Notre Dame vs. Michigan State Game Recap

Notre Dame shot itself in the foot multiple times Saturday, ultimately leading to their own demise. Coming off an emotional win against Michigan head coach Charlie Weis suspected emotionless play to be a problem, but he was hardly able to prevent it from handicapping Notre Dame’s offensive strategy.

Costly turnovers, combined with an inept rushing attack largely due to uninspired offensive line play, led to a 23-7 victory for the Spartans.

The turnovers left points on the board for the Irish and gifted points to Michigan State. The complete lack of a running game resulted in a decided disadvantage in ball control and a tired defense at the end of the contest.

Even without the turnovers, Notre Dame did not deserve to win. It may have been in a closer game, but the time of possession heavily favored the Spartans. And in a close game tired defenses are a liability.

Michigan State head coach Mark Dantonio knew this and rode running back Javon Ringer’s 39 carries and 201 yards to victory, controlling the clock until fatigue gave way to gaping running lanes in the fourth quarter.

The Irish would be wise to learn the value of an effective running attack from their opponents.

Offense

Offensive coordinator Mike Haywood is having a forgettable start to his career as a play caller. The Irish offense misses Weis’ playcalling prowess and Notre Dame is beginning to feel the impact. Haywood doesn’t think one or two plays ahead and doesn’t set up plays to stretch the field.

His approach is far more “throw it up against the wall and see what sticks” than clever planning. Whether it be via formation or down-and-distance tendencies, there is simply no creativity or intent to deceive the opposing defense.

Despite a glaring need to get short third down distances, play calling to achieve manageable third downs is a thing of the past.

Screens and draws must be used to slow an aggressive defense like Michigan State employed Saturday. Once a staple of Weis’ offense, the former wasn’t executed, the latter wasn’t used enough.

Additionally, there were multiple instances when a double move was practically begging to be called. There were also ample opportunities to execute such a play off a similar, previously used play call.

Presumably this would allow quarterback Jimmy Clausen to get the ball down the field in a manner other than trying to take advantage of a one-on-one matchup. Haywood didn’t call it once.

Despite a desire to the run the ball, Notre Dame has suffered through the better part of 15 games with a coaching staff seemingly unable to craft an effective, first-strike running scheme.

This was never more evident than against Michigan State.

The Irish were not unwilling to run the football. They were simply unable. Haywood wanted to run the ball to control the game and keep Ringer off the field. This was a good strategy and paramount to success.

But the first six offensive plays were runs that went for nothing. After that Notre Dame only called a designed run once every five plays. It isn’t difficult to stop a one-dimensional offense, no matter what dimension it employs.

Spreading the field and throwing the ball was the best option to win. The coaching staff made the appropriate adjustment during the game. The problem lies in the fact that Notre Dame is unable to run the football proficiently and consistently. And there is no excuse. In fact, it is altogether embarrassing.

The Irish have the talent to run the ball. In this game (and in most games) Notre Dame held a distinct size advantage up front. But a lack of determination by the offensive line, poorly designed running plays, and a lack of creative play calling all contributed to a woeful ground game.

There is little-to-no misdirection, the motioning tight end frequently gives away the direction of play, and no effort is made to utilize the specific talents of the three running backs or the offensive line. The staff has recruited two bigger, pounding running backs and beefed up the offensive front, but still frequently challenges the players to employ a finesse running game that takes too long to develop.

It’s like asking to fit a square peg into a round hole.

The alternative, asking a young team to consistently spread the field and execute a short drop, hot read, sight adjustment passing game, isn’t reasonable.

Admittedly, the difference between this game and 2007 was increased efficiency in this area as the Irish capably moved the ball at times. In 2007 the Irish didn’t give themselves scoring opportunities, now they simply aren’t converting them.

But relying on such a high level of precision execution with a young offense isn’t smart coaching. This is especially true when all the pieces needed for an effective running game are already on the roster.

This is no more evident than in Notre Dame’s red zone efficiency. The Irish are 4 of 11 in the red zone, potentially leaving 21 to 49 points on the field. Most of this poor efficiency is due to inconsistent execution on a short field, where going deep with the ball isn’t possible due to limited real estate. An effective running game would certainly help mitigate this problem.

Of course, the offensive line certainly didn’t help.

Poor play calling aside, there was no passion up front for the Irish. Notre Dame’s offensive line was timid and hesitant, not aggressive and dominating. The Irish got no movement off the ball against a defensive front they vastly outweighed. Lack of emotion threw the game plan right out the window.

Michigan State deserves all the credit. They took a page out of the 2007 defensive playbook against the Irish and followed the recipe well: shut down the run, play press-man on the outside, and blitz Clausen all day. Notre Dame never managed to match their intensity.

Clausen continues to struggle protecting the ball as well, averaging two interceptions per game. While some of his throws are excellent, he is still inconsistent, doesn’t move up into the pocket to evade the pass rush, and throws deep balls up for grabs rather than putting it where only his receiver (or the ground) can get it. There were several times Saturday when Clausen missed big play opportunities because he didn’t throw the ball accurately down the field.

Freshman tight end Kyle Rudolph continues to be an enormous liability in the running game and a modest contributor in the passing game. It is puzzling why he remains on the field. With junior Will Yeatman likely off the team for his second alcohol related offense, junior Luke Schmidt must step up and be a force in the running game.

There were, however, some bright spots for the Notre Dame offense.

The Irish converted better than 46.2 percent of their third downs, up from the 25 percent rate they entered the game with. This came despite continued poor execution on first and second down as Notre Dame faced third and long on over 90 percent of their chances.

The pass blocking continues to be an area of improvement for the Irish. Even though Clausen was sacked three times and pressured numerous others, the Irish protected him well for most of the day. It’s difficult to stop a defensive front that knows you are throwing the football. Notre Dame is only giving up one sack per 32 pass attempts, a dramatic improvement from 2007.

Golden Tate continues to be a playmaker and should only blossom more with time. He has a “never quit” attitude and the talent to do special things with the ball in his hands. It is puzzling why he doesn’t get it more often. Freshman Michael Floyd also had a very productive day.

But the overall offensive performance was lackluster and disappointing. Significant strides must be made to be consistently effective moving the ball in the future. Being one-dimensional handicaps the players and gives a distinct advantage to the defense. Cutting out drive-killing turnovers would also be beneficial.

Defense

The defense played very well against the Spartans, allowing quarterback Brian Hoyer to complete less than 50 percent of his passes and containing Ringer to 2.9 yards per carry if you take out his three big runs. Most of Michigan State’s offensive production came in the waning moments of the game when the Irish defense ran out of gas.

As the defense wore down Ringer became more effective and without a substantial lead (or one at all) Notre Dame couldn’t force Hoyer to win the game. As a team, Notre Dame didn’t do what it needed to do to win. As a unit, the defense held up for as long as it could.

The poor recruiting along the defensive line in Weis’ first two years is starting to show. The lack of depth along the front 3/4 ensures that the Irish must sell out to stop the run. Against Michigan State it was a matter of getting tired. Against a two-dimensional offensive football team it will lead to big plays in the passing game.

Besides Terrail Lambert, the secondary played well throughout the day. Other than a few mistakes Notre Dame tackled well and rotated into coverage. Raeshon McNeil has certainly begun to erase memories of Darrin Walls with his excellent play and safety Kyle McCarthy continues to be a sure tackler.

The linebacker play for Notre Dame continues to be a strength of the defense. A few years removed from some of the worst linebacker play in years, assistant head coach Jon Tenuta has morphed Maurice Crum and Brian Smith into a potent combination of speed, aggression, and talent. Smith, in particular, has the potential to be an All-American.

The Irish focused on shutting down the run against Michigan State and did so for most of the day. The problem typically came on third down. Despite forcing the Spartans into third and long on 90 percent of their tries, Notre Dame allowed Michigan State to convert on 40 percent of their tries.

Even with a high blitz rate Notre Dame still only has one sack on the year. Against Michigan State many of the blitz’s were aimed at filling the gaps to stop the running game. But for all the hoopla surrounding Tenuta’s attacking and aggressive defensive scheme, it certainly hasn’t been productive in the sack column.

As discussed above, the fatigue of the defense was directly tied to the inability to run the football and control the clock. This was a problem against Michigan in week two but a comfortable lead prevented it from coming back to hurt the Irish. It will continue to be a problem in close games if Notre Dame’s offensive staff fails to develop a running game.

Special Teams

Special teams are a mixed bag for the Irish. While the coverage units are solid, the return teams are inconsistent. The field goal unit hasn’t attempted a reasonably easy opportunity, but having problems with the snap and/or hold on half of the attempts don’t provide a lot of confidence.

Summary

This game is evidence that Weis is still learning how to do his job. He is learning the college game, he is learning to be a head coach, and he is doing both at the same time.

It seems like four years would be enough to get up that learning curve. But the success of years one and two never really forced Weis to do it. This isn't an excuse, it is reality. Weis has shown a willingness to change, but that might not be enough.

The excuses are running out for Weis. While still young, the Irish are plenty talented. They don’t need to win every game but they should at least be competent and competitive. The defense has improved from an already respectable unit in 2007 but the offense is still struggling even though it is Weis’ area of expertise.

The primary problem on offense seems to be Weis’ cerebral approach to the game. In the NFL this approach is an advantage, you take what the defense gives you and creatively scheme each week.

But in college it is often times more advantageous to simply impose your will and dictate the game. Teaching an offense to react to opposing defenses requires ample practice time and physically and mentally mature players. Weis is still struggling with these differences.

This is apparent in his week-to-week offensive game plan and inadequacy at motivating his players.

The Irish see-saw between game plans based on the weaknesses of opposing defenses. This creates a lack of continuity among the offensive players. Sometimes constant change creates more problems than the changes solve.

Rather than practicing multiple things each week, the Irish would be better served perfecting one facet of their offense and building around it. That doesn’t mean the Irish can’t tweak their offensive game plan based on the opposition. It just means the team needs an identity, something to build on, something the offense can always come back to when they need yards.

Motivation is also a factor. For the third time in four years Weis correctly identified passive play as a potential obstacle heading into the game against Michigan State.

In 2005 the Irish came off an emotional win over a highly ranked Michigan squad only to start slow and climb an uphill battle against the Spartans. In 2006 Notre Dame suffered a devastating defeat to the Wolverines before traveling to East Lansing and needing a monumental fourth quarter comeback to beat Michigan State. This season the Irish followed a big win over Michigan with a pathetic first half of offensive production.

Each time Weis was unable to solve a problem he correctly anticipated. It’s difficult to motivate players when you’re constantly teaching the mental aspects of the game as the key to winning. It de-emphasizes the importance of physical play. Increasing the physicality of practices helps, but a finesse-based offense doesn’t.

Game planning and motivating aside, the most disturbing aspect of Weis’ offensive approach is his staff’s inability to develop an effective running game. There are multiple, compelling benefits of a proficient ground attack and it is a necessary ingredient to consistently beat good football teams and compete for national championships.

It is difficult to imagine such an experienced offensive coaching staff not understanding the importance of running the football. It is also difficult to imagine said coaching staff being unable to develop an effective rushing scheme. But one or the other will have to give for Weis to succeed in the long term at Notre Dame.