Obviously, the biggest complaint about Notre Dame's absolute destruction of Air Force was the fact that the defense gave up a total of 565 yards (5 more than the Irish) with our top ranked rushing defense giving up 363 of them on the ground. It could've been worse too, the Irish managed the option attack much better in the second half after giving up over 200 yards in the first.
Personally, I wasn't worried about the defensive performance all game long; in fact, my Twitter feed was completely devoid of the usual colorful language and #NDFBIsDeterminedToKillMe hashtag. While the ND offense clicking was definitely helping, I felt the defense was doing just fine as well. And the reason isn't because they were stopping Air Force's option attack dead in it's tracks.
It's more of a matter of football philosophy. You only have so many drives a game in which you can do something. On the defensive side of the ball, the goal is to "win" as many of these drives as possible, giving your team a chance to win. For me, a win on a drive is simply not allowing a touchdown. So any punts, turnovers, or even allowing a field goal would count as a win for the defense on the drive.
To add on to that, you want your offense doing just the opposite, making a "winning" drive a TD drive. It's very similar to what DMQ talks about in posts regarding time well spent. So even your offense can be an effective defense in the game as TDs scored can create additional pressure on your opponent to respond.
Much like baseball, when your offense scores, you want your pitcher to go out and have the shutdown inning. A similar analogy can be used in a tennis game and holding your serve. Drives and time are precious commodities in football and breaking down the end result of each drive can be just as effective in judging the performance of the offense or defense in a game.
Think about ND/USF: we gained 500+ yards, but what did it matter? We turned the ball over 5 times and lost those drives.
When you face an option offense, winning drives can become even more crucial as those offenses can easily chew up the clock. For games against such opponents, I actually expect a decent chunk of yardage to be given up (just as I would any offense that happens to have a prolific passing game) and with the time these teams can take off the clock, drives become even more precious as the amount you will see as their opponent will likely be lower than normal.
In my mind, you need to get an early lead and have your defense contain the option attack, ensuring big plays are kept to a minimum (something that killed us against Navy). If this is accomplished, a winning drive on defense will often result in a load of wasted time for the opponent, making a comeback from a quick deficit that much harder. For instance, a long drive that results in only a field goal can be catastrophic. Not only did the opponent fail to catch up, but now they have effectively chewed up their own time for a comeback.
Even defensive drive losses can be better swallowed if far too much time was spent to score on it. Again, that kind of clock chewing is great with a lead, but awful when a comeback is needed.
Let's take a closer look drives for the game, starting with the first half and see just how well the defense did and the time spent by Air Force on such drives:
| First Half | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Notre Dame | Air Force | ||
| Time | Result | Time | Result |
| 2:47 | TD | 0:19 | Fumble |
| 3:33 | TD | 2:33 | FG |
| 1:41 | TD | 5:26 | TD* |
| 2:02 | TD | 3:08 | INT |
| 2:21 | TD | 4:29 | TD* |
| 1:06 | TD | :35 | End of Half |
The first thing to note is the reason why I marked the TD drives here with asterisks. The reason is simple, the Irish had done enough to stop Air Force on these drives, but made mistakes that caused the drives to continue.
In the first TD drive, the Falcons were going to settle for a FG until we jumped offsides. The next play was an Air Force TD. This drive had the potential to be a 5+ minute drive that would only give the Falcons three points, but instead our mistake allowed Air Force to win this drive.
The second TD drive could've been stopped on two different occasions. The first was a dropped INT by Carlo Calabrese and the second was failing to stop a fake punt. Here the Irish had a change to re-gain possession without any points exchanged.
Despite these mistakes shooting the Irish defense in the foot, the Irish defense still caused the Falcons to use up 12:28 on their scoring drives for 16 points or roughly 1.3 points/minute. Compare that to the Irish, who used up 13:30 to score 42 points, for a ridiculous average of 3.1 points/minute.
