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?

ESP Week Six

It's week six and that means the release of the ESP. For those of you who don't know how this works go here. Each week I will release an updated version of the ranking system based on the previous week results. This week has all of the games played through October 7th. For your reference, our beloved Fighting Irish come it at 98 out of 120 Division-I teams in the AV Ranking.

As a reference point and as I pointed out earlier (link here), the AV ranking successfully predicted four of the five BCS winners last year missing only the USC, Michigan game which the ranking essentially predicted to be a toss-up based on an extremely narrow points margin.

The ESP ranking:

The 8 team ESP playoff braket:

The AV ranking 1-25:

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

Purdue Recap And Some Other Thoughts

After a good, safe trip back from Sweden I was able to watch the MSU and Purdue games in (at times) excruciating detail. I'm not really going to comment directly on the MSU game (Dave already did that here) with one major exception. As for the Purdue game, I have quite a bit to say.

Michigan State

The one thing I tried to pinpoint when watching this game was why we were successful running the ball at some points during the game while not being successful at others. I devoted my entire viewing experience to this one item and found some pretty interesting things that seemed to carry over into the Purdue game.

First, against MSU we seemed to only run the ball successfully using zone toss plays to the weak side of the offensive formation. A large part of this success was due to slow reaction by the defense primarily caused by them over-playing our strong side and the blocking of Schwapp. He played pretty well in this game when asked to block a linebacker one-on-one. Additionally, the blocking of our wide receivers was improved, particularly West. When we tried to run it up the middle, no matter which back or what type of blocking scheme we used, we didn't have much success. In fact, I would argue that the only positive yardage we gained on these plays was almost all due to the effort of our running backs.

Then I took a closer look. It makes no sense to me that we can't convert ANY third and fourth down short yardage situations on the ground. Normally I would blame Weis for poor play calling but I think he is trying to prove a point and make our team tougher. It's hard for me to argue against this giving that I believe you don't deserve to win when you can't pick up a yard on the ground. What I did notice, however, is that the defensive line seemed to nearly always get off the ball before and quicker than we did. So I started watching our running plays in slow motion and came to the following conclusion: we are going on the same quarterback cadence on ever play.

I think that, due to early false start penalties against Georgia Tech and Penn State and to give the offensive line less to remember, Weis has gone to a pretty consistent snap count in order to "dumb things down." We have gotten far fewer false start penalties but the defenses have started to pick up on this and are using it to their advantage. For an offense, knowing the snap count is a huge advantage. Most often this advantage comes into play as the offensive line can get push by obtaining a superior position of leverage on the defensive line. For us, it seems that this has been reversed. We don't get push on running plays because we don't get off the ball quicker than our defensive counterparts and can't get into a position of leverage.

Let me say that I cannot definitively prove this. I can't hear the snap count and trying to measure the time it takes to get to the line of scrimmage and execute a play isn't a good judge of the quarterback cadence. Too much is going on at the line of scrimmage to tell. In the Purdue game I saw more of this, especially with our guards on inside running plays. The way in which we have been unable to protect our quarterbacks in the passing game also supports this conjecture.

The advantage of the defense knowing the snap count really only allows them to get penetration. It is primarily an advantage on the outside, coming off the edge, although it is also advantageous when trying to stack the line on short yardage plays, particularly at the goal line. So it makes sense that most of our sacks have come from outside pressure when the defensive lineman is getting a head start, so to speak, on our offensive tackles.

A few other things I saw in the MSU game was the physicality of MSU's secondary and lack of physical play of our secondary. Ringer had many good runs on the outside where Walls et. al. were getting blocked seven to eight yards down the field. I also think we played a lot of man coverage in this game (and in all our games) because we need to be able to keep seven in the box to have any chance of stopping the run especially since we only have one good defensive lineman.

Purdue

The Purdue game is one of those games where you have to ask the question(s) are we improved or are they just not any good. I think the true answer is somewhere in between both ends of the spectrum but I would like to say (and have before) that Brock Spack has no business being a Division I defensive coordinator and that Purdue's secondary is terrible. I believe they will lose 3-5 games in the Big Ten portion of their schedule this year because their secondary is awful, they can't get pressure on the quarterback with their front four, and they won't be able to protect Painter with only five against the more athletic defensive lines they face. Additionally, I didn't think Painter looked particularly good. The numbers were good but he made a lot of poor throws.

The Quarterback Controversy

First things first, I don't think Sharpley played better than Clausen. I thought both played well. There's a pretty good comparison of their play here. But the biggest difference to me in this game versus the past four was in our ability to protect the quarterback. I don't know if we improved quite a bit, if it was because they weren't blitzing all that often, or because we seemed to do a better job with our running backs protecting in the backfield, but we really gave our quarterbacks a lot more time. It was likely a combination of the three things listed that led to our success.

I thought Clausen showed more zip on his balls than in the past. He continues to impress me with his ability to throw to a spot, not to a receiver. He has tremendous accuracy and is very tough. He does stare down receivers, occasionally forces some balls, and has some coverage recognition problems. But those are mostly problems associated with youth and inexperience, not talent. He is also inconsistent with his timing on throws. Sometimes he puts the ball right where it needs to be, before the receiver comes out of his break. Other times he waits too long giving the defender time to come back to the ball. Most of this should be worked out with repetition and getting used to his receivers.

My biggest concern with Clausen is his ability to throw down the field. I haven't seen him throw it further than 45 yards and when I have he seems to put a lot of air under it. A good quarterback can throw it 55-60 yards down the field on the outside with pretty good velocity.

I thought Sharpley played much better than he did against Georgia Tech, particularly when pressured. He had more poise in the pocket, moved around better, and was able to get rid of the ball or turn potential negative gains into positive gains or no losses quite a few times. I think Sharpley has a stronger arm than Clausen but often times he throws to a man, not to a spot. This results in him not leading his receivers, losing precious RAC (Run After the Catch) yards. Like Clausen, he locks onto receivers and forces some passes. But again, this can be corrected. Ware's assertion that the team responded more to Sharpley didn't seem to be the case to me.

General Comments

We can't win kicking the ball off to their fifteen yard line, giving the opposition good field position, getting stupid penalties, not sustaining drives, or missing two extra points (really three) and having a field goal blocked. Take those five points plus the seven we left on the field when Sharpley threw his interception and the game is completely different. While we had good field position this game, Purdue started many drives on their own 40-ish yard line. That's too short of a field. We gave them six first downs via penalties. On one of Purdue's scoring drives in the second half we gave up 35 yards in penalties on a short field. We should have just given them the seven points and saved our energy. That's just unacceptable. They ran 40+ plays in the first half. That's nearly as many as some teams run in a game. We have to be more consistent in getting first downs and keeping our defense off the field. When we sustained drives in the second half the game started to turn our way. The defense was fresher, they fed on the offense's improved play, and we played better as a team. And we can't give up third and a mile, it's just unacceptable.

