S&P+ gave Vanderbilt a 56% post-game win probability based on an advantage in yards per play, more scoring opportunities, and perceived poor turnover luck. An efficiency edge and slightly better performance converting scoring opportunities (even though it was ugly) saved Notre Dame is this one.
Confused? Check out this advanced stats glossary.
Efficiency
Vanderbilt’s defense is a still more unknown than not at this point – they beat up on a couple cupcakes early, then were up and down against the Irish. But this felt like a strong bounce-back effort from the Ball State mess for the Irish offense. Notre Dame ran the ball on 65% of its offensive plays, including 19 attempts for Brandon Wimbush. It was a solidly efficient effort both running and passing, including the best performance on passing downs of this young season.
A key to this efficiency, though, was to avoid facing many long passing downs. The Irish ran the ball on 26 of 33 first downs, averaging 6.1 yards per carry and a 50% success rate on those carries. Against Michigan and Ball State the Notre Dame offense faced an average of close to nine yards to gain per third down attempt. The improved rushing attack allowed the Irish to stay “on schedule” against Vandy, with an average 3rd down distance to go at 5.4 yards.
The defense began the game with a lights-out effort, allowing a total of just 36 yards on the first four Commodore possessions, including three consecutive three-and-outs. On those possessions Vanderbilt had just a 17.6% success rate. Afterwards it was tougher sledding – whether by virtue of adjustments, fatigue, or Kyle Shurmur making some pretty strong throws. The run defense was stout, and combined with an early lead led Vandy to run only 25 times all game. Making your opponent fairly one-dimensional is always good, although the pass defense was a little less consistent than ideal.
Hard to factor into the stats again is the flow of the game. For a third consecutive game the Irish built an early lead, and then went flat on offense. Diagnosing the problem is impossible – is it conservatism with the lead and good defense? Issues once scripted plays run out and Wimbush has more to deal with? Early on it felt like the Irish offense had an identity – mixing in runs to the perimeter, with Wimbush as a threat, and taking calculated, low-risk shots in the passing game. That wasn’t the case later (and with the weird Ian Book packages), and hopefully is fixable.
Explosiveness
With an uptick in efficiency came a downturn in explosiveness for the Irish offense/ What caused this? My best answer is mostly….nothing. Again, we have good evidence that explosive plays are mostly random, and are best created by just being efficient. If you don’t buy that (but you probably should), you’d also likely point out there are personnel issues involved, and it’s clear right now that the Notre Dame skill position players are more Jose Altuve (singles and doublers hitters) than Giancarlo Stanton. The Irish tried to manufacture explosive passes in the first two games with long downfield passes, with mixed results.
Dexter Williams could fix some of this when he comes back, especially when paired with Wimbush, who is due for some longer runs as well. Still, I would worry far more if the Irish had been less efficient on the day – being this efficient without breaking one or two longer plays has the smell of some bad luck that should regress to the mean in a positive direction.
Notre Dame’s havoc rate ranks 38th in FBS through the first quarter of the year, a nice little jump from finishing 66th last season. The way the havoc is coming is interesting though – the pass rush hasn’t quite made the leap I’d hoped for, although some missed holds and close calls probably undersell the defensive lines effort. But the defensive backs, deflecting passes and finding picks all over the place, are fueling the effort, with a havoc rate as a unit in the top-10.
It was also a huge relief to see the Irish offensive line bounce back from the Ball State performance in terms of allowing disruption. After making the Cardinals look like Bama in terms of havoc rate and run stuffs, Jeff Quinn’s group allowed zero sacks and few tackles for a loss. This isn’t an offense built to play from behind on the scoreboard or behind the chains too far.
Finishing Drives, Field Position, & Turnovers
Converting drives really swung this game in many ways – Vanderbilt created more scoring opportunities, but had two extremely costly turnovers to pair with a missed field goal and the late fourth down failure. The Irish barely scraped out an advantage in points per scoring opportunity, hitting three field goals (although a late Yoon stung) but at least ending these drives with a kick instead of a turnover.
With a better performance in the red zone and converting these opportunities, I think a lot of the fretting over the offense after this game goes away. The Irish averaged around 5 points per scoring opportunity last year, so just a normal 2017 performance would have led to around 30 points and a comfortable win.
The Irish also won the field position battle despite Troy Pride’s interception starting a drive at the Irish 1. Tyler Newsome, as noted everywhere, was exceptional. John Doerer was awesome on kickoffs, and Michael Young showed some great burst on a 48-yard kickoff return. This should be a strength for the Irish, although it’s somehow resulted in mediocre field position at best in recent years.
Once again S&P+ observed some turnover luck for the Irish, who recovered two of three fumbles (including the final lateral play). On film this didn’t feel lucky though – Notre Dame forced tight throws and created strips while protecting the ball very well. The Irish quarterbacks had only three passes deflected, compared to eight breakups of Shurmur. This is a case where the “turnover luck” S&P+ is observing right now is probably a little overstated, but that’s ok.
Reasons for Excitement, Reasons to be Discouraged
#1 An offensive identity seems not too far off?
Kelly and Wimbush have made comments repeatedly about this offense still searching a bit for an identity. But it feels like the approach against Vanderbilt represents what the offense should look like – a run-first attack, with lots of Wimbush runs, sprinkling in play-action to keep the defenses honest (despite 48 rush attempts, the Irish attempted just five play-action throws Saturday). The running attack shown early against Vanderbilt should be the norm – lots of options the defense has to account for, including jet sweeps and fakes that stretch the defense horizontally. If the run attack can be as efficient as it was against the Commodores, especially avoiding long third downs, it should get the offense moving sufficiently against the vast majority of opponents.
As Eric pointed out in his review, the production thus far hasn’t been getting it done, averaging just over 5 yards per play. But I wonder how much of this is the result of conservative play-calling and reliance on the defense with a team that hasn’t trailed yet in this young season. There may be a realization coming that the Irish can’t stop attacking as much (although against Ball State, there was continued attacking that went awry),
Before the year there were a lot of comparisons to 2012, and early in that season there were a lot of games that fit a similar script to what we’ve seen in 2018. Against Purdue the Irish played down to their competition and gained just 5.01 yards per play. Then against Michigan State and Michigan (4.55 and 4.78 YPP respectively), Notre Dame led from the start, and Kelly was content making opponents score enough to climb back versus making a mistake with a young QB.
Now, that stretch of three games was sandwiched by a stomping of Navy (7.10 YPP) and rolling Miami (7.62). We need to see a performance like this, and Wake Forest presents that opportunity, having just allowed Boston College to rack up 7.59 yards per play. As Brian Kelly said this week, “We haven’t attacked the defense at all times and we have to score touchdowns. We have work to do”.
#2 Wimbush has been fine with intermediate to downfield throws
We know the Wimbush weaknesses at this point. The short passing game is not his forte. If the Irish offense wants to move to a game that’s more balanced between running and a short-passing, RPO heavy scheme, Ian Book should be your guy. But if you are truly going to build an offense around Wimbush’s abilities, the intermediate and deep passing game are going to be the most important pieces.
And in those areas Wimbush has been fine, completing deep passes that led to the early lead against Michigan and performing well in the intermediate areas against Ball State and Vanderbilt. He had 11 completions of between 17 and 31 yards against the Cardinal, and followed it up completing 7 of 9 passes for 112 yards on intermediate throws (6-20 yards) last weekend. His third down performance was bad, but Wimbush also was strong in situations that prevented third downs – with successful throws on 5 of 8 situations of 2nd and 8+.
#3 The defense is carrying a heavy load
The Irish defense is ranked #5 currently in S&P+, and has been solid without dominating. Disruption has taken a slight uptick but the stats shows a team closer to the 2017 defense than one taking a leap forward. The potential is there for that leap still to happen – watching the games, this still feels like a better pass rush, better safety play, and better performance at corner. There are series where the defense does dominate.
But there’s also a huge burden on them with an inconsistent offense, and a lack of depth that is concerning. Jerry Tillery and Te’von Coney and Drue Tranquill are doing everything we hoped they would do but also never coming off the field. Already some key pieces from the two-deep like Shaun Crawford, MTA, and Jeremiah Owusu-Koramoah are lost for the year. The top performance level of this defense is in a top-5 to top-10 range, no doubt. I just worry about sustainability over the year, and I think we see some of that even play out game to game as players wear down a bit.
The numbers also see the defense performing well in ways that probably won’t last forever. Holding opponents to 2.69 points per trip inside the 40 (8th nationally) is a huge testament to a great bend but don’t break effort, but also opponents screwing up field goals. The Irish are allowing a sizeable opponent success rate (68th in opponent efficiency) but not really getting burned by big plays (20th in opponent explosiveness), which will change if not patched up.
#4 This Ian Book package is dumb
An initial disclaimer: college coaches have to manage things well beyond my comprehension. 18-22 year olds are difficult to manage and develop, and maybe that plays a role here. I understand wanting to give the current backup QB, who is close in caliber to the starter, a significant role where he knows he will play and contribute every week.
That out of the way, man is the Ian Book “blue zone” package dumb. (If you missed it, BK explained that he defines the blue zone as within five yards of the goal line). Last season the Irish were a top-25 team in terms of converting scoring opportunities, and that was despite a big drop-off at the end of the season. Brandon Wimbush, who had more rushing attempts than any other player in the red zone last year, played a significant role in that. Moving the ball and scoring are harder as the field gets shorter, so why take out a guy who forces the defense to worry so much about the run?
Even throwing out that simple move, there’s good evidence that bringing in these heavy tight-end packages at the goal line and in short yardage is a bad idea. Warren Sharp, an excellent person to read / follow if you care about this kind of stuff, did an excellent job looking at the NFL numbers in these situations. This whole article is awesome and worth the read, but the highlights as it applies here:
- Rushing is more effective than passing in the red zone and goal-line situations
- Runs are more effective out of formations with 2+ wide receivers. Sets with zero wide receivers had the lowest goal line success rate
- Similar NFL data has shown that run success is largely determined by number of defenders in the box, and that when it’s even (blockers vs defenders in the box), more blockers become a disadvantage.
Rushing YPC by Defenders in the Box. Each curve represents Offensive relative rushing advantage. Positive numbers mean more blockers than defenders in the box. negative mean less blockers than defenders.
As the the number of MIB grows, extra blockers become a disadvantage. pic.twitter.com/2uqkb0hIOT
— Josh Hermsmeyer (@friscojosh) June 6, 2018
It’s not apples to apples applying this data to college, but I’m pretty confident the larger takeaways should still apply. Running out of more spread formations should be more effective than these jumbo goal-line packages, and Wimbush is a better runner / gives the defense more to account for.
One quarter down, 3-0
In some ways, this team is off to a start that’s like the anti-2016 team, which was quality but lost a ton of close games. You may remember that team finishing 26th in S&P+ despite the 4-8 record, with 7.2 second-order wins. Those second-order wins take into account what “should” have happened in each game, attempting to take luck and high-variance components of the game like turnovers and look at what’s more sustainable.
At 3-0, the Irish currently have 1.8 second order wins, thanks to a couple victories in close games that arguably could have gone either way. S&P+ gave Vanderbilt a 56% win probability looking at the final stats of this game – one where the YPP edge went to the Commodores, along with more scoring opportunities and some bad turnover luck. These numbers echo what a lot of Notre Dame fans at this point feel – that this team is maybe a bit overrated (18th in S&P+) and due for a letdown any week now.
