausen.

Finally, the Irish have yet to surrender a sack through 60 passing attempts and have only committed one turnover through eight quarters of play.

Defense

The defense had no answer for the Wolverine offense. Even in the first half when Michigan seemed to struggle, it was largely due to their own mistakes, not the play of co-defensive coordinator Jon Tenuta’s unit.

Forcier plagued the Irish with his improvisation, moxie, and calm performance under pressure, becoming only the second (out of 20) freshman quarterback to defeat a Tenuta-coached defense.

The Rodriguez spread offense racked up 430 yards at a rate of 6.1 yards per play for 21 first downs (10 rushing, 10 passing, one from a penalty) using a balanced attack (38 runs to 33 passes) that yielded nearly the same balance in yardage (190 rushing yards to 240 passing yards).

The story for the Irish defense was big plays and poor first down defense.

Forcier and company recorded seven gains for 185 yards (26.4 yards per play). These seven plays accounted for 43 percent of Michigan’s offense without which the average gain per play was only 3.8 yards.

The defense also failed to win first down, allowing 4.6 yards per play (3.2 yards per first down play in the first half, 5.6 yards per play in the second).

Despite the poor first down effort the Irish still managed to hold Michigan to a 35.7 percent third down conversion rate and force third and more than five yards on better than 85 percent of tries. This was offset, however, by allowing two fourth down conversions in as many attempts and three scores on four red zone appearances.

Rushing

If the past two games have proven anything, it’s that Notre Dame cannot consistently stop the run.

Michigan amassed 190 rushing yards at five yards per attempt, a number that increases to 5.5 yards per carry when sacks aren’t included. Both Forcier and running back Brandon Minor averaged better than 5.3 yards per carry.

As outlined above, it was the big play that killed the Irish as 101 rushing yards came on only four rushing attempts. Without these four runs Notre Dame’s defense allowed only 3.1 yards per carry.

Similar to the poor first down run defense last week, Notre Dame surrendered 5.6 yards per rush (3.5 yards per first down carry in the first half, a gaudy 7.3 yards per carry in the second).

Stopping the run has to become the chief concern for Weis and Tenuta.

Passing

Despite some fairly solid passing numbers from Forcier, the secondary played pretty well Saturday. The inability of the Irish front seven to get home on blitzes put pressure on the defensive backs to cover for long durations. At some point receivers are bound to get open.

For the day Forcier completed nearly 70 percent of his passes (23-for-33) at a rate of 7.3 yards per attempt and 10.4 yards per completion. Three passes were big gains that averaged 28 yards per play. Excluding these three plays the Irish secondary only allowed 156 yards at 5.2 yards per attempt and 7.8 yards per completion.

The Irish performed a bit better on first down against the pass, allowing only 3.3 yards per play (4.7 yards per play with sacks excluded).

For the second straight week safety Kyle McCarthy recorded an interception and the defense recorded two sacks.

Special Teams

Despite having five scholarship kickers and punters on the roster, Notre Dame can’t find dependable players to man their kicking and punting spots.

The Irish continued their excellent punt coverage (zero return attempts), but punter Eric Maust had a poor punt (28 yards) on the final Irish possession when changing field position was most needed.

Freshman Nick Tausch bounced back from missing a 28-yard chip shot to nail field goals of 34 and 42 yards, but consistently underwhelmed on kickoffs by hitting low balls that landed on or around the ten yard line.

The errant punting and kicking cost Notre Dame nearly 10 yards in average field position for the day, a number that gets worse if McCarthy’s interception isn’t included.

Finally, the kickoff return unit averaged a respectable 33.3 yards per return, but the punt return team has only returned three punts for 27 yards on the year.

Summary

There was no good reason for Notre Dame to lose this game. Simply put, if you score 34 points, you should win. Furthermore, good football teams do not lose games they lead with three minutes remaining and possession of the ball.

It was evident on the final possession that Weis was trying to change field position and win the game by throwing down-field as the Irish defense hadn't consistently stopped Forcier in the second half. But the Irish offensive line had blocked well all game and out-weighed Michigan's front three by more than 50 pounds per man. Running the ball and forcing Rodriguez to use his timeouts was the appropriate strategy.

That said, while the Irish offense stopped itself with penalties and poor clock management (two delay of game penalties and four timeouts to avoid delay of game penalties), they did more than enough to secure a victory.

Notre Dame’s defense did not live up to its end of the bargain. The game plan centered around making Forcier win the game, and, to his credit, he repeatedly torched the Irish defense to pull out the victory. Never down a significant margin, the Wolverine offense mixed in effective runs and ad-libbed passes to gain more than 270 second half yards.

But there were few adjustments from Tenuta who insisted on bringing pressure all game despite the freshman quarterback consistently escaping it and creating big plays with his feet. Entering the game, it was imperative that the Irish defense not allow Forcier to extend drives with his mobility, something he managed to do all game long.

This game served to further expose the defensive weakness present even in the shutout against Nevada: the front seven cannot stop the run. If Notre Dame is going to beat teams that can run the football, Weis and Tenuta must find a way to shore up the defensive line, generate early leads, and control the clock.

A deficiency in any of these three areas will be problematic as opposing offenses are able to mix in the run and pass while gaining confidence as the game remains close.

Similar Posts

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Washington

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Nevada

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. USC

Notre Dame vs. Michigan: Keys to an Irish Win

Anthony Pilcher — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:00:54 -0400

Notre Dame travels to Ann Arbor Saturday to face what appears to be a rejuvenated Michigan team under second year head coach Rich Rodriguez. Both teams easily dispatched their first opponents as the Irish scored a dominant win against Nevada and the Wolverines routed Western Michigan.

But convincing opening week wins are largely overshadowed by disappointing 2008 campaigns that leave both teams with much to prove. In other words, solid performances against inferior opponents like Nevada and Western Michigan mean little and the outcome Saturday could very well be decided by which squad plays with more toughness and emotion.

Michigan Version 2008

Michigan went 3-9 against the third most difficult AV Ranking strength of schedule last year, struggling to control the ball (over 4:30 time of possession deficit) and win the turnover battle (-10 turnover ratio, 108th regular season ranking).

The Wolverines return 10 starters on offense and five on the defensive side of the ball. This offensive continuity bodes well for Rodriguez as last year’s unit was woeful. Michigan’s defense was a mixed bag of good and bad but likely would have been much better had the offense been able to stay on the field and control the ball.

Both sides of the ball feature speed and athleticism.