Offensive Standouts

Dave was right all along. Our receivers are quickly becoming a strength. And I'm not just talking about Golden Tate. I know everyone is in love with him right now but it's been one game. He is far from becoming a complete player and he will hit some bumps along the way. Obviously he has tremendous speed and athleticism, including a surprising ability to go up for the ball. But being a great receiver is far more than this. It is about precision, running routes in a consistent manner, and being able to make three different routes look identical until the cut.

Kamara is really coming into his own. He is learning how to use his body to shield defenders. With his big frame this is invaluable. West is superb on comeback routes and out in the open field with the ball. Parris has excellent hands and a great feel for how to sit down in the zone. About the only receiver I wasn't pleased with was Carlson. His blocking was poor again and he dropped a few catchable balls.

The offensive line played much better in terms of pass protection but this may be a result of Purdue's lack of quality defensive linemen. I was very disappointed in our inability to run the ball especially considering we significantly outweighed them up front. When we face a team with defensive ends that weigh in the 240 lbs range we should be able to run it right at them. We can't block away from the play on any type of stretch and Sullivan's play on short yardage downs was particularly disappointing. I thought he was supposed to be our fifth year senior leader. I still can't believe we aren't stronger, more physical, and quicker off the ball. Someone needs to light a fire in these guys.

I thought Jabbie played well but he was really the only back who had room to work due to our improved passing game opening up the run. Allen looked much faster in this game than in the past making some pretty unbelievable cuts. I wish we could open up some more holes for him.

One thing that particularly concerns me about our running game is that it seems to take too long to develop. I don't know if this is due to Aldridge and Hughes being slower, more bruising type of backs, if the plays are designed to take too long, if we can't sustain blocks, or if we are lining up too deep in the backfield, but something has to give. We need to get back to the line of scrimmage with the ball much more quickly.

Defensive Standouts

There were two things on defense that stood out to me more than anything else. First, when we were able to get pressure on Painter with our front four we were largely successful. When we couldn't he had a lot of time and we didn't cover well down the field. It's tough to ask our secondary to do that. This is the primary reason we allowed third and a mile to be converted.

Second, our inside linebacker play is absolutely atrocious. They don't know the meaning of words/phrases like "scrape," "pursue down the line of scrimmage," "fill the hole," or "attack downhill." Crum and Brockington take too long to read the play, don't step up to meet blocks at the point of attack, take terrible angles to the ball, and do not pursue at a shallow angle to the line of scrimmage. They both played extremely poor football. The 3-4 defense is predicated on being able to free up your inside linebackers letting them run to the ball. In this game they were free for a good amount of time but they hesitated, didn't read/react quickly, and then allowed an offensive lineman to get to them 3-4 yards down the field. It's just pathetic.

Mendoza needs to get our defense stronger and bigger without sacrificing speed. Particular attention needs to be paid to McNeil and Walls but it won't hurt Ryan and the rest of our linebacking corps. Kerry Neal cannot play defensive end in a four man front. He was owned most of the day.

We didn't tackle particularly well in the open field at times. If I were an opposing team I would run right at Deon Sanders, er Darrin Walls. The kid just can't fight off a block and make a play on a running back.

About the only bright spots I saw on defense was the play of Kyle McCarthy and Trevor Laws. Laws just can't be blocked by one person. Additionally, I thought we played with renewed passion in the second half.

Motivated Vs. Inconsistent

Speaking of passion I wanted to make a distinction about something I saw in the game prompted by a comment from a friend. Call it what you want (passionate, inspired, or determined), playing tough, hard, fast, football is largely about the attitude of motivated individuals. Sometimes I think this is confused with inconsistent play. In the first half we played largely unmotivated and inconsistent, in the second, we played inconsistently but with motivation. Not playing with motivation is disastrous for a young or under-manned team. We are currently the former and at times this year will also be the latter.

Inconsistent play is dropping passes, protecting your quarterback at times while not at others, not being able to pick up positive yardage every time you run the ball, and stupid penalties. That is expected of young teams and corrected by repetitions in practice. I don't blame this much on the coaching staff except for when it pertains to our more veteran players, or if these inconsistencies continue as our young players become more experienced. I expected inconsistent play from this team and was one of the reasons I thought we would struggle to win some of our more winnable games.

Motivation, on the other hand, has two parts. Part of being a motivated team comes from the coaching staff, particularly the head coach. I would use the term "prepared" but it is basically having the team in the right mindset, properly motivated to play the game. It is different from X's and O's preparation. Being poorly prepared in terms of offensive and defensive strategies shows up in the game as not putting your players in positions to make plays and win the game. That wasn't (and isn't) the problem. Being prepared from a motivation perspective is all about the team's attitude, no fear, expecting to win, being pumped up and ready to play. This is the area I believe Weis has struggled.

But motivation also comes from the players themselves, especially from the leaders. And I'm not sure I've ever seen a more poorly led team than the one we have fielded this year. I know some people lead by example, but there seems to be a huge disconnect between how Sullivan, Laws, Zibi, Thomas, and Crum lead and what the team needs.

Conclusions

I think it is a huge testament to the amount of talent we have on our team that we were even in the game against Purdue. We played error football, had three turnovers, gave the opposition excellent field position, and couldn't sustain drives for an entire half, yet we were still in the game. I don't believe it should have taken this long (or a defensive team this poor) to see an offense capable of scoring but it is what it is. I hope this game serves as a confidence builder for our future. My only question is how many of our games this year would we have won had we played them like we played in the second half against Purdue? I would wager Purdue, MSU, and Penn State.

Post Game Report Card: Purdue

Thoughts on Purdue

The spread offense definitely works for this team. There were HUGE holes on our D-line and they gave Sheets the opportunity to run for some really nice plays. This opened up the pass game for Painter and he had an OKday. Boy, did he have some time to throw the football in the first half as well! We did a bit more pressure-wise in the second half when the offense took some pressure off our D.

Two other thoughts on these guys that really stood out to me. First, you can see this is a well-coached team. They were very fundamentally sound. They generate big plays without flashy players because everyone does their job. Also, this is a mature team. They have some key leaders on the field (specifically Painter and Sheets). We have really lacked this type of guy, specifically on offense (Sullivan and Carlson have not exhibited this to me).

Quarterbacks: B-

I thought Clausen looked like a completely different quarterback today. He showed a much bigger arm throwing downfield (Pilcher, are you still convinced this kid can make the throws yet?). He also managed the team so much better.

