ADVERTISEMENT

WR's

What do you propose they(the higher ups) do? And what steps they going now to stifle the ptogrsm?
Lower the academic standards so that we can recruit the best out of the top 300 players in the country and we're on an even playing field.

Then start giving a damn about winning with the program that made you all that money in the first place.
 
Notre Dame just went 12-0 with high standards

Syracuse and Texas A & M lost to Clemson by a few points and you want Notre Dame to ruin a reputation that’s taken a century to develop ?

Did you attend Notre Dame ?
No, I was unable to get into Notre Dame and I doubt you were either unless you were out of state.

I want Notre Dame to start living up to that great brand again, for so many that have given back. I want to see a program that is dedicated to winning, within reason of course.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Leahylads
I’m not proposing this generalization at all my friend ... I was under the impression from your post that you thought there was something specific holding us back in the way of a university policy. I like the change to admit EEs. I would not change the dorm/living arrangements it’s too central to ND culture. I also would not creat special academic tracks ... the current arrangement already Hs is leading the nation in graduating players which I would continue to value. I think ND has been very understanding with 2nd chances in “violation of team rules” situations ... I would not be overlooking repeat offenses ... but we don’t really know the specifics ... what gets you suspended and what gets you running the stadium stairs.

Only the coach, AD and administration knows the answer to those questions.
 
No, I was unable to get into Notre Dame and I doubt you were either unless you were out of state.

I want Notre Dame to start living up to that great brand again, for so many that have given back. I want to see a program that is dedicated to winning within reason.

I was very fortunate to be able to gain admission as a chemical engineer and graduate with a B.A. four years later.

Notre Dame is unique, very special and I don’t want to do anything that compromises that uniqueness and that which makes it special.

Like you, I want to see the brand returned to its lofty position.
I think that’s harder to do today due to a number of factors.

We went 12-0 this year, a great accomplishment by any metric.

I do believe that a part of regaining prominence involves pay packages for key coaching staff. ND should be an attractive coaching job from a compensation perspective.

No sense in accepting athletes who won’t graduate but there is a case to be made for accepting athletes who can graduate in 5 years with proper tutoring.

For years other teams have and continue to schedule relatively easy games, now it appears that SOS is reversing that trend, but let’s not go overboard.

While losing to Clemson and Alabama isn’t the end of the world, losing by embarrassing margins comes uncomfortably close.
 
I was very fortunate to be able to gain admission as a chemical engineer and graduate with a B.A. four years later.

Notre Dame is unique, very special and I don’t want to do anything that compromises that uniqueness and that which makes it special.

Like you, I want to see the brand returned to its lofty position.
I think that’s harder to do today due to a number of factors.

We went 12-0 this year, a great accomplishment by any metric.

I do believe that a part of regaining prominence involves pay packages for key coaching staff. ND should be an attractive coaching job from a compensation perspective.

No sense in accepting athletes who won’t graduate but there is a case to be made for accepting athletes who can graduate in 5 years with proper tutoring.

For years other teams have and continue to schedule relatively easy games, now it appears that SOS is reversing that trend, but let’s not go overboard.

While losing to Clemson and Alabama isn’t the end of the world, losing by embarrassing margins comes uncomfortably close.
This is a good post, I have 0 disagreements.

We just aren't going to be at the top level of college football anymore.
 
This is a good post, I have 0 disagreements.

We just aren't going to be at the top level of college football anymore.

I believe the University made a mistake with the NBC contract.

ND allowed NBC to control the product.

We didn’t follow Augusta’s lead and model with The Masters and CBS.

Years ago I gave the book, “The Making of the Masters” to the President, hoping that the University would follow Augusta’s control of their unique product.

When you control your product, including the announcers, you project a better image and make Notre Dame more attractive to prospective players.

Who in their right mind would hire anti-ND announcers ? ? ?
 
He dropped an easy one and made a great catch on another. Chase is a game changer without a qb that can get the ball to the wide side. Boykin is a big body with solid hands and long strides but he’s slow and has awful body control.
You can tell your self Chase is a game changer all you want but stats don't lie. He is a guy that can show flashes but if he hasn't put it together now at wr then he never will. I wouldn't mind seeing what McKinley can do and move Chase to defense.
 
