Trend Spotting
posted by Scott Engler
Charlie Weis isn't the first Notre Dame coach to be criticized for play calling and clock management. Willingham, Davie, Faust and Holtz (my recent benchmarks) were all heavily criticized in these areas. Time (and Lou's great dedication to ND) have certainly put distance between Holtz and remembrance of past coaching sore spots, but I remember them clearly. In the "could have been historic" win over Florida State in 1993, I was in the stands listening to constant criticism of Holtz's play calling. It fact, it was all over the early message boards back in they day, to the point where you didn't want to look anymore. Much like now.
So, while I agree Weis could have called better plays, the problems and solutions are usually more complicated. When you lose, everything about the coach annoys you. That's just the way it is. I've seen criticism of everything from Charlie's press conferences, to self-discipline to highlighting specific instances of over-enthusiasm.
When emotions take over, it really doesn't matter what's real or not and everything looks like a possible cause. What I try to do is look at the overall trends, because the day to day stuff usually leads to the wrong root cause conclusions.
Here's where we are compared to last year, with 2008 on the left and 2007 on the right.
If your counting that's an 18.9 point per game swing and a 165.3 yards per game change from last year. ND is in the top 51 in every category and the SOS is 58th in the country. Our special teams are also markedly better (kudos to Polian who's taken a lot of heat here,) though last week's punt block was one of the plays that cost us the game.
None of this is great, but we have a completely different set of problems this year. These are the better problems to have and indicate a strong trend upward.
Last year, we'd fall behind early. This year we've held touchdown leads in every game, but Michigan State (which was a 6 point game in the 4th) and double digit leads in all but two of our games.
Recruiting is also sharply upward ranking in the top 5 overall over the past three years including last year's number one class.
There have been no major team mishaps and performance is on track with fan expectations as we polled NDNation (between 3 and 4 losses this year) at the beginning of the year.
All of the trends, from a program perspective are all upward. Now granted, this is after a disastrous 2007, but we confronted new territory in 2007. Everyone's sick of the "youth" excuse, but just because you're sick of it doesn't mean it's not a problem or valid.
As far as I can see, no coach has been in the same position (so few 4th and 5th year players) before (recent history) and performed at an elite level.
Here's my problem with the "I'm not buying the youth excuse anymore" logic... there's no benchmark for our position (few seniors and 5th year players) that I've seen. No team that anyone's looked at who's faced the same problem and been highly successful. So I can't say, with any amount of credibility, that our struggles are all coaching. They "appear" to be and if you remember, I was critical in Weis back in 05, but they always "appear to be" anytime you lose.
When you don't have senior depth at positions, there's a leadership problem and also a physical maturity problem. Bryant Young, Jim Flanigan, Oliver Gibson and Brian Hamilton, all USA Today All-Americans, didn't become better than average until their senior season. This is under Lou Holtz mind you (and I loved Lou.) Guys like Reggie Brooks and Clint Johnson didn't come into their own until their senior years.
Looking at our current roster, who would have pegged Bruton, McCarthy and Grimes (all two and three star players) as future starters and leaders?
They're leaders now, because they've grown physically and mentally and been developed. Now imagine if we had more seniors (hopefully along the line) and of higher quality. That's the norm.
Senior leadership matters a great deal. Talented senior leadership wins championships.
Now the question I have is, how much of our problems can be attributed to the ongoing youth problem?
The answer is... I have no idea because I have no valid comparison. And neither, to this point, does anyone else. In fact, we looked five years back and almost every top coach now was struggling then and many of the top coaches back then are struggling now or gone. So, I'm stuck with overall trends under Weis, which after a spike downward in 2007 are strongly upward at this time.
Do I believe we've got issues? Of course. I think our OL situation is still a major problem and we're one of the worst teams in the red zone. Think there's a correlation? I have no idea what our scheme is, but it's either not fooling anybody or not being executed well. Our defense (and we knew we'd have problems here) is a smorgasbord, but defense wasn't our biggest problem last Saturday. I have a lot of issues with this team.
But I haven't seen a coach in recent history win at a high level under these circumstances and with all of the trends upward, through gritted teeth, I'm going to give Charlie the benefit of the doubt.
I've seen Weis take us to two BCS games (and if we didn't draw OSU we likely would have been 10-2 in 2005... such is our bowl life.) If Charlie can go to a BCS and 9-3 with the talent we had in 2005, what's the real ceiling if we increase our talent level with a top 10, top 5 and number 1 class?
I'm not sold on Weis and no one should be. I'm probably more pessimistic than most (though that's changing,) but right now we don't know what we don't know, simply because no one's been in the position before and won at a high level.
So, while I agree Weis could have called better plays, the problems and solutions are usually more complicated. When you lose, everything about the coach annoys you. That's just the way it is. I've seen criticism of everything from Charlie's press conferences, to self-discipline to highlighting specific instances of over-enthusiasm.
When emotions take over, it really doesn't matter what's real or not and everything looks like a possible cause. What I try to do is look at the overall trends, because the day to day stuff usually leads to the wrong root cause conclusions.
Here's where we are compared to last year, with 2008 on the left and 2007 on the right.
Points Scored: 27.4 vs. 16.4
Total Offense: 385.4 vs. 242.3
Points Allowed: 20.9 vs. 28.8
Total Defense: 334.5 vs. 357.0
If your counting that's an 18.9 point per game swing and a 165.3 yards per game change from last year. ND is in the top 51 in every category and the SOS is 58th in the country. Our special teams are also markedly better (kudos to Polian who's taken a lot of heat here,) though last week's punt block was one of the plays that cost us the game.
None of this is great, but we have a completely different set of problems this year. These are the better problems to have and indicate a strong trend upward.
Last year, we'd fall behind early. This year we've held touchdown leads in every game, but Michigan State (which was a 6 point game in the 4th) and double digit leads in all but two of our games.
Pitt: 17-3Light years from 2007 as it should be. Performance is trending upward.
Wash: 33-0
NC: 17-6
Stanford; 28-7
Purdue: 38-21
Mich: 21-0
SDSU: 21-13
Recruiting is also sharply upward ranking in the top 5 overall over the past three years including last year's number one class.
There have been no major team mishaps and performance is on track with fan expectations as we polled NDNation (between 3 and 4 losses this year) at the beginning of the year.
All of the trends, from a program perspective are all upward. Now granted, this is after a disastrous 2007, but we confronted new territory in 2007. Everyone's sick of the "youth" excuse, but just because you're sick of it doesn't mean it's not a problem or valid.
As far as I can see, no coach has been in the same position (so few 4th and 5th year players) before (recent history) and performed at an elite level.
Here's my problem with the "I'm not buying the youth excuse anymore" logic... there's no benchmark for our position (few seniors and 5th year players) that I've seen. No team that anyone's looked at who's faced the same problem and been highly successful. So I can't say, with any amount of credibility, that our struggles are all coaching. They "appear" to be and if you remember, I was critical in Weis back in 05, but they always "appear to be" anytime you lose.
When you don't have senior depth at positions, there's a leadership problem and also a physical maturity problem. Bryant Young, Jim Flanigan, Oliver Gibson and Brian Hamilton, all USA Today All-Americans, didn't become better than average until their senior season. This is under Lou Holtz mind you (and I loved Lou.) Guys like Reggie Brooks and Clint Johnson didn't come into their own until their senior years.
Looking at our current roster, who would have pegged Bruton, McCarthy and Grimes (all two and three star players) as future starters and leaders?
They're leaders now, because they've grown physically and mentally and been developed. Now imagine if we had more seniors (hopefully along the line) and of higher quality. That's the norm.
Senior leadership matters a great deal. Talented senior leadership wins championships.
Now the question I have is, how much of our problems can be attributed to the ongoing youth problem?
The answer is... I have no idea because I have no valid comparison. And neither, to this point, does anyone else. In fact, we looked five years back and almost every top coach now was struggling then and many of the top coaches back then are struggling now or gone. So, I'm stuck with overall trends under Weis, which after a spike downward in 2007 are strongly upward at this time.
Do I believe we've got issues? Of course. I think our OL situation is still a major problem and we're one of the worst teams in the red zone. Think there's a correlation? I have no idea what our scheme is, but it's either not fooling anybody or not being executed well. Our defense (and we knew we'd have problems here) is a smorgasbord, but defense wasn't our biggest problem last Saturday. I have a lot of issues with this team.
But I haven't seen a coach in recent history win at a high level under these circumstances and with all of the trends upward, through gritted teeth, I'm going to give Charlie the benefit of the doubt.
I've seen Weis take us to two BCS games (and if we didn't draw OSU we likely would have been 10-2 in 2005... such is our bowl life.) If Charlie can go to a BCS and 9-3 with the talent we had in 2005, what's the real ceiling if we increase our talent level with a top 10, top 5 and number 1 class?
I'm not sold on Weis and no one should be. I'm probably more pessimistic than most (though that's changing,) but right now we don't know what we don't know, simply because no one's been in the position before and won at a high level.
65 Comments:
You say defense WASN'T our biggest problem last week? I respectfully disagree. Run defense was absolutely our biggest problem last week. Our offense wasn't electric but certainly solid and put up more than enough points to win the game. Our pass defense played solid and pretty much limited their passing production. But, it was the run defense that cost us the game. McCoy sliced through our defense like hot butter and even when we knew he was getting the ball, we could not stop them/him. I posit run defense lost that game for us and the NC game as well.
The only conceivable comparison will be UW in 2011. This doesn't do us much good now, but might just reveal the depths of devastation that their lame-duck coach inflicts onto a major program before he leaves.
Good post. The one conclusion I draw from it is that any definitive proclamations about Weis's ultimate success or failure are premature.
Good commentary, thanks.
I love this piece...not because it helps to reel me back in after I had nearly fallen off the Weis bandwagon but because its what I had been saying all year...and glad someone else sees it. We need to keep composure with losses. We have little experience with which to compare Weis rebuilding...and rebuilding it was...we may have another comparison soon with the next poor soul who takes over at U dub...so maybe then we can truly compare (by the way, is it fair to compare Ty to the mortgage CEO's who drove the world economy into oblivion?).Secondaly, Holtz always said that if you wanted to find the best teams in the country look to those teams whose seniors are playing the best football. I believe this wholeheartedly...and senior leadership we still lack. Look at BC last year...15 5th year seniors! If Charlie takes another year or even 2 to get the kind of reloading that takes place at major contenders (USC, UF, Texas) then I'm going to do my best to stay patient.
I think the youth excuse is still valid. An example of this would be Harrison Smith's stupid penalty last week. That was probably the turning point of the game. I'll bet he doesn't make that mistake again. I'm not sure but I'd bet that the coaches talk to the players about not making stupid mistakes.
I have been a lurker on NDNation for some time now, but I want to break the silence to thank you for writing this. While I tend to be more optimistic in my outlook, I appreciate the balanced reaction and evaluation of the state of the Weis era 2008, which is more than I can say about most of the fans as of late.
As a former coach, I look at the second half performance of a team as an indicator of depth, immaturity or both. The key question is "are we in it at the end?" Specifically, if we had a lead and lost it, why did we lose it? I think that for the first time since Quinn's junior year, we seem to have the depth to play with anyone for 60 minutes. So, then we look at maturity. The post game comments by Golden Tate speak to the issue. This is a young talented team, which is a little green. They need to play with blood in their eyes for 60 minutes. I think we have the depth. Charlie's playcalling is fine. The kids seem to be learning each week. Bottom-line, we hit bottom last year, we need to get to a decent Bowl game, win it, and the sky is the limit next year.
I too am satisfied we are on the right course. ND has been competitive in every game this year. Last year, we were generally blown off the field by halftime...yes, the schedule is supposedly easier, but our opponents always play hard against ND. This year's team has come a long way, it's just that we still have further to go.
Rock, some will pick you apart for what you have written, but like others who have responded to your post, I like what you have said. It helps to refocus on where we are. Like everyone, I want to see wins every Saturday, but it isn't going to happen just yet.
I now know one coach Dave Wannstadt has been able to out-coach. Pitt failed to use McCoy enough in the first half and the Irish got off track with an aggressive offense in the second half.Both sequences were coaching errors. Lastly, I still can't see the Irish inside linebackers. What do they read? What gaps are they responsible for with or without the blitz? The D-line often engages and shields them from blockers but they still miss tackles and there are almost always open seams on blitzes.
I didn't think that the defense was our biggest problem Saturday. We just don't have a coherent offensive scheme. We have great players but don't utilize them effectively. Too many times this year we've had 3rd and 5 but all of our receivers were 20 yards deep, with no one underneath. If we have a coherent, cohesive, consistent offensive scheme, we'll stop placing our defense in indefensible positions.
I think this is an extremely accurate post by the Rock. First we are on track for what we expected from a young team three or four losses and hopefully a bowl berth.
Second the Rock mentions our recruiting which has become top notch except in one glaring area defensive linemen, especially defensive tackles and that was evident in the second half of the North Carolina and Pittsburgh games, if Charlie wants a 3-4 scheme he better recruit some d-linemen that can really clog up the opponents run game, otherwise the defense will continue to run out of gas. Otherwise I think things are on course if we can win the next three games and be competitive against SC I will be happy
Amen. Next year will be a much better barometer of how good a coach Weis is. I, like many, predicted 7-5, and we are headed for 7-5 or 8-4, so while Saturday sucked (and I was there for my only game of the season), it still was an expected loss at the beginning of the season. Now, if we go 8-4 next year, we may have a problem with CW.
Be competitive? Have you forgotten who we are??? We are the Irish! I do not want to be competitive...I want and expect to win championships. We did not give Charlie that big contract to make entertaining competitive games. We pay him to win win win! If Charlie cannot do it, then the bum needs to go. As his book says, "No Excuses".
With only an accurate throw by the QB to Floyd in the endzone in the third OT, we would have be raving about how well the young kids are doing and not reading tea leaves. Charlie keeps saying its execution and with any coach, any plan or any team in any year that's what counts.
Amen. I'm still on board. No one likes losing and when we lose people need a scapegoat. But, as the Zen Master says, "we'll see."
This book is far, far from finished. We'll have to wait and see what happens.
Oh, sure, you can come up with things that went wrong and no one is perfect, but overall, the trends are upward. Onward and upward.
Great post and I agree. Still a very, very young team that quite frankly hasnt figured out how to win yet. The experience and the heartbreaking losses will make us even better next year. Dont get me wrong, I felt horrible for the rest of the night after that game Saturday, but with the recruiting momentum Charlie has, he gets the benefit of the doubt from me. I still think this is at least a top 10 team next year. Go Irish
The team is turning around under Weis.
Please, let's just give him time. When is the last time ND has finished with consecutive top ranked recruiting classes? We can can see the impact the recruits have had at QB,HB,WR and TE. Even our DB's look good. But just wait until we have that talent at OL (like 3 or 4 more Sam Youngs) and on the defensive line. It takes time for the entire puzzle to be put together.
With that said, we could easily be 7-1 today instead of 5-3 with the talent we have, if the same team showed up for the entire game. I really think CW should call the plays, he is a genius at playcalling, and he is even better when he as the talent at OL to compliment his skill players.
ND' 07
Bring Lou back!!! Lou among many irish great coach's won a national title in their 3rd year. We are not even close to that distinction. When central mich and utah are in th top 25 and the irish can't even win a bowl game...it's discouraging. BRING LOU BACK!!!
I like the post. When in doubt, use data to help tell the story. But unfortunately, data doesn't win or lose games. What I still believe is missing from this team is that excitement that you saw in the Holtz years, and even under Davie to some degree. I don't see leadership on this team yet, and I am skeptical that CW is going to make the transition from coaching professionals and coaching college kids. It's just different. The analysis I would love to see is what kind of team Nick Saban adopted? or go back to Pete Carroll's first three years? Similar to when Weiss came on board, those storied programs were turn arounds, but both coaches did excellent jobs in delivering quickly. What were the differences? Would be interesting to compare. All of this talk really doesn't matter, CW is back for at least one more year, but if he doesn't have ND in the top 10 by end of season next year, with a bowl victory, he's got to go.
A team will never get over the top when the offensive line can't stop a 3 man rush from pressuring the quarterback. We have gone from an experienced offensive line (2006) to a very green offensive line (2007) to a big, talented, but young offensive line this year, all with a very common thread - they can't protect the QB or run block. That points to COACHING. It is time for Latina to go. This has gone on too long with no good results.
I think we need to be patient with Charlie but there are three things that do worry me 1) the offensive line still can not sustain a consistent running attack and Pitt got to much pressure on the QB without blitzing 2) our running backs are so ordinary. I think he might think about using Tate at running back or in a wildcat formation. He is a play maker the other three back are not. 3) our kick return blocking was just awfull - when was the last time we broke a kick return? Other teams do it.
We are young, no doubt. But Alabama is young and way ahead of schedule - as are others. Floyd is a weapon we went away from in the second half. Our defense tires. NDNation should not have to endure CW's on the job training any longer. He has yet to win a game he 'wasn't supposed to'. We need to turn the corner, but we are looking at 7-5 with no quality wins.
Have to disagree. CW has written a book, traveled to Iraq, milked the University for all it's worth and has yet to beat a team that finished the season in the top 25. He's just a big BSer that loves the spotlight. Saban turned Alabama around in 1 year with young talent. If the university doesn't want to compete w/ the SEC's and top teams of the world, then drop the program. Don't put the fans through this every year. The recruiting is another hoax. Many of the players defected and the others are all wide receivers and running backs. D Jones is 3rd string at Cincy, that should tell you enough about recruiting. Polian and Pawlus as coaches should also say something. Too slow, too soft, and too small.
Weis is getting a lot of anger directed toward him when this season is literally 3 plays away from being 7-1. I have the feeling there would not be as much critiquing going on if those plays were made (And I mean plays that were clearly execution issues).
However, there are other young teams (I believe Alabama was mentioned) that are performing brilliantly. I guess the answer to the Weis question will come next year, when he might HAVE to make a BCS bowl.
A lot of rah rah! Surely these kids are unteachable. Both the OL nad DL look like the "mud mollies" (Tennessee quote) of old. Bench press 350,weith 350 and run the 40 in350.No opponent is on the ground unless it is a scrum when we tackle.Few hard hits LBS can't find the gaps,defensive secondary plays to tackle after the catch (a la Holtz) and we say it is youth.I watched Kuharick do the same thing.
I think that this is a good post...but I have one question for the author that I've been posing around the forums for folks that are looking at a half full glass.
My problem with Weiss was his "response" to Golden Tate's comments--throwing the kid under the bus as opposed to sitting him down in private. That to me is indicative of the old Charlie...you know, the guy whose trajectory (we all admit) was into the ground?
Having said that, I wanted to ask just when do the half-full guys admit there's a problem? Is it if we get blown out against BC or lose to Navy again? Or get shutout by USC? Is it next year? Is it two years from now?
I think that Charlie's response to Tate in the presser is a clear cut signal that the destructive side of his ego is alive and well. That was clearly on display in last week's game and will certainly lose more games than provide ND the foundation for victory. Something needs to be done...I'm not saying that you fire the guy (yet), but someone has got to get through to him and set him straight.
Very interesting points you bring out. I think we have to wait until the final record to see where this season ranks. I still say a 9-4, 10-3 will be a successful season. Anything short of that, after starting 4-1 will be a negative IMO. The program needs confidence not gloom and doom especially when it comes to recruiting. A bowl win would sure help that. I do have to admit I am not confident with the BC, Navy and USC games what ND team will show up. And if we should happen to lose to Syracuse then all bets are off.
Overall great post. I think this team is where many expected it to be at this point in the season, and we seem to be making slow progress. I would take exception to the poster who complained about Charlie being a "big BSer". It seemed that the implication was that his trip to the Middle East was just for show. As a member of the Armed Forces who was there at the time of his trip, I for one was proud of the way he represented the University and appreciated his presence. I think CW gets what ND means in a way his recent predecessors have not. Go Irish!
If you want a comparison, look at Miami under Butch Davis. He took over the Miami program after it had gotten the 2nd harshest punishment in NCAA history. They had lost a total of 31 scholarships from the punishment. Davis went 8-3, then 9-3 in his first two years and then suffered a 5-6 record (in the Big East) his third year including a 47-0 loss to Florida St. He then went 9-3, 9-4 and then 11-1 and deserved to play for the national title but got screwed by the BCS and FSU got in instead. He left after the 11-1 season but left the team with the talent to be one of the best in NCAA history, the 2002 National Champion Canes.
Well said. Could not agree more.
charlie can't motivate, he doesn't understand organizational theory (ie all the coaches are responsible for special teams, and i don't believe that the players trust him.
Thanks for the balanced post. Sitting in the stands last Saturday versus Pitt, listening to the criticism, reminded me of Lou Holtz's comments at the UM pep rally. To paraphrase, when the team is going good, the bandwagon is full. Now that the team has shown that it is struggling to prevail in winnable games, the criticism is flying. The team needs the support of its fan base, and your post proves the trends are seriously up. C'mon NDnation get behind your team....it needs you at this critical time in the program!
I guess I don't understand why we have so many apologists for Charlie Weis. His record "is what it is" and yet all we hear are excuses. BTW, was I the only one who knew Pitt would throw another fade for their final touchdown? It is a simple adjustment to send David Bruton over to help cover the opposition's tallest receiver, isn't it?
1. This offense is more predictable than Holtz's ever was (and this is really telling: you guys remember the PSU loss when Rocket got hurt and we barely made a first down in the second half!). The larger problem here is that if you cannot fool Wannstedt, then there is no fooling anybody!
2. The offensive line remains almost as bad as last year. I know you think we have improved, but the fact remains that we cannot run the ball and the only thing preventing all the sacks like last year is Clausen's maturity and Floyd's ability.
3. How is it possible that our defense did not know that McCoy was going to run the ball with the direct snap? This is completely unnacceptable.
4. Did you watch T-TT on saturday night? Each team had 2 guys who were better runners than Allen. Allen is good, but he is not top level. In fact, Allen was only third best running back on the field saturday.
5. I am not a CW fan mostly because of his arrogance, but he has improved the talent level. Only if he continues this trend and dramatically improves his play calling (on both sides) will the Irish ever contend.
6. I love ND!
Great post, exactly what I've been thinking. And to the person who commented about the overthrown touchdown - EXACTLY. There were other things that could have been done, but that one unusually inaccurate pass would have won the game.
"His record "is what it is" and yet all we hear are excuses."
- Did you read the post? It looked like record and explanation, where are the "excuses":
"If your counting that's an 18.9 point per game swing and a 165.3 yards per game change from last year. ND is in the top 51 in every category and the SOS is 58th in the country. Our special teams are also markedly better ..."
Is ND really that much better than last year or are your stats skewed? ND has improved statistically because their schedule is vastly inferior to last year's schedule. I'd venture that if this year's squad played last year's schedule the results would be 4-8 or 5-7 at best.
GT-L: Our O line would still be overrun by Tenuta's blitzing D
Penn State-L: Happy Valley is a hard place to win.
Michigan-L: Even though they struggled Michigan still beat Florida in a bowl game and had a great D.
Michigan State:L MSU was stronger on D last year and had better receivers. They still beat us this year with a weaker team.
Purdue-Win
UCLA-Win
Boston College-L: BC was a strong team last year with NFC rookie of the year Matt Ryan at the helm.
USC-L: Will handle us again this year.
Navy-?: We have a hard time handling the triple option.
Air Force-?: Air Force had a very good team last year.
Duke-Win
Stanford-Win
It's difficult to compare stats since the opponents this year are so much weaker than a year ago. However, what is evident is that we have lost 2 of the last 3 games with the one win coming against a winless Washington(by the way this game really skewed the D stats). We lost to Pitt in ND stadium, a Pitt squad that has lost to 2 teams with losing records, Bowling Green(4-5) and Rutgers(3-5). We are now 15-9 at ND stadium under Charlie with zero signature wins and one signature loss at home(losing to Navy to break a 43 game win streak).
A well coached team will beat somebody they are not supposed to beat(0-2, MSU and NC)once in a while. A well coached team will beat teams that have a winning record( Stanford is currently 5 and 4 and will finish 6-6 at best playing in a weak PAC10). ND is supposed to beat teams with losing records. A well coached team will punt on 4th and 1 in a tie game with 40 seconds left from midfield.
Is this how you win games? After not punting on 4th and 1 and burning 2 timeouts to come up with a play in which you were out schemed, why run the play? Take a delay of game penalty and punt. Also, can't you give Jimmy an option of 2 plays to call, one against a zone and one against a blitz?
A good coach will not continually make excuses. EX: We need to learn how to win close games. ND came from behind to beat SD State in the 4th quarter. ND beat Stanford this year and last year in "close" games. Just like with stats Charlie brings out the losses to MSU and North Carolina as examples to justify the "we need to learn how to finish excuse", while ignoring the games ND did finish. ND has won 5 games. Is that not finishing?
Last point. This ND team is still not playing with fire. ND was home for the first time in a month and their play was lethargic. As a matter of fact very similar to the home opener. Were it not for Golden's catch between 2 defenders on 3rd and 12 from their own twenty, with 2:39 left in the first half, we were headed for a dull 3-3 half time score. We need to see a more inspired effort from our squad. GO IRISH!!!
Attitude and lack of a killer instinct should not even be an issue in Charlies 4th year! Are you kidding me especially after coming off a 3-9 season? Again, some are placing the blame on youth...??? This is his 4th year! Wake up! No excuses my butt! A change in the guard is overdue here folks - perhaps it is just a matter of the Kool Aid running out.
First of all, REALITY CHECK: this team is playing up to expectations and has yet to lose to a bad opponent. They easily could have dropped a game to Purdue, Michigan, or Stanford, but they didn't. Nobody expected better than a 7-5 record coming into the season, and it looks like the team will end up right around there.
The problem is: they dominated the first half against UNC and Pitt, and then the offense stopped moving the ball in the 2nd half. I feel it is because they stopped playing to their strength and stopped spreading the field with 4 or 5 receivers. You have 4 receivers that can be a deep threat in Tate, Floyd, Grimes, and Kamara; Pitt got beat deep 4 times for touchdowns against lowly Rutgers the week before, and you throw only 2 or 3 deep balls the whole game, not one in the 2nd half. Then, you run on first down, knowing Pitt has a good front 7 and your running game is weak. You also bring in a 2-back formation in the 2nd half which you almost always run out of, then with 2nd and 3rd in long the D-Line pins their ears back to rush happy feet Clausen, another in a long line of overrated ND QBs (the worst part is the most overrated of all time, Ron Paulus is his QB coach, talk about a loser as a mentor).
As far as defense, anybody who points out the defense knows nothing about football. I'm taken aback by the ignorance of so many of the fans on this site. They blame the defense, which gave up only 3 points in the 1st half b/c of a blocked punt, for not stopping the run in the 2nd half. HELLO DUMMIES, if your offense can't move the ball in the 2nd half, your defense gets tired and gives up running yards.
Normal play calling is rather abritrary, but a clear flaw in Weis' strategy is the horrible 4th down play calling. ND only consistently made 4th and long plays in Weis' 1st year. I remember his 2nd year against USC, they went for it like 7 times around USCs 40 and didn't make it once. Now, an inferior offense is going for it on 4th and 7 at Pitt's 40, when they have a better defense. You need to give your defense better odds, like making the offense start from their 10, and giving the D momentum to fly around and put pressure on the offense to play cautiously deep in their own territory with a 2nd string quarterback.
Overall, I think too many ND coaches get wrapped up in the ND aura, and pay less attention to winning, and more attention to NBC halftime stories. Lou started to do it towards the end of his days at ND, and Davieham took it to new levels. We'll see if Ty becomes the 3rd straight ND coach to get a job at ESPN, after excellent exposure as an ND head coach. Obviously, Urban Meier has more talent at Florida, but he still comes into games extremely focused on winning and doesn't befriend sideline reporters as a media coach, even though he very well could. Weis, the media train is over, focus on winning and start putting your team in the best position to win. Spread the field, don't go for it on 4th and long, and win close games where you get leads.
Weis should be winning games against opponents like Pitt. There is no youth excuse. Pitt has 7 soph/fresh starters and 7 seniors. ND has 8 soph/fresh starters and 8 seniors. All of ND's lineman are 4 or 5 star recruits yet they can't run against a Pitt team with 2 freshman defensive ends. I like Weis and I hope he proves me wrong but he is not getting it done to this point and he was outcoached by Pitt!
Two points to refute your argument: 1.Butch Davis took over at UNC with less, came from behind and beat us, 2.Wanney took over at Pitt with about the same, recruited about the same, came from behind and beat us. There is a trend here. We are getting out coached. Charlie=Jerry Faust.
I think Charlie has us on the right track, but the thing I'm going to be watching like a hawk is whether or not we can get some impact defensive players to emerge in 2009. 2008 has been the year of the emergence of impact offensive players (Clausen, Floyd, Tate) and that has resulted in our offense taking great strides forward. 2009 needs to be the year where impact defensive players emerge, because, although Kuntz, Bruton, and McCarthy have been solid this year, they don't keep opposing offensive coordinators awake at night. Defensively, we need to be able to blow up running plays in the backfield, get drive killing sacks (without having to send 9 guys), and make the 3rd down pass break up in coverage. I'm hoping that potential candidates like Ethan Johnson, Darius Fleming, Brian Smith, Neal, and/or Blanton emerge as impact (i.e. "feared") defensive players in 2009. If the d takes the same strides forward next year as the offense did this year, we should be in great shape!
To all those pointing at Alabama's youth and saying we should be playing at that level, Alabama starts 5 underclassmen. I believe ND will be starting 10 underclassmen next week. That's a big difference. Alabama may be young, but ND still has the training wheels on. Give Weis a chance. I really doubt Saban faced the recruiting abyss Weis was staring into when he took over. The important thing is the team is getting better as the season goes on, and that has EVERYTHING to do with coaching.
As I read through these posts, one thing really disappoints me. For the Weis supporters, when did the bar get so low for you guys? It's been a really long 15 years since ND did anything of significance.
Here are two questions we all should ask ourselves. If ND went out and hired Bob Stoops or Pete Carroll or Nick Saban tomorrow, do you believe ND would be in contention for a national title in two years? Do you think ND will be in the top 10 by the end of next season?
If you even pause at the top 10 question or salivate for one of those coaches and believe we would be in the national title hunt, we should end the Weis experiment, go get one of them (or equivalent) and get back on the map. This is ridiculous.
btw, it is spelled Gerry not Jerry.
Interesting insights from Coach Chmiel on BGI website. Rebuilding MIGHT still be accomplished in three years in this rapidly changing world, but he contends that ND is in a RECLAMATION process that will take 5 years. Historically, and especially under the Ara and Lou eras, ND recruiting to it's unique strengths of tradition and education. The Davieham years took the NFL/we're on TV focus of most every other football "biggie." Charlie is now recruiting and culturally "reclaiming" a team based on tradition ND values which will result in belief and leadership in Seniors. Interesting perspective with merit. Another year should tell the tale.
Can we at least agree that next year, year 5 of the Weis era, is all on Charlie? That losing all of our games against teams with winning records will not be deemed success, even if some of the losses are really close? That the 2009 W-L record, and not stars awarded by Rivals.com for the class of 2012, will be the metric of success? That going 9-3 and losing the Gator Bowl will not be cited as proof that the program is back on track? I call upon all of CW's supporters to make that pledge.
Stop with the excuses. Holtz won a national championship in his 3rd year with Gerry Faust recruits (which were falling off). Meyer won in his second year with Zook recruits (which were falling off). Carroll won the national championship in his 3rd year (following Paul Huggett recruits). Nick Saban in year 2 is rated #1.
Bottom Line: Great college coaches have immediate and improving impacts. I was a senior during Holtz's first year. It was the best 5-6 team I've ever seen and light years better than the year before.
The Pitt loss was horrible. No way would any top coach lose that game in his FOURTH year with 3 top 10 classes; I don't care how thin the 4th and 5th years are. It wasn't like we were playing SC or Florida. Pitt is not even ranked. We now evaluate tough games on whether a team has a winning record. How far we have fallen.
Charlie's on a slippery slope. If BC gives us the headaches they always do, game over for Charlie.
This is a rebuilding year, like it or not. We'll have to wait until the end of 2009 to evaluate.
Stop with the rebuilding rhetoric. Noone is rebuilding anything in their 4th year.
To add to the list: Tressel won the nat championship in his second year; so did Stoops at OU. Both with several years of weak recruiting preceeding them.
This is for the person who talked about how Meyer was able to win the national title in his 2nd year with mediocre "Zook" recruits, thus Charlie has no excuses! First of all, let's understand that ultimately, we want Notre Dame to be a place that re-loads every year, competes for BCS bowl bids every year, and wins a NC every few years (ala, Texas, Florida, LSU, etc). However, at this time, it is unfair to hold Charlie to the same standards to which guys like Carroll, Tressel, Stoops, Brown, and Meyer are held. Although Notre Dame has a great tradition, they haven't been a legitimate Top 10/re-load every year type program since guys like Bettis and Aaron Taylor wore the Blue and Gold. The fact of the matter is, Davie plunged the program into mediocrity, and then Ty essentially SMU'd Notre Dame's program with his poor recruiting (except for after his first season). I mean the fact that we had to change our scoring system the last couple of Blue Gold games because there weren't enough O & D-linemen on the roster to field a 2-deep should speak volumes about the damage he inflicted on the program. Let's face it Notre Dame hasn't been Notre Dame for a long time. We weren't some sleeping giant or "underachieving" team under Davie and Ty, those teams were simply playing to the level of the players' talent and coaches' skill- which, overall, was mediocre to poor.
Charlie has brought in a lot of talent, much of it still young. Getting back to the previous poster's Urban Meyer comparison, Charlie has faced a much steeper battle than Meyer faced. The fact is, Ron Zook, his predecessor was a hell of a good recruiter. The 4 recruiting classes preceding Meyer's arrival were ranked 11, 8, 4 and 20 respectively, much better than what Ty left for Charlie. The reason Zook was fired was because he took over a Top 10/re-load every year program from Spurrier and proceeded to take it to the Outback Bowl every year, which I agree is unacceptable. Last year's dip for N.D. was inevitable due to Ty's legacy. I know what Charlie can do with a "little bit" of experienced talent (2005 and 2006 weren't a mirage). I want to see what he can do with a roster full of experienced talent. But, to see that, we just need to hang in there, let him fill the roster. If he wasn't recruiting, I could see giving him the ax, like we did Ty, since we would have no legit reason to believe that the tide was turning. But, I fully expect the 2009 team to be in a BCS bowl game, and heading into the 2010 season, we should be a re-load program again for the first time since '94 or so, ready to make a run at a title. At that time, once we have our program back to a top 10 level, we can re-establish the bar at the traditional Notre Dame level of the glory years under Holtz and hold Charlie to the traditional expectations of excellence we have for Notre Dame football, but let's let him get us that top 10-top 15 level first. What's the harm in that. Remember, the reason no established college coach wanted the Notre Dame job after Ty (see: Urban Meyer, Mike Bellotti) is that they knew that the overall talent on the roster was far below what they would have at Florida or Oregon (yes Oregon) respectively. At the very least, if Charlie's teams still look inconsistent in 2009, 2010 and he maxes out at 9 wins and Gator Bowl berths. We can at least part ways and offer the next coach a job at a program that has risen back to Top 15 caliber and has a roster full of talent, thus making the job one that an astute, established college coach would WANT to take because he would know that he could win big immediately and consistently to meet ND fans expectations.
I picked ND for my college "recruiting" fantasy football team and they are kicking butt! Oh wait, that's right. They do not give out championship rings for recruiting rankings. I have a serious question for people. How many years do we need to give Charlie until we can stop blaming Davieham? When does Charlie take ownership of the losses to teams with winning records? This may sound sarcastic, but I am truly curious. I feel that if we do not win a bowl game while being ranked within the top 10 next year, the clock has run out of Charlie...I appreciate the feedback and Go Irish!
Here's food for thought when we consider the term "rankings"...most everyone agrees that the BCS rankings are worthless and that there should be a playoff so that a "true champion" can be decided on the field. If that is true, then what does that tell us about our recruiting rankings? I guess these recruiting "rankings" are meaningless unless they translate into wins on the field.
First and goal on the three yard line and no touchdown!!! Our O Line is our biggest problem and we won't even start to fix it until Latina is gone.
Experience the latest excuse for the IRISH
Nobody is happy about the current performance of the IRISH program 4 years into Coach Weis’s tenure and its getting harder and harder to find legitimate excuses for the underperformance. As classmate of mine recently commented, “watching Note Dame Football the past 15 years is like Groundhog's Day. Same shit every Saturday, no matter how you try and change things…” As depressing as it is, in my opinion this sums the situation up pretty accurately. There is a tendency to want to find less personal causes for the program shortcomings rather than to point to the coaching staff…we all want each new coach to succeed and we tend to look for any outside excuses as an explanation for why they are not. The excuses rain down: talent, experience, coaching tenure, etc. anything we can find to absolve the coaching staff of the current poor performance. The current excuse, that Notre Dame has a young team, is simply that - an excuse, and one that simply isn’t true.
I would argue that the experience level of a team can be judged by the relative ages of players in the starting line ups on the team – offense and defense. I wanted to test the theory that Notre Dame Football performance could be negatively impacted by relative age. To do this one needs to calculate relative age of similar strongly performing programs and compare it to ND’s relative age. I calculated relative age simply by weighting each player’s age as follows: 1 yr for freshman, 2yrs for sophomore, 3 yrs for Junior etc. Therefore, if you assign a number to each starting player’s year and average them, you can get an idea of the average age of the “team” or the starting line up for that team. I pulled data down from Rivals.com for a couple of teams (Ohio state and Florida) that I would consider to be ND’s relative peers in terms of recruiting talent, size of program, operating budget, performance aspirations(relatively consistent top 10 - top 15 teams), etc. On offense, the IRISH are indeed a younger team on average than either peer. The average age of starting offence at ND is 2.64 years, vs 2.82 yrs for Florida and 2.91 years for Ohio State. Although ND is younger, I would argue that relative to Florida, the 0.2 yr difference is less than a college quarter and therefore close to insignificant. On defense the argument that the IRISH are young fully collapses as the starting ND defense has an average age of 3.18 years, vs Florida 2.18 years and Ohio State’s 2.73 years. Taken together, ND’s starting team, offense and Defense, has an average age of 2.91 years, vs 2.5 yrs for Florida and 2.8 for Ohio State. We are an older and more experienced team than either peer team. Wait! It’s the relative weighting of talent you say…its because of that relatively poor recruiting class we had in 2005 – right? Well, while that may be having some small impact on the program that’s not a reasonable excuse either.
Notre Dame in now into Charlie Weis’s 4th year and by all accounts we have had top 10 recruiting in 3 of 4 of those years. How about our peer teams? Well, close to the same. (Again all data is coming from Rivals.com) Florida, had a top 10 recruiting classes 3 of 4 years same as ND, but as we will see, their overall year to year average is a little better than ND’s. Ohio State has only had a top 10 class in only 1 of 4 years, but they have been consistently in the top 15 over all 4 years. Let’s get to the numbers... ND’s recruiting classes have been ranked #2(2008), #8(2007), #8(2006), & #40(2005); 4 year average 14.5. Florida’s rankings are: #3, #1, #2, & #15; 4 year average of 5.25. Ohio State’s rankings are: #4, #15, #12, #12; 4 year average of 10.75. Now I realize that the talent pool is not completely consistent year to year and I could have done a weighted average of the total points each class had from year to year, but that’s not the point. The point comes when we look at each team’s current performance ranking relative to average talent/recruiting ranking. Florida: current team Rivals recruit average - 5.25; current standing in BCS Rankings #5. Ohio State: current team Rivals recruit average 10.75; current standing in BCS rankings #11. Notre Dame: current team Rivals recruit average – 14.5; current standing in BCS Rankings NR. In fact Notre Dame is currently ranked in the CCR120 at 50! I am switching from BCS to CCR (Cosgrove Computer Rankings) only because I couldn’t find BCS rankings below the top 25. [For full disclosure, the current CCR ranking of Florida is 3 and Ohio State 13 – close, but not same as BCS].
What other excuses are out there? Coaching tenure? Charlie’s first year wasn’t really a full year due to the Patriots? We all know how Holtz performed in his first three years…and Urban Meyer for that matter. Notre doesn’t have the same level of program commitment from the University? Facilities aren’t equivalent? The education expectations of the University are too high – not enough time for football? It’s too cold?
Given the variables of talent and experience and holding all else (other than coaching) equal to our peers, the IRISH should be ranked 15 or better. Now maybe Charlie does need a little bit more time and the student/athlete balance at ND is harder than our peers. So, if Notre Dame were in the top 20 or even 25, I wouldn’t be writing this, but we’re not.
To paraphrase what Charlie has said before, “you’re an unranked team. That’s what you are – no excuses”.
Let me rephrase how I see it, ND has a relatively experienced and talented team playing for a school that has a rich program (both figuratively and literally) yet, the Irish are playing consistently below where they should be performance-wise. It is hard to find another legitimate reason for this at this point other than the coaching.
It is time high time for Charlie Weis and his staff to look in the mirror and say to themselves, “We are the leaders of a talented and experienced but poor performing team. That’s what we are – no more excuses!”
To JMA, I have 2 responses:
1. While you're right on your comments about Zook's recruiting, go look up the recruits that Stoops, Saban, Carroll and Holtz picked up; they were dogmeat (I can't remember what Tressel inherited).
2. How much talent and top recruiting did Pitt have on the Field Saturday? Heck, they've even got a mediocre coach. Our 3 years of "young" Top 10 talent couldn't overcome that? Do ANY of the 5-6 coaches I mentioned lose that game in any of their first 3 years, let alone their 4th? I doubt it.
Experience the latest excuse for the IRISH
Nobody is happy about the current performance of the IRISH program 4 years into Coach Weis’s tenure and its getting harder and harder to find legitimate excuses for the underperformance. As classmate of mine recently commented, “watching Note Dame Football the past 15 years is like Groundhog's Day. Same shit every Saturday, no matter how you try and change things…” As depressing as it is, in my opinion this sums the situation up pretty accurately. There is a tendency to want to find less personal causes for the program shortcomings rather than to point to the coaching staff…we all want each new coach to succeed and we tend to look for any outside excuses as an explanation for why they are not. The excuses rain down: talent, experience, coaching tenure, etc. anything we can find to absolve the coaching staff of the current poor performance. The current excuse, that Notre Dame has a young team, is simply that - an excuse, and on top of that, its one that simply isn’t true.
I would argue that the experience level of a team can be judged by the relative ages of players in the starting line ups on the team – offense and defense. I wanted to test the theory that Notre Dame Football performance could be negatively impacted by relative age. To do this one needs to calculate relative age of similar strongly performing programs and compare it to ND’s relative age. I calculated relative age simply by weighting each player’s age as follows: 1 yr for freshman, 2yrs for sophomore, 3 yrs for Junior etc. Therefore, if you assign a number to each starting player’s year and average them, you can get an idea of the average age of the “team” or the starting line up for that team. I pulled data down from Rivals.com for a couple of teams (Ohio state and Florida) that I would consider to be ND’s relative peers in terms of recruiting talent, size of program, operating budget, performance aspirations(relatively consistent top 10 - top 15 teams), etc. On offense, the IRISH are indeed a younger team on average than either peer. The average age of starting offence at ND is 2.64 years, vs 2.82 yrs for Florida and 2.91 years for Ohio State. Although ND is younger, I would argue that relative to Florida, the 0.2 yr difference is less than a college quarter and therefore close to insignificant. On defense the argument that the IRISH are young fully collapses as the starting ND defense has an average age of 3.18 years, vs Florida 2.18 years and Ohio State’s 2.73 years. Taken together, ND’s starting team, offense and Defense, has an average age of 2.91 years, vs 2.5 yrs for Florida and 2.8 for Ohio State. We are an older and more experienced team than either peer team. Wait! It’s the relative weighting of talent you say…its because of that relatively poor recruiting class we had in 2005 – right? Well, while that may be having some small impact on the program that’s not a reasonable excuse either.
Notre Dame in now into Charlie Weis’s 4th year and by all accounts we have had top 10 recruiting in 3 of 4 of those years. How about our peer teams? Well, close to the same. (Again all data is coming from Rivals.com) Florida, had a top 10 recruiting classes 3 of 4 years same as ND, but as we will see, their overall year to year average is a little better than ND’s. Ohio State has only had a top 10 class in only 1 of 4 years, but they have been consistently in the top 15 over all 4 years. Let’s get to the numbers... ND’s recruiting classes have been ranked #2(2008), #8(2007), #8(2006), & #40(2005); 4 year average 14.5. Florida’s rankings are: #3, #1, #2, & #15; 4 year average of 5.25. Ohio State’s rankings are: #4, #15, #12, #12; 4 year average of 10.75. Now I realize that the talent pool is not completely consistent year to year and I could have done a weighted average of the total points each class had from year to year, but that’s not the point. The point comes when we look at each team’s current performance ranking relative to average talent/recruiting ranking. Florida: current team Rivals recruit average - 5.25; current standing in BCS Rankings #5. Ohio State: current team Rivals recruit average 10.75; current standing in BCS rankings #11. Notre Dame: current team Rivals recruit average – 14.5; current standing in BCS Rankings NR. In fact Notre Dame is currently ranked in the CCR120 at 50! I am switching from BCS to CCR (Cosgrove Computer Rankings) only because I couldn’t find BCS rankings below the top 25. [For full disclosure, the current CCR ranking of Florida is 3 and Ohio State 13 – close, but not same as BCS].
What other excuses are out there? Coaching tenure? Charlie’s first year wasn’t really a full year due to the Patriots? We all know how Holtz performed in his first three years…and Urban Meyer for that matter. Notre doesn’t have the same level of program commitment from the University? Facilities aren’t equivalent? The education expectations of the University are too high – not enough time for football? It’s too cold?
Given the variables of talent and experience and holding all else (other than coaching) equal to our peers, the IRISH should be ranked 15 or better. Now maybe Charlie does need a little bit more time and the student/athlete balance at ND is harder than our peers. So, if Notre Dame were in the top 20 or even 25, I wouldn’t be writing this, but we’re not.
To paraphrase what Charlie has said before, “you’re an unranked team. That’s what you are – no excuses”.
Let me rephrase how I see it, ND has a relatively experienced and talented team playing for a school that has a rich program (both figuratively and literally) yet, the Irish are playing consistently below where they should be performance-wise. It is hard to find another legitimate reason for this at this point other than the coaching.
It is time high time for Charlie Weis and his staff to look in the mirror and say to themselves, “We are the leaders of a talented and experienced but poor performing team. That’s what we are – no more excuses!”
We will never seriously compete for the title until we establish a running game on a consistent basis. If you throw the ball 40+ times a game, chances are that you're going to lose the turnover battle against teams with similar talent (UNC). The alternative is that you wear out your defense because of a disparity in time of possession (MSU).
You might be able to win 9 games with a one-dimensional offense when you have a guy named Quinn under center, but it doesn't work when you have a sophomore QB who is asked to shoulder the load. When will Weis learn?
Charlie Weis is an awful in game coach. Awful. Did anyone watch last week's disaster? The play calling was laughable . . . much like the play of the defense.
Notre Dame will not win nine games this season. I've said all year that they wouldn't, and, if they didn't, they need to replace the failure that is Charlie Weis with a real Head Coach. This clown has got to go, the team is unprepared week after week and shows little creativity on offense.
Where are the end arounds to the stud WR? Why do they get away from the running game at the drop of a hat? With a defense this awful ND needs to play a little ball control.
Being outcoached by that clown Wannstedt is ridiculous, that guy has been a failure as a head coach everywhere he has ever gone, including Pitt.
Charlie is a loser. He has had four years and done nothing. Let me know when he beats a team that is actually ranked at the end of the year.
"Mike G. said...
A team will never get over the top when the offensive line can't stop a 3 man rush from pressuring the quarterback. We have gone from an experienced offensive line (2006) to a very green offensive line (2007) to a big, talented, but young offensive line this year, all with a very common thread - they can't protect the QB or run block. That points to COACHING. It is time for Latina to go. This has gone on too long with no good results."
I agree with your main point about coaching, but the line IS NOT YOUNG. They are all juniors. Of course that just makes your point about coaching all the more true. This whole staff is absolutely awful.
Why can't ND hire a decent coach? It has been over a freakin decade. Hire a decent coach, already.
hilarious that there are actually those out there still defending Charlie. Do you guys ever watch the games?
Stubborness will get us nowhere. Forde and the rest of those clowns were wrong about Ty. They are right about Charlie. He stinks. What more do you need to see?
i love notre dame. havent missed a home in ten years. Charlie weis needs to be fired. plain and simple
Came from behaind against San Diego? ND got a lucky break on a bad fumble call.
What is Charlies shelf life after the Irish lose to Navy this weekend? I'm guessing the University gives him one more year to implement his "schematic advantage."
srs and 5'th year players were all 3 stars at best
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home