ESP Week Nine

Week nine of the ESP has arrived off the Notre Dame bye week. Over the week Notre Dame improved it's strength of schedule to first in the country according to the AV ranking below. This ranking is somewhat skewed as the AV strength of schedule (SOS) takes into account only the opponents you have already played. Notre Dame's SOS ranking will obviously dip over the next few weeks as we enter the weakest portion of our schedule. All that the same, we have still played a tougher eight first games than any other team in the country.

For the sake of argument (or lack thereof) Sagarin also has our SOS ranked number one in the country (link here). He, however, does take into account all the opponents on the schedule.

The ESP ranking:

The 8 team ESP playoff bracket:

The AV ranking 1-25:

The strength of schedule (SOS) , adjusted win percentage (AWP), quality win/loss (QWL), and margin of victory (MOV) rankings:

A Weis Update

I know I've been pretty critical of Weis lately. Our performance on the field has been less than stellar and there is no excuse for it. That said, some things Weis has said over the past few days, along with the recruiting success of hauling in Michael Floyd and Jonas Gray despite our on-the-field struggles, has really got me thinking. I haven't quite swung back to the pro-Weis side, but I currently stand on a little bit more middle ground.

I have documented in several posts this season (archived on the right) the shortcomings of Weis and our team. It seems that many of our problems this year have been out of Weis' control, so to speak. He had very little to do with the lack of bodies and talent in the upper three classes (although he did run quite a few of them off when he first arrived) leading to inexperience and a lack of depth at many positions. And he had little to do with a front-loaded schedule. Other problems, like a lack of leadership, determined play, being ready to play at the beginning of the game, and a nasty attitude I would say are on both the players and Weis. Finally, some of the problems seemed to be primarily (and blatantly) basic coaching errors.

The poor special teams is one area I pin solely on Weis. He knows how they can change a game, he said it in one of his very first press conferences. But he hasn't shown that he's been able to improve them. This must be fixed very quickly. Virginia Tech has shown how special teams can win you games, but they can just as easily lose you games. The poor offensive performance I don't place solely on Weis, some of it is due to being young and inexperienced at many positions and facing some pretty good defenses. But I do blame him for the lack of commitment to one type of offensive philosophy, his inability or unwillingness to simplify things in the scheme, the delay in development our offense suffered from installing the spread in the fall, and the ineptitude of a running game that would take pressure off his young offensive line and quarterback. Some of these things are a "NFL vs. college" type of coaching difference. Most of this seems so obvious to me because I've only worked with football at the high school level where player development, creating a winning and championship attitude with the team, and simplification of scheme are of vital importance. Some of these things are a lack of head coaching experience. In both cases these things are fixable.

If Weis can learn from his mistakes, trying to out-scheme everyone, not simplifying the offense for a young team, not being ready for the "speed of the game," not creating a physical atmosphere in practice, not placing enough emphasis and focus on improving special teams, etc. then this can be fixed in the future. It seems to me that he hasn't learned so far this season because he was so bent on trying to win the next game he didn't look at the bigger picture. He didn't see that these problems stem from a larger, more encompassing issue, one that will take some time to fix. By trying to install the spread in the fall and out-scheme everyone early on in the year and by not hitting in practice he developed an attitude and environment that is not conducive to being a successful college football team. He didn't build toughness, leadership, or an identity, an area in which the offense could excel and take pride. His "NFL style" of coaching failed.

During his first few years with an older, more experienced team his "NFL style" of coaching worked. But with a younger team who had yet to learn about game speed, physical play at the college level relative to the high school level, and the complexities of a pro-style offense, it failed miserably (I realize this is simplifying the issue a little bit and there are other things that have contributed to the differences between this year and the past two). He further perpetuated the problem by enforcing his will rather than identifying the problem in the fall and working to solve it before and during the season. In some ways, based on what he has said, I think he did realize some of these things. But he didn't a) realize how big of a problem they would be and/or b) know how to fix it due to his lack of college head coaching experience. Even polling his assistant coaches for answers did him so good because the problem developed into something too large, too encompassing.

I said before (link here) that he may never have to face this situation again. It may be that we develop talent and depth throughout each class from his recruiting. But it may be a good thing that this disastrous season did happen. It may have forced Weis to learn these things in the only way that he could. As painful as it has been for us, the fans, for someone so arrogant and stubborn having a disastrous season like this may have been the only thing to really wake up him to the problem. If it hadn't been so bad, he might never have fully understood these things to the degrees in which they can effect a college football team. The question is, will he learn how to fix it going forward, and apply it to the more tangential aspects of college coaching like player development and creating leaders on the team to motivate their peers.

By all accounts Weis is intelligence. He was an excellent NFL offensive coordinator where the chess match of football is played at the highest level. Learning the failings in his recruiting effort from last year and applying them to this year has resulted in a #1 ranked class. The question is will he be able to learn and improve the same way in his coaching as he has in recruiting. He is also very hard working. Combine intelligence and hard work and I find it tough to believe he is incapable of learning from his mistakes and correcting them in the future.

Over the last couple of days Weis has said things like "To be honest with you, if things don't progress, on what basis would you go into the spring thinking that everything is going to be OK?", "I'm no different than the rest of you guys. I have to see evidence that we're making progress.", "I probably adapted more this year than I have in my whole coaching career.", and “I never thought I would entertain hitting during the season, but I think it has made us better so it is something I would have to entertain.” To me this indicates he is realizing things. Heck, last game he kicked off to try and change his approach. He has even informed the seniors that for the rest of the season he will be trying to play the younger guys much more to further their development and get the team pointed in the right direction by season's end. It has to be out with the old, in with the new, at least in some aspects of his coaching style, albeit without changing his coaching philosophy.

Two concerns, however, still loom. The first I have elaborated on and alluded to before (link here). Weis, while trying to fix things with different approaches and new solutions, seems to be unable to identify the root of the problem and solve it. In the very least, he hasn't been able to effectively execute the solution(s) to the problem(s) he has identified. To further compound this issue, trying new things can be confusing and represent a lack of continuity/confidence on bahalf of the head coach.

The second concern lies in how he treats the players. With the number of transfers and the recent move to "forgo" the playing time of fifth year seniors who gave their time, energy, effort, and (in some cases) draft status to play on such a disappointing team, a damaging message can be communicated to the players: a win at all costs attitude. Weis has made it no secret that the best player will always play. I have no problem with that. But he has to take care of all the players, and they all have to know he cares about their development as a person and a football player. Without this, he will never have their trust or devotion. He has to constantly push them to become better, to tactfully illustrate their weaknesses, to develop their strengths, and to help them get into a better position to get onto the field.

Only time will tell if Weis is the person to lead us back to yearly dominance in the college football world. Currently signs point to yes and no. But we do have an intelligent and hardworking head coach who, at least at the moment, seems to be capable of learning from his mistakes and getting us righted back in the proper direction.