Gilman thought Ross was going to break the route off at the sticks for the first down and allowed himself to take a misstep, but there is no way Alohi Gilman runs in coverage with Justyn Ross. In fact, there was a post route earlier in the game, when Lawrence attacked Gilman. Ross has 2 steps on him in that route 2 and Lawrence tossed a frozen rope. Gilman can run with a lot of players in college football, he can't run with that 6'4 antelope.... He'll face a similar challenge next year when Georgia puts Mecole Hardman in the slot on Gilman. He's even faster than Ross is.
He doesn't stink. He just can't run with the elite receivers in college football. He got roasted by Ross on two separate occasions. He's a great enforcer in the box, but he's a liability in deep coverage. Clark Lea will need to fix that in his scheme going forward, or Georgia will isolate Holloman or Hardman on Gilman too... He can't be left in cover 1 situations without safety help on his man when they invert wide receivers to get their fast guy in the slot, or run an exchange at that snap. It's going to happen at times. Every defensive back is going to get beat. Deion Sanders and Champ Bailey got beat. Nobody should be jumping off a cliff because Gilman couldn't run with Justyn Ross, but did you see a single scenario where their much maligned secondary couldn't run with our guys?
*******************
Interesting. The Clemson WR's are talented and made plays both on ND and Alabama. I disagree with you (Irish Ontario) about Gilman or as a matter of fact generalizing the secondary on the point that Gilman or ND DB's can't run with elite WR's. Alabama DB's could not run with Clemson's WR as well.

There were only 2 plays I recall that Gilman did not do well in coverage against Clemson. 1 of the plays was a busted call of which you think it was a cover 1 man on man. It was not. If was the WR is getting rerouted and he is colliding, catching and carrying that WR. He did that all season to WR's.

It was a switch cover 2. Where the boundary corner was responsible for the deep half and the FS got the curl and the Buck got the flat. It was a bad defensive call for a good offense play for the Clemson's personnel. I would of called a regular cover 2 or key 2 (quarter coverage) in the boundary with the combo WR's on the 2 side being that it was inverted. (#8 and #5.) There are deep threat WR's on the same side. They are normally on the opposite sides. I don't think Lea saw that and did not call the best call for that down and distance and Clemson personnel.
 
Interesting. The Clemson WR's are talented and made plays both on ND and Alabama. I disagree with you (Irish Ontario) about Gilman or as a matter of fact generalizing the secondary on the point that Gilman or ND DB's can't run with elite WR's. Alabama DB's could not run with Clemson's WR as well.

There were only 2 plays I recall that Gilman did not do well in coverage against Clemson. 1 of the plays was a busted call of which you think it was a cover 1 man on man. It was not. If was the WR is getting rerouted and he is colliding, catching and carrying that WR. He did that all season to WR's.

It was a switch cover 2. Where the boundary corner was responsible for the deep half and the FS got the curl and the Buck got the flat. It was a bad defensive call for a good offense play for the Clemson's personnel. I would of called a regular cover 2 or key 2 (quarter coverage) in the boundary with the combo WR's on the 2 side being that it was inverted. (#8 and #5.) There are deep threat WR's on the same side. They are normally on the opposite sides. I don't think Lea saw that and did not call the best call for that down and distance and Clemson personnel.
 
People on this thread has no idea on the issue of secondary play can't run with elite WR's. They can run with them if they executed and finished the play. Don't pass the judgement that ND's bad performance on the secondary on a few plays means that they can't run with ("Elite Players-WR's) Clemson WR's are excellent and elite. I get that. If you think Gilman can't run with elite WR's than number #14 safety from Alabama could not run with them as well. And apparently that safety is a 5 star high school athlete "elite" and also a college all american. Alabama defense especially the DB's were getting worked.

Here's the deal:

If you don't have pressure from your DL or the front 7, any QB and WR will get open in a zone play especially if 1 or 2 guys are not on the same page. Any secondary will get beat. Alabama got beat on zone play all night! It was a good call on the OC for a bad call on the DC on that play.

It was a cover 2 switch not a cover 1.

That play that Gilman appeared to lose on, in the seam for a TD was not a cover 1 man coverage. If it was a cover 1, that WR would of got rerouted in space. He was not touched at all. There is no way Gilman and or the Tranquil who was playing the BUCK would allow that to happen. Gilman knows better than that. He is one of the best cover guys outside of love on that ND secondary. Just ask the DC and his secondary coach. Why do you think all season, OC's did not challenge him. He had no action on some games.

It was a bust call-cover 2 switch (Irish Ontario) And it was not executed right. The corner thought it was man while the buck and FS was playing zone.

Yes, I agree that the ND secondary needs to finish every play, i.e. Donte in the end zone good coverage but the WR comes down with the ball in hand for a TD. You are right that Gilman lost on one play leverage as you stated for a big gain. But every DB will get beat. It was a zone play not executed by all at the same time. Once again, good call on the OC, bad call for the DC with bad execution from the players on the zone play. I would of done a cover 4 (key 2 read) with a cover 1 disguise. It was unfortunate.

