Stanford Recap and A Wishlist For Next Year

Again, I forgot to DVR the game. Without this excellent technology my ability to critically evaluate our play is significantly diminished. I'll take a shot at a few things offense, defense, and special teams followed by a wish list for next year.

Offense

Jimmy Clausen took a step back in this game. He went back to evading the pass rush by moving laterally instead of forward in the pocket. He needs to develop a pass rush clock in his head. He ran out of bounds several times, taking a loss, instead of throwing the ball away. His interception was a horrendous decision. And his deep balls lacked strength, were thrown too late, and had too much air under them. That said, he threw the ball on the short and intermediate routes very well. When given time, he is a very accurate quarterback. Elimination of the freshman mistakes and gained speed and strength will go a long way in improving his game.

Once again Robert Hughes ran well. He is showing why he was so highly regarded in high school. Despite his good play there is no excuse for James Aldridge not getting carries, save an injury or lingering pain. Armando Allen should also get a minimum of ten touches a game. It doesn't matter if that comes in the form of returns, receptions, or carries, but he looked two steps faster than any Stanford defender when he was on the field.

David Grimes played pretty well. Duvall Kamara did also, at least at times. He has to be more aggressive when the ball is in the air using his body to shield the defender. George West is the best blocker of the group and showed it during the game.

Again, the offensive line play against Stanford was horrible. There were times when they played better, but they were still far too inconsistent. Sam Young and Michael Turkovich are starting to play much better in the run game but Young still has to be quicker in his first step off the ball, particularly in the passing game.

Notre Dame cannot turn the ball over four times and win many ball games. This is especially true when they turn the ball over going in to score and/or on their end of the field. The fact that the Irish only gave up fourteen points despite turning the ball over so frequently is a true testament to the play of the defense. Of course Stanford helped, turning it over several times of their own as well as not being as talented of a team.

Defense

Hats off to Corwin Brown (again), the defense went back to playing inspired football. That was true for no one more than Tom Zbikowski. He played much harder in this game than he has in recent weeks. Trevor Laws deserves a medal for his play this season. It's going to be a shame that he is left out of All-American discussions. No one makes that many tackles playing defensive end in a 3-4 scheme, no one.

Notre Dame's tackling, at times, was absolutely atrocious. It was like defenders were bumping chests. It was very, very disappointing at times.

David Bruton is steadily improving. He made the biggest impact the Irish secondary this year. Not only is he a lights-out gunner on the punt team, he is so rangy he has really helped our secondary improve in the passing yards they give up. Notre Dame is third in the country in passing yards surrendered per game at 161.6 (link here). That is a huge improvement over previous seasons. Part of this improvement is due to a more porous run defense, i.e. teams didn't need to throw the ball. But some of it is certainly due to improved play in the secondary.

Darrin Walls play in pass coverage continues to be impressive. If he can get stronger and learn to be more physical coming up to stop the run, he will be one of the best corners in the country. It's time for Notre Dame's secondary to become a strength. With Walls, Bruton, McCarthy (Dan and Kyle), Harrison Smith, Raeshon McNeil, Gary Gray, and the two freshmen Jamoris Slaughter and Robert Blanton, Notre Dame has a solid nucleus of players to build upon. Combine that with more talent up front to apply pressure to opposing quarterbacks and the defense should be drastically improved in the near future. There will be some growing pains with the younger players and it is still imperative that the coaching staff continue to build depth, especially on the line, but the Irish are moving in the right direction.

Special Teams

Special teams continue to be poor. If it isn't penalties on punt returns, it's poor blocking on kickoff returns. The Irish have the athletes and speed to return a kickoff, there really is no excuse for not getting one this year, especially with the level of competition Notre Dame faced down the stretch. Add to that the fact that Notre Dame can't kick touch backs or make very makeable field goals and this is a huge area of concern for the Irish.

Wish List For Next Year

My wish list for next year is broken into two parts. The first part is the players themselves. The second part is for Weis and the rest of the Irish coaching staff.

Players

1) First and foremost has to be improved play on the offensive line. This improvement must occur in several areas. The offensive line must improve getting to the second level. They must improve the physicality of their play, particularly on short yardage situations. They must improve their communication with each other. They must improve their pass protection. And they must do all of this to allow us to go four and five wide to challenge the depth of opposing teams' secondaries.

2) The inside linebacker play must improve. This isn't all about athleticism, this is about coaching and learning by the players at that position. They don't scrape with their shoulders parallel to the line of scrimmage, they don't read and/or react quickly enough, they don't take proper pursuit angles, they don't take on blocks with the proper shoulder, and they don't tackle well. Yes, they may not be fast enough to chase down backs to the outside. Yes, they might not be strong enough to shed blocks. But the problems stated here are purely technique. Talent and athletisicm via improved recruiting will correct the speed and strength issues, coaching has to correct the technique and fundamental play.

3) Special teams must improve in all areas. There is no excuse for Notre Dame to hesitate kicking a field goal from forty-five yards in. There is no excuse for the Irish not having 30-40% of their kickoffs result in touch backs. There is no excuse for not having at least one punt or kickoff return for a touchdown given the athleticism in the return game. And there is no excuse for all of the penalties in the kicking game. Special teams won't win many games on their own unless the team performs at a very high level. They will, however, lose a team many games if they aren't competent.

4) Clausen must improve his speed and strength over the off-season. Forget staring down receivers. Forget not getting through his progressions as quickly as he should. If Clausen does not improve his arm strength and speed he will continue to suffer when pressured and throwing down field. His leadership is there, his competitiveness is there, his toughness is there, and his accuracy on short and intermediate routes is outstanding when given time. But his first step towards improving his play has to be getting stronger and faster.

5) The wide receivers for the Irish must improve their blocking. There were so few long runs primarily due to poor wide receiver blocking. The yards gained on hitch and arrow routes in the past weren't there due to poor wide receiver blocking. The Irish can't even run sweeps due to poor crack-back blocking by players at the wide receiver position. And double move routes, faking the block, weren't executed well because the receivers didn't do it well the rest of the time. This is imperative to improve the running game.

6) If Stanford proved anything, it's that getting a hat on a hat when executing a screen play is paramount. This is partly the offensive line's responsibility. This is partially down field blocking by the receivers. But having an effective screen game is such a huge weapon on offense. It isn't just that it slows down a pass rush, it's that when you can call and execute a screen pass on non-obvious screen downs (i.e. downs that aren't obvious pass pressure downs by the defense) it gives defenses a totally different thing to worry about. Defending the screen is difficult when properly blocked and Notre Dame's ability the past two seasons to execute it nearly every time they ran it was supremely under-estimated.

7) Improved play at the running back position is also highly desireable. All need to work on pass protection and ball security. Allen needs to work on patience, waiting for the holes to open (link here). He has the speed to be a break-away back. He just needs to wait for the holes to open and then accelerate through them. Hughes and Aldridge both need to improve their speed. They are physical runners who make the most of what is given to them. They just need to be more of a deep threat. Finally, Weis needs to make adjustments in the depth of the formation sets to accommodate the differences in speed and quickness of each back. Aldridge and Hughes shouldn't be set as deep as they are.

8) The Irish really need to be able to get to opposing quarterbacks when Corwin dials up the blitz. This is imperative to take pressure off the secondary. Too many times over the past two years Notre Dame has tried pressuring opposing quarterbacks via blitzing only to fail. There aren't many quarterbacks out there that can execute the short, quick (three step drop) passing game effectively and consistently. Even if they do, the speed in the secondary is able to minimize run-after-catch yards provided they tackle well.

9) The Irish need young players to step up and be leaders.They need players to drive accountability across their peers. And it needs to be something at each position group. Offensive linemen to hold other offensive linemen accountable. Linebackers need to hold other linebackers accountable. This needs to be true for each position and is imperative, it can't be only the coaches driving responsibility.

Weis

Where to begin? Despite all of the things stacked against this team this year, nothing adds up to 3-9. It's simply inexplicable, and some part of it was poor coaching. Weis has to become a more consistent leader. He must adapt how he prepares the team for the game such that they come out firing at the beginning. Too many times the offense dug their defensive counterparts into a hole they couldn't get out of via three-and-out's or turnovers in Irish territory.

Weis has to adapt from the NFL style of coaching to the college style of coaching. This includes changing practice schedules to include more time for fundamentals and drills as well as improving practice physicality. This includes a more (read different) approach to special teams. This includes trying to slim down and simplify the playbook. There is no need to increase the number of things the offense is trying to exectute in an effort to gain an schematic advantage. Sometimes the answer to not doing something well isn't to try something else, it's to practice that thing until you become better at it. Notre Dame must first improve in a limited number of areas that their talent and personnel are suited for. You can't run a double screen or a stretch zone running play without knowing how to block first. And Weis must re-evaluate the effectiveness of his style of offense at the college level when presented with youth at one or multiple positions.

Weis must find and develop leaders amongst his players. If players don't step up and do this on their own Weis must initiate it. This includes increasing the development of talent at the position level. Weis must put his assistants in a position to improve the play of the players or he must find assistants who are more capable of doing so.

Finally, Weis must change his play calling. That doesn't mean going for it less on fourth down. It doesn't mean not calling running plays that havne't been historically successful on third and/or fourth and short. This doesn't mean going down field more or less. This is about changing his philosophy of attacking opposing teams. Weis can't design his game plan soley around what they do poorly and what he thinks we do well. He must realize the risk associated with calling certain plays due to the chance of properly executing them versus the reward achieved by successfully executing them. He must recognize, based on past game experience in similar situations, with similar talent, and with similarly experienced players, the appropriate rate of success associated with executing his play call. College football isn't the NFL where a large percentage of plays are executed at a very high level. He must also realize the importance of sticking with what is working. Virtually all of this comes down to understanding not just what the Irish do well and the opponent does poorly, but also the future game implications of his decisions.

Weis can be successful at Notre Dame. There is no doubt about it. In fact, the Irish faithful will have their long-term answer to his success very early next season. It is too much to expect a great team next season, but the Irish also might not play any. Going 8-4 or 9-3 versus 11-1 next season will be all about Weis' abilities as a coach to implement constant team improvement as the year progresses. There is little evidence the Irish made any this year. That will continue to occur as long as the players don't get the blocking, route running, tackling, fundamental, etc. part of the game down before moving to the playcalling and scheming part of the game. This is even more true now, with such a young team, than it may ever be again (if he continues to recruit so well).

With this in mind, this argument may be a moot point. Notre Dame may gain experience and fill the upper and lower classes alike with depth and talent. However, Weis must still develop them. When he arrived he had experience, players that knew fundamentals. But his coaching staff didn't teach this to them, the previous one (as bad as it was) did. With little to no improvement this year there is reason for concern that Weis and his staff cannot teach these things, cannot instill fundamentals, cannot develop the talent they recruit. If they can't Notre Dame will never become a great football team with Weis at the helm. If they can, watch out. Imagine Weis' offense the first two years of his coaching tenure with more depth, greater athleticism, and a talented defense.

ESP Week Thirteen

No real comments to make this time except that the AV predicted the outcome of the Missouri-Kansas game last week (link here). Based on the AV, LSU should handle Tennessee in the SEC championship game and Missouri should beat Oklahoma in the Big Twelve Championship game. I tend to believe the former more than the latter.