ESPN + Sports Illustrated = Sensationalism

Pardon the use of an equation for a title, I'm an engineer. I'm just exhausted by the media these days, and it isn't due to the coverage of Notre Dame football. More than most years of college football, this one seems to be ripe with sensationalism and melodrama amongst the media and journalists. I think it's mostly because of all the upsets. Most "sports journalists" (I use that term loosely because they are far from objective in their reporting, the supposed goal of a journalist) have no clue about what it takes to have a successful college football team, program, or season. In the absence of such knowledge and in the wake of inexplicable upset after inexplicable upset they are left with no real ground on which to write intelligent, thought-provoking, non-biased commentary. Instead, they would rather spin one sensational story after another completely void of anything resembling a factually-based article about college football.

This year, so far anyway, the target has largely been Michigan and USC. Two games into the season everyone forgot about the fact that Michigan had two ESPN dubbed Heisman candidates in Hart and Henne. They forgot about the fact that Michigan holds the all time highest winning percentage in college football history. They forgot about the fact that Lloyd Carr won a national championship within the last decade. The same people that were wailing on Michigan were the ones who ranked them in the top 5 and dubbed them a national championship contender in the pre-season. Last time I checked they didn't ask to have that status. This is the same script the media followed two seasons ago.

Then USC loses to Stanford and all of the sudden they have "lost their aura" and are "in crises mode" (two direct quotes from articles on ESPN.com and SI.com). Of course, had any of these journalists taken the time to watch USC's previous two games they might have seen it coming. A rash of injuries resulted in penalties and turnovers via inexperienced players receiving significant playing time. But in the big scheme of things it's one game. Pete Carroll is 65-12 at USC. He has won 84.4% of the games he has coached there. His first season he was 6-6. If you take that season out he has won 90.8% of the games he has coached. That is flat out absurd. I'd kill for that type of a coaching record at Notre Dame. It just goes to show you how fickle college football writers are.

But what is worse, in the absence of explainable losses and in the face of the collapse of the college football giants, "sports journalists" slant the statistics to support their argument. It's amazing (and I'm guilty of it) to read one of the articles where they make comparisons or analyze a game, team, or program using only the statistics that support their argument. A simple ten minute search on Google is often times all that is needed to find the rest of the information to tell the whole story. The problem is most college football readers (myself usually included) don't readily understand what other information to look for in hopes of balancing the perspective. This is not only irresponsible reporting, it blatantly plays on the emotions of fans, both good and bad.

Playing on these emotions "sports journalists" like Pat Forde and Stewart Mandel create utopias (the good) and dystopias (the bad) surrounding college football programs, their players, and their fans. This is borderline criminal as it preys on the human psyche (the bad), creating fuel to the fires of criticism, while also creating the sort of fervent fanaticism (the good) that nearly leads to idolatry. And what is worse, with writers like Forde and Mandel their emotions shine so brightly through their writing they beat a dead horse because they are motivated not by objectivity, but by personal vendetta. The ultimate disservice, however, is to the players who are subjected to unfair, unnecessary, and, in many cases, unwarranted criticism.

I only bring this up now because the pendulum will swing back to Notre Dame one day. Someday soon we will be the object of their criticism, then their glorification, then their criticism, and so on and so forth. They will quickly forget how they deprecated Notre Dame, the mission surrounding its football program, and its disillusioned coaches, players, and fans in lieu of glorifying their current success because it makes dollars and increases their audience. Do not play their games, do not support their cause. Support the essence of the game: your team, your players, and your school, regardless of apparent success or failure.

ESP Week Eight

It's week eight of the season and week three of the ESP. Here are the ESP ranking, the playoff bracket, the 1-25 AV ranking, and the different portions of the AV ranking: SOS (Strength of Schedule), QWL (Quality Win/Loss), AWP (Adjusted Win Percentage), and MOV (Margin of Victory).

There are some interesting things to point out this week. There are seven teams in the top 25 of the AV ranking that have strength of schedule ratings greater than or equal to 100. Unless these teams have relatively high rankings in Quality Wins/Losses and/or Margin of Victory it is highly likely they do not deserve such a high ranking and will falter down the stretch provided, of course, they play a more difficult schedule or a better than mediocre opponent in a bowl game. Even with relatively high QWL and MOV rankings these teams are largely untested and, therefore, sort of "wild cards" when it comes to predicting matchups.

The ESP ranking:


The 8 team ESP playoff bracket:


The AV ranking1-25:


The strength of schedule (SOS) , adjusted win percentage (AWP), quality win/loss (QWL), and margin of victory (MOV) rankings:

The Debacle That Is Notre Dame Football: Post-USC Comments

I'm not going to sit here and re-hash all I've said about our football team over the past seven weeks. The USC game was no different than the others minus a rash of penalties. We had poor special teams play, we turned the ball over, we (twice) gave their offense a short field, and we had no semblance of an offense (for more on this check out my comments here). But does all that really add up to the lopsided loss on Saturday? Come on, 38-0? The most lopsided loss to USC in 79 all-time meetings? The first shutout at the hands of the Trojans in Notre Dame Stadium since 1933? The sixth straight loss to the USC? Ten first downs? Three rushing first downs? All of our current problems do not mean that we should be playing like this and ranked last in every meaningful offensive category in college football.

It just doesn’t add up. How can offensive linemen get pushed around like they aren't even there eight games into the season? How can this team, as young, unsure, and lacking in depth as it is, continue to be so bad heading into these final four games? How can fifth-year senior defensive backs get used by young, inexperienced, USC receivers? How can Irish quarterbacks get dropped for more sacks than nearly any other team in our illustrious football history? How can nothing, absolutely nothing, work on offense? How can this be happening at Notre Dame?

It defies logic. It tests even the most patient. And it leaves me feeling not only heartbroken and bewildered, but speechless as well. The only thing I do know is that recruiting alone will not fix what is wrong with our current Irish team. We have talent, inexperienced as it is, and they have not improved at all during the course of this season. Am I to expect that more practice via an off-season and fall camp will help when more than eight weeks of practice has not led to any improvement?

Why is that USC's young players like Joe McKnight and Videl Hazelton are running all over the field making plays, while Armando Allen and Duval Kamara struggle to make one big play? How is Stanford, a team that lost to a mediocre Division II team last year able to put 24 points on the board (and win) against USC in the Coliseum and we can't score a single point against the same team at home? Why is USC's patchwork offensive line full of inexperienced second and third string players able to dominate the line of scrimmage while our offensive line is still unable to block air? Why does USC's inexperienced QB look like a seasoned veteran while ours look completely inept? How is a dramatically less talented Arizona team, a team who's coach is about to get fired, able to hold USC to 17 points at the Coliseum, while we surrender that many points at home in the first half?

It is just completely baffling. I don't know what to say. And I don't think we will win out to preserve what little is left of this season. When Weis was hired he said "You are what you are folks. And right now you're a 6-5 football team. And that's just not good enough. It's not good enough for you, and it certainly isn't going to be good enough for me." How is 5-7 (or maybe worse) looking? The administration, players, head coach, and coaching staff need to take this bye week to critically evaluate the performance of each individual linked to the success of our football program. There is a long term investment in Weis and failure to succeed, or even improve, is not an option. We need an identity on our team and Weis' coaching philosophies and style has hindered this (again, see here). To his credit he has tried many things to fix the problems, starting multiple quarterbacks, changing the depth chart, tweaking practice regimens, deferring to the second half, but nothing has worked leaving me to believe he is grasping in the dark for solutions to a problem he ultimately cannot identify. I applaud his effort to adapt, to try new things, to listen to his players, but all of the changes, week by week, ultimately lead to confusion amongst the players. I've said it before that great coaches are great because they do what they believe in and do it well. They don't go out and adopt other coaching philosophies and try and incorporate them. That doesn't mean he needs to stick to his more "NFL style" of coaching. It means he needs to find what works for him, what is within his coaching philosophy, to solve the problem. First the problem(s) needs to be identified, then the solution to that problem formulated within the bounds of his coaching philosophy, then this solution needs to be executed. This is the only way we can move forward.

The Passing Conundrum

This week I had a particularly scintillating conversation about our offense with a fellow colleague, friend, and Notre Dame graduate, Pat Scoggins. After re-reading what I wrote I thought it pertinent to the discussion I've been having as a whole and decided to include it here. Anything in italics is part of the actual conversation. I have tried to distinguish between the normal text and the conversation with this method.

The initial question from Pat was something along the lines of "Why can't we do anything on offense? Why do we have no identity?" My response was as follows:

"Let me discuss the typical installation of an offense/defense.

1) Terminology - First you have to define the language with which to speak. This is true on both sides of the ball and includes not only the formation terminology, but also packages, personnel, and types of plays (counter, draw, zone, man, inside-out, outside-in, etc.)

2) Base scheme - This is the base set of plays that you can always fall back on. It will normally include a few runs and passes out of basic formations and personnel packages. On defense it includes cover 2, cover 3, man under, and some blitz packages.

3) Formation tweaks - This takes the base scheme and adjusts it to different personnel packages. On offense for example, instead of running an offset I outside zone run you would substitute the fullback with a tight end, bring him in motion, and block with him instead of using the fullback. On defense, it might be running some sort of safety blitz package from nickel instead of the base 3-4 because you don't want a linebacker covering for the safety.

4) Situational plays - Not all offenses/defenses have this. Really it developed more in the pros than in high school or college. Actually, I shouldn't say that, it was more specialized in the pros. This is ultimately grouping the base scheme and formation tweaks and putting them into subsets of plays like 2nd and long, or 3rd and short, etc. More often than not though, they will add some additional plays into the mix that are specific to that situation and not part of the base scheme, even with formation tweaks. These types of situational packages are very much like a no huddle offense except that they aren't executed like the no huddle. When you are in the no huddle or hurry up you have a set number of plays you run that everyone on the team knows and you have signals etc. for them to be able to run the operation at the line. The only difference with this is that you don't have everyone memorize them all, they just recognize that on 3rd and long they'll probably be running one of the 3rd and long package plays.

5) No huddle - This may not come last but it is certainly it's own entity. Typically this is a particular formation for all of the plays. The plays can come from the base scheme or from additions to the base scheme. This typically doesn't change all year although a play or two may be added or omitted depending on the opponent. This applies to offense and defense.

For an inexperienced team all of this remains true. For the first couple of days of practice you do this. You install it all, all of the plays, in this type of a process to make sense of things. At this point they are just plays. The players have little idea (unless they are football savvy and/or have experience and understand the game) why you would run one particular play vs. another. They also don't have any idea of why the blocking schemes are set up the way they are (again, unless they are football savvy and/or have experience and understand the game). After the entire offense is in, or most of it anyway, you start to rep plays. Your focus as this point has to be two-fold. You want to rep the plays that you believe you have to have, plays you can always come back to, plays you believe in, that fit into your offensive/defensive philosophy. But you also want to rep the plays your personnel fit into. Combining both of these groups of plays they still have to be a manageable amount. You can't do too much. I believe you have to run a play 100 times in practice before you ever do it in a game. About 75% of those reps should come against no one, working on timing, with cones and/or dummies set up to simulate the defense/offense. But about 25% of those should occur against different looking defenses/offenses so you can see how to react to different things the opposition can do.

It seems that we are doing too much because we don't consistently execute anything very well. We aren't getting enough quality reps against good defensive/offensive competition in practice. This is further compounded by something said on NDNation here:

'Call plays that have low execution risk or that at least reward that risk. As I mentioned here before, Charlie calls plays that should work... but nothing can work with so many breakdowns. Part of his magic in the NFL was calling plays you didn't expect and you can do that and have it work if you're executing at a high level. Charlie calls plays you don't expect, but also that don't work. There's just not as much value in fooling a defensive coordinator when you're executing so poorly. It really is better in college to run plays they know are coming and still make them work. That's demoralizing.... then you out-trick them. BTW, I think the fourth down call was excellent last week.'

We can't simply run plays the opposition knows are coming and still have them work. That is where being precise, having a lot of reps, comes into play as well as will/determination/attitude. In the early to mid 90's everyone in the country knew Nebraska was going to run the football, but they still did it to the tune of 300 yards per game. And when they passed, more often than not, they were so wide open it was an easy completion and big gain. I don't know if I would say that it is better to run plays they know are coming and still make them work. I believe you have to be able to run a certain, small set of plays, and execute them a high percentage of the time regardless of whether or no they know it is coming. As you grow, mature, move through the year the number of plays that fall into that category increase and you have a larger set of things to work with. The trickery comes along with it, not separate or in spite of it.

I have said that Charlie talked about waiting to find out what our offensive identity was. That's fine for an experienced team who has had a lot of practice and played football at the college level. But for a young team you have to form that identity rather than waiting on it to surface. They don't have the experience to be able to do many things well and they certainly are no where near gelling as a unit. So you keep it simple, you develop the identity rather than wait for the team to do it, and you certainly don't try something new every week to give them that identity. You focus on one thing and rep the hell out of it."

This response was followed by a barrage of back and forth questions and answers:

Pat: "If you know this stuff, how does Weis not know this stuff?"
Anthony: "He probably does, he just didn't properly identify how much of a problem it would be. He is used to the NFL and has never had such a young, inexperienced group of players. Also, I don't know this. I'm speculating while talking in definitives."
Pat: "You talk about the team establishing an identity and I can't agree more. How are a bunch of freshmen and sophomores supposed to establish an identity if they don't know what they're doing at all. I think the coach needs to know his team, know their talents, and dictate to them what their identity is going to be."
Anthony: "Well Weis' philosophy has always been to tailor your offense to the strength(s) of the team. That is why he said he needed to wait on the identity. The problem with this is that it assumes you can execute on a high level with most of the offense, or in the very least, some of the offense. That assumption is not valid for a young, inexperienced team. So the first step isn't finding the identity, the first step is getting to the point where you execute on a high level. That is why you form the identity, not wait to find it. You still look at the personnel, and you decide what you can do well, then you work very hard on those things. You don't wait to figure it out, you dictate it. But you dictate it within the confines of what you know. You don't go out and try and learn and install a brand new offense like the spread zone read. That takes out the advantage you have of your experienced players, as few as they may be, of knowing the offense they are running. Weis effectively set us back even more by doing that rather than taking advantage of the limited experience he did have, i.e. Young, Sullivan, etc."
Pat: "It couldn't be more apparent that we have no identity on offense, and we are going into week 8."
Anthony: "Troubling to say the least."
Pat: "Even I can see we have no offensive identity and i don't know anything. You can just see that every play the offense runs they just have the body language that they're not "into it" or that they don't have the confidence to execute or they don't know what to do. There's so many blank stares after we run an offensive play."
Anthony: "Lack of reps and lack of quality opposition in practice."
Pat: "A team with an offensive identity lines up and runs a play confidently and in-sync. Now sometimes someone will blow an assignment, but if a team has an identity, they make up for it with a quick decision because they just know the play that well."
Anthony: "One person blowing an assignment doesn't kill the play. Normally it takes more than one person to ruin a play, unless that person is at the point of attack. We have multiple people blowing assignments every play."
Pat: "I think about watching Boston College's offense. When we brought heat, Ryan knew exactly who would be open and he delivered a nice catch-able 2-3 yard pass to a TE or RB before he got planted on his back. They have an identity because they just oozed confidence. And it wasn't just the quarterback, it was everyone on their side of the ball. They knew what they were doing on every play from top to bottom."
Anthony: "Those quarterbacks that can do that are few and far between. That is excellent QB play, not an identity. Boston College's offensive identity against us was a short, quick, passing game with screens to slow down the pass rush. It really shows you how much we miss Quinn. Boston College ran it all through Ryan. He was the centerpiece."
Pat: "I want to come back to our running game, and while I'm frustrated about it, I need to remember what you said yesterday I think about you can't run the ball if you have no threat down field because the defense will just stack the line and focus on stopping the run because they know you can't throw."
Anthony: "Well, you won't be able to consistently run the ball that way unless you have studs up front and a determined, hard-nosed attitude."
Pat: "Our running game isn't successful because the defenses don't have to guard the pass. My issue is that we're actually now taking shots down the field."
Anthony: "Ah, but we aren't being successful with it. You can't just take shots, you have to win a few. Let me explain. If I know a team can't run, I stack the of scrimmage on obvious running downs, playing normal zone or man coverage. On obvious passing downs I blitz the hell out of them and play press-man. If they don't win the down field battles why would I change? I've got man-to-man coverage, they aren't beating it, I'm still stopping the run and putting them into obvious passing situations, and I'm putting pressure on the quarterback in those obvious passing situations, keeping the process cyclical. Really, the only way the offense beats me is if they wein one-on-one battles consistently, my defense tackles poorly, or I give them first downs via penalties. It isn't until the offense wins some down field battles, and probably more than one, that I would switch it up and give help over the top. Only then is the run defense loosened up. But there is another aspect to this. When you start winning down field balls, you start making the defense think. The players become more aware and cognizant of it. And they hesitate more to come up to support the run."
Pat: "I remember you were mad about how much we tried to go deep without success yet we kept trying it. My issue is that I think Weis is trying to go down field to keep the defense honest, but our down field receivers are actually covered AND the defense still gets to stack the line and stop the run. How can that really be? Is it that we're only sending one guy deep at a time and it's easy to cover one guy? How are defenses able to afford to both stack the line and stop the run but also cover our guys who we are now attempting to send deep? They still only get 11?"
Anthony: "Think about my previous explanation."

This prompted a long series of questions/responses from Pat:

"OK, so you need to demonstrate some success down the field before they will respect it ... I see now. we are trying to go down field and they only need one guy to cover each of our guys and then each of their extra guys, they stick in the box and kill us if we run it or watch us throw an incomplete pass if we throw it. They can defend the run and the pass with this strategy. As a follow on question to this, I ask the following: we're talking a lot about throwing the ball down field to open up the run game so the defense is less likely to be up so fast in run support. To me, this means we're talking about taking shots of 20+ yards in the air, but what about the intermediate passing game? Would an intermediate passing threat help open up the run too? The only passing that we are successful in right now is the shallow passing game passes of less than 5 yards in my simple mind. What about the 5-20 yard passes? If we could be successful there, then that would have to help the run. I feel like we're unsuccessful/inconsistent in the 5-20 yard pass plays. With Sharpley, it seems like he can't hit the broad side of a barn in the 5-20 yard range. He over throws/under throws too much on those routes. With Clausen, he doesn't really even attempt passes in this range unless it's to Carlson on the sideline (and only occasionally at that). Seems like Clausen only throws the very very short routes and lately has taken some deep shots without success to date. I don't know what Clausen's issue is in the 5-20 yard pass plays. maybe those are the plays where he's not throwing it when the receiver is open for that split-second, he misses his chance at them, and the throws it out of bounds. Maybe you can elaborate on this issue."

My response:

"I think Clausen's deep ball is a strength/confidence/time issue. It seems, to me, that when he's given time, he can drop back, make the read, and not have to move too much, he can throw down field. I refer to the Carlson pass in the BC game, his accuracy in the 16-18 yard bench routes, and his deep ball to Tate in the Penn State game (called back on the Young hold). I don't think, at least at this point, Clausen has the athletic ability, speed, and/or strength to create things for himself in the game. He needs to have protection. I do not think the deep balls are as much about the receivers getting open only for a short period of time. My reference to those are more on routes where there are cuts: in's, out's, bench, curl, post, etc.

Sharpley has a live arm, but when he's pressured, even though he creates, his passes are often errant. He seems to see the field better and quicker but he doesn't have the accuracy.

I think the intermediate game can't really help because I don't think we can execute it. Let me explain again.

Difficulty of throw
Short: Low/Medium
Intermediate: Medium/High
Long: Medium

Difficulty of read
Short: Low
Intermediate: High
Long: Medium

Speed of execution
Short: High
Intermediate: Low
Long: Medium

A low difficulty of throw means it's easy, high means it's difficult. Low difficulty of read means it's easy, high means it's difficult. High speed of execution means it happens quickly, low means it happens slowly.

Now, let me explain in a bit more detail. The short passing game is a relatively easy throw, a low risk of reading, and a high speed of execution. The last of these three is pretty self-explanatory, but I'll explain the other two. On a three-step drop you do a pre-snap read on the field, based on the coverage you discern which side of the field to throw to. Then, you just pick your receiver and let it fly. The throws are typically easy although a 7 yard out can be a somewhat difficult throw and swing routes are no gimme.

The deep, or long, passing game is pretty even on all accounts. Typically the pre-snap read isn't as necessary. You will know which receivers are going deep and which are your safety valves. But the read occurs more during the play. You have to look at multiple receivers, usually two, but sometimes three, and sometimes on both sides of the field. In reality you look at the coverage and the way it rolls rather than the receivers but that is just details. The thows are fairly easy relatively speaking. But you have a fairly small room for error because it needs to be either inside and down (for a post) our outside and up (for something like a go route). General rules are you never overthrow a short route or underthrow a long route. But the inside and outside placement is also important.