Offense

Rather uncharacteristic of a Rodriguez-led offense, Michigan struggled last season as the spread attack produced only 20.2 points (98) and 290.8 yards per game (109). Perhaps not by design, the Wolverines featured a balanced attack that averaged 147.6 rushing yards per game (59) and 143.2 yards through the air (108).

Michigan’s quarterbacks completed less than 49 percent of their passes (113), threw 12 interceptions (71) to only 11 touchdowns (95), and averaged only 5.1 yards per attempt (115). The ground game accounted for 17 touchdowns (72) and averaged a measly 3.9 yards per attempt (72) to go along with 38 fumbles, 18 of which were lost.

But it is really the inefficiency of the offense that stands out. The Wolverines converted a paltry 27 percent of third down attempts (118) and scored on 77 percent of red zone tries (81), only 60 percent of which resulted in touchdowns (58).

Stiff defensive competition wasn’t to blame for these poor numbers as the Michigan offense had the 112th offensive TPR ranking (for reference the TPR is described here and here).

Defense

Michigan surrendered 28.9 points (80) and 366.9 yards (68) per game in 2008. Opponents completed almost 58 percent of their passes (56) for 230 yards (87) at a rate of 7.4 yards per attempt (88). Furthermore, the defense recorded only nine interceptions (92) and allowed 19 touchdowns through the air (79).

The run defense, however, was fairly solid. Opponents ran for just under 137 yards per game (48) at a very respectable 3.6 yards per attempt (29). About the only subpar aspect of the rushing defense was allowing 21 rushing touchdowns (86).

The defensive efficiency was a hit or miss. Opposing offenses converted 38.8 percent of third downs (61) and scored points on 80 percent of red zone tries (46) with 60 percent resulting in touchdowns (62).

Michigan Version 2009, Limited Edition

Last week’s offensive production against Western Michigan was markedly different.

The offense showed discernible improvement en route to scoring 31 points via 242 rushing yards (4.8 yards per attempt) and 197 yards passing (53.6 completion percentage, 7 yards per attempt). Ball control was particularly impressive as the Wolverines held the ball for almost 10 minutes more than Western Michigan. Still a bit inefficient, the offense converted only 38 percent of third downs and scored on only one of three red zone tries.

Additionally, the defense continued to be stout against the run, allowing only 38 rushing yards at 1.6 yards per attempt. Michigan’s secondary, however, looked a bit vulnerable as they allowed 263 yards passing (6.7 yards per attempt) on 23 of 39 passing (59 completion percentage). The defense was also stingy on third down (36 percent efficiency) and in the red zone (zero scores on two appearances).

Obviously this is based on limited data against a weak opponent, but Rodriguez’s teams have a history of strong improvement in year two of his tenure so it shouldn’t come as a surprise.

So which Michigan team will take the field Saturday and what are the keys to an Irish victory?

Offense

Be physical up front. Against a Nevada rushing defense that was tough in 2008 and returned eight starters the Irish showed improved run blocking. Michigan will be a stiffer challenge as the front seven are the strength of the defense. Brandon Graham, Mike Martin, Renaldo Sagesse and Ryan Van Bergen comprise an athletic and physical front four. The Irish offense must control the line of scrimmage and keep the defense honest with an efficient running attack to prevent defensive coordinator Greg Robinson from dropping seven and eight into coverage and dialing up blitzes on obvious passing downs. Moreover, it is critical that head coach Charlie Weis and the Notre Dame offense maintain the personnel flexibility they enjoyed against Nevada. The Irish cannot afford to telegraph the pass by spreading the field against a fast and athletic Robinson-coached defense.
It’s a game of minimization. Against Nevada Notre Dame had very few negative plays, only three penalties and no turnovers. In a hostile environment like the Big House, error-free football becomes even more crucial. The Irish need to sustain drives and control the clock to keep a porous run defense fresh and off the field.
Take selective advantage of the mismatch. Michigan’s secondary is athletic but measures just 6-0, 5-9, 5-11, and 6-0. Michael Floyd, Duval Kamara, Kyle Rudolph, Mike Ragone and Robby Parris are 6-3, 6-5, 6-6, 6-5, and 6-3 respectively. While the Wolverines may have an advantage in speed, the Irish receivers are more physically imposing and should generate good matchups in the red zone and down the field. Weis is a masterful play-caller, and must weigh the risk/reward to judiciously choose when to take advantage of these mismatches down the field. Getting behind the chains against an athletic defense tilts the advantage to that side of the ball.

Defense

Open the tackle-box. Crisp tackling was absent from last week’s contest but becomes critical this Saturday. Rodriguez’s spread offense is predicated on even numbers in the box and getting the ball to players in space. Coupled with good team speed, this makes tackling difficult and puts pressure on the Irish defense. Notre Dame must play with discipline and tackle with good fundamentals to be successful.
Sell out on first down. The gameplan must force freshman quarterbacks Tate Forcier and Denard Robinson to win the game throwing the ball. Rodriguez has a long resume of effective rushing teams so Notre Dame must win first down to force obvious passing situations for the inexperienced Wolverine quarterbacks.
Contain the scramble. Both quarterbacks are mobile and athletic. Both are inexperienced freshmen. Both will likely choose to tuck and run rather than patiently read through progressions against a fierce pass rush. But both can extend drives with their feet. It is critical that the Irish defense contain the edge and prevent first down scrambles up the middle. This means sticking to gap football—both on run and pass blitzes—to prevent missed assignments and open running lanes.

Summary

For the second straight week the gameplan is relatively simple.

On offense the Irish must control the line of scrimmage, maintain balance, and minimize mistakes. This will allow quarterback Jimmy Clausen and company to sustain drives and control the clock. Becoming predictable in the passing game will likely be unforgiving against a strong Wolverine front seven.

On defense the name of the game is third down. As the game against Nevada proved, the Irish are built for success on third down with co-defensive coordinator Jon Tenuta’s pressure scheme, a talented and deep secondary, and an athletic front seven. Throw two inexperienced freshman quarterbacks in the mix and linebacker Brian Smith and company should be drooling.

But this is Michigan-Notre Dame. Stats, scheme and execution typically don’t determine the winner. Grit, attitude and desire will win the day.

Similar Posts

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Nevada

Notre Dame vs. Nevada: Keys to an Irish Win

Notre Dame vs. Navy: Keys to an Irish Win

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Nevada

Anthony Pilcher — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:47:31 -0400

The momentum from the Hawaii Bowl certainly carried over for the Irish offense. Head coach Charlie Weis couldn't have written a better script for the first game of 2009 as Notre Dame amassed better than 500 yards of offense while shutting out a Nevada squad that averaged over 37 points per game in 2008.