My belief is that the best is yet to come with the entire ND defense especially if they get the right guys to play LB. All levels of the defense needs to be in sync, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd level guys in any DC's system to be successful. Meaning front 7 pressure. That compliments good secondary play.
 
I think Austin can be NFL WR, need to step up, take control of his future now. 2-3 years, hopefully with Jurkovec at QB, they can both be NFL guys. 10-2 seasons are nice, once every 5 or so years things line up for a title shot, but you arent winning big time bowls/playoffs with a backup QBs and 2 huge body WRs that arent exactly fast. College football has changed since BK came over from Cincy, someone should tell him that.
 
My take on WRs

They are much better than most on here give them credit. Why do I say this. Re-watching game film we had people running open all of the time and they were missed, we had terrible tendencies in our passing game and teams targeted that.

Our issues that held us back:
Wimbush - Dynamite running scripted plays, but terrible at going through progressions, and not accurate enough with the football
Book - Unbelievable short/quick throw accuracy, terrible at down the field passes, and absolutely NO pocket presence therefor patience to go through progressions and see downfield, lack of arm strength hurt but his pocket presence is biggest concern
Long - Did not take advantage of our size at all, i don't even want to think of what Shaw would have done with our WRs and TEs
Speed- We didn't have an absolute burner getting major PT. Since we didn't utilize our size it was even worse. I think our speed wouldn't have been an issue if 2 of the above 3 were better


Boykin, Claypool, and Finke are an extremely good WR group for college, and I think Claypool has NFL pro bowl talent. The passing game was to always go to boykin or short to Alize, and occasionally downfield to finke boykin or claypool. No creativity, and no tendency breakers from week to week.
 
“2. An inch of the ball was clearly out ofbounds when Kmet forced the fumble on the kickoff.”

“Clearly out of bounds”? None of the ball touched the out of bounds line. The ball isn’t flat, it’s rounded, that was a total 100% bullshit overturn. If they call it out of bounds on the field, I have no problem w/ not reversing it, but there was absolutely no clear indisputable evidence to overturn that. Bullshit call, no doubt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Riverside Irish
“2. An inch of the ball was clearly out ofbounds when Kmet forced the fumble on the kickoff.”

“Clearly out of bounds”? None of the ball touched the out of bounds line. The ball isn’t flat, it’s rounded, that was a total 100% bullshit overturn. If they call it out of bounds on the field, I have no problem w/ not reversing it, but there was absolutely no clear indisputable evidence to overturn that. Bullshit call, no doubt.

I've watched the replay a number of times. In my opinion, you'd have be a complete ND homer to not see what the replay booth and the broadcast team saw, that the ball was out of bounds... Your idea and my idea of conclusive must differ significantly, to we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BGI User 1596
I've watched the replay a number of times. In my opinion, you'd have be a complete ND homer to not see what the replay booth and the broadcast team saw, that the ball was out of bounds... Your idea and my idea of conclusive must differ significantly, to we'll have to agree to disagree.

Mike Pereira didn't think there was enough there to overturn the call either. He's not a complete ND homer.
 
“I've watched the replay a number of times. In my opinion, you'd have be a complete ND homer to not see what the replay booth and the broadcast team saw, that the ball was out of bounds... Your idea and my idea of conclusive must differ significantly, to we'll have to agree to disagree.”

It doesn’t take an ND homer to see it. All you have to do is take a football and lean it over a line at the angle it was and you can see that even though the ball is breaking the plane of the out of bounds line, it’s not touching it. That’s not out of bounds, and it’s certainly not indisputable evidence which is what it takes to overturn a call. I think only an ND hater would say that it was indisputable (or an ND fan that’s incessantly critical of their own team), but that’s just me.
 
I've watched the replay a number of times. In my opinion, you'd have be a complete ND homer to not see what the replay booth and the broadcast team saw, that the ball was out of bounds... Your idea and my idea of conclusive must differ significantly, to we'll have to agree to disagree.
It's weird that you would characterize anyone who disagreed with the fumble reversal as a complete ND homer. First of all, it isn't true. Second of all, no one should care how many announcers or other talking heads agreed with the reversal. The only thing that should matter is whether or not there was conclusive video evidence. In this case, I didn't see any. I saw video of the tip of the ball hovering over the out of bounds, and I've seen a grainy blown up picture from that video showing the tip of the ball hover over the out of bounds. What I haven't seen is an actual video or picture that definitively shows the ball touching out of bounds. Or even, as the announcers alluded to, the Clemson defender actually touching the out of bounds as he was touching the ball. I didn't see clear video evidence of that either. So, if you really think such evidence exists, provide it.

I've already posted this once in this thread but it looks like it needs to be posted again. This is what Mike Pereira said about the call:



As I'm sure you know, Pereira isn't an ND homer, thus proving your assertion wrong, and he knows a lot more about what it should take to overturn a call than any of us.
 
Last edited:
I finally got a chance to rewatch the game and the book bashers are full of it. He didn’t play as bad as some here said. He missed Boykin on 3rd & 2 slant and a post was underthrown (another post was a little off but Boykin was clearly interfered w/ and got no call). Other than that, he was running for his life. The other BS takeaway was that Clemson called off the dogs in the 3rd qtr., that’s just not true at all. Starters played into the 4th and were pulled w/ about 7 minutes to go. The idea that Clemson took it easy in the 2nd half is 100% made up BS. Did Clemson have any 2nd stringers play before that? Sure, but there was no calling off the dogs. 4 long plays (etienne did nothing all game other than the long run). I don’t know why Gilman bit so hard on the 3rd & 14 but that dude played his ass off. 4 huge plays did us in on defense. On offense, book wasn’t as sharp as he’d been, which is understandable considering it was the best defense by far we’ve played, but our o-line could not protect, and our wrs dropped at least 3-4 balls & some questionable play calls didn’t help. It wasn’t nearly as bad as the score indicated though, imo. Now if they were breaking off huge chunks in the running game and methodically shredding our dbs, that’d be one thing, but we stuffed the run virtually all game sans the one long run, and they came up w/ two circus catches on good coverage and made a great call on the 3rd & 14 to make Gilman bite. The score says ass kicking but I think we’re closer than most think. Whether that plays out next season, who knows, we lose a lot of really good players, but if we play that game again, I think it’s a much closer result.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hurricane Willy
I finally got a chance to rewatch the game and the book bashers are full of it. He didn’t play as bad as some here said. He missed Boykin on 3rd & 2 slant and a post was underthrown (another post was a little off but Boykin was clearly interfered w/ and got no call). Other than that, he was running for his life. The other BS takeaway was that Clemson called off the dogs in the 3rd qtr., that’s just not true at all. Starters played into the 4th and were pulled w/ about 7 minutes to go. The idea that Clemson took it easy in the 2nd half is 100% made up BS. Did Clemson have any 2nd stringers play before that? Sure, but there was no calling off the dogs. 4 long plays (etienne did nothing all game other than the long run). I don’t know why Gilman bit so hard on the 3rd & 14 but that dude played his ass off. 4 huge plays did us in on defense. On offense, book wasn’t as sharp as he’d been, which is understandable considering it was the best defense by far we’ve played, but our o-line could not protect, and our wrs dropped at least 3-4 balls & some questionable play calls didn’t help. It wasn’t nearly as bad as the score indicated though, imo. Now if they were breaking off huge chunks in the running game and methodically shredding our dbs, that’d be one thing, but we stuffed the run virtually all game sans the one long run, and they came up w/ two circus catches on good coverage and made a great call on the 3rd & 14 to make Gilman bite. The score says ass kicking but I think we’re closer than most think. Whether that plays out next season, who knows, we lose a lot of really good players, but if we play that game again, I think it’s a much closer result.
You can try to rationalise it but the empirical evidence shows another good old fashioned beat down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Extirpate 6951
I finally got a chance to rewatch the game and the book bashers are full of it. He didn’t play as bad as some here said. He missed Boykin on 3rd & 2 slant and a post was underthrown (another post was a little off but Boykin was clearly interfered w/ and got no call). Other than that, he was running for his life. The other BS takeaway was that Clemson called off the dogs in the 3rd qtr., that’s just not true at all. Starters played into the 4th and were pulled w/ about 7 minutes to go. The idea that Clemson took it easy in the 2nd half is 100% made up BS. Did Clemson have any 2nd stringers play before that? Sure, but there was no calling off the dogs. 4 long plays (etienne did nothing all game other than the long run). I don’t know why Gilman bit so hard on the 3rd & 14 but that dude played his ass off. 4 huge plays did us in on defense. On offense, book wasn’t as sharp as he’d been, which is understandable considering it was the best defense by far we’ve played, but our o-line could not protect, and our wrs dropped at least 3-4 balls & some questionable play calls didn’t help. It wasn’t nearly as bad as the score indicated though, imo. Now if they were breaking off huge chunks in the running game and methodically shredding our dbs, that’d be one thing, but we stuffed the run virtually all game sans the one long run, and they came up w/ two circus catches on good coverage and made a great call on the 3rd & 14 to make Gilman bite. The score says ass kicking but I think we’re closer than most think. Whether that plays out next season, who knows, we lose a lot of really good players, but if we play that game again, I think it’s a much closer result.

Notre Dame entered the Clemson red zone ONCE in the entire game. That's tied for worst offensive performance they faced this season, with Furman, who scored 7 points on them vs ND's 3... Clemson played at a high level (with an All American out) but the ND offense was awful... Wide receivers dropping passes that would have moved the chains. The offensive line looking like a Jeff Quinn coached offensive line (similar to when Cinci played Florida after going undefeated in 2009), and Ian Book fumbling while scrambling, throwing a bad interception, overthrowing an open Miles Boykin for a would be touchdown, and missing him again on an easy slant route for a key 1st down on 4th and short.

I wasn't just Ian. The whole offense sucked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BGI User 1596
I agree the whole offense sucked but if you watch it again, book’s play wasn’t the primary problem. Some of you cited numerous plays “left out there” cuz he left the pocket too soon. Please watch every offensive play again & tell me how many times there was someone wide open before he took off. So he missed Armstrong breaking free. When a qb is on the run, even the most aware qbs can miss that. He missed Boykin on the 3rd & 2 slant which he was perfect on all year (that was the biggest mistake just based on how well he’d thrown that). He missed on the post twice and once it was blatant PI not called. The INT was a 3rd & 15 and u can tell it slipped out of his hand the way it wobbled. Ended up like a punt w/ a decent return (not a big deal). All in all, playcalling didn’t help, o-line couldn’t protect & wrs dropped a few. Add that to book missing on a few (some he’s been perfect all year on) & that’s a recipe for disaster when you’re playing a defense like clemson’s. Watch every play and tell me he wasn’t running for his life for the most part. I will say this, I was disappointed that he didn’t keep it more on the read option. Not a good game for him but not nearly as bad as some of the kneejerkers made it out to be.
 
I agree the whole offense sucked but if you watch it again, book’s play wasn’t the primary problem. Some of you cited numerous plays “left out there” cuz he left the pocket too soon. Please watch every offensive play again & tell me how many times there was someone wide open before he took off. So he missed Armstrong breaking free. When a qb is on the run, even the most aware qbs can miss that. He missed Boykin on the 3rd & 2 slant which he was perfect on all year (that was the biggest mistake just based on how well he’d thrown that). He missed on the post twice and once it was blatant PI not called. The INT was a 3rd & 15 and u can tell it slipped out of his hand the way it wobbled. Ended up like a punt w/ a decent return (not a big deal). All in all, playcalling didn’t help, o-line couldn’t protect & wrs dropped a few. Add that to book missing on a few (some he’s been perfect all year on) & that’s a recipe for disaster when you’re playing a defense like clemson’s. Watch every play and tell me he wasn’t running for his life for the most part. I will say this, I was disappointed that he didn’t keep it more on the read option. Not a good game for him but not nearly as bad as some of the kneejerkers made it out to be.

Being the trigger man on an offense that made a single trip into the redzone and settled for a field goal is going to garner a lot of negative attention. Particularly when you turn the ball over multiple times and make a couple of really bad throws that stick out.

Ian Book has received too much credit when ND has won at times this year and predictably, he's getting too much of the blame for ND losing.

I thought he was awful on the key plays that he had a chance to make, but you're right that he got very little help from the team around him.
 
Last edited:
“Ian Book has received too much credit when ND has won at times this year and predictably, he's getting too much of the blame for ND losing.

I thought he was awful on the key plays that he had a chance to make, but you're right that he got very little help from the team around him.”

So he received too much credit for hitting at a 70% completion % and having a top 5 QBR for the season and increasing our point total by 2 tds per game upon his insertion into the lineup? Who should get the credit for that?

You say that he was awful on the key plays, so none of the plays he made were key, only the ones he didn’t make? Gotcha. More of the book hate from the posters that thought he wasn’t a P5 starter. I knew that book would have to play perfect to silence the critics on this board and that was a tall task considering the defense he was playing, the way the o-line protected, the dropped passes & some questionable playcalling, but all people will say is that book sucked. Even the announcers were saying that our wrs weren’t getting separation on plays that he left the pocket, but that narrative was thrown about early on and sounded good so some here latched onto it. It’s simply not true. Watch the tape, he wasn’t awful, he missed a few throws, which every qb does in every game, this was less of book playing “awful” and more of the entire offense not showing up, imho.
 
ADVERTISEMENT