While by no means is this team a finished product, even if that is the case, I’d argue we should embrace it. These weekly reviews are a lot about the numbers and projecting things moving forward, but speaking from the heart instead of the brain for a second, how fun would it be to scratch out a bunch of close games with a clutch defense, streaky offense, and lethal kicking combination? Would anything make the Notre Dame-hating college football world madder than an Irish team like, say, 2014 FSU, that just keeps winning close games and getting hype despite not being great? I’m all for winning these ugly games, maintaining a spotless (or close record), and having Kirk Herbstreit putting us on upset alert every week.
And without getting too optimistic, the schedule makes something like that somewhat feasible. Stanford is at 27th in S&P+, and somehow is not any more efficient and less reliant on Bryce Love big plays than last year. USC is 39th, 1-2, and still is coached by Clay Helton. Virginia Tech’s opening week win suddenly looks a lot less impressive, and they are ranked 41st. Northwestern received preseason top 25 votes and just lost to Akron. I would love to see Notre Dame come out and dominate against Wake Forest, but if they win by three or something it will be time for full-on Trolltre Dame, the top-10 team everyone thinks is overrated but just keeps winning.
But! But! BK can’t win close games!
I’ll jump on the Trolltre Dame train if it starts running!
If you’re gonna be a paper tiger then it’s good we have a weak schedule to help us stay as overrated as possible for as long as possible.
The Wisconsin approach!
Why compare it to 2014 FSU? It seems to me that 2012 ND is at least as good a comparison.
2012 ND is definitely possible with improvement, but that team 1) beat some really good teams, highlighted by Stanford and Oklahoma and 2) was pretty highly regarded. There was a little bit of “almost lost to Pitt, undeserving”, but generally the resume was really good and there were some beat downs included.
14 FSU, like this team early on, just kept escaping games, and made the playoff despite advanced stats almost universally agreeing they were more the quality of a #12-20 type team than top 5 or 10, which ND was clearly in 12.
Excellent point. I had been remembering the close wins of the ’12 team as well, but Prister’s article over at the Athletic last week pointed out how much more effective the ’12 offense was (at least against some teams) and how much more dominant the defense was.
In 2012 Golson was a much better QB than the 2 we have now, and we had Eifert and better runners so I agree, that offense was more effective.
I keep hearing everyone refer to the scripted offensive plays at the beginning of games and how much better the offense is. But I heard BK deny that they script plays period. I can’t figure out how it benefits BK to lie, or be untruthful about this.
What BK said was that they don’t “script” plays, but they run the more familiar ones/ones that they focused on and/or went well in practice that week to get the team into a good rhythm to start the game.
This can:
1) Make it so from the outside that the first series or two looks scripted.
2) Result in people (like Michael) referring to these plays as “scripted” because it’s simpler and easier to say than “the more familiar plays that they ran well in practice that week”
3) Lead to commentators lazily referring to early plays as “scripted” because a lot of coaching staffs do script plays to start a game.
I don’t know why anyone would take it as evidence that BK is lying just because a bunch of people who don’t actually do the play calling use the word “script.” As you yourself said, there’s no motive. And my guess is Michael is not attempting to contradict BK here. (Though he can jump in and correct me if I’m wrong).
I actually wasn’t aware of those comments on scripting, so appreciate pointing that out.
My takeaway is basically still what scarponi said – whether truly scripted or just the BW favorite plays they’ve repped a lot and prepared for that opponent, there seems to be a stark contrast in confidence and performance on those plays and others later in the game
Yeah, I’m not accusing BK of lying. I thought other commentators were accusing him of lying. That’s why I pointed out that I saw no benefit for him to lie about it.
>At 3-0, the Irish currently have 1.8 second order wins, thanks to a couple victories in close games that arguably could have gone either way. ….These numbers echo what a lot of Notre Dame fans at this point feel – that this team is maybe a bit overrated (18th in S&P+) and due for a letdown any week now.
On the Sunday podcast, Bill C. said that S&P+ views ND as a 2-1 team due to the low # of 2nd order wins, which yes, fits how I feel–we’re not great, Bob. 3-0 is better than the alternatives, but we were also lucky in the game and lucky to be playing bad teams, I think S&P+ has us about where I’d rank us nationally, now that we’ve got 3 games worth of data.
>I’d argue we should embrace it…how fun would it be to scratch out a bunch of close games with a clutch defense, streaky offense, and lethal kicking combination? Would anything make the Notre Dame-hating college football world madder than an Irish team like, say, 2014 FSU, that just keeps winning close games and getting hype despite not being great? I’m all for winning these ugly games, maintaining a spotless (or close record), and having Kirk Herbstreit putting us on upset alert every week.
Again, winning ugly and looking like we’re going to lose each week is better than the alternative of actually losing games, but I wouldn’t call it “fun” at all. The 24/7 sports podcast guys (Chip and Barton, the most bro-some CFB podcast, though Barton went to Yale. It’s hilarious) was openly opining that ND could conceivably run the table, given that Stanford and maybe VT are the only good teams left, and get into the playoff, and holy crap that would be crazy….I’m so conflicted on that, because on the one hand YES YOU ALWAYS TAKE THE SCENARIO THAT GETS YOU TO THE PLAYOFF but on the other, I’m sick of the “ND only gets [bowl game, playoff talk, special ice cream, whatever] because of their name” garbage. And I’d like to be competitive in a playoff game, or even a top bowl against someone not named LSU.
TL;DR: Yes, I’d rather win every game ugly and be 12-0 as a team that stats/eyeballs say is more like an 8-4 team, but instead of fun, I just find it super frustrating, because I don’t like the feeling of waiting for the other shoe to fall and we either lose to a Northwestern or get railed in the bowl/playoff, with people hating on how overrated we are.
Then again, that’s the best we can hope for under BK, I guess. Sigh.
See, I think if you embrace it, it could be more fun. If you can’t get there, I understand that too. But I think it can be freeing to take what this team is at this point, and stop hoping so much for these leaps to happen on offense in particular and being frustrated when it doesn’t happen. Again, personal decisions.
I also think Vandy and Ball State are the kind of opponents where these performances aren’t as fun, because there’s little joy in beating them. Same probably applies to Wake. But beating Stanford, VT, FSU, USC? Those will be gratifying no matter the score if we can pull them off.
And I get the desire to avoid a bowl mismatch, reinforcing the idea ND gets preferential treatment, but those fans will believe that regardless. And putting aside the playoff for a second, even a major bowl 1) may not be a huge mismatch, depending on opponent and 2) even if it was, who knows how ND will fare. This is in my mind a fairly high variance team – we’ve seen them play down to competition but I also think the Michigan performance is an example of playing up. It’s fun to dance on their ashes after the win and poke Harbaugh, and their schedule is tough, but I still think they could easily win 10 and be a factor / pretty good.
A problem I have is the games, except Michigan, have actually been mostly boring, with a few minutes of anxiety at the end hoping we don’t give up a last minute score that erases our too small lead and we lose.
My hunch is that we will blow out Wake, finally, then will have to see what happens with Stanford to see whether we’re actually good enough to play the big boys.
Winning however ugly against the likes of Stan, USC, and FSU is good for our souls, i’ll Take all I can get.
While it would be nice to get into the playoffs, I don’t want a repeat of the Bama humiliation we suffered with the 2012 team. I don’t think we will get there anyway, so not a big worry at this point.
I need to see a lot better performance, consistently, to feel good about how we’d fare in a top tier bowl. With our schedule as weak as it is , barring resurrections by USC and FSU, it’s quite possible we’d get to one.
I feel you on the boring games. They are not aesthetically pleasing, although I do really enjoy watching this defense.
I guess the funny thing, and we are all looking WAY far ahead here, is that I think a major bowl appearance is a victory in itself. Everybody is so worried about what would happen if we get there, but it seems like a weird weighting of bowl results versus other regular season games against rivals/ better programs.
The bowl is the only thing to point to where we’ll potentially play an “elite” opponent, and so it’s the only real point of comparison between “whatever we are now” and “what we’d like to be.” Stanford could be a very good test of that, and I’ll feel a lot better about things if we have success against them. But no one else on the schedule, given the way the first 1/4 of the season has played out, is a good measuring stick if we beat them. Maybe VT will continue to look good and match up well with a Clemson in league, but the shine is off their FSU win (FSU is horrendous, so beating them like that isn’t impressive anymore, Syracuse did it) and they had another game canceled.
I get what you’re saying, but I’m always looking longer term. I care more about where we are as a program than the up and down of each week–this is why I never get so super excited if we win (like against Michigan this year, though I really, really, really enjoyed it–by “excited” I mean predicting future great things) and I don’t really get that angry if we lose, but play well in a tough loss against a good team. It’s why I like the S&P+, because it does a good job of ranking/placing teams relative to each other, accounting for schedule, whereas the human polls and even the committee are more reactive week to week. What I want to see is evidence we’re moving forward and getting better, with the goal of competing with and beating teams in that top tier. Right now, I’m frustrated because despite winning, we’re showing no such thing.
The problem with both the S&P and my outlook is that CFB is played by 18-22 year old kids who can wildly fluctuate week to week, “aren’t the same team each week” as it were. Taking it week to week with no expectations is probably better for one’s sanity and general happiness.
Sure–I accept we are what we are. I just can’t see what we are getting the results we want.
I disagree on your next point–a 66-3 win over Ball State would have been a ton of fun. 49-10 over Vandy would be a blast–we’d get to see backups play, we’d get to see some explosiva plays, and it would make us feel that hey, we’re pretty good. That’s fun. Winning by 5 with luck just makes me think we’ll lose the next one. That’s not fun. it’s different, as you point out, against a Stanford, VT, or USC–but that’s because those are (supposedly, maybe not USC) good teams, and you beating them by 5 seems right.
As to your last point: The whole “who knows how would do against another team in big bowl” sounds great, except the same result happens every time we play a tOSU, Bama, or whatever. Which isn’t entirely fair, because that’s only happened twice under BK (that we’ve only been in those types of bowl games twice under BK is itself a problem, though). I’m still not convinced we played “up” to Michigan, because I’m not sure they’re good–they may improve, but I think it worked out that we got them first game.
It is fun, though, to dance on their ashes, and I love the idea of Michigan fans thinking “how the hell did we lose to THOSE GUYS?!”
Agreed with KG. You know what’s fun? 49-14 against USC. That was fun.
“An initial disclaimer: college coaches have to manage things well beyond my comprehension. 18-22 year olds are difficult to manage and develop, and maybe that plays a role here.”
I mean, I coach a soccer team for 4 year-olds – 9 girls, 2 boys – and I keep my kids focused w/o dumb substitution packages. My kids are operating at peak performance, which is why we’re undefeated (1-0).
Could this be epic-level trolling by BK? Like he’s intentionally calling the stupidest offense against two teams he knows he can beat on talent alone? Then when Stan comes to town, we finally go back to what we had last year and catch the Tree completely off guard? I would actually gain a ton of respect for BK if that were true.
As a girl I tried to pick up once said, “ok…..but no”.
Im thinking I need a little more context here, bud. I dont think you want to leave me with the thought I have right now. 🙂
Your comments re: #BookClub are exactly what frustrate me the most about BK. You mentioned the quote by BK and BW about how they still dont have an offensive identity yet…shouldnt that be something you have ALREADY? Isnt that what an offensive coach kind of “brings with him” when he’s hired? You dont have a philosophy or a type of offense you want to run and you recruit players who can help you dominate using that philosophy? Why the F do we keep recruiting these slow receivers who run bad routes(more this year than past) and dual threat QBs if you want them to be Jimmy Clausen and drop back and stay in the pocket? But if you have this great running QB who excels in goalline situations, why the hell are you taking him out in those GL situations? It’s maddening.
Frankly, if we’re going to embrace the whole 2-QB system, lets do this thing like we did at the beginning of 2012. Everett, you get 2 drives, Tommy, you get two drives. In your two if you look incredible, you might get a third. Dominate again, get a fourth. So on and so forth.
Weren’t Mack and Boykin supposed to be all world when we recruited them? Same with TE’s lately, highly ranked but no real splash in college? A few years ago didn’t we get the top rated TE and he ended up being used almost exclusively as a blocker in multiple TE packages? I think his name was Luatua or something like that?
As for Finke, good, scrappy guy, but he wouldn’t see the field on any of the elite teams.
I know it’s like self flagellation, but watching Bama I dream of the day we could have a stable of receivers like theirs. And a QB who leads them perfectly into big YAC.
Sigh
A lot of these guys never live up to their potential (as advertised by the hype-machine recruiting websites), regardless of the coaching staff. But I share your frustration, particularly with tight ends. Basically, all our good TEs seem to have come from the Weis and previous eras. I don’t know what happened.
Luatua ended up being a low 4 star, 3 star by Rivals. He started out highly ranked, but dropped big time during his recruitment.
I think every TE before this frosh class has been 4 star, but they are were mostly in that top 250-300 range. Mack, Wright, and Kmet were all top 100.
I’ve been working for years at readjusting my expectations for ND football. I was a freshman for Davie’s first year. We were only a few years removed from the greatness of Holtz’s late 80s-early 90s run. We had an 8-1 start my sophomore year including pasting national champs* Michigan. That was probably the high point of my fandom as far as reasonable expectations. With all the coaching changes and good to great seasons in between, never quite getting that ultimate goal, I am learning to scale back on my dreams.
TL;DR: If you want to cheer for a team like Bama, cheer for Bama. Saban is currently running the Greatest Program in the History of College Football. There will probably never be another run like he is having, for any team.
>If you want to cheer for a team like Bama, cheer for Bama.
Except that’s not how college football fandom works, at all. I grew up an ND fan. My first memories are from when we lived on campus when my dad was a grad student. I went later went to ND myself. This isn’t the NFL, where you can just randomly pick a fandom because you want to. It’s not unreasonable at all to want ND to improve and play in that top tier with UGA, Oklahoma, Clemson, etc. It’s unrealistic, of course, to expect to be like Bama, but we can aspire to compete with them, like those teams do. The whole “well, just go root for Bama if you like them so much” really bothers me, because it misses the whole point on why people affiliate with CFB teams. My choices are ND, Hawaii, or Princeton. I cheer for all of them, but only one of them would have me getting up at 3 AM on the other side of the world to follow a game via score tracker. “Go root for Bama”–no. Would I love for ND to be doing what Bama is? Absolutely yes.
KG, I do understand where you’re coming from. My own irrational fandom is born of attending school there and, no matter how many times I try to dispassionately analyze things and lower my own expectations, I never can. I like you struggle sometimes to enjoy the season because I’ve always got my eye on the next hurdle or the future letdown. Last season was a lot of fun until Miami, because we looked good. We were winning big and looking like a top team. And then, we weren’t anymore…
My point with “if you want to cheer for a team like Bama, cheer for Bama” is that there is no other team like them. I agree that we can aspire to try to be one of the teams that could play with them, give them a game, maybe get lucky. But no one is really even on their level at this point. They’ve won five national championships in the past 9 years. That’s Yankees-Canadiens-Celtics level domination. There has never been a run like theirs. So comparing to them is sort of a useless metric, as far as I see it.
Also, because I did some additional research on how dominant Alabama has been, they’ve lost just 11 games in the past nine years. They lost by 14 to OU in the Sugar Bowl, and to USCe in 2010. Every other loss, including the other two in Saban’s 9-3 “bad year” in 2010, has been by a single score. That’s just ridiculous.
Yeah, I’m not arguing that Bama-level is attainable. They’re on the greatest run the sport has ever seen, at arguably the time when it’s hardest to do it. I’d love to say ND’s run under Leahy was better, but it just isn’t, when you factor in scholarship limitations. Leahy could recruit whomever he wanted and stash them on the scout team just to keep other programs from having them.
Most of the time when I hear someone say something close to what you said, it’s “If you like Bama so much, go cheer for Bama”–said in a way indicating “well, if you just want a winner, go jump on their bandwagon, we don’t want you.” I appreciate you responding and explaining that isn’t where you are coming from, that it’s more “look, there’s no one like Bama, and no one else is going to be like Bama, so if that’s what you want, Bama is your only option.” I can agree with that, though when that Death Star isn’t your team, I think it makes you more likely to cheer against them.
(Honestly though, I’ve kind of lost the will to cheer against Bama actively, and now just watch in awe, especially this season with Tua. Maybe we’ll all get lucky and they’ll be the Patriots and run into the NY Giants at some point, but I doubt it)
Dell Alexander is a dud as WR coach in my book. We seem to like recruiting WR’s “with potential” (and I don’t think he recruited Boykin or Claypool) but he’s done very little with that potential.
“Brandon Wimbush, who had more rushing attempts than any other player in the red zone last year, played a significant role in that. Moving the ball and scoring are harder as the field gets shorter, so why take out a guy who forces the defense to worry so much about the run?”
Later in this section you talk about how running near the end zone is more effective when the defense is more spread out i.e., two or more WRs. Obviously we’ve only run heavy formations with Book in the game so far, but I might argue that if you spread the defense out with Wimbush in, the defense will respect the pass less. As you say, Wimbush is the guy who forces the defense to worry so much about the run.
Also, I don’t agree that “Wimbush is a better runner / gives the defense more to account for” is necessarily the case when you need five or fewer yards. I think both QBs are probably close to equally capable of getting five yards rushing on a given play. Where Wimbush has a huge advantage is his potential to turn those five yards into 50. That advantage is obviously less valuable when you only need five. I’m not sure this distinction matters much if we’re only going to see Book under center with 7 linemen, 2 TEs, and a RB, but on a conceptual level I don’t think switching to Book in short yardage is bad just because Wimbush is ostensibly the better runner overall.
I think respecting the pass less doesn’t really matter that much, because at the goal line it’s basically just going to be determined by how many WR’s you throw out there. Those guys are going to be covered in man by a corner, and the safeties will be playing run first, no matter who is out there.
I also disagree that BW and Book are equally capable of getting five yards. How many times on goal line carries do we see a runner use their speed to get the edge to score? Or need to make a man miss? I do think Book is underrated as a runner, good recognizing angles and changing directions, and he may make better reads if you call a read option. But BW has significant edges in acceleration, speed, and ability to beat someone one on one. Again, Wimbush has proven he can do this – he rushed for 14 touchdowns last year!!! It just makes no sense as a division of labor. If anything it makes sense to bring Book in to run a two minute drill.
So I went back and watched all of Wimbush’s rushing touchdowns from last year because I’m neurotic and it was my lunch hour. Of the ones where Book would’ve even been in the game under the new system, there were only two instances where I don’t think he scores under the same circumstances. The first was from the 1/2 yard line against Georgia, and the second was on a QB dive against Navy in which Wimbush gets stopped a yard short and fights his way into the end zone.
This is just my sense of it, but in the first five yards I think the edge Brandon gains by being a better athlete is mostly mitigated by the fact that the defense is less prepared for Book to run. There’s also an argument to be made based on Bill Connelly’s highlight yards stat that credit for the first 4 yards goes to the OL–not sure if I buy that myself, but there it is.
I like the follow-up! I’m still not swayed…those TD’s are important and also think the defense is still playing run in the situation, whether BW / IB is in. Opponents also have enough film on Book to know that he has been used frequently as runner – whether in the zone read, QB draws, etc. I just don’t really think there’s a big difference in the element of surprise.
The highlight yards / opportunity rate division of credit I think makes sense in most situations, but goal-line is so different than a normal play. Everyone is so close to the line of scrimmage that I think the runner’s ability to determine the outcome is slightly more important (although I think the scheme / playcall and OL execution is extremely high).
We may agree to disagree, but I think we agree on my bigger point – that if BK has made up his mind that he’s still going to do the Book package, at least spread things out a bit for him with some receivers. I’d still rather have BW in, but given the choice I think the personnel used is more important than the QB.
Agreed. I think people typecast players too often. White QB, he’s obviously slow and only a pocket passer. White WR, he’s a gadget player and only good as a slot rec. Book looks to have decent, but not elite, speed and is not a statue in the pocket. I mentioned to someone last week, he’s like an Eli Manning without the great arm. He’s not a complete statue but he’s not going to torch you for 50.
Interesting that now this chart:
has USC as the least-likely win on the schedule, slightly less probable than a VT or Stamford win. And almost 30%(!) less (fewer?) likely than a FSU win.
Well FSU has looked horrendous, and I think Stanford is better than USC, but we have them at home and I think S&P+ gives something for that.
What’s crazy is despite going from only 2 confirmed wins and a 40% chance to lose to Vandy last week, our victory did not increase our season’s total expected wins even a 10th of a point! The advanced stats liked our win so little that the gained ground of the win was completely eaten up by the drop in projections against future competition.
WOO BABY EXPECTED TO WIN EVERY GAME WE’RE GOING 12-0 PLAYOFF HERE WE COME GO IRISH!!!
(Trying the whole optimism thing, since Michael makes it sound so appealing)
I’m curious to see this same table for other teams – FSU, Illinois, ASU, TTU, Buffalo & UK. Would optimism be heightened then?
Just looked at some of those teams – oof. Straight down green boxes to get to 3 wins for FSU. Optimism looking good now.
He’s got a chart with all teams in order of expected wins as well:
According to that we’re projected to come out better than all but 10 teams total, and all but 7 power five teams.
@ Remembering this discussion will be so much fun when we lose this weekend to Wake Forest. @
I would be so happy if this is how the season finished.
North Texas claims the UCF national title.
HOLY CRAP I scrolled all the way down and the logo he’s using for UCONN is the “Sad Husky” and I just lost it laughing.
2009 🙁
I’d laugh less if we were playing them.
That plus previously S&P+ gave us like a 90%+ chance to beat Vanderbilt if I remember correctly. So that’s not one of the big “swing games”, since it was basically assumed to be a lock-win previously (plus the things you mentioned)
It was a 60%/40% split going into last week’s game after the Ball St. game. (That’s why the green box on the Vanderbilt line has (+40%) as the change in value.)
So if everything else stayed the same our expected win total should have increased 0.4, but instead it stayed even.
ah gotcha, thanks
Also, think there is a very very very real chance FSU loses to Northern Illinois this weekend. At the very least I like them getting ten points.
I really love this chart – do you pull it together? If so, thanks!
No – Michael Bryan posted it in the Michigan Advanced Stats post
Some beautiful person on Reddit is doing it used S&P+ ratings. They update them weekly – here’s the link to those for every team after this week https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/9gdros/win_total_probability_distributions_per_sp_now/
Last game of the season, maybe the expectation is USC revives itself by then. Interesting that our likelihood of beating them went down 6%.
*Less
(I know)
Everyone is ripping on this blue zone thing with Book. But hasn’t it been quite successful?
Well, generally speaking, teams have a high rate of successful scoring when given chances inside the 5 yard line.
Does that somehow mean it hasn’t been successful? I believe Books first 3 snaps were TDs. He is 3-3 passing on the year, with a TD. Of all the things to complain about, not sure how this even makes the list.
No, it means that you can’t say it’s been successful because of Book, when it’s just as likely it would have been successful with Wimbush. There’s nothing to indicate putting Book in vs. leaving Wimbush in results in that success. For evidence, I’ll point to all of last year in the Red, White, Blue, and Chartreuse zones.
But it also doesn’t mean it’s bad. And so far there hasn’t been a problem with it. This is just looking for something to complain about.
You’re right, that’s exactly what it is–questioning something when the logic used to explain it doesn’t align with what people see. So people are going to pick it apart in order to try to make some sense of it.
To KG’s point, successful is relative. Saying “hey it’s scored TD’s” would be similar to praising someone for shooting 60% on lay-ups. They’ve been successful more likely than not, but it’s not good. Power run scenarios (3rd/4th and 2 or less, also including goal-line runs on 1st/2nd and 2 or less) have on average about a 70% success rate to start with.
It’s also an extremely small sample size, and to the point I made in the article, larger context would suggest that these type of packages (whether Book or Wimbush at QB) are less successful than those with more WRs.
Again, not sure how you think this is looking for something to complain about. The first drive, on 1st and goal from the 2, two straight stuffed runs with Book in (followed by a penalty / BW incompletion from further out.). Second drive Wimbush scores in the red zone on a 3rd and 10 scramble. Next goal-line scenario, on 3rd and 3 from the 5 Book completes a pass short of the first down (2 yard game / unsuccessful). BW sneaks for the 1st, then Book passes for a TD on 1st and goal.
And again, we have strong data from last year – a whole season’s worth, essentially – that Wimbush is good in these scenarios. If it ain’t broke, why fix it? Last season Wimbush had five carries in 2 yards to go or fewer and all five were touchdowns. Include non goal-line scenarios, any where he had a carry with 2 or fewer yards to gain, and he was successful on 10 of 12.
I agree on the more WRs thing. The pack everyone in and push them back has always been a poor strategy, and has never worked well. Stats back that up and have for years. But if that’s the play call, Book has been fine in this situation.
To your if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. It doesn’t seem broke, putting in BW would be trying to fix it.
Overall this site feels like it is getting filled with more and more complaining. This is just another example of something people are piling on about that isn’t even failing.
One of the big reasons I have always followed this site/OFDrip, is that it it has been a positive place. That doesn’t mean optimistic, it just means people don’t critique little things and whine about the coaching staff. It feels like that is slipping away, at least in the comment section, and I think this is an excellent example of that.
This seems very odd from you, as you’re generally one of the more critical people (not negative–critical) here.
Is it a huge thing? Possibly not. Given the range of very demonstrable things we need to correct, particularly on offense, it seems odd that this is the tweak they feel they need to make. Has it been fine so far? Yes, more or less.
Personally, I’d like to see more Book–not a change, but get him some real reps–and I’d like to see them in situations where he can run the actual offense. I like the idea of subbing him in as just a thing we do, so that if he goes in Brandon doesn’t take it personally and go in the tank. But this doesn’t seem to me like it accomplishes that. The only reason it seems to make sense is that Wimbush can’t throw the short passes we want in a confined space. Okay, I’m glad they’re recognizing and doing something about it, but it doesn’t make me feel good that our QB1A can’t throw a 5-yard out.
You can look at it as complaining to complain, that’s fine. But I don’t think for many people that’s what it is. It’s a symptom of other problems when you create a work around like this. We can’t run to the QB store and get a shiny new Tua model, we don’t make Alabama money, so we’re stuck with what we’ve got. I haven’t seen anyone here be all Fire Kelly about it.
Though I do think that NDN guy is on to something when he claims that winning the short yardage conversion percent is more important than scoring more points than the other team when it comes to making a true winner.
Also, one other thought–it was fun and kind something to smile about the first two games when Book came in for Wimbush. By game three, it’s now just a thing, and so now’s when you’re going to get the questions about it.
You don’t seem really open to the idea that something else might work better than Book at QB in these situations. I’ve provided a lot of evidence that Wimbush + different scheme would be better than what’s currently going on there.
Your response back to this has just been “but I think it has been good”, but doesn’t really provide much response to the points raised.
This basically comes down to process versus outcome. If Russell Westbrook is jacking contested threes up and makes 7 of 11, does that mean it was good strategy and offense just because they went in? It does not. And I’m just pointing that out, in addition to providing context (as did KG) that what you are defining as “success” is at best average because the overall likelihood of these plays being successful is much higher than the norm. Incorporating this context and trying to get at what is actually better or worse than the norm in a given situation is what advanced stats is all about!
I think we’ve always been a place that’s very measured and strives to be objective in our analysis and perspective. I think this friendly debate is consistent with that. I’m not trying to making a mountain out of a molehill, there are offensive issues that are far bigger than this. I’ve been largely positive on the coaching decisions this year. But to say that this is fine and won’t matter is subjective, and I and many others (not just here) disagree with you on it. This offense is going to need to capitalize on every scoring chance it can get this year.
>there are offensive issues that are far bigger than this.
juicebox said this in his first response, and you’ve said it twice and I agree–I think he’s thinking of it one way, and others are looking at it another. You could say “why complain about this, there are other bigger issues.” Or you could say “there are other, bigger issues, and yet they are spending time to fix something that isn’t broken?”
I don’t think Book is the best option there, or ever. I think he is purely a QB2, and that even his passing, although a little more accurate that Wimbush, isn’t a net positive. But this one little thing doesn’t seem broken (even if not optimal) and is getting a ton of comments about how it’s such a bad idea.
I get that I may not have a clear point. But that’s because I’m not reallllly discussing the football side.
I’m just starting to get this feeling of misery permeating from here. And it seems like attacking this area, is just an example of it. Maybe this specific example isn’t even actually getting that much attention, it just feels like it because I’m tired.
I’m just tired. Tired of basically everything surrounding football. Which is sad, because we are 3-0, favored in almost every game, because even though we don’t look good, no one else does either(e.g. has anyone actually watched Stanford play? It isn’t pretty).
