2011 vs. 2006: Avoiding the pitfalls of great expectations


It’s human nature to want to paint with a wide brush. You cover more ground, get your point across quicker, and it’s far more enjoyable to slap a roller across a wall than deal with the tiny corner of trim that you need to cover with blue tape and wrench your back to get just right.

But when it comes to Notre Dame football, it seems most outside the influence of the Golden Dome are happy to roll away, convinced that a wide swath of color will be enough to get people nodding in agreement.

The always excellent Spencer Hall wrote about the true horror of “Notre Dame and Possible Competence.” It’s an excellent read, and as usual will make you chuckle mightily in between the flashbacks that make you grab a pillow and burrow your head.

Here’s a quick snippet to help you get Spencer/Orson’s flavor, while also getting a pretty firm grasp on the angle Hall is taking:

We realize an entire generation of football fans have grown up to maturity (or at least as close as you’ll ever get to maturity) without Notre Dame being “good.” They have seen spikes, sure. Tyrone Willingham, a degenerative nerve disease and coach, took Notre Dame to ten wins in 2002.  Charlie Weis, who later went on to work as offensive coordinator for an obscure team in Central America, led the Irish to a 10-2 record in 2006. That season ended with an exhibition against Louisiana State in the Sugar Bowl. Remember the time Charlie Weis tried to out-Les Miles Les Miles? Oh, Charlie.

To squirt the lemon directly in Irish fans’ eyes, he links to ten minutes of LSU running the Irish off the field, a game that made Jamarcus Russell about $40 million more than he deserved.

But that’s not the point of this column. Rather, it’s two-fold: To acknowledge the very weird fascination with people’s willingness to call the Post-Holtz era not just the Dark Ages of Irish football, but to categorize it as abject failure from the day of Bob Davie’s hiring. If you didn’t know any better, the lights have been off since Boston College beat the Irish in late November of 1993.

Of course, it hasn’t been all bad. And it was just five short years ago that Notre Dame was in a position to make a title run, finding a place on the cover of Sports Illustrated and having one of its lead columnists attempt to dispel some myths as he defended the Irish’s No. 1 preseason ranking.

With the Irish sitting at 10-1 after rebounding from a difficult loss to Michigan, those prognositcators didn’t look all that bad. But ugly losses to USC and LSU gave Irish fans a long offseason to think about two brow-beatings, and revisionist history probably makes that Irish team look even worse than in actually was.

As we look at the lofty expectations that are being heaped on the Irish, it makes sense to look back at that 2006 team, and the pitfalls that tripped them up, and see if there could be similar obstacles in the way of this Notre Dame squad.

First off: Take a gander at the SI cover and you’ll have your first clue. No — not the fact that Justin Bieber completely ripped off Brady Quinn’s look, but the fact that Travis Thomas is on the cover. When you’re depending on a converted running back to start at outside linebacker, especially one that’s about 210 pounds, you know that your defense is awfully thin.

While it’s easy to see now, the Irish couldn’t compete in the front seven. Sure, the Irish had BCS level guys like Victor Abiamiri (who might have thrived with a redshirt freshman season) and Trevor Laws (who did), but they also relied on a 270-pound defensive tackle like Derek Landri and defensive ends like Chris Frome and Ronald Talley. At linebacker, Maurice Crum led the team in tackles with Joe Brockington, mostly only a special teams presence, starting nine games for the Irish. Two of the Irish’s top three tacklers were safeties, with Tommy Zbikowski and Chinedum Ndukwe filling up the stat sheet, not necessarily good things.

The Irish got the production it wanted out of its running game, with Darius Walker gaining 1267 yards on five-yards a carry. But Brady Quinn missed the presence of Maurice Stovall and Anthony Fasano, and his yards per attempt went down a steep 1.5 yards per throw as his average yardage went from 326 to 263 per Saturday, with defenses taking away the deep strike that put Jeff Samardzija on the map. It’s an under-discussed topic, but the Irish offense that was so shockingly dangerous through the air in 2005 was largely kept in check when defenses adapted to Weis and his tendencies.

As we turn the focus to 2011, the Irish might actually be most worried about their offense keeping up with the defense, a shocking proposition and something most pundits didn’t think possible at Notre Dame. It’s also interesting to consider that the Irish just went through the growing pains of losing their co-leading receiver like the 2006 team did, when the Irish struggled to adapt to life without Golden Tate last year with Michael Floyd constantly seeing coverages rolled his way.

If you’re looking for a place that the Irish need to pick up the slack offensively, it’s in running the football. There’s no proven depth behind Cierre Wood, but there’s every reason to believe Jonas Gray can be an effective BCS caliber running back, and the offensive line should continue to gel this season.

We’re still over 70 days away from the opening of the 2011 season, far too many to get whipped into a froth just yet. But if Brian Kelly’s offense can make strides in Year Two, and the defense continues to play dominant football, and —

I’ll pump the brakes before this thing gets out of control. We all know how that one goes…

Go for two or not? Both sides of the highly-debated topic

during their game at Clemson Memorial Stadium on October 3, 2015 in Clemson, South Carolina.

Notre Dame’s two failed two-point conversion tries against Clemson have been the source of much debate in the aftermath of the Irish’s 24-22 loss to the Tigers. Brian Kelly’s decision to go for two with just over 14 minutes left in the game forced the Irish into another two-point conversion attempt with just seconds left in regulation, with DeShone Kizer falling short as he attempted to push the game into overtime.

Was Kelly’s decision to go for two the right one at the beginning of the fourth quarter? That depends.

Take away the result—a pass that flew through the fingers of a wide open Corey Robinson. Had the Irish kicked their extra point, Justin Yoon would’ve trotted onto the field with a chance to send the game into overtime. (Then again, had Robinson caught the pass, Notre Dame would’ve been kicking for the win in the final seconds…)

This is the second time a two-point conversion decision has opened Kelly up to second guessing in the past eight games. Last last season, Kelly’s decision to go for two in the fourth-quarter with an 11-point lead against Northwestern, came back to bite the Irish and helped the Wildcats stun Notre Dame in overtime.

That choice was likely fueled by struggles in the kicking game, heightened by Kyle Brindza’s blocked extra-point attempt in the first half, a kick returned by Northwestern that turned a 14-7 game into a 13-9 lead. With a fourth-quarter, 11-point lead, the Irish failed to convert their two-point attempt that would’ve stretched their lead to 13 points. After Northwestern converted their own two-point play, they made a game-tying field goal after Cam McDaniel fumbled the ball as the Irish were running out the clock. Had the Irish gone for (and converted) a PAT, the Wildcats would’ve needed to score a touchdown.

Moving back to Saturday night, Kelly’s decision needs to be put into context. After being held to just three points for the first 45 minutes of the game, C.J. Prosise broke a long catch and run for a touchdown in the opening minute of the fourth quarter. Clemson would be doing their best to kill the clock. Notre Dame’s first touchdown of the game brought the score within 12 points when Kelly decided to try and push the score within 10—likely remembering the very way Northwestern forced overtime.

After the game, Kelly said it was the right decision, citing his two-point conversion card and the time left in the game. On his Sunday afternoon teleconference, he said the same, giving a bit more rationale for his decision.

“We were down and we got the chance to put that game into a two-score with a field goal. I don’t chase the points until the fourth quarter, and our mathematical chart, which I have on the sideline with me and we have a senior adviser who concurred with me, and we said go for two. It says on our chart to go for two.

“We usually don’t use the chart until the fourth quarter because, again, we don’t chase the points. We went for two to make it a 10-point game. So we felt we had the wind with us so we would have to score a touchdown and a field goal because we felt like we probably only had three more possessions.

“The way they were running the clock, we’d probably get three possessions maximum and we’re going to have to score in two out of the three. So it was the smart decision to make, it was the right one to make. Obviously, you know, if we catch the two-point conversion, which was wide open, then we just kick the extra point and we’ve got a different outcome.”

That logic and rationale is why I had no problem with the decision when it happened in real time. But not everybody agrees.

Perhaps the strongest rebuke of the decision came from Irish Illustrated’s Tim Prister, who had this to say about the decision in his (somewhat appropriately-titled) weekly Point After column:

Hire another analyst or at least assign someone to the task of deciphering the Beautiful Mind-level math problem that seems to be vexing the Notre Dame brain-trust when a dweeb with half-inch thick glasses and a pocket protector full of pens could tell you that in the game of football, you can’t chase points before it is time… (moving ahead)

…The more astonishing thing is that no one in the ever-growing football organization that now adds analysts and advisors on a regular basis will offer the much-needed advice. Making such decisions in the heat of battle is not easy. What one thinks of in front of the TV or in a press box does not come as clearly when you’re the one pulling the trigger for millions to digest.

And yet with this ever-expanding entourage, Notre Dame still does not have anyone who can scream through the headphones to the head coach, “Coach, don’t go for two!”

If someone, anyone within the organization had the common sense and then the courage to do so, the Irish wouldn’t have lost every game in November of 2014 and would have had a chance to win in overtime against Clemson Saturday night.

My biggest gripe about the decision was the indecision that came along with the choice. Scoring on a big-play tends to stress your team as special teams players shuffle onto the field and the offense comes off. But Notre Dame’s use of a timeout was a painful one, and certainly should’ve been spared considering the replay review that gave Notre Dame’s coaching staff more time to make a decision.

For what it’s worth, Kelly’s decision was probably similar to the one many head coaches would make. And it stems from the original two-point conversion chart that Dick Vermeil developed back in the 1970s.

The original chart didn’t account for success rate or time left in the game. As Kelly mentioned before, Notre Dame uses one once it’s the fourth quarter.

It’s a debate that won’t end any time soon. And certainly one that will have hindsight on the side of the “kick the football” argument.



Navy, Notre Dame will display mutual respect with uniforms

Keenan Reynolds, Isaac Rochell

The storied and important history of Notre Dame and Navy’s long-running rivalry will be on display this weekend, with the undefeated Midshipmen coming to South Bend this weekend.

On NBCSN, a half-hour documentary presentation will take a closer look, with “Onward Notre Dame: Mutual Respect” talking about everything from Notre Dame’s 43-year winning streak, to Navy’s revival, triggered by their victory in 2007. The episode will also talk about the rivalries ties to World War II, and how the Navy helped keep Notre Dame alive during wartime.

You can catch it on tonight at 6:30 p.m. ET on NBCSN or online in the same viewing window.

On the field, perhaps an even more unique gesture of respect is planned. With Under Armour the apparel partner for both Notre Dame and Navy, both teams will take the field wearing the same cleats, gloves and baselayers. Each team’s coaching staff will also be outfitted in the same sideline gear.

More from Monday’s press release:

For the first time in college football, two opponents take the field with the exact same Under Armour baselayer, gloves and cleats to pay homage to the storied history and brotherhood between their two schools. The baselayer features both Universities’ alma maters on the sleeves and glove palms with the words “respect, honor, tradition” as a reminder of their connection to each other. Both sidelines and coaches also will wear the same sideline gear as a sign of mutual admiration.​

Navy and Notre Dame will meet for the 89th time on Saturday, a rivalry that dates back to 1927. After the Midshipmen won three of four games starting in 2007, Notre Dame hopes to extend their current winning streak to five games on Saturday.

Here’s an early look at some of the gear: