Monday, October 15, 2007

More Fun with Statistics: The Running Game

The folks at Rakes of Mallow clipped an excerpt from yesterday's Boston College Wrap-up, and it led to a lot of comments over there. One of the comments, from Bob Gilleran, stated that I "lacked vision" and blamed all the current woes on recruiting problems dating back to Bob Davie. He thought the current coaches are doing a great job and that we should all be grateful to have them. I think Robert read a lot more into my criticism of offensive line play than was there, and I actually agree with much of what he posted. But he also threw out a challenge:

If there are, as you claim, many other college football programs out there that play the game with integrity and real student athletes and have done better than this 2007 team and their coaches this year, taking into account their killer opening schedule and the nearly complete absence of talent in their 2004 and 2005 recruiting classes, mention a few names and you will see that there are none.
I did some quick looking about for the easiest way to answer Robert's challenge, and set forth below is what I posted in my reply over at Rakes (with minor editing for use here).

________________

Most of what you wrote is true ...

... but not all of it, Robert.

True, the talent level in our upper classes is down. We aren't loaded with 4- and 5-star offensive linemen in the upper classes. But the guys we do have are quality Div-I athletes. Sully, Turk, Duncan were not total stiffs coming out of high school. Sam Young was VERY highly recruited (great get by CW!) and now has around 20 starts under his belt. Yet these guys are playing terribly as a unit. I am not saying they should be leading the nation in rushing yards. I am saying that we have enough talent and experience to at least be COMPETENT run blockers. Armando Allen, James Aldridge, Robert Hughes don't need big holes to get yards - they just need a crease. Instead, they are getting hit behind the line of scrimmage as soon as they get the ball.

As for other schools that "play the game with integrity and real student athletes and have done better than this 2007 team and their coaches this year" here are a few stats for you (I know how you hate facts). The following teams (in no particular order, and including Notre Dame) comprise the Top 10 programs for football graduation rates, as recently announced by the NCAA. (For comparison purposes, Notre Dame has a total of 225 rushing yards this season).

  • Navy is 4-2 overall, and has rushed for 1,742 yards this season.
  • Army is 3-4 and has 554 rushing yards.
  • Stanford is 2-4 and has 772 rushing yards.
  • Northwestern is 4-3 with 843 rush yards.
  • Duke is 1-6 with 468 rush yards.
  • Boston College is 7-0 and has 1,012 rushing yards.
  • Wake Forest is 4-2 with 875 rush yards.
  • Vanderbilt is 3-3 with 887 rush yards.
  • Air Force is 5-2 with 1,823 rush yards.

So, of the Top 10 graduation rate football programs, Notre Dame has, BY FAR, the lowest rushing totals for the season. The closest teams to us (Duke and Army) still have more than DOUBLE our rushing yards.

Do I think that Notre Dame, even with a lower level of talent than usual, has less talented players in the offensive line than the teams listed above? Worse talent than all three service academies, Duke, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, and Stanford? No, I think that Notre Dame's offensive lineman have more talent than those teams. Yet, even if you factor in our very tough schedule to date, those teams are getting more out of their O-line talent than the Irish are.

Robert, as I wrote in my blog, I still think Coach Weis is the right man for this job. He has done an amazing job recruiting. But just as he had to make a tough call for the good of the team last year by bringing Corwin Brown in, he needs a new offensive line coach.

I think you are reading more into my post than is there. I am not criticizing anyone's character or their hard work or their heart. I am criticizing the results. The results on the field indicate that notwithstanding everything else, we need to try something else in coaching the O-line.

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Boston College Recap: All I'm Asking for is "Mediocre"

[EDIT: Welcome UHND readers. I hope you'll bookmark OC Domer and come back regularly!]

Under a blue-gray October sky the Fighting Irish offense, under the tutelage of offensive genius Charlie Weis, once again stunk up the field. The Notre Dame defense played well enough that we didn't even need a "good" or "great" performance on offense. All we needed was for the "O" to raise its level of play from "deplorable" to "mediocre." Alas, "mediocre" was not in the cards for Saturday. Instead, the offensive line was unable to block effectively in the run game or the passing game, the quarterbacks made poor decisions and threw the ball inaccurately, and the receivers dropped numerous catchable, though not perfectly thrown, passes.

How bad was it? Here, briefly, is what the Irish were able to accomplish with each of their possessions:

  1. 6 Plays, 3 yards, punt.
  2. 5 plays, 16 yards, punt.
  3. 3 plays, 9 yards, punt.
  4. 3 plays, 9 yards, punt.
  5. 10 plays, 22 yards, ball turned over on downs when punter's knee touches ground while fielding low snap. Drive "aided" by a false start penalty on Eric Olsen, starting in place of the MIA Matt Carufel.
  6. 5 plays, 9 yards, Clausen pass intercepted. Drive featured ND holding penalty.
  7. 1 play, 0 yards, Clausen pass intercepted.
  8. 7 plays, 79 yards, TD pass from Sharpley to Parris.
  9. Brian Smith intercepts pass and returns it 25 yds for Irish TD. (Not an Irish "drive", but I count it as a possession).
  10. 3 plays, 7 yards, punt.
  11. 6 plays, 16 yards, punt.
  12. 6 plays, 15 yards, Missed 41 yd FG attempt. Drive featured Turkovich holding penalty.
  13. 11 plays, 53 yards, Ball turned over on downs. TD pass nullified by Turkovich holding penalty.
  14. 4 plays, 0 yards. Ball turned over on downs.
  15. 1 play -1 yard. Game over.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the Notre Dame offense in game #7 of the third season under Coach Weis. I still believe Charlie Weis is the right man for this job, but some things have to change. More on that in a minute.

It is tempting to blame Irish penalties or even the referees for the poor offensive performance. Certainly a couple of the penalties came at really bad times and hurt us, and some of the penalty calls were borderline. But the reality is that Notre Dame got the better of it BY FAR with regard to penalty calls. The Irish were flagged seven times for a total of 64 yards. Boston College was called for fifteen penalties for 131 yards. The Eagles got one first down by penalty, while Notre Dame got four first downs via penalty. That's more first downs than we picked up via the running game (3). Boston College had two drives in the first quarter that stalled out at least in part due to penalties, and two drives in the third quarter that stalled due to penalties, including the drive that ended with Brian Smith's interception.

If you exclude the offensive drives marred by penalties (#s 1, 5, 6, 12, and 13 above) and the interception return for a TD, you're left with one long touchdown drive (#8) and seven other drives that ended by punt, interception or downs (#s 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, and 14) the longest of which gained 16 yards (#2 and #11). That's right, even in drives where we did not hurt ourselves via penalty, we mustered one drive for a TD and seven other drives that averaged just a tad over 8 yards each. The referees did not cost us this game - our offense did.

What can be done about it? Well, unlike Coach Weis, I am not an offensive guru. But I can see pretty clearly that our offensive line can't block. Run blocking or pass blocking we are playing very, very poorly. Often our guys are just getting beat. But it seems that just as often our guys are missing assignments and letting defenders go completely unblocked. True, there are some young guys on the line getting their feet wet. But Sullivan, Duncan, and Turkovich are veterans of the system and Sam Young now has roughly twenty starts under his belt. If those guys can't figure out who to block by now and at least put a helmet on them, then they are not being coached very well. And this is not a new problem. Under Coaches Weis and Latina the Irish have NEVER been able to run the ball with authority. Our best short-yardage play for two years has been the QB sneak. Even when our running game has worked, it has usually been Darius Walker running draw plays. In 2005 Notre Dame averaged 147.1 rushing yards per game. In 2006 we averaged 125.7 yards per game. This year it's 32.1 rushing yards per game (so far). In the passing game, even before this year's disaster (34 sacks allowed so far) our pass protection has been lousy. We allowed 21 sacks in 2005, and 31 sacks in 2006. That is not progress. Coach Weis certainly bears his share of the blame, but so does offensive line coach John Latina. Notre Dame may not have the best talent along the offensive line, especially in the upper classes, but there are MANY, MANY teams across the country who are getting far better play from lesser talent than Notre Dame has. The difference is coaching. If for no other reason than to show he takes the problem seriously, Coach Weis has got to give John Latina his walking papers. A new offensive line coach is certainly not going to make matters worse.


The other change that has to be made is at quarterback. Jimmy Clausen may be the quarterback of the future for Notre Dame, but the quarterback of right now is Evan Sharpley. Coach Weis has said repeatedly that this is not a rebuilding year (Hah!) and that he will play the guys that give the team the best chance to win. Facing USC this Saturday, that guy is Sharpley. Clausen may have all the talent in the world, but right now the team is playing better with Evan under center. Back in May, in the heat of the quarterback race, I wrote:
Reading the tea leaves, I think Evan Sharpley gets first shot in the Fall, based upon his experience at running the offense. But he's on a short leash. If he doesn't "make plays" then Jones and Clausen will battle it out to see who can move the team the best - Clausen primarily with his arm, or Jones as a dual pass-run threat. At the end of the day, Coach Weis will go by what he sees on the field. Whichever QB moves the team best and makes the most plays will be the starter, regardless of "potential." At the end of the day, it might be the team that decides. Sometimes a team just responds better, plays better, for a particular quarterback. Which quarterback will most quickly earn the loyalty, respect, and confidence of his teammates?
Clausen and Sharpley are close in playing level right now. Neither is anywhere close to perfect. But right now, the team is responding to Sharpley. He has been decisive and gets the ball out of his hand quicker. He throws the ball with more authority, and he has clearly been the better quarterback at stretching defenses vertically and getting the ball down the field. His faster decisions are not always the correct ones, and his accuracy can be improved. Clausen may read defenses better, and he may be more accurate, but he is not making plays. Throwing the ball sideline to sideline doesn't frighten anyone. Sharpley may throw an INT or two, he may miss an open receiver, but right now he is the only play maker we have at QB, and he has to start. It doesn't show up in the stat sheet, but the defense is playing better as well when Sharps is in the game. I think this is because he moves the team and the defense gets fired up when they believe that the offense might actually score points. I do not think it is a coincidence that ND's interception return for a TD came immediately after Sharpley led the team on 79-yard TD drive. I read today where Weis said Sharpley needs to practice better if he wants to be "the guy." That's all well and good, but Coach Weis is also fond of saying that "I can only go by what I see." Well, we can all see that the team is playing better with Sharpley in the game. There was once another Irish quarterback who was buried on the depth chart because he wasn't a great practice player. His name was Joe Montana, and he did alright on game day.

Other Observations:
  • Other than the play where Geoff Price put his knee down fielding a low snap (which hurt us), he had a very good day punting, netting 42.2 yards per punt compared to a net 34.6 for BC.
  • Although Zibby never broke the big one, we finally saw some production on punt return, with 3 returns for 34 yards.
  • As might be expected from the offensive stats discussed above, ND got killed in time of possession, approx 21 minutes to 39 minutes.
  • Despite what it seemed like watching the game, ND and BC had similar days converting on 3rd downs. BC was 7 of 17, while ND was 6 of 18. BC was 0 for 3 on 4th down conversions (the first time they failed on 4th down all year), while ND was 1 of 4.
  • Notre Dame Dame failed to sack Matt Ryan (according to the stat sheet, although I thought we got him at least once), but we only allowed two sacks of Irish QBs (which is a good day for us).
  • Although the defense played pretty well against a top team, it would have been much better if we could tackle. Too often BC ball carriers dragged ND defenders for extra yards. Several times we had Matt Ryan dead to rights in the back-field and missed the chance to put the big hit on him. Zibby needs to get his head in front and drive his legs. He tackles like he's trying to jump on the back of a rodeo calf, and defenders just shrug him off.
  • David Bruton is having an amazing year. He shows tremendous speed, a big heart, and he CAN tackle. Keep up the great work David!
Conclusion: While this loss really hurt because of the multiple times we shot ourselves in the feet, at the end of the day the Irish competed pretty well against a team that may be #2 in the country as I type this. Although I think BC is overrated, they are still a very good football team and you have to take some encouragement from the fact that Notre Dame was within one score of taking the lead midway through the 3rd quarter. If Evan Sharpley gets the start next week against a USC team that is looking very human right now, I like my chances of seeing a BIG Notre Dame win next Saturday. The Irish are undefeated this year (1-0) when I am in the house, and I'm taking the whole family back to South Bend for the game this week.

Friday, October 12, 2007

Next Victim: Boston College

So the Notre Dame Fighting Irish are two-touchdown underdogs in their own house tomorrow? I'd say we have the Boston College Eagles right where we want them. Here was my pre-season analysis of the B.C. game:


Boston College (Oct. 13 @ Home). The game against BC is the second of the two swing games in the middle of the season that worry me. The Eagles are ranked #28 in the AP poll and #26 in the USA Today poll. They had a nice 10-3 campaign last season in what was really a down year for the ACC. They bring back a decent quarterback in Matt Ryan who played much of last year with a broken foot. They were 50th in the nation in total offense and 34th in total defense. They have a new head coach after Tom O'Brien bolted for N.C. State. I expect Notre Dame's new defensive scheme to be in full bloom by this point in the season and handle the Eagles' quality but not dynamic offense without much difficulty. On offense, we're going to have to change things up and win this one through the air, as there will be little room to run. Boston College expects to start two defensive tackles that weigh in at 343 and 337 pounds, and the linebackers are a veteran group that is stout against the run.

Since I anticipate a likely loss at UCLA, I think the Irish bounce back with a solid win and a very balanced performance against BC. Footballs will be in the air and we'll see some scoring. Notre Dame 31, Boston College 17.

[NOTE: If the Irish pull out the win at UCLA, then the BC game is a potential trap game. A letdown after a UCLA win, plus looking ahead to the Trojans a week away would likely mean a Notre Dame loss.]
Well, it turns out the Eagles are a bit more dynamic on offense than everyone expected, especially through the air. BC QB Matt Ryan is having a great year and his Heisman Trophy campaign is in full swing. At 6-0 and ranked #4 in the USA Today Top-25 Poll (actually in just about every poll), Boston College is a very "nice" story. But they have yet to be really tested. You can't really criticize any team that gets to mid-October with six wins and no defeats, but the fact remains that their most significant win to date has been a road win over a Georgia Tech squad that has since dropped out of the polls and is slotted at #35 in Jeff Sagarin's rankings. Their other five games have all been at home, where they have scored wins against Wake Forest (Sagarin #46), N.C. State (Sagarin #95), Army (Sagarin #111), Massachusetts (Sagarin #83), and Bowling Green (Sagarin #73). Overall, Sagarin's computers rank Boston College's schedule as the 78th toughest in the land. By the way, despite the Eagles' #4 ranking in most polls, Sagarin has them slotted at just #14 overall. Dig a little deeper and you'll find that Sagarin's computers REALLY think Boston College is the 24th best team in the country, but political correctness imposed by the BCS drives them up to #14. Here is an excerpt from the Sagarin web page discussing his different ranking methods:

"In ELO-CHESS, only winning and losing matters; the score margin is of no consequence, which makes it very "politically correct". However it is less accurate in its predictions forupcoming games than is the PURE POINTS, in which the score margin is the only thing that matters. PURE POINTS is also known as PREDICTOR, BALLANTINE, RHEINGOLD, WHITE OWL and is the best single PREDICTOR of future games. The ELO-CHESS will be utilized by the Bowl Championship Series(BCS)."
Thus, according to Sagarin the real, non-PC rankings are the "Pure Points" or "Predictor" ratings. Sagarin's "Predictor" ratings have the Eagles at #24 - a far cry from 4th best football team in the country. Of course, Notre Dame's two most recent opponents were ranked right near that #25 hole when we played them. We played Purdue on the road and had a real chance to win the game. Purdue is currently #22 in the Sagarin rankings (#26 in "Predictor). We also went on the road to play UCLA in the Rose Bowl, where we earned our first victory of the year. UCLA is Sagarin's #18 (#13 in "Predictor). Overall, Sagarin ranks Notre Dame's schedule as the 3rd toughest in the country. The Irish have been sorely tested and they are battle-hardened.

For a great break-down showing that Boston College's statistics have come against weak competition and that the Eagle's are thus likely not as daunting as their statistics would suggest, go read the latest post at The Irish Roundup.

So, as I said up top, I think we have the Eagles right where we want them. They are undefeated and feeling pretty good about themselves. But they are untested, and they have been enjoying home cooking all season. When they saunter into Notre Dame Stadium they are going to get punched right in the mouth, and it will be "game on." They are on par with our previous two opponents, but this game is being played in front of an Irish crowd, and our team has been getting better every week. Last week's game against UCLA was the coming-out party for Corwin Brown's defense. Given the match-ups, this week has to be the coming out party for Jimmy Clausen and the Notre Dame passing game. If the O-line can give J.C. some time, it appears likely that he'll be able to pick apart the Boston College secondary. I expect a great game, and although it will be closer than I expected in my pre-season analysis, I do think the Irish get a VERY, VERY important second win tomorrow. And it isn't just an important win because we would rather be 2-5 than 1-6. It's important because:

1. It keeps alive our Bowl chances. A win over BC gives us a chance at a 6-6 season even if we can't beat USC next week. A loss would make USC a must-win game to preserve a shot at a Bowl game.

2. It would ruin the Eagles' chances at a National Championship.

3. It would likely derail Matt Ryan's Heisman Campaign.

4. It would set the world to spinning properly on it's axis again, having restored the proper balance to the college football universe.

Two touchdown underdogs in our own house? I don't think so.

Al Gore Makes Me Sick

We interrupt our normally scheduled Irish football blogging to get sick to our stomachs.



Sorry about that. It seems that Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. It is not exactly clear which region of conflict and strife in the world he has brought peace to. Or even a glimmer of a hope for peace. He should have been awarded the Nobel Scare-Mongering Bad Science Propagandizing Self-Important Hypocrite Award. But then, I didn't get a vote.

Monday, October 8, 2007

UCLA Wrap-up (With Pictures!)

I'm late with this, but life intrudes. As mentioned previously I have a few thoughts I want to share about our day at the Rose Bowl on Saturday, but I was just too exhausted to get them all in when we got back home Saturday night.

My son and I got to the Rose Bowl around 1:30, so we had very little traffic to contend with, which was something of a first for me and the Rose Bowl. Our first stop was the "IrishFest" hosted by the Notre Dame Club of Los Angeles. There was a terrific band, the American Wake, playing Irish music for the crowd. Lots of good food and beer (the chicken was terrific!). Notre Dame All-American and Super Bowl Champion Aaron Taylor was there promoting the LegendsofSouthBend.com website. I got to chat with him for a bit about the site and got a picture of him with my son that I posted to the blog via my cell phone. First time I had tried that, and it worked pretty well. There was a short performance by a bagpipe group and then the pep rally. Aaron Taylor emceed the rally with his good friend Derrick Mayes. The cheerleaders also stopped by for the rally and were very gracious with their time afterwards, posing for lots of pictures even though they had other appearances to make before the game. Embedded below (hopefully) is a slide show of some of the pictures I took throughout the day, including at the pep rally and at the game. (If you click on any of the pictures it will take you to the Picasa Web Album page where you can view all the pictures full size. I'd be very interested if you have any feedback about the slide show, since it is the first time I've tried it here).



Once the pep rally was over, the IrishFest was done and everyone headed for the stadium, which was very close by. On the walk over to the stadium I was very impressed by how cordial all the Bruin fans were. It seemed that half the tailgate parties were mixed affairs with Notre Dame and UCLA supporters reveling side-by-side. This was a marked contrast to the behavior of the UCLA students we encountered in the stadium.

