Looking back at the SC game... I have a questions.

[Irish_inPSU]

I watched the SC game again the other night and I noticed some peculiar things. ND defense. Very uncharacteristically vanilla most of the first half, then, almost like a light switch, they played like we've seen them play in the second half, with pressure schemes, tighter coverages, etc. Same thing on offense, they were fairly flat in the first half, calling a lot of almost predictable plays.

So, here is what I'm getting at. Could the fact that on offense, Book is a bit nicked up, so they "took it easy" until they realized SC came to play? Same thing on Defense? It almost appears they sandbagged in this game to some degree. Perhaps trying to get through the game healthy and keep your hand close to the vest for playoffs?

I realize they were a tired team heading to LA. But they played very uncharacteristic football for the majority of that game. I almost feel that if they wanted, they could have beaten SC by 3 scores. This is not a dig at SC. I think they're very talented and they played probably some of their best football of the year against ND.

 

[irish4life888]

I watched the SC game again the other night and I noticed some peculiar things. ND defense. Very uncharacteristically vanilla most of the first half, then, almost like a light switch, they played like we've seen them play in the second half, with pressure schemes, tighter coverages, etc. Same thing on offense, they were fairly flat in the first half, calling a lot of almost predictable plays.

So, here is what I'm getting at. Could the fact that on offense, Book is a bit nicked up, so they "took it easy" until they realized SC came to play? Same thing on Defense? It almost appears they sandbagged in this game to some degree. Perhaps trying to get through the game healthy and keep your hand close to the vest for playoffs?

I realize they were a tired team heading to LA. But they played very uncharacteristic football for the majority of that game. I almost feel that if they wanted, they could have beaten SC by 3 scores. This is not a dig at SC. I think they're very talented and they played probably some of their best football of the year against ND.

No, that definitely was the game plan for the usc offense. They kept everything in from of them and did not want to give up the big play. I believe they to keep usc on sustained plays and hopefully they would stay in character and make mistakes. Which they definitely did. It wasn't a sexy game plan but I appeared to have worked. Sure I would have liked to have seen more pressure, and maybe some more blitzes but that does come with risk. Usc has great recievers. Seems once the offense started to get things going we adjusted and stated playing more zone and brining up the lb and and even some safety blitzes. I was more concerned about the offensive play and that of Book (2-9) downfield. I'm sure all the traveling has had some effect and I think the staff did a great having them ready this month. Now five weeks off to rest and rehab!

 

[IowaIrish1]

I watched the SC game again the other night and I noticed some peculiar things. ND defense. Very uncharacteristically vanilla most of the first half, then, almost like a light switch, they played like we've seen them play in the second half, with pressure schemes, tighter coverages, etc. Same thing on offense, they were fairly flat in the first half, calling a lot of almost predictable plays.

So, here is what I'm getting at. Could the fact that on offense, Book is a bit nicked up, so they "took it easy" until they realized SC came to play? Same thing on Defense? It almost appears they sandbagged in this game to some degree. Perhaps trying to get through the game healthy and keep your hand close to the vest for playoffs?

I realize they were a tired team heading to LA. But they played very uncharacteristic football for the majority of that game. I almost feel that if they wanted, they could have beaten SC by 3 scores. This is not a dig at SC. I think they're very talented and they played probably some of their best football of the year against ND.

They've played base D mostly in the first half all year. I think the game plan was to give up nothing big and let USC do what they've done most of the year and make mistakes. Probably a smart gameplan, but SC played well and didn't make those big mistakes early.

I don't think the staff was playing it safe on offense. Book just missed some throws that would have completely changed the final score of this game. If he hits Finke on the wide open TD and completes a couple of those balls to Boykin, ND probably wins by 21. Mack had a big drop, albeit the defender made a play, but the pass should have been caught.

Let's not take away the way SC played. They've had a rough year, but there is still tons of talent on that team. They could have laid down, especially with all the Helton rumors, but they came to play. They could be a scary team next year if they get things right. Daniels is gonna get better, they have some dynamic wide receivers and will get some guys back from injury. Clay better get them to 9 wins next year or he's gone.

 

[ndbeartrap]

This is the one issue that I had with the approach to this game specifically with the defense. Aggressiveness is a behavior in a defense that needs to be cultivated and reinforced. It is not something that should get turned off and on. Trust in your athletes and their training to execute what you have coached in them to play against the other teams athletes. Do not put in passive schemes and then expect to adjust at halftime to a more aggressive approach. Dictate your will on the opponent and make them adjust. This is what I see Alabama do, but it does help to always have the superior athletes.

 

[Toby Smart]

As I was going through my morning walk, I was thinking about the USC game and one play in particular. The Tony Jones TD that actually turned out to be the game winner. Ian made the throw without rushing. Tony made the catch with focus and no panic at the initial bobble, then he rumbled towards the promised land. But, it took a crunching downfield block by Miles to wrap it all up. That was an amazing play. Who knew then that it was needed more than we could have figured a couple of minutes later.