The intermediate passing game is the most challenging. The read takes place not only pre-snap, but also during the play, as you are dropping back and going through the progression. You have to first read man/zone. This can occur pre-snap but might not depending on the defensive alignment. After that you have to identify, based on ALL the routes, which receiver is most likely to be open. Then you have to make a more difficult throw not only because it is a bit longer, but also because it isn't a lob type of pass. What makes this even more difficult are hot routes. On long and/or short passes reading the blitz is usually fairly secondary. In the short passing game you get off the passes quick enough that it makes no difference. In the long game it is more of a problem of picking it up rather than adjusting to it. There are usually only a few receivers out in the pattern and you have a safety valve if needed. The protection is better, prepared for a blitz, and you have a secondary check-down option. In the intermediate passing game you send out the most receivers in pattern. Therefore, pre-snap reads and or reading effectively just after the snap is of paramount importance. If the defense is blitzing a hot route adjustment is typically needed. If you can't see this as quickly as the receiver does you're in big time trouble because you aren't prepare to pick up the blitz, the idea is that you make them pay for the blitz by reading and reacting more quickly. If you don't have sight reads/hot routes installed you are in even bigger trouble.

I think this is the problem both quarterbacks face. There are three solutions that can help this. First is to move your quarterback out of the pocket on a designed roll out. Second is to be effective running screens and draws to slow down the blitz and pressure. Third is to be able to play action. Weis doesn't really have the first in his playbook, the second we can't execute, and the third is ineffective due to a lack of running game."

I believe the conversation above helps to explain our offensive woes and contributes to my other post regarding BC (link here).

Post BC Thoughts

After watching this game I had a lot of thoughts on many things. I'll try and break them out here. On a side note, Ismail is an idiot and very much looks the part while on camera.

1) Boston College and Matt Ryan
2) The quarterback controversy (again)
3) Weis
4) Brown and the Defense
5) Offense and Special Teams
6) Going Forward

Boston College And Matt Ryan

Boston College tried to give us that game in a few ways, namely with a lot of inopportune penalties. The bottom line is we didn't do enough to win offensively. Make no mistake about it, Boston College is a solid football team. They aren't flashy or overly talented, they aren't a great football team, but they have solid players at nearly all the skill positions and Matt Ryan is very, very good. In a typical football year I would say they are a top ten team. This year, in the absence of any great teams, they might be a top five team. If they run up against a team with much more talent they may have a difficult time winning.

In many ways Ryan reminds of Brady Quinn only he looked a bit more poised. He doesn't throw the deep out as well as Quinn but he is bigger, reads play development more quickly, doesn't force or make poor decisions, and seems to have a little better touch than Quinn. Plain and simple, he was one of two reasons we lost this game.

I really believe the other reason, excluding our play and focusing on theirs, was Andre Callender. He is a very versatile player and really created matchup problems for us. Eventually we adjusted to compensate (something I'll discuss below in the Brown section) but he still killed us with screen passes.

The Quarterback Controversy (Again)

I thought I'd get this one out of the way near the beginning. No, I do not think Sharpley is a better quarterback than Clausen. Yes, he moved the ball, at least at times. And yes, he may give us a better chance to win in the here and now. However, his play, even in this game, was erratic and potentially disastrous. Anyone who says differently needs to go back and re-watch the film to make certain they believe what they're saying. I'm not trying to say that Clausen is without flaws. I have as many doubts about him as I do about Weis and the future of our program under him. But I think that Clausen, in the pure sense of the word, is a better quarterback. Let me elaborate.

Clausen

Clausen's strength is his accuracy. When he does throw the ball he puts it on target a large portion of the time. The kid is completing nearly 60% (57.4% to be exact) of his passes and he has to throw a large portion of them away to avoid taking a loss on the sack. Taking that into account, he is actually probably closer to a 65% passer. Part of this is because most of his throws are of the shorter variety. He hasn't completed many deep balls with the exception of a few bench routes (which he throws better than most quarterbacks I've seen). But there are other things I believe are strengths for him. He is very tough and is competitive as hell. He wants to win and will do whatever it takes (even selflessly in many cases) to do so. He may know and/or believe he is the best quarterback of the future but he isn't blind, he understands Sharpley leads the offense to scoring drives and is still excited for the team as a whole when we score.

When watching Clausen's high school film I thought there were a few things that stuck out to me. First, of course, was his accuracy. Second, was his release. He has a very quick release and can really get the ball out quickly. In seven-on-seven he was virtually unstoppable. Third, he understood the offense. He felt pressure coming from the right places, could escape it a large portion of the time, and then threw well on the run. And fourth, his mechanics were flawless. His play fakes were perfect, his feet were perfect, his ball placement was perfect. He was the perfect example of how to execute the mechanics of the quarterback position.

I think there are a few things holding him back. I've mentioned it before but I think he is still struggling with the difference in speed between high school and college. If he isn't comfortable with a play, he hesitates. I've noticed that on a certain set of passing plays he really looks good. He gets the ball out quickly, puts it right on the money, throws it prior to the cut, and makes the right read. On other plays he doesn't. In college, that hesitation gives the defense time to react more. I don't think it is that our receivers never get open. I think that many times he doesn't make the read fast enough and doesn't get the ball out on the cut or slightly before giving the secondary time to break and close down the gap. This results in receivers not being open. The window of a receiver being open, so to speak, is smaller between high school and college. To me, this is the biggest reason he hasn't succeeded and manifests itself in him holding onto the ball too long. With the quickness we have at receiver in Grimes, West, and Tate they will be open unless the defender jumps the route. The key is to get the ball there in time while they are still open.

Second, I believe he is still unfamiliar with how the offense. Part of this is a relatively low number of reps, part of this is on Weis for not simplifying things, and part of it is just a natural adjustment to a more complex scheme. I also believe Clausen is still feeling the effects of the injury. He looks to still be banged up from all the hits he has taken in addition to lacking the arm strength I thought he had. I never thought of him as having a cannon, but the film I've seen of him in high school he was making throws look effortless. Now it seems that he has to put everything he has into every throw. It could be that his arm is weak, not from the injury directly, but indirectly from the time off throwing and lifting. It could also be the lingering effects of all the hits he's taken. It will be paramount for him to get stronger and faster in the off-season. And finally, I think his mechanics have regressed. I think this is mostly due to him not adjusting to the speed of the game as well as being "rushed" as he spends a good deal of time running for his life. His play fakes are poor, his footwork average, and his ball placement OK. These things that were largely his strengths have regressed due to the game moving at a faster pace and no time when he drops back to pass.

So I'd say that I think, from a quarterback intangibles perspective he is a little hit or miss. His accuracy is excellent, but his reads, his ability to get the ball out quickly, and his holding on to the ball too long is really detrimental to the offense. From a physical standpoint I think he really lacks many of the tools he needs to succeed. Obviously he is tough, but he needs to get stronger and quicker. It shouldn't look like he's straining just to get the ball out on a quick hitch or arrow route and he needs to at least be able to avoid some of the slower defensive lineman running him down. A lot of this could be due to the injury and youth, only time will tell.

Sharpley

Sharpley is a grossly inaccurate passer at times. He puts too much behind his balls and he is much more of an improvising player as opposed to the more polished passer Clausen is. He is only completing about 54% of his passes with very few being balls he threw away. That isn't going to cut it in many cases. That said, Sharpley does a much better job of getting the ball out more quickly. I think it must be the more time he has in the system because he has a slower release than Clausen, albeit a little more velocity on his ball. The bottom line is that he is hit or miss, a kind of big risk, big reward type of quarterback. Against an inferior secondary (e.g. Purdue and Boston College) his play will more often result in big rewards. But against better secondaries it could spell disastser.

But that difference in getting the ball out quickly is huge right now in the offense. It takes pressure off the offensive line, allows us to release more receivers out into routes, and, combined with his mobility, allows the offense to operate more openly. For this reason alone, I think he currently gives us a better chance to win. However, even though he gets the ball out more quickly, if he continues to over-throw receivers and/or make poor decisions better secondaries will make him pay. Boston College isn't exactly a great secondary and other teams with better talent will be able to pressure with four and cover with seven, making accuracy a much more important commodity. As it was Boston College probably could have had a couple of picks in the game Saturday. Many plays I watched I didn't even know if Sharpley was throwing to a person on our team.

I know many will point to plays like the one where he elluded a bunch of pressure to get the ball to Carlson as reason alone for Sharpley to start. To me, that play is downright stupid. I know it ended well but he could have easily fumbled that ball and killed all hope of a comeback. Combine that with the three balls he threw that could have been intercepted and the only reason he didn't give the game away was poor play by Boston College not taking advantage of the gifts we gave them.

Summary

To cut it short, the current shortcomings of Clausen spell disaster for an inexperienced offense whose front five can't block air (and that's exactly what they tried to do on Saturday while letting many defensive linemen run right past them). While I believe Clausen to be the better quarterback as a whole, even right now, the offensive situation we face, whether it be because of poor play calling and/or coaching, is more conducive to a quarterback that has some elusive ability and can orchestrate a short, three step/downfield passing game with some proficiency. Clausen can't do the former due to lacking athletic ability and seemingly can't do the latter due to his lack of experience (hopefully) in the system and weaker arm. I hope my fears concerning Clausen are explained by a lack of experience and injury although the notion that he was surrounded by a ton of talent in high school and played against inferior competition may be more true than not. It's difficult to imagine that Weis (who has an excellent eye for quarterback talent) and every high school recruiting scout was wrong about him. Having said all that, I believe Sharpley will start against USC, play poorly, throw a few picks and/or make some big mental mistakes, and get benched in lieu of Clausen.

Weis

To say that I believe the coaching this year has been disastrous is an understatement. I think Weis should have to reimburse us for his compensation. We desperately needed to win six games this year to be bowl eligible. I don't care if we would have won the bowl game or not, we needed the extra weeks of practice with such a young team. Now that is lost. Let me count the ways he fumbled in this game and over the course of the season.

1) 2 to 1 time of possession: Boston College had the ball nearly twice as long as we did. Why? Because Weis decided it was a good idea to come out in the no huddle offense with a short passing game against a team who averages 36+ points a game and with an offense that can't effectively run his normal offensive package, let alone something more complicated and fast paced. I know he has used this in the past to jump-start the offense, so to speak, but that was with an experienced quarterback. To me this was a disastrous mistake. We should have been huddling to take time off the clock and keep the Boston College offense off the field. Additionally, we should have had a focus on the running game against a team with defensive ends that weigh 235 and 241 lbs and another defensive tackle that weighs 284 lbs. Let me reiterate that Schwapp weighs 261 lbs, Aldridge weighs 222 lbs, and Hughes weighs 238 lbs. On top of that our offensive line averages 305 lbs. So our backs weigh nearly as much as their defensive ends and their defensive line averages 271 lbs meaning our offensive line out-weighed them by 34 lbs a man. We should have been able to lean on them and get a block. The same was true of UCLA and Purdue. It is absolutely and inexplicably inexcusable.

2) We have no semblance of a running game (less than 500 yards through seven games). With the talent we have at the running back and offensive line positions there is no excuse for this. It should have been a huge priority in the off season to make it easier for our inexperienced offensive line to block and to take pressure off a first time starting quarterback. I know our players are young, but that should manifest itself in a lack of consistency, not ineptitude. I believe his repeated changes in the offensive philosophy from installing the spread to working too much on the passing game have delayed this crucial development and left the players scrambling for an identity, something I cover a little more below.

3) Tate/Allen: These two are supposed to be our "gamebreakers" right? How about working on the screen game to give Allen the ball with space and blockers ahead of him? How about some slip/bubble screens to Tate? How about getting the ball into their hands in any way possible in addition to the kickoff return opportunities? Allen has only touched the ball 51 times this year (excluding kickoff returns). If he can take it to the house every time he touches it (as Weis has proclaimed) then why wouldn't we want to give him more opportunities? It seems that Weis would rather be flexible in his offensive strategy via installing the spread zone read for one game rather than working on specific plays designed to get the ball into the hands of our playmakers.

4) Offensively we seem to be trying new things every week until something works rather than discovering what we need to be good at (to take pressure off a young, inexperienced offensive line and quarterback), what we are built to be good at (from a personnel perspective), and working on that. Weis said many times that he needed to wait until he found what our offensive identity was, what we could "hang our hat on." Sometimes this has to be created, but not necessarily in a creative way. He has spent too long waiting for it to happen rather than creating an environment in practice that produces it. The installation of the spread was a disaster in the game and delayed our offensive development, shattering any identity we might have formed in the fall. It seems like Weis is only a good offensive play caller if he has all the tools in his belt. He needs to learn to pick a few, essential tools and sharpen them to make them better.

5) Empty promises: Have you seen a "nasty" offensive football team in his tenure? With the exception of Powers-Neal through the first six games of Weis' first year I don't think we have had any semblance of a power running game. Furthermore, we often times throw the ball rather than run it in short yardage situations. Typically, we don't block well at the wide receiver position and our physical offensive line play has been, at its very best, slightly above average during the 2.5 years Weis has coached. He even went so far as to say that he was impressed by the physicality of our play against Boston College. I don't know if he watched the same game I did but 27 yards on 21 carries doesn't exactly inspire me to believe we played physically. Neither does our inability to convert any short yardage situation with a running play. There seems to be a disconnect between what he sees and what actually occurs on the field. Additionally, I have not seen an offensive guru on our sideline in quite some time. Rather than putting our players in a position to win based on their talents and abilities, he has tried to force-feed his philosophy and offensive play calling to them. Finally, the improvement on special teams Weis spoke of the day he was announced as the Notre Dame football coach hasn't been there with the exception of Zibi's punt return capabilities in his first year.