That said, he still made freshman mistakes. The INT he threw in the second quarter across his body should not have happened. He needs to know when to throw it away or take a sack. That is an impossible throw.

Sharpley actually looked good when he came in for the injured Clausen. He forced a couple of throws but checked off to his man underneath a couple of times, got rid of the ball and made smart choices. He got help by Tate on two deep balls (not great throws in my opinion, but great catches).

So, the announcers were basically calling for a quarterback controversy in the second half. Let me go on record by saying that I think Clausen gives us the best chance to win. Yes, Sharpley came in and played with confidence. Players responded to him. But they were responding to Clausen as well.

I think it is a horrible thing to change QB’s now. This was Clausen’s best game. He got us back in this thing and started to swing the momentum. Weis made his pick and we need to stick with the kid.

Running Backs: D-

We had zero running game in the first half. Aldridge was not able to get things going early and establish the physical run. This was especially disappointing considering that is one of the only good things we did last week. Armando Allen had a couple of nice runs/catches, but fumbled again.

We pretty much abandoned the run in the second half. I think Junior Jabbie probably led our team in rushing the last two quarters (why do we play that guy?).

Fullbacks: D

Schwapp had one catch, but otherwise these guys were not on the field much. Clearly, there wasn’t a lot of run blocking either.

Wide Receivers: A-

George West looked really good to me today. He really looks special when he has the ball and a little bit of space. In the first quarter, I think he juked 3 guys to get 7 or 8 yards on a screen pass.

How is Golden Tate not playing every down out wide for us? Sick, sick catch on the up ball from Clausen in the two minute drill at the end of the first half. Then the two catches from Sharpley in the 4th quarter? Unreal. If you recall, he did a similar thing against Georgia Tech. This kid is a special talent.

Duval Kamara needs to have a bigger role in the offense. He had some really nice catches across the middle (as well as the diving comeback throw in the first half). He has huge hands (looks like he can catch pretty much anything thrown his way) and has the big body that we need to make bigger catches in traffic. Robbie Parris also had a couple of big catches.

I still think we have talent here. I said that these guys would surprise this season and today is the type of performance that I expect out of this group. We have some young guys who could be stars (Tate, Kamara, West) and an established guy (Grimes) and they will continue to get better as the season progresses and they build a better rapport with Clausen.

Tight Ends: B+

Huge, huge, huge touchdown catch by Carlson in traffic. He also caught a couple of other balls (one where he moved the pile about 5 yards after being stood up). Statistically, this wasn’t a big game for Carlson. He did show the type of effort and leadership though that builds his value to the team.

Offensive Line: C

How can we not execute on a 4th and 1 play? We failed here again this week (twice). I swear, we have faced something like 10 4th and 1’s and I don’t know if we have executed one of them. How can our guys not lean forward and get that yardage?

We also continue to pick up holding penalties. I can’t figure out how we can’t block anyone even while picking up these penalties? Sam Young, I am calling you out on this. You are the most talented guy on our O-Line and you have to stop making these dumb mistakes.

These guys are not establishing the run and still not giving Clausen great time. We had zero running game again and JC took some really vicious hits out there and was clearly banged up in the second half of the game.

The second half gave us hope though. They only allowed two total sacks and we started moving the ball at the end of the 3rd quarter. Hey, its something.

Defensive Line: C

I feel so bad for Trevor Laws. That guy’s motor is always going at about 150% and he is limited because of the inexperienced, outmanned D Line. At least Joe Brockington stepped up today. I thought he had a pretty nice game. Still, they gave up over 140 yards to a pretty average back and didn't produce a lot of QB pressure. Not all their fault, but they were far from perfect.

Linebackers: D

So last week I touted my call of Brian Smith being a “freshman surprise” after being one of our less publicized recruits last year. Well, today he sucked. He had some really dumb penalties and single-handedly sustained a Purdue scoring drive.

Otherwise, not much to comment on here. Crum is playing his heart out as always. I wish we had more playmakers here and I know we have young talent that should grow into this role (Smith and Neal), but right now I feel like this group isn’t doing much.

Cornerbacks: C

Walls giving up that ball on 3rd and 29 in the first half was really disappointing. I want to see this guy be physical. He missed quite a few tackles that led to some big plays. I am impressed with his cover skills but upset in some of the stupid mistakes he makes (as well as the lack of tackling etc).

You are also starting to see more of Rashon McNeil out there. It is nice to see a bigger, more physical CBon the field. He also looks pretty disciplined (there was an end around Purdue ran where he kept his lane and didn’t let the receiver get around him).

I think everyone had an OKgame today. I like how these guys play in man but feel that their zone defense tends to be manipulated too easily.

Safties: B+

Well, Kyle McCarthy had a nice (though pretty easy) pick at the end of the first half. Zibby also had a pick (a ball Painter shouldn’t have thrown) which was nice and played pretty well overall (he made a lot of tackles). Bruton was OKas well.

Special Teams: F

The good news is we ALMOST didn’t get shut out in the first half. The 35 year old field goal attempt was blocked with about 55 seconds left. There was definitely penetration on the right side of the line, but the kick also looked a bit low.

Brandon Walker’s missed extra point was inexcusable after Clausen’s touchdown pass to Carlson. Then Whitaker’s miss was horrible. It looked to me that there was a snap or hold issue on both of these (definitely on the second one). Whitaker finally made one on the third TD (and his third try).

Eric Maust kicking for Geoff Price? OK, I know he had a really bad game last week, but Maust just doesn’t have the same leg as Price. I wonder what happened this week that kept Price out of the game?

It is inexcusable that our special teams are this bad. A lot of this is simple execution stuff. Yeah, kickers are going to miss kicks. But how do we not get holds consistently down or block? Horrible.

Coaching: C+

Charlie finally unleased Clausen a bit on offense. As everyone saw, it made a huge difference. If we can re-establish that physical running game and keep throwing downfield we will move the ball. We can’t be one dimensional like that last two weeks, we need balance.

This just in: Charlie calls games aggressively. The 4th and 1’s to consistently rely on the back up the middle, the couple of long 4th down plays (the Tate and Parris catches), etc. These calls worked out today as a whole (not the 4th and 1’s) and I guess that is why they pay him the big bucks.

I continue to think that the team buys Charlie. You could see they were fired up in the second half. You could see they responded to changes made throughout the game. They have not given up and that says a lot on a team that is now 0-5.

Other

There is clear frustration on this team. There are unnecessary penalties (late hit at the end of the first half by Bruton, a couple of Brian Smith plays, etc.) and other stupid mental mistakes. I guess this is to be expected but we keep kicking ourselves by incurring these types of penalties.

There are three playmakers that I see on this team. The first one is Armando Allen. This is not surprising and he has carried big expectations with him since arriving on campus this January. George West also continues to impress me. He looks really shifty in the open field and we need to get him the ball with some room. The final guy who really gives me hope is Golden Tate. He is a little guy but just knows how to go after the ball. I guess I have a soft spot for a guy who is 5’10” on a good day and outjumps the defender every time a ball is thrown his way. We need to keep working the football to these three guys.

I wanted to comment on our fans again. I know that this is an easy trip/drive, but we had a ton of folks in the stadium. They were loud and made themselves known. That makes me proud when the team is 0-4 and we are reacting in that manner.

What the Hell is Happening?

So, I feel compelled to chime in and add my thoughts on all of the craziness surrounding the exodus of players from ND Football. Today, we lost our third player to transfer in three weeks with Chris Stewart, a soph. offensive lineman deciding to head home. These is still hope that he could make his way back to South Bend (the South Bend Tribune interviewed his dad and he still really wants him at ND). We should know more next week.

Stewart (maybe), Konrad Reuland (Tight End) and Demetrius Jones (QB) have all left this season. Of course, everyone also remembers Zach Frazier leaving after being eliminated from the QB race. We have lost a total of four soph. players this season and a total of 16 since Weis took over from Willingham. But what does this all mean?

Well, I think there are two angles here. None of the four players that have transferred this year had significant roles on the team. Chris Stewart is an offensive lineman who has bounced back and forth on both sides of the ball. Konrad Reuland was now our fourth string tight end after Carlson, Yeatman and just last week Ragone passed him. Everyone knows the Demetrius Jones story and knows he was never going to be the started at ND. Remember, all of these guys were 4 or 5 star recruits and definitely have a desire to play. They weren’t getting that chance at ND, even with a team starting 0-4.

So, is that it? Did these kids just want an opportunity to play and felt they needed to leave to do so? Maybe. I think this is clearly the case for Frazier and Jones. I think Stewart and Reuland never fully bought into the ND culture, be it because of the school or Weis. Eventually that drove them away (and this is normal, every class has this happen).

What does this mean? Well, in the media this is being twisted as an exodus. I don’t believe that. Transfers are pretty normal, especially when playing time is an issue. Is that timing good here? Hell no. Do I think this is a trend that will continue throughout the year? No, I really don’t. I think almost all of these guys are on board.

The bigger concern for me here is our verbal and future recruits. Can you imagine what they must be thinking? This team is 0-4, players are leaving and running for the hills. I am sure other coaches are having a field day with this. We are already hearing of guys like Omar Hunter getting offers from USC, even with his verbal.

What can Weis do? Simply, he has to start winning. He needs to win 5 or 6 games this year. He needs to show the world that his players haven’t given up. He needs to show glimpses of the young star power his team has. He needs to sell the 0-4 record as an opportunity to the young kids who want to come in here, experience ND and bring it back to its glory.

This can be done, but Weis needs to start this ball rolling now. A win against Purdue would be huge (and note we are 22 point underdogs going into this game). If not Purdue, then UCLA and Boston College. We need to get desperate.

I am convinced that 2008 will be Weis’ make it or break it year. People are definitely starting to doubt his coaching abilities. His seat will get warm this year if he doesn’t turn this around quickly. That said, 2008 will be a no excuses year no matter what and he is going to have to have a BCS year to get the fan’s confidence back. He needs to start building that capability now by developing our young talent.

Keep the faith guys. We aren’t going to lose the whole team to transfer and we have a killer class coming in (and losing a couple of guys if worse comes to worse won’t create a disaster). We are building talent. Hopefully we can win 5 or 6 games this year and build for 2008. We can still turn this thing around.

Post Game Report Card: Michigan State

General Comments

Notre Dame had never started a season 0-4. Until now. I know, I know, you hear this and you die a little inside. It is the first time in my life I have struggled to watch full games because of the “growing pains.”

We did manage to score two offensive touchdowns with one generated off a nice, sustained hard-nosed drive. While we slipped back into our anemic offense post this, it still showed signs of hope.

I must say I am very, very proud of our fans today. They were supportive, fired up and you could tell it had an affect on the team, especially early on. I hope this continues throughout the season as the team needs it.

A somewhat random comment, but I feel the need to point out our field position issue. Field position has been a huge killer for us all year. We have had so many plays and drives with zero progression. We have also struggled punting the ball. We have been at a huge disadvantage all year due to this. Counting the opening kickoff in the 2nd half, MSU started drives in our territory 4 times. It is really hard to be successful defensively with this being the case. Ok, onto the report card.

Quarterback: C

Jimmy Clausen is experiencing some growing pains. He is making a lot of rookie mistakes. The turnover where the ball was pulled out of his hands was inexcusable (he shouldn’t have been 10 yards deep trying to make a play happen. He also continues to hold the ball for way too long.

I am really starting to think that Clausen is going to have to step up and win games for us in order to win period. Going 7 for 13 for 53 yards just isn’t going to do it. We need to develop a passing game (with some sort of vertical threat) to make things happen. The running game can’t be our only weapon.

I don’t know enough about Weis’ philosophy on pulling Clausen these last two games. I think the kid has done an ok job. If he feels that he doesn’t want him to get hurt, I get it. But I don’t see how he thinks Sharpley is going to stimulate something (it is very clear to me Clausen is the better QB). Just a note, as we know Clausen is the starter. I just don’t like this strategy.

Running Backs: B

Aldridge and Hughes made immediate impacts hammering the ball up the middle. We looked like a pretty physical running team, especially in the first half. Aldridge’s game of 18 carries for 104 yards was solid. He showed good vision, the desire to get physical and adequate speed. I think Anthony’s points that he has made into needing this type of presence to win was proven today.

On a personal note, I was very, very happy to see Travis Thomas get the first touchdown of the year for us. He has pissed me off with his penalties (another special teams one today), but there is no one on the team who wants it more.

Fullbacks: C

I am constantly amazed that Scwapp has not been able to get us a yard this year. I know the line isn’t helping him and no one else is converting either, but it seems to me that he could lean forward and get this. Surprising. Nice to see Luke Schmidt make a catch today.

Tight Ends: D

John Carlson had 1 catch for 16 yards. I still don’t get this? Why are they not utilizing him more in the passing game? Yes, I know he has extra blocking responsibilities now, but I don’t understand how he isn’t catching at least 3-5 balls a game.

Wide Receivers: C

David Grimes made two great catches in the first half (the one he went up for and the diving catch from Clausen). George West also had a couple of nice grabs. The receivers did only make 11 total catches though, so it is hard to give them a higher rating.

The other thing that concerns me here is that while these guys are making good catches, they are not getting open. If you watch these guys downfield, they are very well covered. I don’t know what the answer is here, but we need to give Clausen a chance to find an open man. Don’t kid yourself, one of the reasons he is holding the ball so long is he can’t find open guys. You can actually see him working the progressions pretty well. Again, this worries me.

Offensive Line: C

Well, I definitely think this group played better today. They opened some nice holes for the RB’s to run through. That said, we continue to have problems on short yard runs when they stack the line (we just don’t get any push).

They also gave Clausen better protection today. MSU was the top sack team in the nation and I think only got to Clausen 3 or 4 times. We looked like we definitely progressed today. That said, we still have a lot of growing here and there is no question that it starts with establishing and building on our running game.

Defensive Line: B-

Well, Laws and Kuntz looked ok again today. Hand also looked ok. I continue to be impressed with this aspect of the ND game. The issue with these guys (and the defense as a whole) is the fact that they are working with an offense that isn’t doing much for them, having to deal with horrible field position and spending a lot of time on the field.

Today I did think MSU was more aggressive at running the ball at us (especially with Caulcrick). This was probably a wise strategy as we just don’t have the depth on the line and they wear down.

Linebackers: C

Brian Smith and Kerry Neal are two very good young backers. Its exciting to watch them play and they are becoming decent pass rushers early on. Maurice Crum had a solid game and always plays hard. I still am not a huge fan of how John Ryan plays and positions himself, but he is so young it could also just be growing pains.

I would like to see the trend towards youth continue here. Brian Smith was my pick to be a sleeper on this team and he has the speed and instinct to do this. Neal is a man child. Keep giving these guys opportunities and good things will happen.

Cornerbacks: C

Today I was a bit less happy with our secondary. They gave up 4 passing TD’s and while they didn’t give up a ton of yardage through the air (only 135), they were out of position at key times.

Darrin Walls was beaten by Bell early on and got lucky that MSU overthrew the kid. He made a great pass breakup late in the first. Ambrose Wooden also always seems to be around when we blow a play.

Safeties: B-

Huge, huge, HUGE play by Bruton picking off the ball in the end zone for the Irish. He covered a ton of ground and jumped right in front of him. Boy is that kid fast and athletic. We need these types of plays 2 – 3 times a game with such a young team.

Tommy Z is just not Yeah, his play has been solid, but he just doesn’t seem to exhibit the leadership qualities on the field that we desperately need right now. I don’t know if you guys agree with that or not, but would love thoughts on this.

Special Teams: C

Geoff Price had an awesome punt early in the game, placing the ball at the 2. Then, he shanked the next one off of his foot for 27 yards. Then later in the half, he boots a huge one 56 yards. Then he dropped a huge punt at the end of the half. His inconsistency has been really surprising considering the weapon he proved to be last year. We actually even saw Eric Maust punt late in the first quarter in response to this issue (and later in the game as well).

Otherwise not much to point out here. We gave up a couple of nice runbacks on kickoffs and we continue to not get the ball in the endzone on kickoff, but nothing disastrous here.

Coaching: B-

You have to give the staff some credit this week. The team came out ready to play and win. They clearly bought the physical week of practice and came out ready to work. That said, it didn’t hold up and by the end of the game we were worn. But give the staff credit for getting them ready to play.

I get the feeling that the staff is at a loss on how to approach things moving forward. I think the team responded to the physical practices, but it is not realistic to keep up that pace moving forward. I think they are somewhat “learning on the job” here.

Conclusion

Well, the good news is we played our best game of the year. The bad news is we lost again, gave up over 30 points again and gave up another big time rushing performance to a good back.

How do we move forward? I tend to agree with Anthony in that you keep focusing on the hard nosed running game. Aldridge and Hughes played their hearts out today and should continue to do this moving forward.

We also really need to start developing a vertical passing game. I know, the run will free this up, but we need another dimension. As soon as we fall behind in these games, they are lost. We have scored 27 total points this year (combine all of these points and we still haven’t scored as much as each opponent has scored against us) and I don’t see how we can start generating those types of numbers on a weekly basis without this aspect.

Keep the faith guys. It is going to get worse before it gets better (it is hard to imagine us beating anyone soon). But we will win this year and we will get better. We will develop young talent. Keep the faith.

Michigan State and A State of the Union

I wanted to get in a final post before I'll be away for a long time. I'm going to be MIA while my mother comes to visit and am on a business trip to Sweden. It will be after the Purdue game before I can write anything again. In light of this I'd like to give a little "state of the union" discussion as well as talk about some key points to beating Michigan State.

Beating Michigan State will have very little to do with scheme and strategy and much more to do with who wants it and plays more physical at the point of attack. Essentially, the team that controls the line of scrimmage on offense and defense will win. Michigan state is a powerful running team and they will try to control the game and impose their will. We must find a way to consistently stop them and force them into obvious passing situations where we can pressure the quarterback. Then, we must actually succeed in getting pressure on the quarterback. I feel like it's been half a decade since a Notre Dame defense has actually been able to consistently pressure an opposing quarterback.

On the offensive side of the ball we must establish our running game. I know this essentially goes without saying but here it is even more true. Michigan State is tied for the most sacks in the country with 17 while we are dead last in the country giving up 23. Our chances of protecting the quarterback are poor but if we can't run the ball effectively to get them thinking about it and open up the play action passing game they will certainly be able to tee off on us and get to the quarterback.

I also think it is extremely important for at least one leader to emerge on our team. And it can't be just a leader by example. I'll talk more about this below but we need someone, anyone, to be vocal, to keep the team playing hard, and to not let anyone quit both during games and practice. Coaches can hold players accountable using methods of "punishment" such as diminished playing time. But teammates can be much more effective with this by simply encouraging each other. This allows players to hold each other accountable while improving their morale. Additionally, it doesn't seem like punishment because it comes from players that "walk the walk" rather than a coach in a superior, parent-like position.

Finally, I think it is imperative for the crowd to be in this game from beginning to end. I implore anyone going to support the team as much as possible. Be as loud as you can and, rather obviously, refrain from boo's. Try and spread this type of support and attitude to those around you as well. Hopefully the team will give you something to cheer about. The team is getting broken down this week during practice, the crowd needs to help build them back up. Of course, the easiest way to do this is a big play on special teams, something Golden Tate looks primed to do.

That about sums up my thoughts on Michigan State. I'd like to talk about a few other things, namely Weis and Demetrius. First things first, Demetrius Jones is in no way innocent in how he handled the situation surrounding his transfer. The facts are as follows. He had every opportunity to be the starting quarterback. By all accounts none of the other quarterbacks were treated with any preference. He played poorly in his one opportunity. He enrolled at another institution the day Weis announced Clausen would be the starter for Penn State, presumably because Weis indicated Clausen was the best all along but couldn't play due to injury. And, finally, he practiced for two weeks with the team, taking quarterback repetitions away from the other members of the team, after he had enrolled at another school, only to not show up when the bus was leaving to make the trip to Michigan without telling anyone. There was even a package of plays in the Michigan gameplan (if you can call it that) designed specifically for him. He says he felt mislead by Weis but he did his fair share of the same to his coach and teammates.

Those are the facts, but I've been thinking about this quite a bit and there are some conjectures I'd like to make regarding the situation. At the onset of this discussion I'd like to say that I am not trying to deflect attention away from the poor play of the team to complain about Jones. I do not blame him solely for any of our problems nor do I think he is a scapegoat. Nearly everything I have seen, heard, and read about Jones is admirable and I appreciate his comments admitting he handled the situation immaturely. The reason I am upset about this is because he knew what he said would get a lot of press and it makes Weis and our football program look bad to all who simply read and know things on the surface, i.e. most of the fickle college football fans out there.

You cannot convince me he made the decision to transfer after hearing what Weis said about the quarterback competition and Clausen. He enrolled the day Weis issued the statement which came fairly late in the day. They had practice and he also had class so it wasn't like he could spend his whole day searching for and learning the few colleges where he could loophole the NCAA rules and not lose eligibility for the 2008 season. I believe he had it planned for a while and this was just the straw that broke the camel's back, forcing him (in his mind) to make transferring his final decision. He had to see the writing on the wall. No player in a competition like this cannot look at his play vs. that of his competitors and not know where he stands. I guess the bottom line is that I just don't believe most of the things he said.

My next item of business involves Weis and all of the discussion surrounding him adapting and changing his personality/leadership and coaching philosophy. While I agree with some of the things that are being said out there (here, here, and here), I disagree with others. It has been said, somewhat repeatedly, that Weis needs to change his leadership and coaching personality to adapt better to the young team. I disagree. I think a coach is defined by his leadership and personality, combined with his philosophy on football and offensive/defensive schemes. Weis is brash, confident, very black and white, matter-of-fact, and intolerant of mediocrity from himself, his assistant coaches, and his players. That does not need to change, regardless of who is on the team. Rather, the players he recruits need to complement that, they need to understand and thrive under that type of coaching personality and who will follow his style of leadership. And it is his job to successfully find and recruit those types of players into his system. He talks about getting "his guys" all the time, he understands this.

A coach's wavering leadership sends mixed messages. A team needs a unified front, a single leader, and a consistent voice. That may be even more true now with a young team then over the past two years. When he first got to Notre Dame the team also needed it, but for different reasons. They needed it because they had no discipline and no direction due to a lack of decisive leadership before Weis. They need it now because they are lost, distraught, and severely unmotivated. His confidence and attitude are necessary to give the young players direction and let them know he will right the ship and get things going back in the right direction. That doesn't mean he can't tweak the way he leads and interacts with the players. The best example I can provide is knowing when to be overtly critical vs. when to bite his tongue and not publicly lash out at the young players. That type of difference needs to be accounted for in his attitude, but I believe he does that.

Now, on the other side I do believe he has to adapt his coaching philosophy. There are definitive differences between coaching in the NFL and college. Recruiting aside, the largest difference is preparation time. I believe Weis primarily attacks this difference by doing a lot of the outside of practice work on his own. He reduces the load on the players by thoroughly preparing himself and his staff. The other way he needs to adapt is to reduce the offense into a manageable piece at the college level. That doesn't mean dumb it down. It means that he needs to simplify it by removing the parts of it his team doesn't do well. This is even more true now, with such a young team, than it was when he first arrived. But this year he has done the opposite. He has been far too cute, broad, and gimmicky in what he has tried to do offensively.

Great coaches aren't great because they adopt other coaching philosophies. Philosophies and schemes come and go in football. The West Coast offense, 5-2 defense, triple option, etc. are all examples. The spread and other current en vogue things will do the same. The lasting things are much more fundamental, much more basic. And the great coaches are great because they excel at getting their team to perform at a high level when doing these fundamental things. Things like firing off when the ball is snapped, blocking, tackling, good special teams, and elimination of mental mistakes and turnovers. Weis doesn't need to grab from other coaching repertoires. He comes from a background of proven coaching scheme and philosophy. He needs to instill and teach, that philosophy in his own players. Part of that is making it manageable for the experience level of the players he coaches.

Another item of his coaching he must adapt is the psyche, the mentality of his team. In the NFL players play well to receive monetary incentives, because they thrive in competition, and because they are older and more mature. In college it is different. I hate to say it but it is rare that you find college football players who attend a school due to loyalty. That day and age seems to have passed. So the "playing for the pride and tradition of your school" card can't really be played. In most cases recruits play college football to get to the NFL, plain and simple. But college coaches can't just expect them to play at a high level, with motivation and determination, and in a physical manner. They have to get their players in the right state of mind, they have to make sure they are prepared to play, they and have to make sure they are motivated. And I think the way that transpires within the team stems primarily from the type of team the coach builds. His coaching personality and attitude directly extend into the psyche of the team. It's how they react to it that determines whether or not they respond to the challenge. Weis has yet to prove to me, on any level, that he has mastered this skill. Perhaps this is what people refer to when they say he has to adapt his leadership. I would contend that he merely needs to change the way he imparts the message.

Weis also needs to learn how to build leaders. On the football field, leaders can be made. Captains are elected by their peers, but leaders can be made by their coaches. Weis needs to go in search of them now. He needs to find the guys that always leave it on the field, that always work hard, and he needs to coerce them into being vocal. This team needs leaders who will hold them accountable and drive them to be more physical, aggressive, and motivated. He said in his opening press conference that his intelligence and nasty attitude would permeate down to the players. It isn't (and hasn't) because for all of the players it can't come directly from him. He has to work it into a few players that buy into it, then let their peers get it from them.

What we are seeing right now is Weis' lack of head coaching experience, especially at the college level. His future success will be determined by how fast and how much he learns. He says the right things, he holds himself accountable, and he realizes what is wrong, he understands the problems. Now he needs to develop a plan and execute it. What may be a greater concern is that he either doesn't seem to recognize these problems before they very obviously manifest themselves, i.e. before it's too late, or he does recognize them but doesn't know how to fix them (link here). I've said it several times, we are young, inexperienced, facing a tough schedule, and have little talent in our upper classes. That doesn't add up to 38-0 against Michigan and complete ineptitude on offense. That isn't an excuse. Florida has 72 freshmen and sophomores (not all on scholarship) and their team is performing at a very high level. Our coaching hasn't maximized our potential nor effectively motivated our players. The ultimate question is how fast will Weis learn, how quickly will our team improve?