It’s not just ND. I am also a Patriots fan, and can’t even read those blogs because people complain about everything. What the eff do Pats fans have to complain about??? Maybe it’s an internet thing. It’s probably those damn Millenials!
What do Pats fans have to complain about? Losing to Blake Bortles and making him look competent comes to mind….
Hahahahaha. We made him look Baker Mayfield good.
Jason Mendoza thinks Blake Bortles has looked competent for years.
Thumbs up on the Good Place reference. My fantasy football team is named Jake Jortles.
I agree juicebox.
I’m with KG here. Not to get political, but saying Book has been successful in the Blue Zone is somewhat akin to saying the economy has been great with Trump in office. Yes, it has, but how’d it get there? Do we now get to say that Book is a successful QB because of his first 3 snaps, or do we need to look at how the team got in a better position to score? Because Book doesn’t fumble on the 2 yd line makes him successful?
My bigger issue is still it takes BW out of the game, even for a play. Let the starter finish the drive. Let him get his mojo/moxie/momentum/other “mo-” words by scoring “easy” TDs. Have the whole 1st team. (Me no good with words sometimes – basically, let BW score the damn TDs) Putting in Book just screams “we don’t trust BW” – They aren’t using him as a Tebow-esque QB, so why do it?
I’m just happy I got to use the word “chartreuse” today.
My 4 year old once pointed to a shampoo bottle and told me it was chartreuse – I have no idea if he was correct, but I suspect he was.
Please stay away from politics if you don’t want to generate a whole different experience on this site. Stick to football.
Juicebox, why not just take a few weeks off from football if you’re not enjoying it? Or off the internet about it if that’s the source of your angst? Not saying that in anything other than friendly advice.
I..I….I didn’t get political. I made an analogy.
Maybe don’t opine about whether or not other people should be on this site – stick to football.
Pick another analogy, politics is a two sided street. I said nothing about who should be on this site. Maybe read with more comprehension.
Don’t know how you’d suggest accessing this site if it isn’t via the internet “Or off the internet about it if that’s the source of your angst?”
Also, I’ll pick whatever analogies I choose. You can get your undies in a bunch if you’d like, but all the adults seem to have either A) not read it, or B) understood it just fine.
Your first sentence is nonsense, but if it makes you feel intelligent go for it.
In today’s politics using the president’s name is enough to trigger some people, and besides that the analogy was pretty lame. I could tell you why but that’s not what this site is for.
Sounds like it triggered ONE person, but OK.
Speaking of short yardage, a new complaint on NDN, that I actually thought was valid, was that we didn’t try to make the first down on 3rd&4 at the end of the game, but instead ran backwards “to run clock,” and brought up the spectre of the Jarious Jackson intentional safety in 1998. I have to say, it is kind of sad not to just say “we need a first here to kill the game, so we’re just going to run for 4 yards,” and I’m not sure what the logic was with that play call.
My take watching it live was it was a bootleg for wimbush to get the first down that was well-defended.
Whatever the plan was, I find it concerning that we didn’t think we had our good chance to get four yards against Vanderbilt.
Anyone know what the deal was with BK’s comments on Vandy’s cut blocks (on defense?!) and Mason getting pissy in response? I read ESPN dot com’s article on Mason’s comments, and it didn’t really explain a lot. Seems…strange. Like…Vandy’s DE’s were cutting Alize Mack? How…how does that even happen?
Here’s a clip of it:
https://twitter.com/PeteSampson_/status/1042488867297865729
Seems a really odd fight to pick.
By Mason or Kelly? I’d tend to agree with BK that the low hit there, while legal, accomplished nothing for the defense other than a chance to injure an offensive player.
Both, actually. Kelly could have pointed that out as a play with some different phrasing that didn’t paint Vandy as a dirty team. Mason didn’t really need to bow up and basically challenge Kelly to a fight, either, though. It just seems kind of silly on both sides.
I’ll agree with that. Although Kelly wasn’t really trying to pick a fight. He mentioned that Mack took the low hits during a pretty long answer praising Mack for playing a great all around game that included promising to send that game tape to NFL scouts.
The 24/7 Sports podcast guys were wondering if there was some sort of history there, maybe from when Mason was at Stanford. I think it’s a stretch, but whatever.
I am shocked that someone from David Shaw’s coaching tree would be a little bitch
NBCSports is helping spread a rumor that Ian Book is now the starting quarterback for the Irish, which would be an incredibly weird decision.
Who will throw the majority of those passes this week?
When various national handicappers begin citing multiple sources within the Notre Dame program saying junior Ian Book will start at quarterback, it is eyebrow-raising.
https://irish.nbcsports.com/2018/09/20/things-to-learn-will-notre-dames-offense-show-up-on-its-first-road-trip/
Is Wimbush on the double secret suspension so popular these days?
He did look like he was grimacing and messing with his ankle at the end of the game when Book threw that TD to Weishar
That makes me a sad panda
Yes, but they’re only enforcing his suspension in the “Blue Zone”
This article reads like someone who isn’t particularly familiar with the team. NBC used to have a great ND dedicated writer, Keith Arnold maybe? Is this just a national football blogger?
Douglas Farmer is Keith Arnold’s replacement
Cool. I used to like Keith. Do you read the new guy much? Any good?
Not as good. Decent writer, but seems like the kind of guy using sportswriting to build toward another journaistic path.
Farmer’s an ND grad, but way less passionate about the team than Keith was. He mostly toes the NBC company line in trying to make the TV broadcasts sound compelling so people tune in, and he’s written pieces that come off as “I’m a journalist first, an ND grad somewhere around 43rd…please believe I’m objective.”
Which is fine, but you’re on the “Irish.nbcsports.whatever” blog, not ESPN. It’s okay to actually have some feelings about the team.
Thanks for the info, guys. That sounds about right from the one article I read.