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:

Finally, Another Victory

I was at the game this weekend and didn't remember to DVR it. Without being able to see it on TV (and with the powers of rewind) I wasn't able to critically evaluate it. As such, I don't have a ton to say here. I was, however, able to see some things at the stadium that I couldn't have on TV.

First things first, hats off to Weis. Once again he proved he is a Notre Dame man by allowing a young cancer patient to attend practice and the pep rally, have a sideline pass, and be intimately involved with the team's routine during the game weekend. I will continue to point these types of things out because I believe them to be imperative to whomever our football coach is. I've said it before, Notre Dame football occupies a special place in many peoples' hearts allowing it to be a stage on which we can broadcast the University's message of charity and integrity. What could be more important?

Offense

Jimmy looked much better in this game. Sure, the Duke defense isn't very good, but many of the things I saw had nothing to do with the defense. He moved in the pocket much better, he tucked the ball and ran when he knew he could get the first down, he had much more zip on his throws, and he was very much the leader in the huddle. What you couldn't see on TV was him slapping butts, hitting helmets, and giving fives to the players around him making good plays. The first pass to Grimes was an NFL throw, on a rope, threaded between two defenders, and where only his man could catch it. If it weren't for Hail Mary types of passes, dropped balls, and throwing the ball away to avoid sacks his statistics would be much better.

Think about it, this kid is a true freshman who had to play while recovering from an arm injury, then while banged up due to poor offensive line play, then had to sit the bench. He had never lost a competitive football game before arriving on campus, now suffering through nine of them. He has shown leadership, toughness, and a selflessness many said he never had. His deep balls, which seem to float a bit too much, are about the only area I haven't seen improvement. The last two weeks he has looked much stronger when throwing such that I have fewer concerns about his arm strength and certainly now believe it is something that can be corrected with an off-season of strength and conditioning.

In addition to Clausen showing more leadership Sam Young also displayed improved leadership traits. He was more energetic, enthusiastic, and vocal. He was congratulating any of his cohorts when they did something good. I can only hope he was chastising them an equal amount of the time but I didn't really pay that much attention when things went badly for the offensive line. I will say that I saw Young lying on top of his man about 5-7 yards down the field for much of this game.

What seemed to be a strength early in the year has now turned into a weakness. Our receivers dropped several balls they should have caught. I understand the conditions were poor for throwing the football but if the ball hits you in the hands you should catch it, period. On top of that, our receivers can't block, both for each other and for our running backs. We have had very few long runs and this is nearly always due to poor wide receiver blocking down field. On top of that, the receivers can't block for each other on that stupid arrow route that Weis has to call twice a game. It worked his first year because Stovall was great at blocking for Samardzija. It didn't work as well last year because McKnight wasn't as physical as Stovall. And it doesn't work at all this year because the receivers we have are too small and/or weak. I thought the catch by Kamara for a touchdown was a great example of how to use your body as a receiver. I would, however, like to see him come down with a few more of those deep balls down the sideline when he has an obvious size advantage over the defender.

One more thing that stood out to me on offense was the disparity in success of our running backs. While Hughes ran wild, Allen and Aldridge were held in check for much of the game. Over the course of the season I have been watching these three backs and something stood out to me this game that hasn't before. It seems that, right now, Hughes is the best back we have. I don't say that because I am jumping on the bandwagon after one good performance against an inferiorly talented defense. I say that because I think his combination of size, balance, vision, and agility make it easier for the offensive line to do their job.

The past two seasons Darius Walker made the offensive line look good on many occasions with his ability to cut and stop/start. While Hughes might not be as nifty as Walker, he is agile and possesses incredible balance. Additionally, while Allen hits the hole too quickly and Aldridge too slow, Hughes has the patience to wait, but speed to arrive at the hole while it is open. Allen, many times, runs past his blockers before they can get to the second level and tie up the linebackers. Aldridge gets to the hole too late, forcing the offensive line to engage their man for an extended period of time. Hughes, however, is quicker off the ball than Aldridge, allowing him to get the hole faster. His patience and vision allows him to see things happening and explode through the opening. Hughes also possesses the right amount of shiftiness to run through defenders rather than over them. While Aldridge will punish a defender by running over him, Hughes has the agility to maneuver himself into a favorable position and run through the defender. With any of these backs you can't lose and I'm just happy to be having a conversation where I argue the merits of one versus the other. It's been a while since I could do that.

Defense

Not a lot to say here. When you shut someone out (I don't count the last touchdown) you are playing well. I don't care what offense you are facing. Duke has put up some points on pretty good defenses. We played well on Saturday.

Once again Laws was unblockable. It didn't show up on the stat sheet all that much but Duke went away from him pretty much all the time. I wish, for his sake, we had some more wins. He would be an All-American if it weren't for our record.

Darrin Walls is quickly becoming a leader in the secondary. I still believe he has to be more physical on the edge but he is vocal with the other players and doesn't hesitate to get up in their face.

Weis

I think it lacked class to put Zibi in at quarterback. That's a high school move in my book. Have fun in practice goofing around. In the game it shows disrespect to your opponent. I also think the personal foul and other penalties are evidence that there exists a lack of team discipline. This is Weis' responsibility and it needs to be fixed.