Before heading inside, we found my daughter, who came to the game with a close friend and her family. They were tailgating on the South side of the stadium very near the big "Rose Bowl" sign on the side of the stadium. After a beer, a snickerdoodle, and a few pictures my son and I headed for our seats in the North end zone, about 10 feet from the UCLA student section. Can I say, as a taxpaying resident of California, that I am very disappointed in the quality of education that my tax dollars are providing to the youth of this state? Their ability to cheer seems to be limited to two-word chants, and one of the words must be an F-bomb. F_ _ _ Notre Dame! F_ _ _ USC! F_ _ _ Jimmy Clausen! Not very original, and it got old in a hurry. They did break out with the "0 and 5! 0 and 5!" which was really hysterical - NOT! The funny thing was that the UCLA student body seemed to care much more about the score of the USC-Stanford game being played across town than about the beat-down their own team was suffering in front of their eyes. There was one silver lining to the obnoxious behavior of the UCLA students -- the very special satisfaction I felt when they all shut their mouths in the third quarter! Sweetest silence I ever heard.

Sitting right behind us was a couple of UCLA fans who whined the whole game "sit dooowwwwnnnn! We can't seeeeeee!" People, this is Division I football! This is Notre Dame! You don't want to stand up? Go watch intra-murals, brother!

It was great to see and be a part of a massive turnout of Notre Dame fans for an 0-5 football team playing 2,000 miles from home as a three touchdown underdog. Both end zones, corner to corner, were filled predominantly with Irish fans. And they brought their A-game. Whenever the action moved down near either end zone, those fans were fired up to help the Irish, and I believe it helped the team stay energized for sixty minutes. I also really appreciated that the team ran all the way down to the North end of the stadium to celebrate with their fans at the end of the game, many of the players tossing wrist bands and other items into the crowd as souvenirs. Then they ran back to the South end to celebrate with the fans there before heading into the locker room. It was fun to look around the Rose Bowl at that point to see both end zones still filled with Notre Dame fans, while the UCLA band was on the field playing to empty seats, all the Bruin fans having long since departed.

What about the game? I still haven't watched the recording, and I viewed the game from down low in the end zone, so I can't say much about X's and O's. But I do have some thoughts about what I saw and felt.

On offense, despite poor overall production, my sense was that the team was poised and very much in control of the game plan. They seemed to understand that the game plan was to be conservative, avoid costly errors, and be competitive in the field position battle. They took what the defense was giving (which wasn't much) and then they got off a good punt and let the defense go to work. When the defense created an opportunity for a quick score, the offense did a fair job of capitalizing. Run blocking was average, which is a big step up from most previous games, and although they didn't create big holes they largely avoided the tackles behind the line of scrimmage. Pass blocking was very good when you consider UCLA's reputation for an aggressive pass rush. Clausen generally had ample time to throw, but unfortunately did not generally have a target open down the field. Clausen had an excellent completion percentage, but almost all of them were very short completions out in the flats for little or no gain. From the stands the lateral passing game was very frustrating to watch, especially given the time that Jimmy had to throw. I was also disappointed when Notre Dame got the ball at the UCLA 1-yard line after a turnover and tried three passing plays resulting in a field goal attempt. First and goal at the 1 is time fr some character building up front. We still cannot get one or two yards from the run game when we need them. I think a good start would be NOT giving the ball to Travis Thomas. Give it to Aldridge or Hughes. Three times. Put Chris Stewart in at tight end next to Sam Young and run behind him. Figure something out. But, at the end of the day the offense did not turn the ball over and the team won the field position battle.

I thought Coach Weis took a step forward on Saturday. In the past he has been a riverboat gambler, seemingly feeling that it was always up to the offense to win the game. Old habits are hard to break and earlier this season that attitude caused Coach Weis to make some very aggressive/risky play calls that turned the ball over to the opponent in very good field position, with predictably bad results. Saturday was the first time that I can recall where he seemed to be putting the game in the hands of the defense. He was (mostly) satisfied to take care of the football and punt the ball deep, rather than call risky plays in an effort to keep drives alive. I also thought Coach Weis was uncharacteristically committed to running the football, even when it wasn't yielding much in the way of yardage. But running the ball is largely about attitude and asserting yourself physically. Even though we weren't getting big yards, we were running with effect and wearing down the UCLA defense. We were also forcing the defense to respect the run, which slowed down the pass rush and gave Clausen more time to throw. Certainly the offense will need to be more explosive next week if we are to keep up with a surprising Boston College team, but we saw some very good things we can build on in the UCLA game.

