Or The “No Picture Seems to Capture ‘Incomplete’ Quite Right” Edition

Ok, clearly what everyone really wants to talk about is whether or not there’s a QB controversy. Short answer: No. Little longer answer: If you think it should even be considered as a possibility, you’re less thinker, more feeler.

We’ll get back to all of that with a really long answer later in this post. First, let’s look at our progress indicators…

• Tackle - Wretched. I don’t care how much better it looked later in the game, it started off so poorly, it can’t be considered a “pass.” And of all the guys commiting mistakes in this category, Zibby is the most frustrating. He doesn’t seem to be able to make a good tackle “in space,” meaning if he has to break down on a guy and tackle the guy with a good form tackle with nobody else around to provide any sort of boundary for the ball carrier. This needs to be fixed fast. Fail
• Block - Pass Blocking was better, no doubt. Rush blocking was pathetic and a big step backwards from last week. Fail
• Run - When? We only had 26 attempts for 1.9 yards per carry. Fail
• Create Violence - Eh. I only remember this happening right before a personal foul. Of course, that was a bogus personal foul, but maybe it was Karma biting us in the ass for a stray elbow in the face of the QB not getting called earlier. - Incomplete
• Hustle - In the 2nd half, sure. Lots of hustle. It was great to see, but let’s face it, there just wasn’t a lot in the 1st half that would impress anyone. I try to look at this sort of thing as if I’ve never seen a game of football before. How would I react to the team? - Incomplete
• Take Pride - Yes. And it’ll be hashed to death this week in the press. They took some pride and fought back after taking a beating in the first half. But where the heck is that pride in the first half? They get a pass here, because they did show that they’ve got a ton of heart, but they need to start using that heart all game long. - Pass
• Win - Fail
• 3rd Down Efficiency - Offense - 5 of 16 converted. Meh. The 16 is a big number. I’d rather that be down closer to 8 - 10 against a squad like Purdue. And the 5 conversions is fewer than 1/3rd. That’s too low. I’d rather have something like 5 of 10 or 4 of 8. 8 of 16 would be something, and yes, we had a few 4th down conversions, but it shouldn’t come to that. - Fail
• 3rd Down Efficiency - Defense - Conversion wise, not bad: 6 of 15. That’s just over 1/3rd. The problem here is that we gave up 2 3rd down conversions (3rd and 29 and 3rd and 22) on poor play and penalties. Statistically, this looked pretty good, but ND has got to stop being a team that makes me get nervous in 3rd and ultra-long scenarios. - Pass
• Performance on 3rd and Short (3 or fewer yards) - Offense - We had one 3rd and 2 that got called for holding. First, it’s bad that we got called for holding in that situation. Second, it’s terrible that we had 3rd and longish 15 times in the game. Just terrible. - Fail
• Performance on 3rd and Short (3 or fewer yards) - Defense - Looking at the play chart, Purdue was in 3rd and short only once, and we gave it up on an offsides penalty. - Fail (But that’s pretty good that we kept them out of 3rd and short. That means that they had 14 of what I would consider 3rd and long…ish.)
• Angle of Pursuit - This is something that got a lot better in the second half, which tells me that there were a lot more people really hustling in the 2nd half. Why not in the 1st? I don’t know. Maybe it’s tough to get emotionally charged for a game against the Sarah Plain and Tall of College Football. Either way, overall the technique here was pretty good. Purdue tried one reverse, and it was not just played well, but totally smothered. - Pass
• Defensive Ball Skills - Hey, remember that 3rd and 29? Yeah. Turn around! Play the freaking ball! This is one particular place where it became apparent that Purdue had identified a few key members of the defense that could get picked on, and pick on those individuals they did. - Fail
• LOS Technique of the Receivers - I really couldn’t tell from the way the game is shot. I don’t know what I was thinking in trying to observe this. I’m a moron. We’re DQ’ing this biotch.
• Kickoff Defense - When I came away from this game, I was furious that the play of special teams was so incredibly poor. And on PATs/field goals, it was, but I was stunned to see we did a pretty darn good job on defending kickoff returns. ND kicked the ball off 4 times. Purdue returned those kickoffs for an average of 20.75 yards and managed to start drives from kickoffs, on average, at the 35.5 yard line. That’s 1.5 yards better in field position than I’d hoped. That’s also 10.55 yards better in return average than Purdue’s season average (and that average includes the ND game). - Pass

So what have we learned about this team this week? Squat. I’m re-evaluating the metrics. Time to go back to actual measurables. The team actually is good enough, and I’m done questioning their heart/pride after the 2nd half this week. So they get a big ole’ incomplete this week. That’s partly because my test sort sucked and partly because they were an almost schizoid team on Saturday. Did they get better? Yeah. They showed some more promise. They did some good things. They also did some bad things. One thing is for sure, this team has not given up, and neither are we.

Since I’d rather not waste a post, let’s discuss what everyone seems to want to talk about: The non-existent QB controversy.

First, a look at the stats as the NCAA looks at them:

• Jimmy Clausen: 69%, 1 TD, 1 INT, 169 Yards
• Evan Sharpley: 62%, 2 TD, 1 INT, 208 Yards

Now, what everyone that wants to discuss some “QB Controversy” really seems to want to talk about is why Evan should be the starting QB. They see that Evan was nearly 40 yards and 1 TD better than Jimmy, and that’s good enough for them. And if you’re in a conversation with one of these people, you’re lucky if they even bother to use actual stats like that and don’t just resort to, “well, ND just looked so much better with Evan in the game.” But the truth is, the team looked better the entire 2nd half. A lot better, actually. And that comes down to 2 big things. The first big thing: Play calling.

• 1st half ND offensive play calling: 11 called rush plays, 20 called pass plays
• 2nd half ND offensive play calling: 7 called rush plays, 39 called pass plays

Now, the numbers might not jive with the “official NCAA” counts because I combed thru the play-by-play and counted sacks and QB rushes that weren’t called as “pass play calls.” The NCAA considers a sack a “rush,” but in my numbers I consider it a called pass play. I also consider a QB scramble for 0 or positive yardage a called pass play. ND didn’t run any QB draws or called QB naked bootleg runs on Saturday. And in my numbers, a QB scramble for a positive gain is still considered a positive called pass play. That helps me determine how productive each QB was during every called pass play, not just the plays that the NCAA almost arbitrarily calls a pass play. It also helps determine how well the team was playing when each QB was in the game.

The first thing that jumps out at you is that we ran a ton more plays in the 2nd half than in the first: 46 to 31. And that indicates more success being had in the 2nd half. And some would say more success was being had because Sharpley was playing. But what should also scream out at you is that ND called a much higher ratio of passes in the 2nd half versus the 1st: 85% to 65%. Charlie virtually gave up on the run. It’s what he does when he needs to go back to what he feels most comfortable with: slicing and dicing a defense. And against a Brock Spack defense in particular, this is an excellent approach. If any DC falls back on his heels when a play caller really starts to attack him, it’s Brock Spack.

The second really big thing is who, aside from Evan Sharpley, started to play a role in the game in the 2nd half: Duval Kamara, Golden Tate, Robby Parris, and Junior Jabbie.

First, Junior Jabbie rushed the ball 4 times in the game, but not once did he rush in the 1st half. He rushed for 5, 0, 5, and 6 yards in the second half. That’s an average of 4.0 yards per carry. Not stellar, but pretty good, and far better than anyone other than Armando Allen had been averaging. He was also in the backfield picking up blocks or running routes in the 2nd half for a significant amount of time (Something that Armando Allen still isn’t physically ready to do at this point.). His positive rushing gains came at key times, helping ND garner 2 second half first downs, thus forcing the defense to respect that possibility in future plays.

Duval Kamara didn’t get involved in the game until late in the 2nd quarter (a single reception for 12 yards), but once that happened, it was as if Weis had found something, finally, that could be a go-to play when the boys were up against it. In the 2nd half, Kamara had receptions of 15, 12, 16, 7, and 7 yards (and one TD and one incompletion). At one point, Charlie’s play calling indicated that he was telling Purdue/Brock Spack, “if you can’t stop it, I’m just going to keep doing it.” And eventually, it looked like Purdue was trying to adjust to it. Which leads us to…

Golden Tate. Tate was also not involved in the offensive plan until right around the same time Kamara got in on it all (around 2:15 left in the 2nd quarter). At which point, Jimmy Clausen threw him his first completion of the game, a pass for 36 yards. Suddenly, ND had it’s deep threat. And, based on Charlie Weis’ own admission in the post-game presser, it was all drawn up in the dirt: “Run a Go. We’re throwing it to you.” Clausen and Weis later went back to Tate with only seconds left in the 3rd quarter, but at that point, Clausen’s injury had made it difficult to throw, and the ball didn’t have enough distance. Still, the message to the defensive play-caller had already been made late in the 1st half: “Back the hell off.” And the defense did. And things opened up a bit.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention Parris.  The first pass attempt to Parris was a 12 yard completion from Clausen early in the 2nd half.  Not a single pass went his way until then, but Clausen found him, and along with other passes in the early 2nd half, this helped loosen up the defense.  Parris went on to catch 7 passes for 93 yards.  All in the 2nd half.

People have a natural tendency to see what they want to see, and in the case of football teams, people like to see heroes take over and make everything okay. And a lot of eyes saw Sharpley have some success, and those eyes want to make him a hero. Don’t get me wrong, Sharpley did an excellent job. He deserves a ton of kudos. But the real heroes of that 2nd half weren’t throwing the ball. They were rushing the ball well enough to force the linebackers to respect the run. They were catching balls that didn’t seem like they should be caught, and they were driving CBs off the LOS en route to a dozen yard slant pattern.

And the rest of the offense, as a whole, played better too. But that’s not because of some ethereal “it” that Sharpley possesses and Clausen does not. Purdue had been backed up on it’s heels a bit (largely thanks to throws that Clausen had made), Brock Spack fell back into The Brock Spack Quasi-Prevent Defense a bit, and some play-makers on the ND offense stepped up a bit.

Clausen himself (along with the entire offense) played better in the 2nd half. He was a full 1.5 yards better in production on called pass plays (6.8 vs. 5.35) and he completed 80% of his passes in the 2nd half. Eighty-FREAKING-Percent. That’s astonishing even if he did only get to attempt 10 passes.

And let’s give some credit to the defense as well. The ND defense forced Purdue into 2 punts and an interception in the 2nd half. That helps the offense create and keep a rhythm, not to mention it helps the offensive line because the defensive linemen of Purdue were getting tired out a bit in the 2nd half from having to be on the field so much. Sound familiar?

So if that doesn’t convince you that there is no QB controversy because Clausen not only deserves to keep his job, but earned his job (and a lot of respect when he was trying to play hurt), then I don’t know what will help.

Again, Sharpley did a great job, and we’re lucky to have such a high-quality QB in that supporting role. And he deserves every bit of Charlie Weis’ confidence to run the entire offense in the case that Clausen can’t, but Clausen should continue to be the starter until that time.

Share This

• That Sucks
• BCS Rankings Are Out, But Why?
• Friday Roundup: The Influential Edition