Weis said he plans to do an evaluation at the end of the season to identify the problems the team has had, ultimately sharing the blame and developing solutions. He plans to employ the Patriots organization to help critically evaluate the entire season from a coaching perspective. I think this will be both good and bad. First, I think it is good because Weis respects the Patriots' coaching staff. This ultimately means he will listen to them. I also think they will be blunt and tell him the truth. Second, this shows Weis' ability to adapt, and to place his pride on the shelf in an effort to right the ship. The negatives I see are also two fold. I think it is problematic to seek the type of advice he is getting outside of his organization if he is also not seeking it from inside his organization. I'm not sure this is the case, but it is a slap in the fact to your coaching staff if you aren't seeking advice from them as well. Lastly, trying to look to a professional organization to analyze problems at the college level may also have its drawbacks. As I have discussed, it seems that many of the problems our team had this year were directly related to differences in the game from college to the NFL. It is unlikely NFL guru's will be able to provide the answers if that is the case.

The one thing I hope comes out of Weis' meeting with the Patriots organization is improved offensive line play. We really haven't seen good offensive line play since Weis arrived. While I know we were thin in depth last year and young this year, I would expect someone coming from the Patriots (who have excellent offensive line play) to know the value of a good offensive line. There are theories about Latina's coaching forte not matching Weis' scheme. This may be true but something has to give. We have the talent at this position, now we need to develop it and move forward.

Going Forward

At any rate, it was good to get another win under our belt. Closing out with one more victory at Stanford would go a long way in helping to end this season on a positive note.

ESP Week Twelve

And so goes the ESP for week twelve. There are a few interesting things to note. Notre Dame's schedule took a slight dive down to number four after playing Duke this weekend. Anticipate it moving further South after next week's game against Stanford. Many of you may notice that Kansas is ranked number two in the BCS but number six here in the ESP. This is primarily because they have played the 116th weakest schedule in the country. I anticipate Kansas' luck running out this coming week or next. You may also notice that Georgia is ranked very highly despite two losses. This is due to its relatively tough 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:

Coaching Hires Are Like...Relationships

Well, Mr. Stewart Mandel has given me a perfect opportunity to introduce my next topic: When and who should you hire as a college head football head coach?

Take a look at Stewart's article which can be found here. He makes many good points about the differences between coaching at the college and NFL level. However, he fails in one specific area in that he doesn't include facts/opinions that do not support his ultimate conclusion: Weis is a terrible college football coach. I have touched on this lack of information inclusion by "sports journalists" before (link here) and this article is no different. I'll break down a few specific points.

1) Mandel writes "Prior to his 2005 arrival in South Bend, the 51-year-old New Jersey native had never played or coached at the collegiate level. His credentials for the job were: a) his reputation as an offensive guru; b) his anticipated recruiting cachet, what with those four Super Bowl rings; and c) the fact that he graduated from Notre Dame." This is a false statement. Weis has had college football coaching experience. He was an assistant at the University of South Carolina from 1985 to 1988. That took me 30 seconds on Google to discover. I guess I'm a super sleuth.

2) Mandel also claims "Tom Brady and Weis' other Patriots protégés arrived as fully developed professionals." He might want to lend his powers of foresight to the other 31 NFL teams that passed on him through six rounds of the NFL draft. If it was such a foregone conclusion that Brady would be a great professional football player why didn't anyone else draft him?

3) Mandel starts the article with "Let's start with a fairly obvious realization: Charlie Weis is a terrible college football coach." but then goes on to say "It seemed clear at the time that Weis was the perfect guy to return the Irish to glory -- and maybe one day he will." The former statement is in direct contradiction with the latter. How can he believe, on the one hand, that Charlie Weis is a terrible college football coach, but, on the other hand, think that he may someday lead Notre Dame (a team he believes to be one of the worst in the country) back to glory? It is a complete dichotomy of ideas and it doesn't exaclty inspire me to believe he has a lot of conviction behind his argument.

4) Mandel also writes "Weis, however, is one of the few vested parties who will not pay a price for this disastrous season. He will still pocket his $3 million-plus for what has essentially been a year of on-the-job training. Meanwhile, the 80,000-plus spectators who pack Notre Dame Stadium every week -- many of them traveling great distances to be there -- have wasted untold dollars and energy supporting a woefully prepared team, not to mention the immeasurable humiliation their university has suffered. Lord only knows how much money NBC has lost on its investment." That may all be true. I doubt Weis isn't paying a price, I'm sure he isn't happy about the way this season has gone, he cares too much. But it isn't Weis' job to make NBC money, it isn't a waste of money to ever attend a Notre Dame football game (the campus alone is worth it, not to mention the Folk Choir Mass at the Basillica) regardless of how bad we are, and the fact that people are still making the pilgrimage to South Bend speaks volumes about the loyalty of the fans and the fact that it's more than just football at Notre Dame. Finally, he fails to mention the fact that while Weis is earning a hefty salary himself, we are still paying Willingham for driving our football program into the ground.

5) Stewart also says "In October 2005, seven games into Weis' tenure, school administrators decided they'd seen enough from the former New England Patriots guru to merit investing an additional 10 years and more than $30 million in him." but he fails to mention that the contract extension was not based solely on his performance. Rather, it was also to guard against many NFL teams expressing interest in his coaching services and to give recruits an assurance he would be the coach both now and into the future.

6) Finally, Mandel points to the inexperience and youth of the team as being possible explanations for our struggles this season but he fails to mention that we faced very good defenses for nearly all of our first eight games and one of the toughest schedules in the country.

There are six reasons that Mandel's article is full of holes, I'm sure there are more. He either states facts that are false or he leaves out opinions, arguments, and/or facts that do not support his argument. These things aside, I think he makes some good points about the differences of coaching in college versus the NFL. He talks about motivating and managing players, teaching players to play instead of simply teaching them a playbook, and dealing with the problems the kids will ultimately face as young adults.