But the star of the game Saturday was the new Irish defense. I feel like this game was the real coming out party for Defensive Coordinator Corwin Brown. The D was stout against the run, and played like sharks at a shipwreck against the pass. They knocked out the starting QB and then forced the back-up into numerous costly errors. The key word there is "forced." UCLA fans and Notre Dame haters would have you believe that McLeod Bethel-Thompson (what were his parents thinking?) came into the game and just started throwing random, inexplicable interceptions. But those interceptions were the result of serious pass-rush pressure, tipped balls, and physically man-handling MBT for the whole game. It was the result of the same type of pressure that caused starters Ben Olson and Kahlil Bell to fumble the ball away. Bottom line - the defense was aggressive, relentless, and hungry for the ball at all times. They absolutely won this game, with both veterans and youngsters playing key roles. They will be severely tested the next two weeks, but I sure like the direction they are heading.

Special teams - I knew things were going our way when Brandon Walked connected on a 48-yard field goal in the third quarter. Except for UCLA's second possession (which started at the UCLA 47 and led to a field goal), the special teams did a remarkably consistent job of pinning the Bruins back in their own end of the field. Here were the starting positions for all of UCLA's possessions (all in their own half of the field): 7, 47, 20, 27, 22, 15, 28, 36, 29, 1, 30, 34, 32, 43, 31. That's a great job by the special teams, and a great job by the offense of holding onto the all and letting the special teams do their job. Hopefully this game can be the start of a pattern.

My son is thirteen years old. Several weeks ago, when we began planning a trip to see the Irish play USC, my son asked me: "Dad, have I ever been to a Notre Dame game when they won?" Well, he has. He was young, of course, but he's been to games when Notre Dame beat USC. He saw the Irish beat Stanford a couple of years ago. But what sticks in his mind are the losses to USC in recent years, and the loss to Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl. After Saturday, I know he'll always remember this underdog Irish squad playing in the Rose Bowl and upsetting a heavily favored and arrogant UCLA Bruin team. And that, my friends, is priceless.

Cheap parting shot: The University of Washington Huskies are now 2-3, riding a three game losing streak. That's one more win that the Fighting Irish have accrued to date. The Huskies played the UCLA Bruins on the same field the Irish did and got beat 44-31. I'm just sayin' ...

Saturday, October 6, 2007

Right Now, A Win is a Win

Well, it wasn't elegant, but the Fighting Irish dug down deep tonight and found a way to beat the UCLA Bruins, 20-6. I was at the game with my son in the North end zone (not far from Jimmy Clausen's mom), my daughter was sitting four rows behind the Notre Dame bench with her good friend, and we all saw an important victory for the Notre Dame football program. Despite offensive "production" that bordered on pathetic for much of the game, the team avoided the huge offensive mistakes that have plagued them all year and played an effective field position game which ultimately allowed the Irish defense to take control and win the game. I know we were playing against a redshirt freshman walk-on quarterback, but I don't care. I am not too proud to capitalize on those breaks when we get them. The story of this game was an opportunistic defense that played the run reasonably well, pressured he quarterback very well, and made the most of the mistakes they forced UCLA to make.

I plan to write a longer post tomorrow describing our full day at the Rose Bowl, from the Notre Dame Club of Los Angeles' "Irishfest" and pep rally, to meeting Aaron Taylor of LegendsofSouthBend.com, to the foul-mouthed UCLA student section which ran out of vulgar chants as the Irish pulled away in the second half, to the amazing crowd of Notre Dame fans that filled the stadium, to the victorious Irish football team coming over to celebrate with the Notre Dame fans at the end of the game, to the UCLA Band performing in front of an empty stadium after the game, to the buzz that built in the stadium as the crowd began to get word via cell their cell phones that USC was going to lose to Stanford! I took a lot of pictures and that full post is going to take a while to compose, and it will have to wait until I get back from the playoff game between the Angels and the Red Sox. Look for it tomorrow night.

But I do want to post a few quick thoughts gleaned from my seats in Section 10, Row 7, before I crash for the evening.

I don't know if you read my pre-game UCLA post, but I'm feeling pretty good right now about how I analyzed this game. To re-cap, I predicted the Irish would win based on the following factors:

1. I said it was practically a home game for the Irish. There was a huge Notre Dame presence in that stadium. Irish fans filled the stands in both end zones, corner to corner. And they were loud! Several times when UCLA had the ball at one end of the field or the other, the Notre Dame crowd got loud enough (I believe) to rattle the UCLA offense and it's inexperienced quarterback. I refuse to accept more than my share of credit for winning the game, but I do believe the fans helped the team tonight.

2. I noted that UCLA seemed to be prone to turnovers, and that if Notre Dame could force the action a little bit there would be some opportunities for game-changing plays. Well, UCLA had five fumbles on the night, and Notre Dame recovered three of them, including one that Maurice Crum returned for a touchdown. Their back-up quarterback added four interceptions. It's safe to say that turnovers played a key role in the win. It should be noted that Notre Dame did not turn the ball over tonight. That's a huge deal.

3. I mentioned that UCLA has not been a team that "starts fast", allowing teams to keep games close until the fourth quarter. I felt that if UCLA allowed Notre Dame to keep it close into the fourth the Irish would find a way to win. That's exactly how it played out. Despite the fact that UCLA moved the ball well and dominated time of possession in the first half (17:13 to 12:47), they only managed two field goals and took a three-point lead into half-time. They allowed the Irish to hang around long enough to figure out how to exploit UCLA's quarterback situation, and the Irish made them pay.

4. I explained that 4-1 UCLA was a good team, but not great, as they were not dominating anyone. At 4-2, UCLA fans on the post-game radio shows are now wondering if UCLA is even "good" at this point.

5. Finally I mentioned that UCLA is a run-first team, somewhat banged up. I felt that if we could get them out of their run-first comfort zone and force the QB to make plays, it would work to our benefit. It didn't go the way I figured it would, but UCLA was forced to go away from the run when they got behind, and it worked in our favor because they were playing a back-up QB by then who made a lot of mistakes (while being pressured).

So, the OC Domer had a pretty good bead on this game. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.

I will have to watch the game later to see how the offense looked from a better angle, but I can't believe we weren't able to work the ball down the field. Clausen had all day to throw at times and could find nobody to throw to. We kept throwing the horizontal passes for no-gain or 1 yard, which was driving me nuts because UCLA was basically doubling our outside receivers much of the night and inviting us to run the ball. Although it didn't net much yardage, I was glad that Coach Weis showed more of a commitment to running the ball tonight. James Aldridge had 22 carries. He only averaged 2.4 yards per carry, but he was actually more effective than those numbers show. By getting positive yards with the run, instead of going backwards via the sack, we were able to punt the ball away and remain competitive in the field position battle. In the fourth quarter, we were actually pounding on the UCLA defense, controlling the ball, the tempo, and the clock. Again, even though the yards weren't big, it was an effective use of the run.

All in all, a perfect day. USC lost in humiliating fashion, and I got to be there to see the Irish get their first win of the year.

Overheard on the walk back to the car after the game -

UCLA fan taunting Notre Dame fan: "1 and 5! 1 and 5! 1 and 5!"

Notre Dame fan: "You know what's worse than being 1 and 5? Getting beat by Notre Dame!"

Live From the Rose Bowl!

Live from the Rose Bowl!

The Pipes are Calling ...

The pipes are calling ...

Tailgating with Aaron Taylor

Tailgating with Aaron Taylor

Friday, October 5, 2007

Beat The Bruins!

And we're back. Wednesday morning I had just left the house to hit the O.C. & L.A. freeways, when I received a text message from my boss. "Don't go to the office today - you might be going to Florida." So I turned around and went home to wait for the final word. At around 9:00 a.m. it came - "pack your bags." I was booked on a noon flight out of John Wayne and into Orlando via Dallas. By the time I got to my hotel in Cape Canaveral it was already11:30 p.m. After calling home and helping my son out with some math homework, I could call it a day. Except that when you fly from the west coast to the east, you aren't ready to sleep until about 2:00 a.m. When the wake-up call comes at 7:00 it feels like 4:00. Jet Lag is a Drag. So, a very full day of lawyer-stuff yesterday, finally sending off my final e-mail just after 9:30 p.m. Up early and flew home today. Not exactly how I thought my week was going to go! But, my flight got back to John Wayne in mid-afternoon, which means I'm home on a Friday much earlier than usual.

Why am I typing all this?

1. I haven't written a UCLA preview post this week. Now you know why.

2. Florida sucks. It's the first week of October and it's still 90 degrees and 80% humidity. At one point I was walking through a parking lot with the sun shining overhead, while somehow getting soaked by a rain shower. They say the South is football crazy, but the only sports talk radio I could find was all NASCAR and wrestling. Or ultimate fighting. One of the two. As always happens on my business trips, when I got off the plane in Orange County I couldn't believe how great the weather was. Wherever I go, whenever I go, the weather is always better in Orange County when I get home than it was wherever I went. And that includes Hawaii.

3. It's great to be home. When I went on my trip, I wasn't sure I'd make it back by the weekend, which was worrisome because I have tickets to the UCLA game and I really didn't want to miss it. Whew!

So what about the Irish chances against the 4-1 Bruins? Let's review. Before the season began I wrote that I expected Notre Dame to go 9-3, including a close loss to UCLA, and my ability to foresee the future hasn't gotten much better as the season has unfolded. Of course, with the Irish now sitting at 0-5, and the Bruins at 4-1, it would be totally logical to stand by my pre-season expectation that UCLA would avenge their narrow loss at Notre Dame. After all, they return almost everyone from a team that should have won last year's game, while most of this year's Notre Dame starters were in high school last season (or so it seems). Instead I say this: The Irish have the Bruins right where we want them! As I wrote in an e-mail earlier this week, the whole season until now has been an elaborate ruse to lull UCLA into complacency.

