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.