This all got me thinking (although I have been thinking about it quite a bit lately anyway) about when and who should be hired as a college head football coach. First, let's examine the situation surrounding Weis' hiring. To me, the way in which we hired Weis was similar to ending a relationship in pursuit of another potential partner. Bear with me...

When you are with a person in a relationship it can be human nature to recognize and focus on the negative aspects of that person. This can, at times, ultimately lead to finding another person attractive if they have strong traits and characteristics in the weaker areas of the current partner. I think this is what happened when we hired Weis.

Admittedly, I didn't see this at the time. I wasn't sold when we hired Weis. I was impressed by his success in the NFL and partially won over by what he said at his introductory press conference. I was more impressed when he turned our once dormant offense into a scoring machine. I was even more impressed when I read his book "No Excuses" and heard the things he said to the team upon his arrival at Notre Dame. And eventually, I think I moved from skeptic to believer.

And I think I did this because Weis' strengths were the weaknesses of our past two coaches. Think about it. Weis is brash, confident (almost to a fault), and direct. Willingham was timid, guarded, and lacked transparency (also almost to a fault). Davie seemed to always have a canned response. Davie and Willingham fielded offenses that lacked explosion, consistency, and production. Weis' offenses set record after record. Neither Davie nor Willingham "got" Notre Dame and what it stood for. Weis not only gets it, he embraces it, and is one of our own. Willingham was lazy, Weis never stops working. Willingham couldn't recruit, Weis has hauled in three (God willing) straight top classes. Davie and Willingham couldn't win the games they were supposed to, Weis, for the most part, has.

So I think Notre Dame Nation, including myself, was enthralled by his strengths, by what he brought that the previous two coaches lacked, and by his affinity towards and inclusion to the Notre Dame family. But does that mean that Willingham and Davie didn't do good things as college football head coaches? No. Furthermore, does it mean that Weis is infallible? Obviously not. I didn't have the foresight to see it then, but this season has certainly proved it. I have said before, this season may have been necessary to really pound the differences between the NFL and college game into Weis' stubborn head (link here). But that doesn't mean it can't also enlighten us to his shortcomings as a coach. But the future can always hold change. What were his weaknesses can be turned into strengths.

So this then begs the question: When and who should you hire as a college head football coach? (At the onset of this discussion I am not trying to portray a Weis versus Willingham argument. It may seem like that at times but there are just many convenient examples between the two that illustrate my points.) I'll dissect them one at a time. First the when.

There are obvious situations when a coaching change must be made. If the program isn't consistently performing up to expectations, a change should be made. A change should also be made if there is relatively no change in the structure of the program, i.e. the coaching staff, athletic director, facilities, etc., but a negative trend in performance on the field. A change is necessary if all the pieces of the puzzle are there but the performance isn't. If Urban Meyer and Les Miles hadn't averaged about ten wins through their first few seasons I would say changes are needed. Both schools have talented athletes, facilities, and a strong support base. And finally, if there are numerous problems with the student-athletes off the field such that the coach has lost control of the team, a coaching change is definitely needed. There are probably more than what I have listed but those are the ones that occur to me off the top of my head.

What is less obvious, perhaps, is when a coaching change must not be made. A coaching change should not be made if the future repercussions for the program outweigh the immediate ramifications of retaining the coach. For example, the public relations hit that Notre Dame took by firing Tyrone Willingham did not out-weigh the future potential for Willingham to do irreparable damage to the football program with another few terrible recruiting classes. On the flip side, it would not be prudent to fire Weis on the conclusion of this season for three primary reasons. One, barring any dramatic change(s), there aren't any exceptional candidates out there. Second, this season, at least to date, is an anomaly in Weis' career. Additionally, despite poor performances on the field, he has recruited exceptionally well. And third, firing Weis would virtually eliminate the possibility that another coach would want to come to Notre Dame. Would you want only three years to prove you could do your job well in a business where it takes (arguably) four years for your product to be produced? Unfortunately for Willingham, we suffered through five plus years of mediocre football with Davie. He didn't have the luxury of time. Weis has earned some leniency with good recruiting and two trips to the BCS. So for these reasons, it isn't really possible to fire Weis.

The question of who to hire is much more difficult to address. At a minimum, I would say the following criteria must be met:

1) The head coach must have experience as an assistant (preferably offensive or defensive coordinator) in a football program (college of professional) that has had consistent success. Too many times coaching hires are made based on the performance of one or a few seasons. A coach must be proven, and in college football the only way that occurs is if there is consistent success.

2) The head coach must have offensive or defensive coordinator experience. This doesn't mean he has to have it at a high profile college program or NFL team. He just needs to understand what it takes to gameplan and prepare for a game week in and week out.

3) The head coach must be able to relate to younger players. He must understand young adults, the challenges and problems college students face, how to effectively motivate and lead, and how to connect with his players. His personality must be one that relates to young people and the constant changes they undergo in their journey through life.

4) The head coach must be able to recruit well. There are a ton of things that go into this, proven success, being able to relate to the high school kids, forming relationships with high school head coaches, working tirelessly, and hiring a staff who can also recruit.

5) The head coach must be able to recognize and hire excellent and talented assistant coaches who can develop the talent he recruits.

6) The head coach must be disciplined, well organized, and consistent, and he must maintain a team with those same qualities.

7) The head coach must have goals that are aligned with the athletic department and University for which he is employed.

I am sure there are more things that make an excellent college head football coach than what I have listed above. But at a minimum, I believe he must have these qualities. And at a quick glance, Weis has them all save, perhaps, number three. For this reason, I would say a coaching change isn't necessary. Right now there are no other viable coaching options available. Right now, due to the mound of things working against this team I've listed a dozen times (youth, inexperience, lack of leadership, tough schedule etc.) it's tough to argue for or against Weis' ability as a coach. Right now the statement it would make to fire another coach after three years outweighs the negatives of keeping Weis around. Right now, we need continuity in the leadership and coaching philosophy of our football program.