Here is why Notre Dame wins this game:

First, it is practically a home game for the Irish. For such a large school, UCLA is somewhat notorious for their inability to attract a crowd to their football games. Notre Dame has a huge fan base in Southern California that will turn out in force for their team. And Notre Dame is undefeated in games played in the Rose Bowl. I jest (a little), but the Rose Bowl holds a special place in Notre Dame history, and a win tomorrow in Pasadena would be historically important for this program. If you haven't read the terrific write-ups about that 1925 Rose Bowl game against Stanford, you really should. Start Here. And here. Seriously - I'll wait here until you're done.

Second, while not an ideal match-up for Notre Dame, there are some chinks in the UCLA armor that open the door to an Irish upset. The first is turnovers. UCLA quarterbacks have already thrown six interceptions this season, five by starter Ben Olson. As a team they have fumbled the ball nine times, losing five of them. That's an average of a fumble lost and 1.5 interceptions thrown per game. It tells me that there are game-changing opportunities available to our defense if it can force the action a little bit. If we can get a couple of turnovers to thwart UCLA drives and give the Irish a short field, that can be a big swing in points.

UCLA has not been a team that "starts fast." Notre Dame has had a lot of trouble this year by getting deep into a hole early in games and then not being able to climb back out. For the most part, the second halves of games have been irrelevant. Coach Weis has expressed a feeling that if the team could get on top early, the ensuing confidence and energy would build on itself and carry us to victory. We saw a glimpse of that energy last week when ND battled to within a touchdown of Purdue in the second half. But our opponents have not cooperated, outscoring Notre Dame by a margin of 101-21 in the first half. The Bruins, on the other hand, have largely been a second-half team. They have just outscored opponents in the first half overall (56-48), and have outscored opponents through three quarters by a margin of just 90-78. They were tied 10-10 with Washington at half-time and trailed Oregon State 14-6 at the half. UCLA's pattern has instead been to win the 4th quarter decisively, outscoring opponents in the final stanza 72-45. 72 points is more than twice as many points as the Bruins have scored in any other period (3rd qtr = 34 pts). They scored 28 fourth-quarter points last week to win a game they trailed after three quarters, 14-12. If UCLA allows Notre Dame to keep the game close well into the second half, I like our chances. If this young Irish team smells a win, and if our confidence and energy starts to grow, I believe Coach Weis and his staff will out-coach Karl Dorrell and his staff down the stretch.

UCLA is good, but no more than that. Although 4 and 1, they are hovering right around the #25 spot in most of the polls. That is right where Purdue was last week, and Notre Dame was one defensive stop from having a chance to win that game. The Bruins are to be credited with finding a way to win four games, but this is a team that was dismantled by Utah, 44-6 three weeks ago. As noted above, they trailed Oregon State after three quarters, and were tied against UW at the half. They are not dominating anyone. Although Notre Dame is winless through five games, we have been tested by five straight games against high-caliber competition, and it has slowly been making us better. That trial by fire had made the Irish ready to take on the inconsistent and emotionally fragile Bruins.

UCLA is a running team, and are hobbled. UCLA has rushed the ball 219 times this year, versus only 155 pass attempts. They have averaged 4.6 yards per rush and 7.26 yards per pass attempt. They have 997 rushing yards (including a minus 95 yards for QB Olson), and just over 1,126 passing yards. The Bruins run-first mentality makes sense since they have two very good running backs in Kahlil Bell and Chris Markey. But Markey is injured and may not play at all against the Irish. The Bruins still have Bell to rely on, but you have to believe the loss of Markey will place a little more of the offensive burden on QB Ben Olson who has a completion percentage of just 51.6% and 5 INTs. Olson is also recovering from a concussion he suffered in the loss to Utah. If injuries force UCLA to alter their run-first mentality even a little bit, that works in Notre Dame's favor.

Bottom line: As has been the case since the horror of the first game against Georgia Tech, the key question going into the game is whether the Notre Dame offensive line can block. We now know that the quarterbacks can throw the ball when given a chance, that the receivers can catch it, and that our running backs can gain yards if they get a crease to run in. We know what to expect from the defense. They are bend but don't break. They'll give up some yards on the ground, but will generally avoid the huge play. They've seen and played well against better offenses than UCLA's. But UCLA's defense presents quite the conundrum for the Irish offense. They have been very stout against the run, allowing just 2.8 yards per carry. Yet, they also have recorded 16 quarterback sacks. Pick your poison. Notre Dame has to be much better at run blocking, or pass blocking, or both, than they have been all year. If the O-line doesn't perform way above average in at least one of those phases, Notre Dame's offense won't go anywhere. Looking at the numbers, and knowing Coach Weis' inclination to throw the ball all over the yard, I expect Notre Dame's game plan to look a lot more like the Purdue game than the Michigan State game. Despite their pass-rushing prowess, UCLA is clearly more vulnerable to a passing attack than they are to the running game. The trick will be to give Clausen time to throw the ball. Expect to see more of Duval Kamara on the quick slants. And expect Golden Tate to score the winning touchdown in the North end zone right in front of me and my son!

Go Irish! Beat the Bruins!

See you at the Rose Bowl.