 

[88ND]

My .02 cents on this....

Nearly all first half they thought we would be getting pressure with just the front four. Backed the corners off and just rushed 4.

USC had other plans and kudos to them took what we gave them.

What happened...it was a quick 10-0 wake up call and these guys are playing and he's getting rid of the ball very fast.

The corners creeped up....we started blitzing and voila..different game.

 

[Telx1]

My .02 cents on this....

Nearly all first half they thought we would be getting pressure with just the front four. Backed the corners off and just rushed 4.

USC had other plans and kudos to them took what we gave them.

What happened...it was a quick 10-0 wake up call and these guys are playing and he's getting rid of the ball very fast.

The corners creeped up....we started blitzing and voila..different game.

Exactly, but with Okwara often dropping back in coverage as well. We took away their short quick hitters and the game became much harder for their freshman QB.

 

[Toby Smart]

Then what exactly happened on that final USC drive? They got their hands on JT but couldn't seal the deal and he broke loose for completions. Not sure if that was a prevent defense. The game was still in doubt with time on the clock. Why let them drive and complete passes?

 

[88ND]

Exactly, but with Okwara often dropping back in coverage as well. We took away their short quick hitters and the game became much harder for their freshman QB.

That and the turnover Tranquil recovered was absolutely massive. They were in fact still driving when that occurred.

I would say that moment turned the game.

 

[HDK]

As I was going through my morning walk, I was thinking about the USC game and one play in particular. The Tony Jones TD that actually turned out to be the game winner. Ian made the throw without rushing. Tony made the catch with focus and no panic at the initial bobble, then he rumbled towards the promised land. But, it took a crunching downfield block by Miles to wrap it all up. That was an amazing play. Who knew then that it was needed more than we could have figured a couple of minutes later.

Did you notice Boykin's block was on #30, the freshman walk-on who picked off Book in the end zone?

 

[88ND]

Then what exactly happened on that final USC drive? They got their hands on JT but couldn't seal the deal and he broke loose for completions. Not sure if that was a prevent defense. The game was still in doubt with time on the clock. Why let them drive and complete passes?

I think it was a game that we benefited from a little bit of luck.

Rewind to a week earlier. Clark Lea was spot on with the defense and Syracuse game plan was getting ate up by Lea's game plan.

It was almost 180 degree opposite against USC. Lea's game plan was getting ate up by the USC offense.

It does happen at times to any team.

Even the almighty Saban and Meyer just run into a buzzsaw at times and drop a game or escape with a breath taking win.

Bama last year vs. Mississippi State is a great example.
Bama vs. Auburn.
OSU vs Purdue, Iowa

We got just enough luck on defense to hold the ground.

On offense however chip long has like a two part game. First part bot so good. Second part masterful. The screens, the misdirects were wonderful.

Personally I think he waited a little too long to call those because USC was selling out at the opening snap onset.

And...i want to bitch about something.

Nearly all year we've shit canned the ridiculous east west run plays because over the years against speed defense they get ate up for a loss. So that's great..the staff finally learned something.

WTF was he thinking going back to the east west running plays against USC. God damn it they got ate up easily for a loss or no gain.

I was flipping out watching the good old sssssllllllooooowwwww developing east west runs brought back into the arsenal.

Damn

It

!!!!!

 

[Irish_inPSU]

Thanks for the replies. The one thing that really struck me was the lack of urgency in this game. This whole season, minus a couple of brain farts here and there, ND played with the urgency that we've all been hoping for. Maybe the SC game was finally the game that they just didn't come out, tired, and what not. I don't know. It certainly was a more conservative approach than what I've watched all season from them.

 

[88ND]

Thanks for the replies. The one thing that really struck me was the lack of urgency in this game. This whole season, minus a couple of brain farts here and there, ND played with the urgency that we've all been hoping for. Maybe the SC game was finally the game that they just didn't come out, tired, and what not. I don't know. It certainly was a more conservative approach than what I've watched all season from them.

Don't forget the other guys are trying too.

What if USC comes out and tries throwing deep from the get go. The QB gets sacked or we get an interception.

Instead they came out and seen the Irish playing way off and just threw the spot pass all drive long.

Add in a bad game plan from us...to a good one from USC...they were playing for a win and a season salvaged.

We were going through the motions at times looking like we were playing not to lose.

I think the USC gameplan really surprised BK and staff early on. BK after the game stressed on how much that USC was prepared and well coached for this game.

i refuse to use fatigue for a performance.

 

[echowaker]

Don't forget the other guys are trying too.

What if USC comes out and tries throwing deep from the get go. The QB gets sacked or we get an interception.

Instead they came out and seen the Irish playing way off and just threw the spot pass all drive long.

Add in a bad game plan from us...to a good one from USC...they were playing for a win and a season salvaged.

We were going through the motions at times looking like we were playing not to lose.

I think the USC gameplan really surprised BK and staff early on. BK after the game stressed on how much that USC was prepared and well coached for this game.

i refuse to use fatigue for a performance.

i don't think the gameplan surprised them as much as the performance of Daniels did. He had not performed that well all season as he did in the 1st quarter or so. sometimes you just tip your hat to the other guy.

 

[Toby Smart]

Did you notice Boykin's block was on #30, the freshman walk-on who picked off Book in the end zone?

Yep. I noticed. The thing about JT and his performance against ND. The Irish have three more years of this. He wasn't exactly burning up conference play but found himself against ND. The Irish "D" is generous like that with opposing QBs sometimes.

 

[francade]

I think we may be selling usc a little short too. They’ve led by double digits about 5-6 times this year only to implode down the stretch. They did this to a number of other teams. They have some really good talent and their game plan to use short routes to offset our front four’s pass rush was smart. Once we adjusted w/ some de’s dropping into some short passing lanes & started creeping up and bringing a blitz here & there & the offense started to get going, I had a good feeling we’d end up winning. If book doesn’t brain fart on the wide open play to finke, we coast. Perfect call, and he just didn’t put enough air on it to let him run under it.

 

[HDK]

I think we may be selling usc a little short too. They’ve led by double digits about 5-6 times this year only to implode down the stretch. They did this to a number of other teams. They have some really good talent and their game plan to use short routes to offset our front four’s pass rush was smart. Once we adjusted w/ some de’s dropping into some short passing lanes & started creeping up and bringing a blitz here & there & the offense started to get going, I had a good feeling we’d end up winning. If book doesn’t brain fart on the wide open play to finke, we coast. Perfect call, and he just didn’t put enough air on it to let him run under it.

As Holtz used to say, many games are decided by a half dozen plays.

That's why some people think the defense should have been tightened up quicker in the first half. They look at that game and say if USC hadn't fumbled twice, they could have conceivably had huge lead on us. But, of course, they didn't score; our defense stripped the ball, winning two key plays..

Then you look at the offense. Book misses a wide open Finke and throws the fourth quarter interception. We lost a potential 10 points there and lost those two key plays.

That's football.

 

[echowaker]

As Holtz used to say, many games are decided by a half dozen plays.

That's why some people think the defense should have been tightened up quicker in the first half. They look at that game and say if USC hadn't fumbled twice, they could have conceivably had huge lead on us. But, of course, they didn't score; our defense stripped the ball, winning two key plays..

Then you look at the offense. Book misses a wide open Finke and throws the fourth quarter interception. We lost a potential 10 points there and lost those two key plays.

That's football.

absolutely. amazing how a few easy missed throws can make an offense look ineffective. hit those and the defense goes on its heels and everything opens up.

 

[Patriot82]

Notre Dame knew they should win and so they played not to lose!

 

[tbonesays]

Nearly all first half they thought we would be getting pressure with just the front four. Backed the corners off and just rushed 4.

Everything I'm about to say I see you've posted.

Samething on offense, the normal RPO may have worked against slower opponents but SC always swarmed on the sideways handoffs.

 

[88ND]

Everything I'm about to say I see you've posted.

Samething on offense, the normal RPO may have worked against slower opponents but SC always swarmed on the sideways handoffs.

Absolutely. My worry is that Long took a little too long...yes the pun is intended...to run misdirects and screens. You could see immediately how much SC was selling out.

Against the elite we might find ourselves down by 24 points before the light bulb goes on.

He's got to see what's going on and adjust a bit quicker IMO.

 

[baron100]

They've played base D mostly in the first half all year. I think the game plan was to give up nothing big and let USC do what they've done most of the year and make mistakes. Probably a smart gameplan, but SC played well and didn't make those big mistakes early.

I don't think the staff was playing it safe on offense. Book just missed some throws that would have completely changed the final score of this game. If he hits Finke on the wide open TD and completes a couple of those balls to Boykin, ND probably wins by 21. Mack had a big drop, albeit the defender made a play, but the pass should have been caught.

Let's not take away the way SC played. They've had a rough year, but there is still tons of talent on that team. They could have laid down, especially with all the Helton rumors, but they came to play. They could be a scary team next year if they get things right. Daniels is gonna get better, they have some dynamic wide receivers and will get some guys back from injury. Clay better get them to 9 wins next year or he's gone.

On the other hand if Pittman and st brown don’t fumble what happens then? SC could easily been up by 17 at half. And with a lot of momentum. SC sucks this year but it’s not a stretch to see them win this game if they didn’t keep shooting themselves in the footy