Like I've said before (link here), I want Weis to succeed. I am hoping that this season is an aberration in his tenure as our head football coach. He is a Notre Dame man that understands the mission of the University and embraces success without compromising integrity. We must support him and the team. We have no choice. The only time it is acceptable not to do so is when a coaching change is not only needed, but also possible. Right now, that just isn't the case. Besides, my Godson gives him a thumbs-up (OK, he hasn't quite learned how to do it yet).

ESP Week Eleven

Here is the ESP for week 11. For the record, the AV predicts Duke will beat ND this weekend. It's only a small margin though, such that it's probably a toss up.

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:

Unfriendly Skies

We lost to Navy, we were blown out by Air Force. Once again our defense proved completely ineffective stopping a significantly slower, smaller, and less talented offense. And that was only the start of our problems. We couldn't move the ball consistently on offense and really only gained yards late in the game after Calhoun had called off the dogs. I am, once again, completely speechless. There is just no explanation for how poorly we have played this season. Say what you want about our difficult schedule, even with our youth and inexperience we have more talent than Stanford, Duke, Air Force, Navy, Purdue, and Michigan State. I look at next year's schedule and see no fewer than nine wins based on talent alone. Anything less, to me, would be a failure. In fact, I think an eleven win season is very do-able. Then I think about this year's performance and lack of improvement and believe we will be lucky to go 0.500.

Some will point to Clausen's play as a bright spot. I thought he made a couple of very good throws. I think his arm strength was improved, but still has some more room to grow. I think he needs to become more consistent and I think the success he had was really only after Air Force stopped blitzing, giving him some time to find receivers down field. Of course, it would have helped Clausen to not have several dropped balls. I also thought Allen and Aldridge ran tough again, when given room by our absolutely terrible offensive line.

The fifth year seniors, save Laws, have cashed it in. Not one of them have provided leadership to a team in desperate need of it. Laws has played out of his mind, but he alone hasn't been able to hold other players accountable for their effort (or lack thereof) on the field. I never thought I would see what I saw on Saturday, Tom Zbikowski not hustling to the ball. In fact, save the first drive, our defense really played largely uninspired football. There are some exceptions: Bruton, the aforementioned Laws, Walls, Brian Smith, Kuntz. But for the most part I did not see the effort I expect from players who wear the blue and gold.

And it was no different on offense where, even taking out the sack yardage, we managed to average fewer than three yards per carry against a defense we outweigh by 40+ lbs per man up front. There is just no excuse for it. At one point I saw Chris Stewart get stoned by a defensive end on Air Force who he outweighed by close to 80 lbs. Eighty freakin' pounds! Just lean on the guy. And it wasn't that Stewart was out-quicked, he was stood up, pushed back, and rendered utterly ineffective. That isn't talent, that isn't size, that isn't strength, that is a lack of will, determination, and heart.

I don't have the energy, effort, emotion, or time to write about the schematic blunders of this game. It was similar to the Navy game, run all the way down the field and then try three inexplicable passes to score, ultimately settling for a field goal. The first four offensive possessions put us in a hole we were never able to recover from. It's just pathetic.

And now Weis seems (and I stress seems) to be blaming the players for their lack of taking what he teaches and applying it to the field. He says he has been able to teach football at every level, to every different type of experienced student (although one could argue he has never had a team this inexperienced before). This is a slippery slope he is dealing with. The players and coaches are down and defeated, pointing the finger elsewhere at them isn't the thing to do. I empathize with him, he has tried everything he knows but still cannot explain the differences between what he sees in practice and on the field in a game. I do not envy his position, you can't beat them when they are down, but you can't allow them to continue to deliver the lackluster performances they are displaying on the field each weekend.

These guys need something to play for, they need the fans' and students' support, they don't need to hear boo's or see empty seats in the stands, something I never imagined would happen at a Notre Dame home game. We aren't out there working in practice every day. I understand there is a lack of effort by some players but we need to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. And Weis needs to find those who aren't playing hard every down and call them out on it. Some public humility may go a long way. And if they don't respond it may be time to get some younger players more experience.

I don't know what else to say. This season needs to get over quickly. These guys need a fresh start. I am uncertain about the future of our program under Weis. Like I said last week (link here), I want him to succeed because of the person he is, but I am not sure he can get is pointed back in the right direction. I don't see what an off-season and fall camp of more practice can do to improve a team that hasn't been able to improve all season. I can only hope for the best...and take solace in tOSU losing after walking through a terrifically easy schedule.

Unfriendly Waters

Before I get into the Navy game I'd like to cover a couple of things. I'd like to say that my thoughts and prayers go out to the Hughes and Shay families. I appreciate the gesture on behalf of the University at the beginning of the game. Both families must be suffering quite a bit right now and it certainly puts the role football plays in my life into perspective. Secondly, I'd like to applaud the fans yesterday for not booing the Navy players when they entered the stadium. The fans weren't, however, as kind to our own team after the game. I urge all to remember that it is likely no one is hurting more than the players and coaches on this team. Making our "disapproval" publicly known by booing the team doesn't help them improve and deal with the situation they are currently facing.

I'd also like to do some self promoting. For those of you that watched the game on television you were able to see a little plug by the University for our aerospace engineering graduate program. Attributing my undergrad and graduate academic success to the aerospace and mechanical engineering department of Notre Dame I was happy to see it being promoted.