Michigan

I don't think it is a stretch to say that what I saw Saturday was the worst display of college football I've ever seen. I'm not trying to be overly dramatic or cynical, we aren't even competitive. We may be the worst team in the history of the sport and certainly have to be in the lead for worst in our storied history. And there is ABSOLUTELY no excuse for it. Yes, the deck is stacked against us with a front-loaded schedule, youth and inexperience, and poor offensive line play. But our performance Saturday lacked any resemblance of a prepared football team and my confidence in Weis and his offensive prowess has diminished to nothing. There are plenty of other teams out there, both past and present, that fall into the same category as us but can, at least, move the ball. You cannot convince me that we are 38 points worse than Michigan. You cannot convince me we should have lost to our last five opponents. And you cannot convince me that we should lose to anyone by 20 points, let alone five opponents in a row.

I don't have the emotional capacity to write anything specifically about this game. It was just pathetic. For the third straight time we had virtually no gameplan and for the first time our defense played poorly, our team, uninspired. I was downright embarrassed by our performance, at one time suggesting we punt on first down to avoid losing field position via penalties and sacks. And it isn't just that we don't execute, we didn't even play hard for most of the game.

I didn't expect us to win many games this year. I thought eight was achievable, but didn't necessarily expect it. However, all of my predicted success was based on the conjecture that we had a coaching staff in our employment. At the moment, there is sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise. What is further disheartening is the fact that we didn't play like we cared or with any emotion and/or determination. It's time to panic, the loss of recruits and/or transfers are imminent.

Weis continued to commit a series of fatal blunders by "opening up the offense" and giving cause for more pathetic execution. I've said it several times, and I'll continue to say it. This team should be practicing a few things, doing them well, and always coming back to them. You can't score if you can't get first downs and we can't get first downs because we are trying to do a million things. Trying to do that simply results in doing many things poorly, instead of a few things well. And it looks like people out there are starting to come around to my perspective (here, here, here, here, and here). The failure to execute is the largely the players' faults, but I can't blame them much when they are having a million things thrown at them. We should never have used the spread, we should be practicing what Weis knows and what is proven, and we should be supremely focused on a physical and punishing ground game.

Mike Patrick made some good comments about "it all starting up front" for us. And, to a certain extent, he's right. Much of the blame can be placed on our poor offensive line play. But that doesn't solely contribute to 38 point beat-downs. Neither does youth and inexperience at many of our positions. Michigan doesn't have that much more talent than us. We are in a catch-22, to be certain, keep in seven and give Clausen time but with no hope of only three in routes getting open or sending four or five into a pattern only to have Clausen broken in half. Without a running game and solid offensive line to fall back on, e.g. Michigan, we are left with nothing.

On the bright side if we maintain the recruiting success we've had in the past at least the next coach won't have to suffer through what Weis is right now. And that's exactly what will happen, we will get a new coach, if Weis doesn't evaluate how he is running things and create leadership and motivation to put the ship back in the right direction.

Demetrius transferring was in no way responsible for this loss. Perhaps he was supposed to take that direct snap instead of Armando on the first play but we shouldn't be doing that gimmicky crap anyway. The fact that he took reps in practice after being enrolled at another school for nearly two weeks is terrible. The fact that he would leave the team because he isn't playing and not tell anyone about it speaks volumes about his selfishness. By all accounts he seemed like a stand-up kid to me. My opinion of him has dwindled, however, after hearing the situation surrounding his transfer.

Michigan Keys To Winning

Just a quick few notes on the Michigan game....

Offense

Again, as it will important in every game this year, we need to be able to run the football. We need to do it consistently and, most importantly, we need to be able to pick up third and short situations on the ground. The more we keep their defense on the field the better chance of winning we have.

It goes without saying that our offensive line play must improve in order to run and pass the ball but there is another, more specific, reason we need it in this game. From the last two games Weis will know that beating Michigan is all about stretching the field. And that's exactly what his offense is designed to do. It is designed to make you defend every player, both vertically and horizontally. That doesn't necessarily mean going deep early and often, but he has the scheme to get it done.

In order to do this you need to be able to stretch the middle of the field as well as the sidelines. We can stretch the sidelines with outs, hitches, and some arrow, quick hitch throws from Clausen. Additionally, we can use flares to get Armando out in space (I'm still surprised we haven't tried about three to four screens a game with him). That will get their linebackers pursuing to the sidelines and open up the middle of the field for Carlson. However, if the line can't block, we will have to keep him in, and the ways in which we can attack their defense will be diminshed.

We DO NOT need the spread offense with Demetrius to win this game. Situationally it may prove useful but it isn't the complete answer to winning the game.

Defense

There is one defensive key to stopping Michigan in this game: contain Michael Hart. We have the ammunition to do it (as he publicly guaranteed a win for Michigan) and that should help motivate the defense. But we can't allow him to get 30-35 carries for 130-140 yards. We need to hold him to a <3> yards per carry and force them into long third down situations to give us a better chance of getting off the field.

Mallet will play fine as long as he doesn't have to do everything, i.e. as long as they aren't in obvious passing downs like third and long. His offensive line will give him time but in those types of situations we can apply pressure. If we don't get them into third and long and then get them off the field we are in for some trouble. I know our secondary is improved but they haven't been repeatedly and consistently tested. Michigan, even with Mallet, has the capability to do this. If we get them into third and long and successfully apply pressure, we can win. It would be nice if we were on the giving in of a fast, aggressive, blitzing defense getting 5+ sacks rather than on the receiving end.

Penn State Follow Up

I thought about our football team a lot today. I thought about Weis, the success he's had over the past few years, and the recent struggles we have had as a football team and program. I organized my thoughts to present facts suggesting Weis is a good coach followed by some arguments supporting the recent notion I have suggested that he isn't a good coach. Before I begin, I'd like to say that I don't think there is a comprehensive body of work from which to definitely claim Weis is or isn't a good coach. This will only be a list of supporting and refuting evidence. I will not draw a conclusion from it. I just wanted to put something out there to help ease my doubts, concerns, and pain.

I'm going to try and avoid comparisons between Weis and his predecessor(s) but sometimes they are necessary to illustrate his competence and ineptitude. I'd also like to say that these lists of positive and negatives are in no way comprehensive. If you feel there is something I am missing please feel free to submit a comment and I'll include it.