It was the first defensive shutout of Weis' tenure and only the third time Nevada head coach Chris Ault failed to register a score in 25 years of coaching experience.

Similar to the Hawaii game, the Irish offensive play-calling was night and day different from the 2008 regular season. Quarterback Jimmy Clausen and company rode an effective ground game and dynamic air attack to the tune of 35 points. The defense pitched in relentless quarterback pressure and excellent third down efficiency.

In short, the Irish played nearly flawless offensive football and dominated almost every facet of the game in a clean, zero turnover, and nearly penalty-free game. For the first contest of the season, such disciplined play is highly encouraging.

Offense

Weis' offense put on a clinic, recording arguably the most efficient and well-executed performance of his tenure. On the day only seven plays (out of 61) were for a loss, creating favorable down and distances and allowing Notre Dame to sustain numerous drives.

The Irish offense recorded 20 first downs (eight rushing, 11 passing, one via penalty), gained 510 yards at 8.4 yards per play, converted 50 percent of third down attempts, and held the ball for better than seven minutes more than Nevada.

Seven big plays (runs of more than 15 yards, passes of more than 20) accounted for almost 55 percent of the total yardage: two runs for 34 yards (17 yards per attempt) and five passes for 244 yards (48.8 yards per attempt). Even without these big gains the offense averaged 4.3 yards per play, 3.7 yards per rush attempt, and 5.9 yards per pass attempt.

In stark contrast to 2007 and 2008, the ground game delivered. Weis' play-calling heavily favored the run as 67.2 percent of plays were rushing attempts that yielded nearly 35 percent of the total yardage.

The natural side effect was an extremely potent passing attack. Passes were called on less than 33 percent of plays but accounted for over 65 percent of the offense.

About the only negative was facing unfavorable distances (four or more yards) on almost 67 percent of third down attempts.

Rushing

At least partially, the Irish running game questions have been answered.

Rather methodically, Notre Dame attempted 41 runs for 178 yards (4.3 yards per carry) against a team that returned eight defensive starters from a very stout 2008 run defense (88.6 yards per game, 3.1 yards per carry).

Only the 3.7 yards per attempt without big plays detract from an otherwise impressive stat line.

Armando Allen and Jonas Gray did most of the work. Allen carried 15 times for 78 yards (4.8 yards per attempt) and a touchdown while Gray chipped in nine carries for 51 yards (5.6 yards per attempt). Both Allen and Gray yielded averages that are more than respectable.

Passing

Similar to the bowl game against Hawaii, Clausen had another nearly flawless outing.

Clausen completed 83.3 percent of his pass attempts (15 of 18) for 315 yards and 4 touchdowns. This translates to 17.5 yards per attempt and 21 yards per completion, both gaudy indicators of the big play potential in the passing game.

Most of the damage was done by sophomore Michael Floyd who caught four balls for 189 yards and three touchdowns (47.3 yards per reception), but junior Golden Tate also chipped in with three catches for 59 yards (19.7 yards per reception) and tight end Kyle Rudolph added another receiving touchdown to go along with four receptions for 29 yards (7.3 yards per reception).

Additionally, the Irish offensive line surrendered zero sacks through 20 passing attempts.

Defense

If the Irish running game questions have been partially answered, the defense's ability to stop the run is still a concern.

Notre Dame allowed only 307 yards to a potent 2008 Nevada offense (508.5 yards per game) with eight returning starters. The yardage came nearly evenly on the ground (153 yards rushing) and through the air (154 yards passing) with eight first downs rushing and six passing.

Nevada averaged 5.5 yards per play using almost a 50/50 split of runs and passes recording four big runs for 68 yards (17 yards per attempt) and two big passes for 47 yards (23.5 yards per attempt). Without the big plays the Wolfpack offense still managed 4.6 yards per rushing attempt (subtracting sacks), but only 4.3 yards per passing attempt and 3.8 yards per play.

Despite allowing 6.3 yards per play on first down, the Irish defense did a good job with third down efficiency forcing Nevada into third and five or more yards nearly 91 percent of the time. These unfavorable third down distances and relentless pressure from co-defensive coordinator Jon Tenuta's blitz-heavy defense led to a Wolfpack third down efficiency of only 18.2 percent.

Rushing

The low yardage and yard per play totals above fail to underscore a rather poor rush defense.

Nevada averaged 5.3 yards per carry in the game, a number that increases to 6.4 when the two sacks of Nevada quarterback Colin Kaepernick are subtracted. Perhaps more disheartening, the Irish allowed 7.3 yards per rushing attempt on first down.

Running back Vai Taua churned out 117 yards on only 18 carries (6.3 yards per attempt) while Kaepernick gained 39 yards on ten carries (3.9 yards per carry) but averaged 7.5 yards per carry when sacks are subtracted.

Passing

If the Irish run defense was less than stellar, the pass defense was pretty special.

Notre Dame held Kaepernick and fellow Nevada quarterback Tyler Lantrip to fewer than 155 yards passing and less than a 49 percent completion percentage through 27 passing attempts. Much of this was due to a relentless pass rush that forced several hurried throws and recorded two sacks (one per 13.5 pass attempts).

The long ball was also fairly ineffective as Nevada managed only two passes for more than 20 yards (23 and 24 yards) and finished the day with only 4.3 yards per pass attempt and 9.7 yards per completion.

Special Teams

The Irish special teams picked up right where they left off in 2008 with excellent kickoff and punt coverage.

Nevada managed only 17.6 yards per kickoff return and didn't elect to return a punt, mostly due to smothering coverage by the Irish gunners. Punter Eric Maust averaged slightly over 40 yards per punt and kicker freshman kicker Nick Tausch averaged 58.5 yards per kickoff.

The return game was less exciting for the Irish as freshman Theo Riddick returned the only Wolfpack kickoff 23 yards while Tate lost two yards on one punt return attempt and wide receiver John Goodman gained 24 on another.

Summary

While there is certainly room for improvement, the progress in execution and effectiveness of the running game has to be encouraging for Irish fans.

The offensive line didn't play with overwhelming toughness, but there were far fewer missed blocks than in the recent past. The result was a much more efficient rushing attack (only four negative running plays out of 40). Perhaps even more encouraging was the lack of zone-stretch plays and numerous multiple tight end sets (39 of 61 plays---approximately 64 percent---featured two or three tight ends).