I'd like to congratulate Navy and their players and fans. While this loss is immeasurably painful for me, I can't root against Navy. They wanted it more than we did and they deserved to win. What they go through on a daily basis is tremendous and I wish them luck in the rest of their season. Congratulations also go to Paul Johnson. The guy is a tremendous offensive coordinator knowing precisely when to call the plays that go for the jugular.

Offense

The only real bright spots I saw in our offensive play this week came in the form of four players. Schwapp was a man among boys. He consistently laid very tough, very physical blocks. I didn't see him miss many at all. There were quite a few plays where he was almost solely responsible for the success of the running play. Likewise, Kamara played very well, making some tough catches.

The brightest spot to me had to be Aldridge and Allen. Both ran very hard. Aldridge simply doesn't go down on first contact. He runs very hard and very determined. Allen continues to really impress me with how physically he is after first contact. I still cannot believe we haven't sprung him on a long run. I hold the wide receivers and their down field blocking responsible.

On the negative side of things our offensive line played terribly again. I know we ran all over them but it wasn't always consistent and their defense is, shall we say, less than stellar. It also seemed to me that on the downs where we really needed our line to play well they didn't show up. The third down run at the end of regulation to try and push us into better field goal range comes to mind. We have to have production when we need it, i.e. when the other team knows it's coming. This is simply a matter of determination and will. We don't seem to have it. Add to that the fact that they had 4 sacks with only 5 all season coming into this game and I cannot believe how terrible we are up front. There has been little if no improvement in our offensive line play. We have the talent but practice and game experience are doing little to develop it.

It also seems that we cannot execute a screen pass to save our life. Allen is a dangerous screen back. I don't blame Weis for continuing to try and get him the ball in the open field using the screen game but I do blame him for not being able to teach his offensive line how to execute it. This was such a strength for us the past two years I'm not sure how it isn't now.

If I had to pin the loss on one person (besides Weis) I'd say that it would have to be Evan Sharpley. He held onto the ball like it was a loaf of bread most of the game. The fumble was bound to happen. Even after the fumble he didn't change and protect the ball more. His decision making is poor and his accuracy is downright terrible. Part of it is him to blame, but part of it is Weis (I'll speak more to this below). I have to, however, give Sharpley credit. He didn't throw in the towel after his fumble which would have been very easy to do.

Defense

I cannot believe how poorly we played in this game. We looked like we didn't use any of the two weeks we had to prepare for defending the option. Navy got to the corner at will. I really don't believe we stopped them once. The only time we seemed to do anything positive was when they fumbled and when they hurt themselves with penalties. I know Navy is a good offensive football team and that other teams with good defenses had a tough time stopping them (Rutgers and Wake Forest come to mind) but we are stronger, faster, and bigger at every position. Our linebacker play was atrocious and our corners didn't play physically enough to set the edge at or near the line of scrimmage.

This past week I noted (in conversations with a friend) that the only way we would beat Navy is by changing field position and keeping them on their side of the field. Once they cross the 50 it is tough to stop them because they know they have four downs to pick up the first. We either didn't realize this or weren't able to stop them. Either way, we let them dictate the tempo of the game. We didn't attack. I know we may have been afraid of the play action pass, but it seemed like we paid too much attention to it. I didn't get the feeling that we ever "sold out" to stop the run. Inverting our safeties and corners would have gone a long way in helping. Corwin didn't prove capable of effectively game planning to stop the option, even after two weeks of time preparing for it.

Walls had a few good plays near the end of the game but for most of the game he played pansy football, allowed the Navy receivers to block him 7-8 yards down the field, and failed to be physical when taking on those blocks. Both corners played very poorly, not committing to stop the run soon enough as the play unfolded.

Special Teams

The punt return by Zibi was both timely and well executed, although he did much of the work on his own. Our kickoff returns were good but I'm really not sure how we haven't broken one with Tate or Allen yet.

I'm not sure how, at the University of Notre Dame, we can't have a competent kicker on scholarship. We have three scholarship kickers, all of whom aren't competent. I'm not saying we should always have an exceptional kicker, I'm saying we should have, in the very least, an average kicker. I don't know why we aren't looking for one in this year's recruiting class. I don't know how Weis cannot fix this problem, especially after having Vinatieri in New England win so many games for him. If Weis was certain we weren't able to kick a 41 yard field goal and have some chance of winning he should address this in the form of bringing in a competent kicker. He has missed on a kicker three times, this is ultimately his responsibility.

Weis

Up until this game I never believed Weis would lose a game for us. I no longer hold that opinion. I have written in the past that Weis would never mis-manage the clock, would never not play the right odds, and would always put us in a position to win. In this game there were many decisions he made that directly contributed to us losing the game.

Weis offensive strategy was good. The execution was poor. He knew there would be a very few possessions, he knew (especially as the game went on) that our defense couldn't stop them, and he knew changing the field position and giving them the ball deep in their own territory was essential (for the reasons I stated above). For these reasons he thought it imperative to keep the ball for long periods of time, move it down the field, and make sure that we kept their offense off the field. What I don't understand is the following: if you know you're going to go for it on fourth down and you know you need to maintain positive field position and time of possession, why would you pass? I understand the occasional play action to complement the running game but we were so effective running the ball that we could have converted nearly every first down as long as we ran the ball and used all four downs. We should have taken a page out of the Navy playbook.

It seemed like Weis couldn't resist calling passes. Then, when we weren't successful, we forced ourselves to play behind the down and distance, putting us into more obvious passing downs. In fact, the only time we needed to throw was when we had thrown early on in the down series and put ourself into long down and distance situations. I know what Weis was thinking, we were facing a terrible pass defense and we should have been able to effectively throw the ball. But the fact of the matter is that we didn't need to, we were running the ball successfully, and we can't protect our quarterback, especially on obvious passing downs.