Positive: The thing that Weis obviously has that Willingham didn't is the ability to recruit consistently. His first class was really a half class, partially put together by Willingham and held together by Weis while still working for the Patriots organization. That class wasn't great but it did have a few solid players in it. The next two classes have been top-notch and the current class is ranked #1 by many of the countries recruiting services. So to his credit, Weis had definitely upgraded the talent level at ND. And he has done it consistently.

Sure, he has lost a few premier players we really needed, but most of those were on the defensive side of the ball (with Benn being the lone exception I can think of) and that is as much a result of Minter's ineptitude as a recruiter as anything else. Now that Brown is on board and closing out our top targets, I feel much better about the future on that side of the ball.

Positive: Weis has also hired premier name coaches in nearly every capacity. Everyone he hired came with good accolades, experience, and high recommendations. He made a concerted effort to get coaches that had ND ties, that had a history of effective recruiting, and that understood how to succeed at a place as unique as ND. Minter was an aberration and a second choice of Weis as he tried to hire Brown his first year.

Positive: In his first year (arguably two) Weis took essentially the same players that Willingham had and improved the team's record by three or four games. He hasn't lost to anyone he is supposed to beat and he has, in many cases, hung with some of the best teams in the country. The loss to Michigan last season is the only game we had no business being in. But we had five turnovers and I can hardly pin that on Weis. The other games we were supposedly "blown out" in, namely USC and LSU last year, we were in through at least the first half, having dropped balls, mental mistakes, etc. that, in many cases, I don't believe Weis is directly or primarily responsible for. This suggests Weis has the capability to a) develop talent and b) effectively utilize the strengths of his personnel.

This success, however, was largely due to the junior class of players he inherited from Willingham. A class that included McKnight, Stovall, Samardzija, Fasano, and Quinn, among others was the highest ranked recruiting class Willingham had. It was something like fifth in the country I believe. Ahead and behind those players (in terms of eligibility) were some players sprinkled with talent but there wasn't an entire class of quality players. That typically showed in games where we didn't put the opponent away early, i.e. games where we had a lot of mental mistakes, penalties, poor special teams play, and/or turnovers. We never have had the talent to make up for those mistakes during Weis' tenure.

Positive: I've seen a definite shift in the attitude of our team from the Davie and Willingham era. A Willingham coached team would never have rallied against Michigan State last year or nearly come back to beat them the year before. That does speak positively of Weis and his ability to transfer his "never say die" attitude to the team.

Negative: Weis' coached football teams have racked up some pretty dubious records. The first two games of this year have been the worst two rushing outings for a Notre Dame football team in the history of our program. Our defense under Weis has also given up the most passing yards in a game during the history of our football program. There are others as well, most receiving yards given up to one receiver and most consecutive 20+ point losses also come to mind. These
obviously aren't good things for our football team. In most cases they resulted in the loss of a game, or at least very close to one.

But records can be suspiciously circumstantial. For example, we had 44 yards rushing on 23 attempts against BYU in 2005 but I didn't see anyone complaining when Brady threw six touchdowns and we won handily. Similarly, 15-20, maybe even 10, years ago barely anyone we played attempted enough passes to set records for passing yardage against our defense. So while there have been some negative records accumulated during Weis' tenure as coach, I think they need to be taken in context.

Negative: To say that we have struggled offensively over the past few games would be a gross understatement. I have voiced my concerns over the offensive gameplan and approach (here and here) and at least a few authors out there agree with me here, here, and here). We need to take a more physical, downhill approach to our running game utilizing angled blocking schemes. Right now, as a young team, We don't need to do a lot of things offensively, we need to do a few, simple things well.

Negative: Our offensive line is playing worse than I've ever seen them play. I don't understand it at all. It completely baffles me. We have plenty of talent to perform adequately even in their infancy. Although they are young, there are many teams around the country that are breaking in young offensive lineman that have far less talent. The ineptitude I have seen in our offensive line play is absolutely inexcusable.

The strange thing is the fact that Weis praised this group repeatedly last Spring and this Fall. This leads me to one of two conclusions. Either Weis' always sticks up for his guys, will never intentionally speak ill of them publicly, and will consistently maintain a positive, confident front for the media, OR he didn't know how poorly the offensive line was going to perform. Many would say they prefer the former and I would agree, at least on the surface. I think it is great that Weis is always in players' corner. I don't fault him for that at all. But if he knows that the offensive line is a problem area and is just using a facade to "back his boys" and not give away information to the opposition, how can he not address the problem with an entire Spring and Fall of practice?

Furthermore, given the results of game the Georgia Tech game, how can he not adjust his scheme to roll the QB, simplify the protection schemes and run blocking, and use running backs more effectively in protection? I don't know which is a bigger problem, not knowing you have a problem, or knowing you have it and not being able to fix it.

Negative: If this current level of play is maintained what will happen to recruiting? For better or worse, opposing coaches are going to whisper things into these kids' ears and try and use our poor play and record to generate a negative recruiting buzz about our program. Weis needs to maintain his connections with his recruits and continue to work to close them, getting them to sign on the dotted line next February.

Negative: It seems that many times Weis is unable to get his players mentally ready to play in the game. Whether it is a lack of effective leadership or motivation is irrelevant, the bottom line remains that we are unprepared from a mental standpoint in many games. The game against Michigan State last year is a primary example. How can you not be motivated to make amends after a loss like we had to Michigan? I understand we went on to win but the point remains.

Negative: The strategic X's and O's advantage and nasty play Weis' promised has yet to consistently materialize. I've seen times when he has been a brilliant mastermind of playcalling. I've also seen times when we have played inspired, physical, nasty football. But that hasn't consistently been the case. Even in our first year we didn't always play nasty. I think we (including myself) overlooked the fact that we were winning with a finesse passing style of offense and a bend but not break defense. Being a nasty football team means you dictate the tempo and nature of the game while also winning the battle at the point of attack. Being nasty means you make third and short by running it right the heart of the defense and succeeding. I'm not sure we've done that once on offense this year.

One could argue that we are simply suffering from what Willingham left us, poor talent in our junior and senior classes. I've heard it said that it was known this was coming, but we just weren't prepared for how bad it would really be. To some extent I think that's true, but I don't think it is reasonable or correct to place all of the blame on the poor talent in our senior and junior classes. Some of this is coaching and Weis needs to learn to adapt to his situation, his players, and his opponents.

The points above lead one to believe that it is possible we will see a large improvement in the team once the young talent matures, gets experience, and develops under the the tutelage of Weis and his staff. That may be the case. I, for one, am waiting to reserve absolute judgment until I see the improvement (or lack thereof) in our team play over the course of this season. Next year may indeed be a better year to take these observations (and those of the future) and draw some more solid conclusions. In the meantime, at least we can take solace in things like cute kids in Irish football attire.