Breaking down Notre Dame football’s loss to Michigan State with advanced stats, and what the numbers tell us about the end of the Brian Van Gorder era…
In a very dark way, it’s funny to me that every time we’ve played Michigan State since 2006 the Mike Valenti rant from that epic collapse, and then after losses (this year, 2012) Notre Dame fans turn Irish websites and message boards into a reincarnation of that tirade. I apologize in advance for a less stats-focused and more-big picture perspective than usual, because like Valenti, I’ve got some things to get off my chest after attending Saturday’s game.
Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.
Explosiveness
Much of the conversation following Saturday’s debacle has focused on the defense and Brian Van Gorder. So let’s dive in.
If we’re going to criticize Van Gorder, let’s get this out of the way first – he’s a generous guy – whatever you’re lacking for, he’s more than happy to provide. A Spartan offense that was among the least explosive in FBS last year, with just 16 plays of 30+ yards in 14 games? Take three! (Close to counting –were 28 and 23-yard gains, which both took place on critical third downs on the final possession of the game and iced any hope of a Notre Dame comeback).
The big-play habit has come back to bite the Irish again, and the torture comes in and new and ingenious ways like a move from the Saw franchise. Last year we had blown coverages and no one staying home against Boston College when they putting the bloody “running quarterback” into the game. This year brings us such acts as “in perfect position and turning an interception into a touchdown” and “taking horrible angles on a run up the middle and then quitting on the play”.
Since the ND fanbase collectively has taken out its shovels and begun digging Van Gorder’s grave, this is an appropriate game to write his epitaph from. It’s all of the same issues that have plagued the defense since he first stepped foot in South Bend.
- Allowing big plays: Last season’s defense rallied to finish 76th nationally in explosive plays allowed (per IsoPPP), which to be fair, bumps up to 55th with opponent adjustments. In 2014 the defense was 80th in FBS per IsoPPP+. Currently 115th in Passing IsoPPP allowed, with no end in sight (rushing IsoPPP has somehow done ok, ranking 11th, but at the cost of the 98th worst success rate yielded on run plays).
- Aggression with little benefit: Allowing explosive plays can be a calculated gamble – you’re willing to give up a chunk play here and there because your benefits outweigh those risks. This hasn’t taken place in the last 2 and ¼ seasons. Turnovers forced have ranged from middling (2014) to poor (2015), and adjusted sack rate have peaked the last two years in the 70’s nationally. Tackles for a loss and deflected passes have been relatively rare. Yet a corresponding shift in scheme doesn’t seem to have ever taken place.
- Inability to stop the run, make adjustments: In Van Gorder’s first two seasons the Irish finished outside of the top 50 in Rushing S&P+, and this year doesn’t look like it will be the exception. The defense is 111th in success rate allowed on standard downs in 2016, and that’s been against three run-heavy teams. Adjustments to things that burned the Irish in the past, like tempo, have been poor. Even in-game, the Irish defense consistently struggled with R.J. Shelton’s motion across the formation on running play
In Chris Brown’s excellent book Smart Football, he wrote about Pete Carroll (I know, I know) speaking about his turnaround from failed head coach to successful college and now professional coach, with an emphasis on his defensive learning. “To be successful on defense, you need to develop a philosophy. If you don’t have a clear view of your philosophy, you will be floundering all over the place. If you win, it will be pure luck.”
It doesn’t feel like Brian Van Gorder has a clear view of his own philosophy, and the muddy perspective has been either ineffective or impossible to implement. Hopefully the next Notre Dame defensive coordinator Brian Kelly hires can bring that to the table.
While took far too long, the downfield shots by DeShone Kizer and the Irish receivers paid off as they fought their way back in the game in the second half. There’s really a staggering amount of young receiving talent between Claypool, Stepherson, Sanders, and St. Brown, and Torii Hunter is no grizzled veteran as a junior. It’s a dynamic group that hasn’t even featured Javon McKinley, who most recruitniks thought would be the best of the bunch, and watching them is a nice antidote to the frustration that watching the defense brings.
Speaking of missing things, the once-explosive Notre Dame running game has been bottled up in 2016. The Irish were 8th nationally last season, led by Josh Adams, and are now 84th through three games. Tarean Folston simply isn’t that kind of runner, which doesn’t help, but the real culprit has been the offensive line. Opportunity rate, line yards per carry – all the stats we have to measure blocking success are down across the board, some dramatically so.
Efficiency
While I should know better by now, I was surprised to see a lot of fretting on message boards and the like about the offense after this game. I think it’s a fair assessment that Kelly and the offensive staff lost the coaching battle to their defensive counterparts from East Lansing, but 28 points in this game is a solid effort, especially with poor special teams play that led to tough starting field position.
There were several head-scratching decision, which ranged from defensible (sticking to a stagnant run game) to the cowardly punt late. Earlier in the 4th quarter Kelly had so little confidence in the defense that he opted for a 2nd and 7 instead of 1st and 15 after a Michigan State illegal formation. Then with the game on the line, you trust that unit over the offense that had just scored the last three possessions? Or forget recent play, how about the unit that you know is just head and shoulders better?
Coaching aside though, I don’t understand the offensive worries or efforts to diminish the unit’s success so far. Yes, the drought in the second and third quarters was poor, but newsflash – great offenses don’t score every possession.
A very similar defense held a loaded Ohio State offense to 13 points in Columbus last season. Christian McCaffery and Stanford scored six points in a game last year against NORTHWESTERN (I realize making fun of a loss to Northwestern is hypocritical, but screw it). It happens, and the end wher. e the Irish scored three straight times when everyone in the stadium knew they were passing and they went ahead and did it anyway was very nice, and that’s also why they are the #6 offense per S&P+ in 2016.
The Irish once again were pushed around on both lines, losing the leverage rate battle by a significant margin. The Irish had 8+ yards to go on 2/11 third downs, the Spartans on 8/18. Kizer and the offense performed admirably on those long passing downs, but defensively this allowed O’Connor and the Spartan offense to extend too many drives.
Returning to the defense, it’s been interesting to see debate on how much blame should be allocated to scheme versus talent. On one hand, there are certainly some clear personnel gaps that have root causes in recruiting misses, with safety and rush end as clear examples. On the other, even if we account for a disparity in offensive and defensive recruiting, a conservative estimate based on recruiting rankings would put this as a top-30ish defense, which it’s definitely not.
Using opponent-adjusted defensive rankings, here’s a few schools that have outperformed the Irish over the past two years (using opponent adjusted rankings, and please don’t come around here with any yards/points per game nonsense that don’t account for pace): Boise State, Utah State, Wisconsin, Missouri, Louisville, Penn State, Boston College, West Virginia, Minnesota, Utah, and Temple. At varying levels, those schools are doing more with far less talented players, and Notre Dame has to be approaching its floor.
In fact, while looking into this debate, I stumbled back on this article from Bill Connelly examining the links between recruiting and performance in specific areas. And it’s bad news – elite talent actually has been more closely correlated to success on the defensive side of the ball than offense, which makes the ND struggles even more inexplicable to me. And the pass rushing struggles? It looks like scheme may be significantly to blame there, as it’s among the least strongly correlated links between talent and performance.
Field Position
Average Starting Field Position:
Notre Dame: Irish 22
Michigan State: Spartan 29
The Irish special teams as a whole were brutal – a holding penalty taking away an electric CJ Sanders return, dumb personal fouls on a punt return, total confusion on Michigan State’s first point-after attempt, and the Boykin turnover when a punt bounced into his leg. About the only positive outcome was hopefully a confidence building game for Tyler Newsome, and that at least the Irish limited the Spartans from a big return.
Finishing Drives
If you’re looking for a spot where the Irish have consistently been better in 2016, red zone scoring is it. Kizer led four more successful trips Saturday, but when only one of your first nine drives crosses the opponents’ 40-yard line, that’s an issue. The defense, as with every other area of the field, has struggled in the red zone, but did boost their numbers by forcing an O’Connor interception near the end zone.
Turnovers
The Daelin Hayes tip / Devin Studstill pick was a thing of beauty, back when it seemed like this would be a pleasant evening to watch the Irish play football. Do you remember that part? Then the Irish went three and out, made a nice stop defensively, then a terrible punt hit Miles Boykin and things escalated quickly (in a bad way).
All three turnovers were killers in that they killed Irish possessions after just a play. In game where the best hope was if the Irish offense had an advantage over the Spartan defense, you need as many possessions as possible to try to exert that advantage, and that stung badly.
There’s been a lot of arguing about talent vs coaching, but really we should be discussing talent, player development and scheme. Player development isn’t purely due to coaching (even if it is the only reason for S&C coaches existing) nor is it immune to effects from talent rankings. The question is how player development can be so much better than recruiting rankings on offensive players but so much worse than rankings for defensive players. S&C is the same, I assume.
That said, when a team attacks the DB who has been in the program the longest and avoids the freshmen, that doesn’t speak well for development.
After looking back at the last four recruiting classes we’ve had and how those classes stacked up nationally, no one can say we lack talent. Now, the argument to be made is that we’ve seen a complete and utter lack of player development on the defensive side of the ball from the minute Brian VanGorder was hired as defensive coordinator. Because he spent all but two years between 2005 – 2013 in the NFL, he’s a scheme-based coached a la Charlie Weis and his “decided schematic advantage.” We’ve seen the results of that coaching philosophy in some of the most poor fundamental defensive play I’ve ever seen.
Had Kelly done the right thing and quietly dismissed VanGorder after the Stanford debacle last season, we might have had a quality defensive coordinator who preaches fundamentals and makes it easy for his players to do their jobs. However, because of Kelly’s ego, we’re stuck with VanGorder for at least another 10 games (assuming we accept an invitation to a mediocre bowl game at the end of the season).
Here’s to hoping Kelly does the right thing this off-season and conducts a national coaching search for a defensive coordinator who will produce the type of results we expect.
“After looking back at the last four recruiting classes we’ve had and how those classes stacked up nationally, no one can say we lack talent.”
@Wanna bet?@
I agree though. Plenty of schools do more with less.
Great point – I’ve written about it previously, but I think the framework of coaching responsibilities as 1) acquiring talent, 2) developing talent, and 3) deploying talent.
I think #1 can clearly be better, and we’re definitely feeling some misses, but expected performance from the talent on hand is far better than the actual output.
Your point on development is one I thought about a lot as well. If you assume that there’s a certain trajectory that most players as a group should take, improving with years in the program, it feels like many players growth has been decelerated versus accelerated. This is pretty subjective, but guys with high recruiting pedigrees like Redfield, Shumate, KVR, and Luke seem to make early contributions and then fall off when you’d expect them to be impact players by their senior seasons.
For #3, I think it’s very clear that there’s issues with how talent is deployed.
I really have no idea. On the surface, BVG’s success seemed greatest his first year (despite injuries). Last year wasn’t terrible…obviously Texas was impressive. That said, D seems to be going along a steady arc downhill. That doesn’t point to scheme being the problem. When we had better developed personnel, the scheme seemed to work better. I think the analogy between Weis and BVG is appropriate. Scheme works a LOT better when you have better players to run it. “NFL AIDS” may be alive and well…and it may be because the NFL doesn’t have to worry as much about development. It also may be that the game is evolving and BVG isn’t, but I think the main issue seems to be defensive player development, not as much deployment.
Obviously I’m no fan of Willingham, but… Weis had his best teams when he had experienced players who were taught fundamentals by somebody else, which covered up his biggest deficiency – he relied on scheme to the virtual exclusion of teaching fundamentals. I think VanGorder’s first year might be some evidence of the same effect. The 2014 defense, until Joe Schmidt went down, played very well – yes, North Carolina killed us, but after that we went toe-to-toe on the road with one of the best offenses in the country in Tallahassee. That defense was full of guys who had learned fundamentals from Diaco, and didn’t need as much instruction in them as a completely new crop of players would. VanGorder took an established solid base and enhanced it.
Move forward a year, and serious cracks start to show. Move forward another year, with a front line further removed from Diaco’s teaching on fundamentals, and it starts to get catastrophic. It’s not as stark as the offensive drop from 2006 to 2007, but I think it’s the same story. Weis’s first offense was his best, his second was good, and his third, with mostly his guys, was terrible. We couldn’t flop our way out of a wet paper bag that season, with an advanced offensive scheme that was useless because the guys didn’t know how to put one foot in front of the other. Sound familiar?
Going into the season, I think if you had told most people here that our Red Zone Scoring would have improved dramatically, everybody would have felt confident that we would have started the season 3-0. Guess it turns out the writers for this esteemed blog are right; red zone scoring rate doesn’t necessarily result in Ws. My apologies for doubting you; saying my 10 hail marys now.
The elixir of vindication is oh so sweet… Well, not really. Given our uptick, I’d much rather be wrong on this one.
Haha, I love it, “we come here to play SCHOOL!”
So…after Murtaugh’s “5 players we absolutely can’t lose”, we doubling down on our jinx? Sure would be fascinating to see if our defense could do worse…
ND fans, including the fans on this site, tend to disrespect Michigan State. I guess it’s just a familiarity thing, but we tend to look at recruiting levels and think we have it in the bag. MSU is good. They will beat either the meat chickens or the suckeyes this year and be in the running for the Big 10 championship. None of that excuses our horrible defense, but we aren’t going to be the only team frustrated o er getting beat by them.
I’m sorry, but I don’t think beating us proved anything for MSU. Perhaps you’ll be right and they’ll beat tOSU or Michigan, would love to see it. Sparty is definitely the most palatable of those three and I’d love if they won that division every year. That said, they still lost a bunch of players off a team that was run off the field in the playoff last year. Their QB is serviceable, not not “good,” their rushing game may be overrated, and their defensive backs are questionable. Better teams will test them way more than ND did. Until proven otherwise (by more games and therefore more data), nothing has shown me that MSU is a top 10 team. I think anyone who is saying so (as some in the media are doing) because they beat us are going to be sorely mistaken.
That Connelly article is great (as always), and is exactly why I want players like Claypool on defense.
On the latest II podcast one of the ideas they floated is that this ND defense is so erratic and bad, that it help lead to the indecision at QB, at the end of camp. That, how else do you explain the indecision when the Texas game made it so obvious, who the better QB is.
Any thoughts on this?
I think it’s an interesting theory, but you have so many reps for both QBs (in things where the defense shouldn’t be as erratic or bad because they simply can’t – they have one assignment) in things like 1v1 and 7v7 that I don’t really buy it.
I think the indecision is explained by Zaire having a very good Fall camp, BK feeling an obligation to give him a fair chance after finally winning the job last year and then losing the season to injury, and then performing poorly against Texas in part due to pressure of the QB competition and trying to do too much. Malik has looked uncomfortable all year, but we’ve seen how good he can be when comfortable, and I think a lot of it has been situational (so it wasn’t as obvious as it now seems in fall camp).
I don’t follow the connection–if your defense is such garbage you know you’re going to need to outscore everyone, I’d think that’d make you more likely to decide earlier and make sure the offense is on track. tOSU was able to dither around last year because they didn’t face a single team until MSU capable of beating them, and the defense was solid.
I think they’re saying that if your QB is playing against garbage D, he’s going to look great…no matter who he is. Picking a “QB1” then becomes difficult because both look so dominant.
Aha. The “Spring/Camp All-Stars” theory.
Still undefeated in day games, guys!
Good one, the silver lining, and we play more day games than night games, fortunately.
So I understand this, it’s the scheme that’s the problem for Trumbetti, not his lack of talent, right? I watched him closely, and if I didn’t know better I’d swear he thought his mission was to tussle with his blocker rather than go for the ball carrier.
speaking of talent, I wonder where Louisville stacks up in recruiting rankings vs FSU? From what I saw, Lamar Jackson is the most explosive player in CFB this year. The guy is lightning fast and has a great arm and very shifty moves, and is a real difference maker. Great receivers on that team too, and both lines looked strong. I expect they will beat Clemson. Darn good coach too, albeit tarnished. That was a totally lopsided game, but still fun to watch to see Jackson do his thing and FSU to get crushed. I peeked at their boards and they’re having much the same scheme vs talent vs coaching consternation that we have.
Question, are the rankings you’re looking at taking into account the guys who were rated highly but leave or renege, like Lynch, Neale, Vanderdoes etc? Or that transfer? Or that become “frozen 5″, or are academically suspended, like Alize Jones and Golson, or are booted from the program, like Redfield? How does that work? Are rankings adjusted when players leave the roster? And how does the fact that we are forced to be playing a number of guys in our secondary before they should be playing due to injuries and Redfield booted get taken into account? If guys have lots talent, but aren’t ready and have to play anyway how is that factored in? Or having to play guys who never were highly rated, like Tranquil and Sebastion ( there are more) and aren’t good enough to win against top tier teams? Just wondering how all that factors in? My point is, if the guys who drove the high rankings aren’t playing or are playing well before they are ready, how does that effect the ” we have all the talent we need” consideration?
Thinking about player development, the notion that Diaco developed players from whom BVG benefitted early on has merit. That could really be a key issue. That 2012 defense had KVR and Farley, maybe Bennett (??) recruited as receivers that Diaco trained to hold up well in the secondary, for instance. It helped that Manti was in the middle, the difference maker on that defense, and the dline was excellent, both taking some pressure off the secondary. That development certainly didn’t continue under BVG.
Speaking of Lamar Jackson: I remember after Barnett de-committed, he was one of the names that came up as a potential target at QB.
He was an uncommitted prospect, but perceived as a run-first guy and one who was extremely raw throwing the ball — which (while accurate) led to the staff going after committed prospects (after we missed out on Travis Waller).
Of course, we landed Wimbush anyway. But it’s interesting to think of what might have been had we not flipped Wimbush. We might have pushed for, and probably landed, the guy who’s now considered the most electric player in college football.
If ever there was a player to overcome VanGorder’s defense….
Hah! You got that one on the nail, Eric. While I was watching him trample FSU, I was saying thank God we don’t have to play him. He’d break the century mark against us maybe.
I checked next year’s schedule and the year after as well. Not that he’ll stick around for his senior year, but we don’t play Louisville either year so we’re safe unless we meet them in a bowl game (ha!)
We have to play every team in the ACC at least once every 3 years, right? There appears to be an empty slot in the 2018 schedule according to http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-18/2018-notre-dame-fighting-irish-football-schedule.php, so maybe we’ll try to slot them in there. You’re probably right about him not sticking around for his senior year.
@You mean he’d make a good safety?@
To be fair, Trumbetti, Tranquill, and Sebastian were all four stars. Trumbetti was a top 150 player in the 247 composite. Per 247, he also had offers from Florida, Miami, and Michigan State (i.e., good, not great).
There’s probably a case to be made that Tranquill is playing out of position. Alas, we literally have nobody else at that spot besides Grandpa Av.
Great thoughts – a few comments:
1) I’m referencing composite recruiting class rankings more than anything else, which wouldn’t take into account defections, but 247 actually does have a 2016 Team Talent Composite, which takes into account players leaving the program via transfer, suspension, etc. In that ranking the Irish are #9 in the country for 2016.
2) Those don’t take into account young talent playing too early, which is a valid point. The counterargument would be that this isn’t just a 2016 issue – even by the most favorable view I can support, S&P+, the defense in 2015 was 35th in the country. Even factoring in some bad injury luck, there’s just simply no way that over the past 3 seasons our defensive performance should be in the 40-60 range in the country. Our injury luck and turnover isn’t particularly unique, but struggling defensively with this level of recruiting talent is.
3) To your thing on Trumbetti, I’d look at this more at the “portfolio” level versus individually trying to decide if its a talent or scheme issue. Do some 4* and 5* guys bust? For sure, and it’s often that their talent wasn’t what it was initially assessed to be, although it could be being used in the wrong way.
But when you put together a lot of blue chip guys, as a whole they should perform well for you – as with any sample, some classes will outperform expectations and other under-perform, but with what we know about recruiting rankings and their correlation to success, it’s reasonable to expect higher blue chip % (or whatever measure you choose) to lead to success. It’s not a coincidence that every projection system I’m aware of uses recruiting rankings as a key input.
Maybe after the next day game we can send BVG to Chicago for his steak dinner and just not give him a return South Shore ticket.
Would Chicago be far enough?
https://youtu.be/bETCusT5kNM
Meanwhile at USC – http://www.theleadsports.com/stories/did-usc-o-lineman-ej-price-punch-coach-clay-helton-in-the-face/
Thank God for USC
Well, that rumor was fun while it lasted – https://twitter.com/BruceFeldmanCFB/status/778409582502645760
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
I admit I’m an ND junkie. I read all the recruiting sites and I hang on every report out of training camp.
But this is the year I’ve finally realized that recruiting news and training camp reports just don’t mean anything unless the talent makes it to the field, is developed properly and is put in a scheme to succeed.
This year, particularly, I heard from various ND reporters that ND would field one of the best, most physical offensive lines in years. And that’s saying something when you consider the first rounders Hiestand has developed. But the offensive line isn’t making holes, isn’t holding its blocks and is frankly making the zone read look like a hot mess.
We also heard that Folston looked great in camp, able to hold off Adams. But he doesn’t look healed and he looks a step slower and a tad less in shape than I had expected.
We heard that the front seven was going to be hard to run against. Yeah, that hasn’t happened.
We heard the TEs were not going to be All Americans, but they’d be up to the task. They are a wreck, there’s no other way to say it.
So I have finally learned that those recruiting sites have to write something to keep us reading, but the content can miss wildly. I’m not going to fall into that trap again, and to the extent I keep reading those sites I’ll take everything with a full shaker of salt. My sanity can’t handle getting my hopes up every year. Sigh.