6) I am very concerned about Weis' notion of developing talent. In the NFL the talent is there, rarely is it developed (I think this article does a good job of summarizing the differences in developing talent between college and the NFL here). Rather, the teaching and coaching is more of instructive as opposed to physical. In college the players are still developing both physically and athletically. You can recruit talent all you want, but unless you develop it into something resembling a football player it will only be talent, it will only be athleticism. This in large part the job of assistant coaches but Weis may not have the experience to be able to determine when the assistant coaches are doing their job and when they aren't, at least from a player development perspective. I can't see how the staff isn't capable of doing this and we certainly have the young talent to develop into great football players, but right now it seems like Notre Dame is the place where good coaches and talent goes to die. Davie recruited well in his first couple of years, but it rarely showed up on the field. Everyone seems to give Weis a pass right now because he is recruiting well. So far, I haven't seen it show up on the field. I know the players are relatively young, but many of them have game experience due to being thrust into roles. This excuse will cease to exist starting next season. Callahan at Nebraska has had a pass on this as well. I don't think he has much time left after bringing in several top recruiting classes and having a great deal of talent on the roster when he came in but not producing consistently on the field.

7) We have not improved at all on offense since the beginning of the season. In fact, we may have regressed. We have no running game, no physical presence, cannot protect the quarterback, can't execute a screen, and do not effectively throw the ball even though it seems like that is all we work on in practice. As the offensive coordinator Weis is ultimately responsible for this.

8) I'm sick and tired of hearing how we did enough to be successful on this drive or played well enough to win or played well on defense but not on offense or special teams, etc. From game one Weis has been too satisfied in wins and losses. No matter what, you should demand perfection. Forget picking your poison. You don't shut down the run and give up the pass. You try and be perfect. You don't settle for anything less than perfection. You play well in every facet of the game and you demand that as the head coach. I'm not saying you don't focus on their weaknesses and your strengths to maximize your potential to win. But the head coach should never be pleased with anything less than a perfect game.

9) What is up with all of the personal foul penalties? That is Weis' responsibility and is evident of a lack of control over the team. Need more evidence of this lack of control? How about Jones not showing up on the bus for Michigan (I'm not blaming Weis just saying it is symptomatic) and over ten transfers from when he started. Some of those kids may have not been able to cut a tougher coaching style. If that is the case good riddance. I'm hoping this aspect of our football program is due to players not having their heart into it/not wanting to work rather than a symptom of something larger.

10) Putting the game on Clausen's shoulders: Both before the game and at halftime Weis said he had to put more of the game on Clausen's shoulders. That sounds like a great idea. Why don't we make our banged-up, inexperienced, freshman quarterback who has no running game and an offensive line that blocks only air win us the game. Good call coach, good call.

Brown and the Defense

It seems like Corwin Brown is coming into his own. I say that for two reasons. First, he has developed into a more talented play caller. And second, he gets the most out of his players. If there was one thing I was impressed by on Saturday it was how hard our defense played. For the second straight week in a row we played hard, fast, and aggressive, essentially dictacting what the opposing offense was able to do. I haven't seen our defense play this well since Ty's first season. Even though we are dramatically undersized up front (which is even more of a problem in a 3-4 than a 4-3) we have had admirable defensive line play. If we have more talent and size at this position we would be a very imposing defense. The linebackers have also improved over the last two weeks both in containment and in filling holes.

I thought the plan against Boston College was perfect save two exceptions. Brown wanted to try and pressure Ryan into errant throws. It is too hopeful to expect Ryan to make mistakes and force turnovers but getting pressure on him might have been enough to force his hand early. Our defense took on a blitzing, press man coverage look where we sent six and seven to get to Ryan. While we were unable to sack Ryan, we did force some early and inaccurate throws. There was only two problems with this.

In the first half Boston College had two plays where they exploited the mismatch created by this scheme. Since we were blitzing six and seven players we had one-on-one coverage matching up and inside linebacker (many times Brockington) on Callender. One time Boston College motioned Callender out to the flat, taking Brockington out with him, and ran it right where Brockington was. This resulted in the 50+ yard scamper by Whitworth in the first drive of the game. The second time this was expoited was the second touchdown when Callender went in motion to the left, we sent the house, and Ryan hit him on a slant with Brockington in coverage. Later in the game Brown adjusted and pulled an inside linebacker moving Zibi up to cover Callender and bringing in McCarthy for Zibi at the safety position. This was very good recognition and largely solved the mismatch problem.

The second problem I had was in how we rolled our coverage. When we brought pressure we inevitably played man coverage (with a very few exceptions where we ran zone blitzes) since we were using so many players to put pressure on Ryan. This resulted in us rolling the safeties over to cover someone. Unfortunately for us we faced a very experienced and special quarterback who was able to read this and get the ball out quickly to the receiver before we could roll our coverage over. My problem with this is as follows: Ryan is a good enough quarterback to recognize when we are going to send the blitz and from where it is coming. Why not roll the coverage over pre-snap and try and get the press man coverage there from the snap? It may have allowed us to get more significant pressure on Ryan.

A special shout out to Walls who played more physically, Laws who is still unblockable, and our entire front five who played their butts off on Saturday. Williams impressed me while in at the end of the game. He has surprising quickness for someone his size.

Offense and Special Teams

I've covered many of this above in the Weis section but I had a few more points. Aldridge has got to get quicker off the snap. He takes too long to get back to the line of scrimmage. If he is too deep and if we are calling the wrong plays for his type of running style then I blame Weis as well but most of the time they are isolation plays and/or some stretch plays where we try and seal to the inside. He has to become more explosive out of the blocks or he will continue to have trouble. Of course it isn't too much to ask for the offensive line to create a hole that stays open for more than a fraction of a second.

If we have even an average offense I think we beat Penn State, Michigan State, Purdue, UCLA, and Boston College based on how we played on those given days. Instead of one and six we are looking at five and two. Now I'm doubting we can even beat the last four teams on our schedule including Navy who has looked very good the times I've watched them this season. I am baffled given the talent on our roster.

Three of the Boston College drives were 41, 11, and 44 yards. This was mostly due to offense with the last drive coming as a result of the celebration penalty. That's three scoring drives combining for 96 yards. We can't win giving them a short field like that and we continue to put our defense in terrible position.

It can't be said enough. We have the worst offensive line in the history of college football. On more than a handful of plays a defensive lineman went unblocked. It's one thing to let a blitzing linebacker or safety go by. It's entirely different to watch the guy lining up in front of you come right across your face (the golden rule of an offensive lineman is to pick up anyone who crosses your face) and go untouched. It is absolutely pathetic. It looks like we are playing with one or two linemen as opposed to five. I have no explanation for this and watching it makes me want to vomit. Rather than the quarterback taking his offensive line out for dinner, our offensive linemen need to be buying the quarterbacks presents for not getting killed.

I have to give a shout out to Armando. He looked tough before, during, and after contact on Saturday.

Going Forward

I don't know if I've ever been so frustrated with our football team. We are completely inept on offense leaving our defense in terrible positions and negating excellent effort on their part. We need dramatic changes in our program both in terms of leadership at the top and in the direction we are moving as a team. I only hope that the recruiting doesn't fade, that we continue to bring in talent which we then develop, and that Weis can adapt and learn from his mistakes, adjusting to the college game. Weis is coming up the head coaching learning curve in a very difficult situation right now. It isn't that the schedule is tough, it isn't that we are young, it isn't that Weis has made poor coaching decisions, it isn't that we have no leadership and a dearth of talent in the upper classes, and it isn't that our schedule is tough through the first eight games. It is that all of those things are happening at the same time. Weis has never had this in the NFL, he always had "upper classmen" so to speak. Right now, due to the lack of talent and numbers in our upper classes, he doesn't have it. If he keeps bringing in talent and developing it he may never face this type of problem again, adjusting and adapting to it becomes a moot point. The article here does a very good job of summarizing it.

I will never stop supporting our team and I hope you continue to do the same. From the noise I heard in the stadium Saturday (when the team gave something to cheer about), the fans are still very much supporting the team.

ESP Week Seven

It's week seven of the season, otherwise known as week two of the ESP. Following in the footsteps of the previous ESP post (link here) I will show the ESP ranking, the playoff bracket, the 1-25 AV ranking, and the different portions of the AV ranking: SOS (Strength of Schedule), QWL (Quality Win/Loss), AWP (Adjusted Win Percentage), and MOV (Margin of Victory).

I'd like to point out that the accuracy of the ESP will be tested this year. With so many upsets, evident of no great teams and few good teams, games will be more of "toss ups" rather than the more traditional pitting of more evenly matched teams. For reference, to compare the ESP to the BCS, you can find the BCS standings here. Also for reference, if you want to compare the AV rankings the Sagarin (rather popular in the computer ranking world) you can find it here.

OSU is number 1 in the BCS only because their computer rankings place less emphasis on strength of schedule than the AV does. If you note below they currently have the 108th toughest schedule in the country. Until more emphasis is placed on strength of schedule teams will continue to play weak non-conference schedules to achieve entrance into BCS games.

The ESP ranking:

The 8 team ESP playoff bracket:

The AV ranking1-25:

The strength of schedule (SOS) , adjusted win percentage (AWP), quality win/loss (QWL), and margin of victory (MOV) rankings:

Our First Victory

The eternal pessimist in me wants to point out all of the things wrong with the UCLA game. This part of me is struggling with the sometimes optimistic portion of my brain that occasionally rears its head and currently wants to focus on our win. I'm going to give way to the optimist, at least for the moment. Nota bene, without the capability of DVR for this game I'm going to speak very broadly, i.e. I will not be getting into many specifics about game strategy. Be sure to scroll down below to check out the first release of the ESP (or go to here).

The Good

The best thing about this game was that we won. It didn't matter how ugly it was, and it was ugly, we were able to come away with a victory. That will help these kids confidence and psyche immensely. It's tough to keep working, week in and week out, to attain a goal (even one as simple as winning a football game) when the deck seems stacked against you. This team persevered, they didn't give up, and, if nothing else, they played their hearts out on Saturday. While I don't think we should have ever been at 0-5, a large part of which has been coaching, I have to give credit to the staff. They kept the kids focused and had them prepared to play in this one from the early going.

Winning is good but only slightly behind winning was the play of our defense. For the first time in as long as I can remember our defense played fast, aggressive, and with an attitude. The defense dictated the tempo of the game for the duration of their time on the field. We were seemingly able to pressure the quarterback at will which was largely responsible for the four interceptions we generated. I know it was their third string walk-on quarterback playing but depth is part of the game. We had the advantage, we knew it, and we took it. I don't know if we would have won with Olsen playing the whole game but I think the outcome would have been close either way. I was very proud of how our defense played.

I also thought, for the most part, our special teams played well. We had pretty decent field position on our kickoff's. Our punt coverage was tremendous (mostly thanks to Bruton who is one of the best gunners I've ever seen and could earn his way on a NFL roster solely for this skill) and we kicked the ball well on our field goals and PAT's. This was a significant concern coming out of last week that Weis and company addressed. Let's just hope it can continue.

The Bad

Despite being aggressive, fast, and determined, the defense tackled poorly at many times during this game. To me the difference between a great defensive performance (which this wasn't) and a good defensive performance (which this certainly was) is the word stifling. We were fast, we were aggressive, we played hard and physical. But many times we played ourselves out of position to make the play. I think some of this was playing so fast and aggressive. I'll take that over the alternative. But a truly great defense doesn't miss those tackles, give up the extra yards, and allow the offense the occasional first down.

The penalties were still present in this game. I think we gave them a handful of first downs off of penalties. And how can we not set up a punt return without committing a hold or a block in the back?

Our running game was non-existent against a team who fielded a defensive line averaging 30 lbs lighter per man. This is on top of the fact that their defensive ends weigh in the 240-250 lbs range, just a shade over the weight of Hughes and slightly under the weight of Schwapp. In both this game and against Purdue I thought we would utilize wham blocking techniques to get Schwapp paired up with their smaller defensive ends and allow our tackles to get to the next level. You should be able to consistently run the ball against under-sized defensive lines like we have faced the past two weeks.

This game was more of the "keep seven in and release three" type of offense we run. It can't work against teams with a good front four and it certainly won't work against teams with a good front seven. Give UCLA credit, they are a very good defense. But we played right into their hand much of the time.

The Ugly

This game was one of the worst displays of offensive play-calling I've ever seen. About half way through the third quarter I actually called for Weis' head and wanted him fired. I know we won, but I'm even more leery about his abilities as a coach now than I was before this game (and I was skeptical before this one started). First and goal on their one yard line and we throw three straight passes? That's asinine. We can't score at all, they gift wrap us a touchdown, and we throw three passes? Never mind the fact that Carlson should have caught the second one for a touchdown, if you can't score, you have the ball on the one, and it's first down, you run four straight plays and take the will of the opposition. I've said it a million times, if you can't make a yard you don't deserve to win. If you can't make a yard in four straight running plays you don't deserve to be a D-I college football team.

That's only the beginning of my worries. I know we got ahead in the second half, I know Weis was probably playing conservative to not turn the ball over and allow the defense to win the game for us, but 6 turnovers (I don't count the return for a touchdown) and only 13 points (I don't count the seven from the return for a touchdown) when two of those turnovers came inside the opponents five yard line. That's insanely ludicrous! How can we only score three times having six possessions gift wrapped for us?

It was almost as if Weis had said we were going to try and get Tate matched up on the outside and go deep to him. The problem was that UCLA watched the Purdue game, we didn't have any threat opposite Tate (we always used two tight end, two back or three tight end, one back packages when we tried to isolate him) to keep the safeties honest, and we tried the same thing 4-5 times when it wasn't open the first 2. I understand we needed to try it, if we hadn't I'd be sitting here complaining about why we didn't try to go deep to Tate after his performance in the Purdue game, but when it doesn't work get away from it.

And could someone, anyone, for the love of God please explain to me why we insist on wasting time running play action when we can't actually run the ball? It delays Clausen's ability to make the reads, it makes our offensive line hold blocks longer, and it inhibits our ability to get multiple receivers and tight ends out into routes. Why don't we spread it out and make them defend the whole field instead of trying to fool them by making our passing game look like our completely inept running game? If you were a defensive back would you bite on play action when playing us?