This enabled an effective and potent passing attack and controlled the clock for most of the contest. Even without such an effective outing from Clausen, it is highly likely the Irish would have won, albeit with a bit less margin. The same could not be said of several contests in 2008.

In other words, the Irish offense didn't have to spread the field or throw the ball with great frequency to be effective in the passing game. If these two trends can continue, it bodes well for the future.

The defense, however, answered fewer questions.

Another year of experience in---and more dedication to---Tenuta's scheme has certainly benefited the Irish defense. The pressure applied Saturday was consistent and effective, even if the coverage was too soft at times and poor tackling evident on several plays.

But while the Irish fielded an efficient pass defense, it is difficult to overlook the inability to stop the run. Nevada figures to be a potent running team, but 7.3 yards per rushing attempt on first down is unacceptable no matter how you spin it. Ditto 5.3 yards per attempt for the game. If the Irish offense hadn't controlled the clock and built an early lead, this contest could have been much closer.

More physicality along the offensive front and better run defense are needed for this promising squad to fully reach their potential.

Similar Posts

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. Washington

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. North Carolina

Statistically Speaking: Notre Dame vs. USC

This article is © 2007-2009 by De Veritate, LLC and was originally published at Clashmore Mike. This article may not be copied, distributed, or transmitted without attribution. Additionally, you may not use this article for commercial purposes or to generate derivative works without explicit written permission. Please contact us if you wish to license this content for your own use.

Notre Dame-Nevada: Keys to an Irish Win

Anthony Pilcher — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:03:56 -0400

Notre Dame opens the 2009 season Saturday by welcoming Nevada to South Bend. For many this is the “make it or break it” year for head coach Charlie Weis. Two consecutive disappointing campaigns have exhausted all the leniency from the overachieving Irish squads of his first two years.

Weis made several changes in the offseason: he elevated himself to offensive coordinator, installed co-defensive coordinator Jon Tenuta as the play-caller on defense, and replaced three members of his staff (offensive line, defensive line, and running back coaches).

The changes in offensive and defensive play-calling are nearly certain to be upgrades as Weis and Tenuta are both distinguished play-callers. The Irish seem anxious to put these changes to use.

Nevada comes to town off the heels of a 7-6 2008 campaign. The Wolpack return 16 starters, eight on each side of the ball, including all-world quarterback Colin Kaepernick who leads head coach Chris Ault’s unique, but dangerous pistol offense.

Offense

Speaking of the pistol, Nevada’s offense averaged 37.6 points per game (20th ranked), 508.5 yards per game (Fifth ranked), and a gaudy 6.5 yards per play (ranked 13th) in 2008. If that wasn’t enough, Kaepernick became just the fifth quarterback in Division IA (FBS) history to throw for over 2,000 and rush for over 1,000 yards in a single season.

On the year Kaepernick rushed for 1,130 yards at a staggering seven yards per attempt (including sacks). He also completed 54.3 percent of his passes for 2,849 yards at 7.4 yards per attempt and his 13.7 yards per completion indicate the ability of Nevada to stretch the field.

Lining up behind Kaepernick are two more than capable running backs. Vai Taua finished 2008 with 1,567 yards at 6.4 yards per clip while former starter Luke Lippincott sat out 2008 with an injury after gaining 1,453 yards (5.3 per attempt) in 2007.

In other words, the Wolfpack offense is capable of running the ball on just about anyone.

Defense

The Nevada defense, on the other hand, is coming off a less than stellar year. The Wolfpack defense allowed 32.8 points per game (99th ranked), about 400 yards per game (91st ranked), and almost six yards per play (95th ranked).

The Wolfpack defense was stout against the run, soft against the pass. Nevada’s defensive unit allowed only 88.6 yards per game (6th ranked) and 3.1 yards per attempt (10th ranked) on the ground while surrendering 311.6 yards per game (119th ranked) and over eight yards per attempt (108th ranked) through the air.

Both the offensive and defensive units were average in third down efficiency. Nevada’s offense was also average in red zone scoring efficiency but had a more than capable red zone defense (19th ranked).

In summary, Nevada has a potent offense, but is susceptible to the pass. Of course this is based on their play in 2008, with 16 returning starters the team coming to South Bend Saturday should have an improved defense and an offense that is every bit as explosive.

So what are the keys to winning for the Irish?

Offense

Use the size advantage. The Irish interior offensive line (Chris Stewart, Eric Olsen and Trevor Robinson) average better than 313 pounds. The interior linemen for Nevada (Chris Slack and Nate Agaiava) average 277.5 pounds. The 35-plus pound weight differential must be exploited. The Irish need to pound the interior of the field with isolation, wham, and other lead running plays, using Armando Allen and newly converted fullback James Aldridge to wear down the Wolfpack defense. Weis must resist calling outside zone, stretch, and other running plays that ask the offensive linemen to beat Nevada’s smaller, quicker defensive linemen to the point of attack. Give the offensive line the angles, gain leverage, and exploit the size difference.
Put them away early. The worst thing Notre Dame can do is allow Nevada to stay in the game. The Irish need to rid themselves of last season’s red zone woes and score early and often. Weis calling the plays should help, offensive coordinator Mike Haywood’s predictability in 2008 seemed to significantly hamper the ability to score in the red zone. But the Wolfpack defense was stingy inside the 20 last season. This should be a strong test for the Irish.
It’s called ball control. The Irish offense must do its part to make Nevada one-dimensional. This means keeping the Wolfpack offense off the field. It doesn’t mean Weis must dial-up running plays ad nauseum. Methodical drives with complementary run/pass play-calling and a controlled intermediate passing game will go a long way in determining the outcome of this contest.

Defense

Win first down. In what appears to be the defensive theme of the 2009 season, the Irish must win first down. Keeping Nevada in second and third and long limits play-calling by forcing the Wolfpack offense into obvious passing situations. While Kaepernick is a dangerous dual-threat quarterback, he isn’t terribly efficient, especially when he drops back to throw. To be certain, this will be no easy task. Ault’s pistol offense, Kaepernick, Taua and Lippincott, and a young and inexperienced Irish defensive line will make this the toughest challenge of the day for Notre Dame.
No mixed feelings. Notre Dame’s Tenuta-led defense needs to bring it, and bring it hard. The Irish looked hesitant far too often in 2008. They cannot afford to do this against a potent Nevada offensive attack predicated on option and read football. Disguise and spacing on blitzes, as well as tight coverage, are needed to shut down the Wolfpack offense.
Never let it cross the 50. Ault has a penchant for being risky. Nevada has nothing to lose. Kaepernick leads an extremely effective running game. This could translate to four-down series if Nevada crosses midfield. The Irish must win field position to prevent this. Stopping a good running attack is tough enough without the extra down.

Summary

While the Irish cannot afford to overlook Nevada, this game is less about scheme and more about attitude and mentality. Schematically, the most important aspect of this game is making Nevada one-dimensional, i.e. forcing Kaepernick to win the game with his arm in obvious passing situations. For the Irish offense this means scoring early and often. For Notre Dame’s defense this means winning first down.

Notre Dame holds a decisive talent advantage in this game, but the Irish have a history of playing down to the level of their competition (see Navy, Air Force 2007, and Syracuse 2008). Additionally, the Irish surrendered double-digit leads three times in 2008 (North Carolina, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse), making few leads safe.

Hopefully these trends are a thing of the past and the Irish players have learned to resist complacency and close out games during the offseason.

Similar Posts

Is a Running Game Necessary? The Impact of Notre Dame’s Ground Woes

Notre Dame vs. Navy: Keys to an Irish Win

Notre Dame vs. Pittsburgh: Keys to an Irish Win

Benchmarking The Competition: Who Had The Best Offense And Defense In 2008?

Anthony Pilcher — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:04:59 -0400

It always starts the same way. Media pundits gushing over video-game offensive and defensive statistics, touting playmakers and storylines, and predicting the winner or the next “game of the year, decade or century.” It fires up the fans.

This year will be no different: it may not be Oklahoma’s unthinkable, record setting offense or USC’s unbelievably dominant defense, but a pair of teams will emerge as the top offensive and defensive squads with gaudy statistics that defy reality.

But are these teams really the best in the country, or do they artificially benefit from poor competition on the other side of the ball?

How Do You Measure A Top Offense/Defense?

Points and yards (rushing, passing and/or total) per game are the two most commonly quoted statistics used to convey offensive and defensive prowess. Certainly evaluating the relative capability of 119 teams is not such a trivial task. But, for the moment, let’s take a look at the top ten offensive and defensive teams of 2008 using only these two metrics.

Disclaimer: For the purposes of this analysis the 2008 regular season statistics were used (i.e. no bowl game results were included). To be consistent, comparisons to the AP Poll are made using week 16 results, not those at the conclusion of the season. This is not expected to significantly alter the conclusions of this assessment.

2008 Top Ten Offenses: PPG

Due to problems embedding the tables the data can be seen here.

2008 Top Ten Offenses: YPG

Due to problems embedding the tables the data can be seen here.

Only 11 teams occupy the top ten spots in points per game (PPG) and yards per game (YPG). Oklahoma, Tulsa, Texas Tech, Texas, Missouri, Oregon, Oklahoma State, Rice and Houston share a top ten ranking in both PPG and YPG. Florida ranked 3rd in PPG, but 18th in YPG. Nevada ranked 5th in YPG but 13th in PPG.

Of these 11 teams, seven were ranked in the top 25 of the AP Poll.

Several expected teams dot the list: Oklahoma, Florida, Texas Tech, Texas, Missouri, Oregon and Oklahoma State were all revered offenses in 2008. But there are also some surprises. While Tulsa and Nevada lit up scoreboards and defenses all season long, Rice and Houston seem somewhat out of place.

2008 Top Ten Defenses: PPG

Due to problems embedding the tables the data can be seen here.

2008 Top Ten Defenses: YPG

Due to problems embedding the tables the data can be seen here.

On defense, 14 teams populate the top ten spots in PPG and YPG.

USC, TCU, Alabama, Penn State, Ohio State and Florida all have top ten rankings in both PPG and YPG. Boise State, Iowa, West Virginia and Clemson have top ten rankings in PPG but fall short in YPG. Similarly, Tennessee, Boston College, Virginia Tech and Connecticut have top ten rankings in YPG but not in PPG.

Again, the top ten has several expected names: USC, Penn State, Florida, Alabama and Ohio State were very good on the defensive side of the ball in 2008. TCU, although not as highly publicized during the season, also fielded a very good defensive unit that ranked 2nd in both PPG and YPG.

Traditional ACC defensive stalwarts Boston College and Virginia Tech also fielded very strong squads last season while Tennessee fans may soon learn how valuable John Chavis really was (although Monte Kiffin is hardly a downgrade).

Boise State, Iowa, West Virginia, Clemson and Connecticut also made one of the two lists, despite not being widely known for their defense.

Of these 14 teams ranked in the top ten defensively in PPG and YPG, eight were ranked in the top 25 of the AP Poll.

One team suspiciously missing from all four top ten lists above ended the regular season number seven in the AP Poll. Prior to their bowl contest against Alabama, Utah ranked 15th in PPG and 31st in YPG on offense, and 12th in PPG and 18th in YPG defensively.

What About Efficiency?

Points and yards per game are rather gross statistics. Both can be viewed as a measure of the effectiveness of an offense or defense but don’t capture efficiency very well. Effectiveness is important, but an efficient offensive or defensive unit operates at a very high level.

A better measure of efficiency is yards per play (YPP). This can be further separated into yards per rushing and/or passing attempt to better indicate balance. However, in the interest of brevity, only YPP will be used here.

2008 Top Ten Offenses: YPP

Due to problems embedding the tables the data can be seen here.

Many of the most effective offenses are also the most efficient.

Six (Tulsa, Houston, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Texas Tech and Oklahoma) of the top ten YPP offensive teams are also in the top ten in PPG and YPG.

Florida shares a top ten YPP ranking with its 3rd PPG ranking while Ball State, Georgia and USC make their first top ten offensive ranking.

Of the top ten teams in YPP, only Tulsa and Houston were unranked after week 16 of the 2008 season.

2008 Top Ten Defenses: YPP

Due to problems embedding the tables the data can be seen here.

The trend continues on defense where five (USC, TCU, Penn State, Alabama and Florida) of the top ten defensive YPP teams are also top ten defensive units in PPG and YPG.

Two more teams (Tennessee and Boston College) share top ten rankings in YPP and YPG while Boise State and Iowa fielded top ten YPP and PPG squads.

Six of the top ten ranked YPP defensive teams held top 25 AP Poll rankings entering their bowl games.

What About The Competition?

At first glance the statistics above seem to align with popular opinion, many of the offensive and defensive teams perceived to be the best in the country in 2008 occupy top ten spots in PPG, YPG and YPP.

But what about adjusting for the strength of competition? Is it possible that the success of some teams noted above is exaggerated? Is it conceivable that a few were left off the list because they played a difficult schedule?

Most would agree that Oklahoma’s offense faced stiffer defensive competition than Tulsa, Houston, Nevada or Ball State. Likewise, many would agree that Florida and Georgia routinely faced tougher defenses than the teams from the Big 12.

The same reasoning can be applied on the other side of the ball. A compelling argument can be made that Alabama and Florida faced very good offensive teams throughout their SEC conference schedules.

This is where benchmarking comes in handy. An average team that faces poor competition can appear to be above average. Similarly, a very good team that faces good competition can appear below average.

For example, suppose Team X averaged 25 PPG against competition that allowed—on average—15 PPG. While 25 PPG seems rather pedestrian, it understimates Team X’s ability to score. The difference ratio (or performance ratio) of Team X’s average PPG and the average points allowed by opposing defenses ((25 – 15)/15 = 0.67) adjusts for this disparity.

This logic was built into the Team Performance Ratio (TPR), a metric recently added to the AV Ranking (click on the two preceding links for a full description of each). Using the TPR offensive and defensive metrics (red zone and third down efficiency, points per game, rushing yards per attempt and per game, and passing yards per attempt and per game), the top ten offensive and defensive teams of the 2008 regular season were determined.

The TPR (and in a more general sense this difference ratio approach) is designed to statistically benchmark both the effectiveness (PPG, rushing and passing yards per game) and efficiency (third down and red zone efficiency, rushing and passing yards per attempt) of a team relative to its competition.

2008 Top Ten Offense: TPR

Due to problems embedding the tables the data can be seen here.

Eight (Florida, Oklahoma, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Tulsa, Texas and Texas Tech) of the top ten offensive TPR teams occupy at least one top ten offensive spot in PPG, YPG or YPP. Five (Oklahoma, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Tulsa and Texas Tech) of the top ten offensive TPR teams hold a top ten ranking in all three categories.

Penn State and Florida State, absent from the top ten PPG, YPG and YPP rankings, come in at numbers three and ten in the TPR ranking while Ball State, USC, Oregon, Rice, Houston and Nevada are not in the offensive TPR top ten.

Florida earned top offensive honors. The Gators more than doubled the PPG totals allowed by their opposing defenses. If that wasn’t enough, Florida boasted difference ratios of 45, 68, 83 and 44 percent in third down efficiency, rushing yards per attempt, rushing yards per game, and passing yards per attempt. In other words, the Gator offense routinely performed at a much higher level than their opponents typically allowed.

2008 Top Ten Defense: TPR

Due to problems embedding the tables the data can be seen here.

Seven (TCU, USC, Boise State, Florida, Alabama, Iowa and Ohio State) of the top ten defensive TPR teams occupy at least one top ten defensive spot in PPG, YPG or YPP. Four (TCU, USC, Florida and Alabama) team in the defensive TPR top ten also hold top ten defensive rankings in PPG, YPG and YPP.

Texas, California and Oklahoma make appearances as top ten defensive TPR teams despite no appearance in the top ten PPG, YPG or YPP while Tennessee, Penn State, Boston College, Troy, Virginia Tech, Connecticut, West Virginia and Clemson don’t make the top ten defensive TPR cut.

TCU tops the defensive TPR list (USC is a very close second). The Horned Frogs excelled in third down efficiency (difference ratio of 21 percent) and PPG (difference ratio of 28 percent), as well as rushing yards per carry (difference ratio of 33 percent).

So A Cursory Glance Is All That Is Needed?

The answer is both yes and no, it really depends what you’re looking for.

At first glance the conclusion of this analysis seems simple: PPG, YPG and YPP combined with BCS conference schools ranked in the top 25 is enough to characterize the top offensive and defensive teams in the country. An adjustment for competition really isn’t needed.

For those five (Oklahoma, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Tulsa and Texas Tech) teams in all four (PPG, YPG, YPP and TPR) top ten offensive rankings, this is true.

Likewise on defense, where the four (TCU, USC, Florida and Alabama) teams occupying a top ten spot in all four (PPG, YPG, YPP and TPR) defensive rankings were well-known, solid defensive units.

The numbers bear this out.

But there is more to it if you really want to determine which teams were first tier as well as which team fielded the best offense an defense.

When accounting for competition, Ball State, USC, Oregon, Rice, Houston and Nevada don’t appear the potent offensive squads the PPG, YPG and YPP statistics would have you believe. Ditto for Tennessee, Penn State, Boston College, Troy, Virginia Tech, Connecticut, West Virginia and Clemson on defense.

Moreover, it is Florida—not Oklahoma—that takes first place on offense and TCU—not USC—that tops the list on defense when the statistics are adjusted for the competition.

Additionally, adjusting for the competition shows the drop-off between the teams. The top ten offensive TPR rankings indicate that Florida and Oklahoma were clearly the best offensive teams during the regular 2008 season. The top ten defensive TPR rankings show that TCU and USC fielded far more superior defensive units than anyone else.

Bad News For Irish Fans

Prior to the bowl game against Hawaii, the Irish offense ranked 86th in PPG, 75th in YPG, and 85th in YPP. But these numbers are far worse when adjusted for the competition.

Notre Dame’s offensive TPR ranking comes in at 107th, highlighted by poor third down (-15 percent difference ratio) and red zone efficiency (-16 percent difference ratio) as well as rushing yards per game (-27 percent difference ratio) and rushing yards per attempt (-17 percent difference ratio).

The inept rushing game appears even worse when benchmarked to the competition.

The Irish defense faired slightly better.

For the regular season Notre Dame’s defensive unit ranked 43rd in PPG, 38th in YPG, and 37th in YPP. Adjusting for the competition puts the Irish slightly lower at 48th using the defensive TPR ranking.

The Irish played well on third down (11 percent difference ratio), in PPG (9 percent difference ratio), and were efficient defending the pass (10 percent difference ratio in yards per pass attempt). That isn’t national championship caliber, but it isn’t bad either.

All in all, however, these numbers pale in comparison to those of Florida and TCU noted above.

Similar Posts

A Study in Prediction Performance: Updates to the AV Ranking

2008 Elite Selection Playoff: Week Fourteen and Conference Championship Predictions

2008 Elite Selection Playoff: Week Fifteen and BCS Championship Predictions

A Clashmore Mike Roundtable: Critical Elements to Irish Success in 2009

Anthony Pilcher — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 17:33:57 -0400

Notre Dame's season opener against Nevada is right around the corner and a seemingly eternal off-season can't end soon enough.

Fans seem tired of attempting to produce logical explanations for the last two years: a disastrous 2007 season and an underachieving 2008 campaign. Head coach Charlie Weis' said it best at Notre Dame's media day, it's time to stop talking and start showing it on the field.

But what will it take for the Irish to reach their potential in 2009?

The staff at Clashmore Mike sat down to discuss the critical elements for the Irish in 2009 including the biggest concerns on offense, defense and special teams, as well as what intangible qualities this team needs to excise the demons of 2007 and 2008.

Offense

What aspect of Notre Dame's offense is most critical for the Irish offense to return to the form of 2005?

Andy: An often-overlooked key component in 2005's offense, Darius Walker had the necessary skillset to make defensive units that keyed in on the stellar Irish passing game pay. To that end, the largest factor to the success of the Notre Dame offense in 2009 will be establishing a running game that can keep opposing defenses honest. Whether by platooning two or three backs, or keying in on the success of one in particular, the 2009 squad needs to find a way to put themselves in favorable second and third down distance situations to maximize the availability of all parts of the playbook. Resorting to Clausen finding Floyd or Tate on third and long will simply not be a credible long-term option should the running game falter out of the gate.

Anthony: The obvious choice is offensive line play, but two subtle factors will be just as critical. Weis' offensive philosophy is predicated on creating one-on-one mismatches via formations and personnel groupings. This requires personnel flexibility at every position. If injuries take away the first option, a player behind him must step in and fill the void. This is particularly important at the tight end position where Notre Dame has few proven commodities. Second, Weis must remedy the predictable play-calling and personnel groupings that plagued the Irish in 2008.

Jon: The biggest hurdle keeping the Irish offense from becoming truly elite is their own mental development. This year, the entire offense must limit their mental breakdowns, making the nuances of Charlie Weis' offense second nature. With most of the offense being upperclassmen, they must be able to develop mentally to the extent that they do not have to think about how to adjust their check-downs, route running, or blocking assignments when going full-speed on game day. This is especially true for the offensive line and Jimmy Clausen who is expected to put up big numbers this season.

Michael: I'm satisfied with the way the offense is developing. For me, the critical element is the pressure the front seven put on opposing quarterbacks and their ability to stop opposing running games.

Defense

What is the weakness of the 2009 Irish defensive unit and what must the Irish do to minimize this weakness?

Andy: Due to Jon Tenuta's high-risk/high-reward defensive scheme, the onus of pressure on the defensive side of the ball is going to be squarely on the shoulders of the Irish linebacking corps. Blitzing, run stuffing, and short yardage pass play coverage is going to keep these athletes very busy. Their unit's success will largely be determined by their ability to make correct decisions and read opposing offenses.

Anthony: The defensive line's recruiting shortfalls-in both quality and quantity-early in Weis' tenure will begin to show this year. Entering the season, this is the unquestionable weakness of the Irish defense. Notre Dame must win first down and force opposing offenses into passing situations. This plays to the strength of the defense: an aggressive, attacking scheme coupled with a very athletic back seven. If the opposition stays ahead of the chains, it could be a long day for the Irish.

Jon: Most Irish writers and fans alike boast about the depth on the Irish team this year. However, the quality depth on the team lies mostly on the offensive side of the ball at the offensive line, receiver, and quarterback positions. The cornerback position on the defense is deep with talented replacements, but the linebacker and defensive line positions are especially vulnerable as they lack the quality depth to keep players fresh by rotation, but not having a drop-off in talent and production. Most of the players backing up the starters on the defensive front seven and at both safety positions are either young and inexperienced or players that were recruits that just didn't live up to their potential. The Irish must remedy this by sustaining long drives on offense where the talent is deeper to give the defense, where the talent isn't as deep, a rest to keep the starters fresh.

Michael: Tenuta has more talent than he had to work with at Georgia Tech, especially in the secondary. Without two classical nose tackles, the linebackers will be critical both for his attacking defense, neutralizing the quick passes opponents will use, as well as blitzing. The Irish will minimize these shortcomings with "Band of Brothers" teamwork and an attitude for domination.

Special Teams

After showing marked improvement in many special teams statistical categories in 2008, what prevents the Irish from reverting back to the form it displayed in 2007 as Weis will no longer be managing this unit?

Andy: The returning talent and experience at the majority of special teams positions makes a relapse to 2007-level inconsistencies an unlikelihood. The major question mark for the special teams unit this season is, of course, the notoriously inconsistent kicking game. Whether Tausch can stabilize a kicking game that has long left points on the field is one of the most worrying aspects of this year's squad. Both on kickoffs and placekicking duties, Notre Dame's kickers need to develop into a reliable part of Weis' overall offensive strategy week-to-week.

Anthony: Simply speaking: depth and athleticism. The Irish roster hasn't been this full of talent since Lou Holtz and Vinnie Ceratto roamed the sidelines. The 2008 season provided many young and talented---but raw---Irish players with valuable special teams experience. This, coupled with an influx of talent, should provide competition at many special teams positions. The trio of freshmen specialists certainly won't hurt either.

Jon: The biggest detriment to last year's special teams was the inconsistency with the kicking game. The lack of leg strength and accuracy with Ryan Burkhart and Brandon Walker severely limited Notre Dame's ability to put points on the board. As Brandon Walker finished the season somewhat consistently last year and had all summer to develop his skills, the fact that Nick Tausch, as Charlie Weis put it, "...won the [kicking] competition fairly convincingly" bodes well for the Irish kicking game. I expect him to go through some freshman growing pains, but hopefully his leg strength and consistency will provide the Irish an option to score when the offense might sputter near or in the red zone.

Michael: Veteran leadership. Returnees include both kickers and returners, as well as most of the special teams players. An improved kicking game will give Weis more choices in his offense.

Intangibles

What intangible is likely to be the best asset for the Irish in 2009? What figures to be the biggest liability?

Andy: The largest asset this Irish team may possess is stability and experience at every coaching position this fall. With a clear offensive and defensive coordinator, no longer will Weis be reliant on Haywood's head-scratch-inducing playcalls or an unwieldy combination of Corwin Brown and Jon Tenuta's defensive philosophies. The additional changes to position staff will also maximize execution of a unified coaching vision in all personnel areas. Conversely, the largest liability of this Notre Dame team is their recent inability to be more than just a sum of their individual parts. An early-season contest won by consistent and unspectacular play would do wonders to bolster the confidence of an Irish fanbase that doubts their team's ability to grind out difficult wins.

Anthony: After losing several close games last season (many by surrendering double digit leads), the Irish should know how to finish in 2009. Disappointing outings against North Carolina, Pittsburgh and Syracuse in 2008 should serve as lessons for the coming season and become an asset. The biggest liability may be success. To date, this crop of Notre Dame players haven't enjoyed a lot of it. How the Irish react to success will likely determine whether or not they lose a game they shouldn't.

Jon: The biggest asset for this year's team is the sheer talent and athleticism laden in nearly every starter at every position. Similar to the Hawaii Bowl, if nothing else, the Irish have enough talent to win six or seven of the games on their schedule. The biggest liability for this year's team is Notre Dame's historically uncanny ability to play down to teams they should beat, similar to their loss to Syracuse last season. Should the Irish overcome that liability, they have the ability to finish the season with a bare minimum of ten victories.

Michael: The team has learned they need to protect leads and minimize mistakes better. Navy, too, almost came back from a huge deficit due to poor on-sides kick coverage. Clausen must show command of his weapons and the maturity to limit his mistakes. Their biggest liability could be an inability to recover from deficits.

A Study in Prediction Performance: Updates to the AV Ranking

Anthony Pilcher — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:41:25 -0400

At Clashmore Mike we strive to monitor the college football landscape as a whole, objectively and without bias. While we have a vested interest in Notre Dame, we attempt to view the performance of the Irish via appropriate statistical metrics that benchmark on-field production (irrespective of how said production is measured).

One such example is the AV Ranking. Rather than rely on Jeff Sagarin, Anderson & Hester, Richard Billingsley, et. al., Clashmore Mike has developed its own college football computer ranking formula.

As shown here and here, the AV Ranking was used to predict the winners of the 2008 conference championships and BCS bowl games.

Upon further review of the 2008 season, it was determined that the accuracy of the AV Ranking was lacking. Specifically, it struggled to correctly forecast the winner in contests where the two teams were separated by a narrow AV Ranking point margin.

While this is not surprising—it is always difficult to predict the winner of a closely matched contest with any regularity—there was certainly room for improvement.

What, Exactly, Was the Problem?

Never content to accept mediocrity, myself and fellow Notre Dame and college football enthusiast Vince Siciliano spent the offseason identifying and quantifying the AV Ranking shortcomings that led to the inaccuracies described above. Two culprits were identified as major contributors to these inaccuracies, both stemming from improperly benchmarking teams to their competition.

First, opponents’ opponents were not considered in the strength of schedule (SOS) algorithm. This afforded the same credit for beating a 8-5 team from the WAC and a 8-5 team from the SEC. No disrespect to the WAC, but LSU was a better team than Louisiana Tech in 2008.

Additionally, the AV Ranking made no attempt to statistically benchmark teams to their competition. Were Tulsa, Houston, Nevada, etc. really prolific offensive teams or did they artificially benefit from poor defensive competition?

This was discussed ad nauseam leading up to the national title game when the potency of Oklahoma’s record setting offense was questioned due to the host of poor defensive teams in the Big 12.

What Are the Answers?

Two problems require two solutions. The AV Ranking (complete description) previously consisted of four metrics: the aforementioned SOS, adjusted win percentage (AWP), margin of victory (MOV) and quality wins/losses (QWL). These four metrics are normalized and combined via a weighted average to achieve a final AV Ranking point value.

The SOS algorithm was updated to include two quantities, one that measures the strength of a team’s opponents and one that measures the strength of a team’s opponents’ opponents. The two were normalized and combined using a simple weighted average assigning considerably more value to the former.

Concurrently, a new AV Ranking metric was created.

This fifth metric benchmarks a team’s production to its competition by defining ratios between the statistical averages of the team and its opponents. A similar version of this analysis was conducted for Notre Dame ’s offense (mid-year and end-year) and defense (mid-year and end-year), and is a very useful tool for appropriately gauging a team’s production.

For example, suppose Team X averaged 25 points per game (PPG) against competition that allowed—on average—15 points a game. While 25 PPG seems rather pedestrian, it understimates Team X’s ability to score.

The difference ratio (here called a performance ratio) of Team X’s average PPG and the average points allowed by opposing defenses ((25 – 15)/15 = 0.67) adjusts for this disparity. In other words, as the difference ratio indicates, Team X averaged 67 percent more points than their competition typically allowed.

While a litany of statistics could be used to measure production, only 15 were selected:

Turnover margin
Third down efficiency (offensive and defensive)
Red zone scoring efficiency (offensive and defensive)
Points per game (offensive and defensive)
Rushing yards per carry (offensive and defensive)
Rushing yards per game (offensive and defensive)
Passing yards per attempt (offensive and defensive)
Passing yards per game (offensive and defensive)

Simply speaking (a full description can be seen here), these statistical categories were used to generate 15 performance ratios that were normalized and combined using a weighted average. Slightly more value was assigned to turnovers, third down efficiency, and red zone efficiency than the other ten statistical categories.

This metric was aptly termed the Team Performance Ratio (TPR) as it adjusts the statistical production of a team to its competition.

What About the New Results?

The updated AV Ranking was generated for the 2008 season using the regular season (i.e. no bowl game statistics or win/loss outcomes). For comparison purposes, the values prior to these updates can be viewed here. The tables below show the top 25 AV Ranked teams in addition to the top ten teams in each of the five AV Ranking metrics (SOS, AWP, MOV, QWL and TPR).

Prior to the updates detailed above, the AV Ranking correctly predicted the winner of 79.8 percent of the regular season games but only 51.7 percent of the contests where the two teams were separated by a small AV Ranking point margin (using the season-end AV point values).

The updated AV Ranking correctly predicted 80.8 percent of the regular season games and 62.7 percent of those with narrow margins. While the former isn’t a large improvement, the latter certainly is.

AV Ranking

Due to problems embedding the tables, the data can be seen here.

Adjusted Win Percentage (AWP)

Due to problems embedding the tables, the data can be seen here.

Strength of Schedule (SOS)

Due to problems embedding the tables, the data can be seen here.

Team Performance Ratio (TPR)

Due to problems embedding the tables, the data can be seen here.

Margin of Victory (MOV)

Due to problems embedding the tables, the data can be seen here.

Quality Wins/Losses (QWL)

Due to problems embedding the tables, the data can be seen here.