Now that play calling is out of the way I'd like to talk about the two field goals that have been (and will continue to be) discussed ad nauseum. Weis' decision to not kick the first field goal was bad, the second, disastrous. Calling three pass plays in a row after the turnover seems like a poor idea. But I think Weis was trying to go for the jugular and steal the momentum. After the first incompletion he felt we had to throw again because, as I've said, we were behind the down and distance. I think it is prudent to run on second and third down to inch us closer to getting the field goal, especially since we just ran it all the way down the field on the previous drive. But we needed the field goal to take advantage of the Navy turnover, put them behind two scores, and keep the momentum that was clearly on our side. Navy isn't built to play from behind and 10-0 is much different than 7-0. I believe you have to attempt the field goal, regardless of whether or not you believe there is a large chance of success. The fact of the matter is the reward for putting Navy down two scores and keeping the momentum far outweighs the risk of not making the field goal.

If, however, you decide that there is no chance of making that field goal (which is most definitely false) why would you run a fake rather than line up with an offensive play and try and get the first down? Did Weis really think there is a greater chance of success faking a field goal with a running play and getting 15 yards than running a designed offensive pass play? If you are going to fake it, at least throw the ball so you have a chance of getting the 15 yards. I don't understand either part of his decision, first not to kick it and second to use a fake field goal running play rather than a regular offensive pass play. As it was, they stopped us on fourth down and took the momentum right back from us.

The decision to not kick the field goal at the end of the game was worse than the first. In fact, it was an inexcusable coaching error. I thought the play call prior to the 4th down play was great. We had success all day running that stretch play with Allen and I really thought that was the right call to make, get a few more yards and inch us in closer to get a more makeable field goal. It didn't work, our offensive line decided (once again) not to block at a critical point in the game, but I thought it was the right call. However, the choice about whether or not to attempt the field goal should not have been based on the outcome of that play. If we weren't on the 24 yard line I might say differently, we might have needed more yards to have a makeable field goal, but a 41 yard field goal is certainly makeable. The fact that Weis dismissed attempting the field goal as a viable option completely baffles me. We had a chance to end the game right there, to win it in regulation. No matter how small that chance is, you have to take it. There is no team built better to win in overtime. Navy can get 25 yards in their sleep and we hadn't stopped them all day. The decision not to attempt the field goal was a mistake and Weis' defense of his decision does not change that.

One more blunder I've started thinking about this week. I've written about how trying to learn a spread option game with Jones and trying direct snaps to Allen have set our offensive development back significantly. What I didn't really realize until this game was how the way Weis' handled the quarterback situation the past two years with Brady Quinn completed stunted Sharpley's development as a quarterback. If you are a junior who has been in the same system for three years you should be able to make reads and get rid of the ball. Sharpley simply doesn't do this. Accuracy and ball protection issues aside, he simply doesn't go through his reads quickly enough. This is a direct correlation to Brady Quinn taking all of the snaps in practice for the last two years. This is college football, you have to get the young players meaningful game and practice experience. You are only going to have a quarterback for 2-3 years, not 8-10. Not only that, the rest of the positions have turnover as well such that you need to develop quality depth. Not getting Sharpley more reps over the past two years seriously hurt his development as a player.

Going Forward

There have been many things that have gone wrong for our football team this year. I've listed them repeatedly on this blog in multiple posts: no leadership from the players in our upper classes, little talent in the junior and senior class, an impossible, front loaded schedule, an inexperienced offensive line, and a first time starter at quarterback. It isn't that one of these things is tough to overcome, it would be. It's that they have all happened at the same time. After all these losses the team is in a tough spot, things have spiraled downward, such that I'm not shocked that we didn't win this game. Having said that, I don't think we should ever lose to Navy.

I want Weis to succeed at Notre Dame. He is a Notre Dame man. The way he handled the Hughes tragedy, the way he cares about the success of the program, the charitable contributions he makes through Hannah and Friends, the generosity he displayed in his short relationship with Montana Mazurkiewicz, his untiring effort and never say die attitude, these things make me want a man like Weis at the head of our team. I keep going back and forth on whether he will ultimately lead us to success on the field. He does all the right things off the field. He nearly always (until this game) says the right things when football and our program is concerned. He never makes excuses. But currently I'm seriously doubting his abilities as a head coach. Talk is cheap, Bill Callahan can talk, we need to see results and I haven't seen any this year that convinces me he is the right person for the job. Looking back at the two previous years and including this season there are four things that stand out to me as consistent coaching deficiencies: no physical running game, poor special teams play, deficiencies in being able to adapt to the college game, and a lack of a physical, nasty attitude. All the other problems seem more circumstantial/situational to me.

People out there have questioned Weis' leadership abilities but I don't see that as a particular problem, I think some of the players don't necessarily fit with his leadership style but those seem, at least to me, to be the ones he didn't recruit. He is confident and consistent in the way he leads. He fights for his guys, and he never places the blame on anyone but himself. The one thing I would like to see him improve upon his ability to drive accountability in the team and players. A successful football team holds each other accountable. They don't only respond to coaching, criticism, and expectations from the their coach, they respond to it and demand it from each other.

I can only hope that this year is an aberration, that Weis is able to learn from his mistakes, that he understands the differences between the NFL and college game, and that we finally field the nasty football team he promised his first day on the job. It may turn out that he is a terrific recruiter and excellent coordinator, but not a very good head coach. Personally, I'm still pulling for him. It's about the only way I can maintain my sanity during this tough season.

ESP Week Ten

Here is the ESP for week 10. Notre Dame dropped down one spot in the strength of schedule. Sagarin followed this trend as well (link here). Oregon gained the top ranking in the AV.

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: