Taking a Pass at the Irish Defense

Some discussion has popped up on various ND message boards about Corwin Brown and his defense. So I decided to really take a look at the numbers and see where the 2007 Notre Dame defense, under Corwin Brown, stacks up against the 2 defenses that Rick Minter helmed in 2005 and 2006. After all, Brown was brought in to replace the fired Minter. I spend a lot of time comparing Weis to Willingham. Might as well do it with the assistants!

The Stats:

First and foremost, the “total defense” ranking has made a significant jump. Granted, these rankings could change quite a bit when the bowl season is all said and done, but ND has finished their 2007 season ranked 43rd in total defense. In 2005 they finished 75th and in 2006 they finished 65th. That’s a pretty nice jump from Minter’s average of a 70 rank. So from a big-picture, objective stand-point, it can already be said that Corwin Brown’s defense played better than Minter’s defenses.

And now the “but.” And here it is: The 2007 Irish gave up an average of 357 yards a game and 39 touchdowns. That’s compared to a 2005 yield of 396 a game and 35 TDs and a 2006 yield of 340 yards a game and, again, 35 TDs. And the 2006 season included an extra game. So Brown’s defense didn’t improve a ton in “yield.” It did improve in habitually succumbing to the big pass play. Problem was, most offenses didn’t need the big pass play to beat ND.

The book on how to beat Notre Dame in 2007 was went as follows:

• Let the Irish kill themselves
• Just keep grinding against the D
• Score on all Irish mistakes and get a big lead
• Kill the clock

And that’s why the stats for the defense look like they do. Still, that’s not an excuse. And most of the big, macro numbers would probably have looked a lot better if not for one seemingly “small” number: 0.41 as in 0.41 more yards per rush gained against the 2007 Notre Dame defense than what opponents averaged against the 2005 and 2006 ND Defenses. That caused the per rush average to jump from 3.87 yards to 4.28 yards, effectively jumping the proposition of rushing against the ND defense from “fair” to overwhelmingly “promising.” And so opposing OCs could use the easiest, lowest risk types of plays (runs up the middle) to beat the Irish. Which means opposing OCs were beating the Irish with “man-to-man/hat-on-hat” football, indicating a failing in proper technique by a number of Irish (watch the middle linebackers for excellent examples).

Here’s a funny stat: In 2007, the Irish gave up 20 rushing touchdowns and 19 passing touchdowns. Whereas, in 2006, the Irish gave up 24 passing TDs, and just 11 rushing TDs. Is that because Corwin Brown’s first defense at least required opponents to grind into the end-zone versus Minter’s 2006 defense that let so many opponents score from well beyond the 30? Or does Brown’s defense have no real serious weakness? Or no real strength? Usually when a team isn’t very good, there’s a preferred way to score on them. If they stink against the pass, suck them in on play-action and score on them just like everyone else. So why are opposing OCs choosing either/or?

I do believe that Corwin will put together a very good defense in 2008. But I have to base that belief mostly on things that I see on the field but can’t read in the numbers. He’s got some young linebackers and defensive linemen that play like maniacs. He’s got at least one true “shut down” corner. And he’s got one of the most gifted and truly nasty safeties in the country. Brown’s also shown early in many of the 2007 contests that he’s able to put together effective gameplans that, at the very least, work until the Irish’s own mistakes kill them off. It’ll be very interesting to see how he performs in situations where he has to play “chess” for an entire game.