Season was "lost under center," or so says
by jrdjr84 (2014-12-29 18:06:13)
Edited on 2014-12-29 18:07:05
[ cannot delete ]   [ Edit ]   [ Return to Rock's House ]   [ Show All Thread ]   [ Ignore Poster ]   [ Report Post ]   [ Highlight Poster ]   [ Reply ]

 



Matt Fortuna over at the WWL inbox his commentary on Zaire as starter. Do you agree? Seems to me the season was lost "under the headset" with a pass-crazy game plan that put too much pressure on a good but not great quarterback and a defense that wore down to nothing.

Does the board concur?



Lost Middle Linebackers vs. USC
by RJD  (2014-12-30 08:05:18)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Grace, Schmidt, Moore, Morgan (first half suspension?). I would agree when combined with the defensive losses in the middle including starting your fifth string Mike linebacker and missing your starting defensive tackles. Then having backups go down and bringing one guy essentially out of retirement to put his hand in the dirt at Troy.

The only caveat is that the season was lost before USC after not kicking the PAT against NW and blowing the 'Ville game. But a win against SC might have healed some wounds.


lost when sfb coach showed up on a horse at practice *
by abqgant  (2014-12-29 19:05:57)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


BK's coaching did this team no favors, but ultimately this
by Tex Francisco  (2014-12-29 19:00:45)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

season went south because of defensive injuries.


If by "went south" you mean ...
by CJC  (2014-12-29 19:46:07)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

did a free-fall into an abyss of historical proportions, I might agree with you.

If by "went south" you mean failed to seriously contend for a national championship for the fourth time in five seasons, I'd say it was due to our fifth-year head coach failing to produce better play on the side of the ball which is his alleged area of expertise, most spectacularly from the quarterback position, but notably also along the offensive line and TE.

That side of the ball also holds the answer to the question of what we should expect in the future from Kelly-coached Notre Dame teams.


I concur. Hence....
by PabloFanque  (2014-12-29 18:41:53)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Run the fucking ball to set up the pass. Control the clock. Keep the defense off the field. Win the game.

Mike McCarthy has the best QB in the universe. Yet he runs Lacy and Starks to make #12 even more effective.


agree totally* *
by ndusn  (2014-12-29 23:07:49)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


Why has no one thought of this before? *
by saderdomer  (2014-12-29 20:26:23)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


Impossible. We were never under center. *
by HowardRoark  (2014-12-29 18:26:15)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


That's why we're lost there *
by ShermanOaksND  (2014-12-29 18:46:14)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


Lol! !Excellent! *
by jrdjr84  (2014-12-29 18:35:36)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


I'd say it was lost on the defensive side
by Son of Galway  (2014-12-29 18:18:21)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I still can't figure out how a defense could look so good for half of a season, and so bad for the other half.


They lost key defensive starters...
by BigNDfan  (2014-12-29 18:42:07)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

The concern going into the year was that ND had a good starting defense, but very little depth. That was before the loss of K. Russell and I. Williams. And then the injuries started to snowball.


Joe Schmidt and Cody Riggs.
by athlete37  (2014-12-29 18:21:17)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

There are a couple of starting points, and then add in Jones and Day and others.


I'd like to ask our fifth-year head coach ...
by CJC  (2014-12-29 19:41:56)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

who's been doing this for eleventy-bazillion years, why his defense should depend so mightily on a graduate transfer and a former walk-on.


We also lost guys to academic issues.
by GreenManorite  (2014-12-29 23:21:27)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

The depletion of our defense was more than two guys. Those two guys were huge, but that was not its not the whole story.

As much as you'd like to believe "next guy in" stuff, you college teams with 20 hour weeks and little experience can fill gaps without significant drop off. You only have so much time with starters playing together, so your back up just isn't going to get the same practice time. Our starters were quite good and our back ups were green. Some of that is recruiting, some is bad luck, but mostly that's just college football. You can lose as many defensive starters as we did and win.


Thanks, I missed that.
by CJC  (2014-12-30 09:24:29)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

My question, which I asked in response to the specific, narrow assertion about the importance of Riggs and Schmidt, stands.

And since the implication behind my question wasn't clear enough, I'll be more specific:

I'm not asking why there was a drop off in play once they were unavailable, I'm asking why a fifth-year head coach was forced to rely upon such relatively unusual sources as the indispensable building blocks of his defense.

It's not so much who was behind Schmidt and Riggs, but who wasn't ahead of them in the first place.


Defensive problems arose against North Carolina
by NDColt  (2014-12-29 18:49:29)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

We were relatively healthy then, but a hurry up offense exposed weaknesses.


True, but the Off also gave UNC 3 easy TDs off of TOs. *
by Tex Francisco  (2014-12-29 19:29:18)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


Yep. ASU, UL and NU were all W's even with the bad D
by btd  (2014-12-29 20:44:16)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

if Kelly simply tweaked the offense to keep the defense off the field more and reduce the odds Golson would turn the ball over. In short, if he did what he did at the end of 2011 and all of 2012 from ASU forward we would have 3 more wins right now.

We'd still have the same structural issues with the program, but we'd be 10-2 instead of 7-5. Lipstick on a pig. A likely big loss in a bowl either way, but ending 10-3 would probably make most of us feel better than ending 7-6.


Not ASU. *
by BigNDfan  (2014-12-29 21:14:02)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


I disagree. If we had tweaked the offense to keep the ball
by athlete37  (2014-12-29 23:28:47)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

by running it, we either would have been successful, or not thrown two pick-sixes and fumbled on a pass play at our own 15. Good chance we win then


The crazy thing about the Schmidt injury
by HTownND  (2014-12-29 18:26:14)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Is people trying to pin that on Navy's style of play. His leg was messed up when a player was pushed onto his leg which was at a terrible angle. It could have happened to anyone at any time but now it's evidence of Navy's dirty play now that we're a bunch of pussies scared to play them.

It's downright shameful the shit people say sometimes.


TCFC
by HTownND  (2014-12-29 19:14:45)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Navy won't be playing a ton of big 5 conference teams once they join a conference next year.


Which of course addresses none of the questions I asked *
by TCFC  (2014-12-29 19:41:45)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


They will play Cincy, UConn, etc
by HTownND  (2014-12-30 09:04:58)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Every year. But if you think teams aren't playing them because they don't want to, we know the reason is that they are now in a conference, and if they are playing us, AF and Army that limits their OOC options.

So your claim that teams aren't scheduling them in the future has a simple reason. Navy doesn't have room in their schedule after conference games, us, AF and Army.

Even if they wanted to play OSU they cannot fit them in the schedule. But yeah no one is playing them because they are dirty. Got it.


My point had nothing to do with who they play in the future
by TCFC  (2014-12-30 09:24:12)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Look at their schedule for the last 10-15 years. There aren't a whole lot of power 5 teams there. Is that by design, so they can schedule themselves into a bowl game, or is it because teams say no?

Do you think an SEC team would swap Navy for one of their late-season I-AA scrimmages?

I think coaches see very little upside in playing them. You have to spend a week coming up with a defensive game plan for an offense that no one else runs and the risk of defensive injury seems greater because of the way they play.


Going back to 2000
by HTownND  (2014-12-30 10:15:01)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

They have played 16 different Big 5 teams a total of 49 games, from the SEC, Pac 12, Big Ten, Big East and ACC. If you include us, it's 17 teams and 63 games.

Georgia Tech 2
BC 3
Rutgers 9
Wake Forest 6
NC State 1
Northwestern 1
Duke 8
Uconn 2
Vandy 2
Maryland 2
Stanford 2
Pitt 4
Ohio State 1
South Carolina 1
Penn St 1
Indiana 2

I guess we can argue about a "whole lot", but they aren't Notre Dame, so as an independent, they have to put some bottom feeders on there. Moreover, they have to hold three spots for Notre Dame, Army and Air Force each year.

Looking at their schedule they have played a good mix of power 5 teams each year and a bunch of scrubs, which is to be expected for an independent not named Notre Dame.


That's a list of pretty lousy power 5 teams
by TCFC  (2014-12-30 11:18:18)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

They played Stanford when they were awful and Vandy isn't exactly the class of the SEC.

Look, I'm not trying to start an argument over the merits of Navy's schedule with you, but I don't think it's a coincidence that not a lot of elite-level BCS teams show up on that list, but I will concede that I have no idea whether or not Navy approaches those types of schools.

I do think that it's a pain to play against them and a lot coaches would rather not have to deal with it.



How many elite power 5 teams
by HTownND  (2014-12-30 11:25:31)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Play anything but creampuffs OOC though?

I'm not sure you can pin that on Navy.
Why would the SEC schedule Navy over Chattanooga State?

I am assuming that most of the top drawer power 5 teams are looking for buy games, whereas Navy is looking for a home and home. It limits the pool quite a bit.

Now that Navy is in a conference, they basically have one OOC game to play with, because ND, Army and AF occupy 3 slots, and their conferences schedule is going to be 8 games. That's 11 games each year, already locked and loaded.


To be fair...
by BigNDfan  (2014-12-29 18:45:57)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

The player that rolled on him was attempting to cut block another Irish defender and missed. That's the reason he was on the ground in the first place.


Nope
by HTownND  (2014-12-29 18:54:37)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

There is pretty good video evidence. If you think that guy landed on Scmidt untouched, I'm not sure what you were watching.

Go to the 10:00 mark of the third video.

1) there was contact with our player before he landed on Schmidt
2) if you think that was an attempted cut block on our LB, well I'm not sure how much football you watch, let alone understand.


Thanks for the video, I couldn't find it, but...
by BigNDfan  (2014-12-29 20:28:20)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

it confirms what I said. The linemen is diving at Martini's legs. It looks like he may have got tangled up as he's attempting to dive to where he only gets a piece of him - then he basically lands on Schmidt. When I said "missed" a block, I didn't remember if he hit the other Irish player or not. I just remembered that it wasn't a clean dive and block.

Obviously other teams have their linemen throw blocks in similar fashion, but not at the level of Navy.

On your number 2, I appreciate the snarky comment, but Cut blocking is an offensive linemen trying to take out a defensive player by hitting their knees or lower. That's exactly what he's attempting to do in the play.


Holy hell
by HTownND  (2014-12-29 22:58:10)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Watch it before the replay. Watch that lineman. Watch what happens to him.

If he was trying to cut our guy he's the worst cutting OL I've ever seen. Navy players are better at cutting than that shit show. That was forced by contact not some bush league style of play.

As for you definition of a cut block being at or below the knees, now I know you don't know what you are talking about. I assure you no one at Navy or anywhere is taught to cut block that way. The point of focus is the outside thigh pad. Below the knee and your just a damn pig rolling around in the mud and are useless as tits on a bull. I've heard that expression , starting at a young age, more times than I care to remember. No one is ever taught to dive at ankles and knees as a cut block. That's just stupid.

Google how to cut block, I'm sure Navy even has videos out there. But until then simply put me on ignore and stop wasting both of our time. You obviously don't have the first clue what you are talking about.


What type of block was the Oline attempting?
by BigNDfan  (2014-12-30 00:59:50)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I completely understand the proper technique you're discussing as it relates to OLs and cut blocking DLs.

The Oline dove low at Martini in attempt to block him - how would you define it?

I also don't understand why you're so pissed - have a beer.


This
by HTownND  (2014-12-30 10:31:44)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

This is not correct

"The Oline dove low at Martini in attempt to block him"





Go back and watch it real time. Is it your position that the OL, two yards away from Martini and already going down, is diving to block Martini, and that he's not heading down because of contact from behind?


I'll make this really easy, he wasn't trying to cut block Martini at that point.



Here from real time, he's caught up in the pile, Martini is several yards away and he's already got his head down. Do you really really really want to argue that he was diving at Martini's legs to block him at this point?



If you watch the video, it's pretty clear, the contact from the RB/pile pushes him forward, towards Martini who then knicks him into Schmidt's leg. It wasn't the result of some bullshit dirty scheme or cut block attempt, it was a fluke play where a guy gets drilled from behind, falls forward and because of contact lands on the back of Schmidt's leg, who is playing the RB while trying to shed a different block.

I also don't need a beer, what I do need is someone like you, who has shown time and time and time again, that despite being a "big fan", you don't know very much about the game, trying to correct me.

Like I said, just put me on ignore, and stop wasting my time.


I don't agree with your #2
by Blarneyman  (2014-12-29 19:31:20)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

In regards to your #2, I rewatched the video (thanks for making me do that, I love rewatching injuries!) and it is clear that the OL is diving at Greer Martini. He catches a piece of Martini and then hits Schmidt's knee. Are you saying the OL was not trying to cut Martini, a LB? I agree that there was contact with Martini first before he hit Schmidt.


Cut blocking
by HTownND  (2014-12-29 23:01:02)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Is not diving hap hazardly in the air and missing wildly. That OL was not attempting to cut our other LB.

If you watch it real time you see why he went flying. But if that is how Navy teaches its OL to cut block then God help them, they suck. It's not wildly diving at knees. It's actually a pretty refined technique involving engaging the player first and then cutting to their legs. It sure as hell isn't Supermanning in the air hoping to knick an LB and missing wildly. He wasn't attempting to cut block our LB.


Maybe the guy cut blocks like you post.
by Tonybullets  (2014-12-30 00:55:40)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I kid - you do raise some good points, but it looked to me like a failed block and the kid happened to roll up on Schmidt.

Navy is a pox on our schedule and should be eliminated, the debt is 70 years repaid.


As displayed above
by HTownND  (2014-12-30 10:57:16)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

The guy was in the pile, while the guy blocking Schmidt is already engaging Schmidt. He gets hit from behind which causes him to Superman foward, getting knicked by Martini onto Schmidt's leg.

Now, I'd love an ariel view of the play. My assumption is that he initially was doubling on the DL and trying to scrape to the LB (maybe). But if that is the case, he needed to get off that block much faster, because the RB is on his back (as it's a FB dive read from the QB). If his assignment was really to block Martini there, he screwed it up pretty bad, because he didn't get to the next level very quickly at all.

But that wasn't a cut block, there was contact from behind, from the RB/pile that propels him forward. In real time, you can see him get bounced out of the pile, and from the screen caps in the post above, you can see that the RB is on his back and has run into him. If his assignment was to block Martini, he was really really really really late getting there for a FB dive. I'd love to see the diagram that has someone attempting to cut block the backside LB for a FB dive.


Partially agree.
by KevinPS  (2014-12-29 18:18:17)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Kelly's play calling hurt us for sure, but it put pressure on the entire offense and not just the QB. BVG didn't help either, doubling down on the complexity of the defensive calls as we got younger and less deep.


How many pts did we give up to NW? About as many as their
by athlete37  (2014-12-29 18:17:37)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

previous four opponents combined?


On so many levels this year reminds me of 2007
by mkovac  (2014-12-29 19:09:25)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

The question that keeps popping up in my mind is "WTF?!!!"

I attended the 2007 ND/SC game at ND Stadium. I saw Pete Carroll take his foot off the gas in a mercy move to ND.

I did not attend this year's SC game, in spite of being offered a ticket by my sister (an SC grad). I told her, "No thanks, Mary Anne. I've got a real bad feeling about this game."

I had never in my 66 years turned down a ticket to a ND/SC game in the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. So, you know I smelled something bad going into that game. Sadly, my prediction was correct.

Kelly, in his arrogance, reminds me a lot of Weis. You know, the definition of insanity and all that jazz.


The contents of this post represent the views of the author. NDNation.com is not responsible for its contents.