So yes, while giving up 200+ yards in this half was very disappointing, the Irish defense made Air Force fight for every single one, giving up only three plays for 20 or more yards (one of which, the Irish forced the fumble). Restricting the big plays forced Air Force to chew up far too much time for a true comeback causing the desperation of their onside kick and even their fake punt.
| Second Half | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Air Force | Notre Dame | ||
| Time | Result | Time | Result |
| 1:16 | Punt | 2:07 | Punt |
| 2:54 | Punt | 1:54 | TD |
| 6:53 | FG* | 4:44 | FG |
| Starters Benched | |||
| 1:50 | Punt | 2:00 | TD |
| 1:50 | TD | 2:18 | Punt |
| 2:14 | TD | 0:33 | End of Game |
In the second half, Notre Dame was obviously far better adjusted to Air Force's attack and, despite having their own rear ends handed to them, the Falcons stuck with their initial gameplan. The result were punts in the 2 out of the 3 drives the Irish starters were in. The final two TDs were simply scores in trash time that really shouldn't worry anyone.
To add on to that, you will notice that the only other scoring drive in this half, the FG, has yet another asterisk on it. This time around, there were two fumbles that the Irish failed to recover and yet another INT dropped, this time by Gary Gray. Had one of the fumbles had a friendlier Irish bounce or Gray holds on to the pass, we are looking at zero scoring drives in the second half against the Irish starters.
However, much like the first half, the Irish made Air Force fight for their points. On this drive, there were actually zero plays that went for more than 10 yards, leading to Air Force wasting nearly 7 minutes to only come up with three points. In comparison, the Irish starters were able to rack up 10 points in roughly the same amount of time on their drives before and after the Falcon FG.
Putting everything together, we can take a look at how many drives the Irish defense "won" against Air Force. As stated above, the only way to lose would be to give up a TD. With this in mind, before the starters left, the Irish defense won 6 of 8 drives (not counting the drive that ended the first half either). Now had the Irish not had a dumb penalty and caught an INT that they should have, we'd be looking at a perfect 8 for 8 drives won by the defense.
So while it may be easy to look at the yardage and have a bit of a panic attack with concern that we can't defend the option, I would suggest taking a deep breath. The defense was far from perfect and had several moments of sloppiness, but they did what they needed to do. Seeing that the second half adjustments proved successful should encourage everyone as well.
By PootND October 11, 2011 - 11:36 am
Nice job with the article. You definitely summed up my feelings while I was in the stands. As much as I joked about not feeling comfortable until the 3rd in my recap, I wasn’t as nervous as I usually am while we are maintaining a lead. Once we force the turnovers on their first play and then went up 14-0, I knew we were in good shape as long as we didn’t give up any quick scores. (Which was obviously the plan for the game as confirmed by BK)
Also, given the way our offense was playing and the yardage we were conceding (somewhat by design), I’m still confused as to why AF ever punted or attempted FGs.
Thumbs Up/Down:
3 
0
By NDtex October 11, 2011 - 12:10 pm
Well to be fair, they didn’t even bother punting until the second half and it was church for them by then.
As far as FGs, I’m really confused on that. I get taking the first one, but kicking one in the second half? Really?!
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By PootND October 11, 2011 - 12:44 pm
I’m mainly talking about the FG that was negated by the Lynch offsides. That would have cut the score to 21-6. Like what’s the point on that?
And I guess the punt comment was more from the fake punt (when they obviously didn’t punt) and the one before the timeout when they came out and decided to go for it. So, ignore that part:)
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By NDtex October 11, 2011 - 1:12 pm
Yeah that FG was odd too. I guess they figured all still wasn’t lost…yet.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit October 11, 2011 - 11:52 am
Totally agree. Diaco’s defense is designed to stop the big play and make O’s EARN their points through long drives. And long drives are tough to execute – mistakes, penalties and TOs are common in CFB.
And against academies/option teams, this is a great fit. We know we will score points. We need an early lead and then we can get them out of their gameplan.
Thumbs Up/Down:
1 
0
By PootND October 11, 2011 - 12:47 pm
Totally agree with your 2nd paragraph. If we push that 4th and 1 in against Navy last year on the first drive, I think the game plays out differently.
Thumbs Up/Down:
1 
0
By The Biscuit October 11, 2011 - 1:29 pm
we just agreed. I am pretty sure a USC fan just got his wings.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Whiskeyjack October 11, 2011 - 12:10 pm
Good post, Tex.
The two ST miscues during the first half aren’t on the defense. Take those away, and ND likely holds AF to 9 points or less before trash time.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By tricerapops October 11, 2011 - 12:44 pm
great post, and sums up my thoughts on the matter (less the analytics – which is obviously the gravy on these mashed potatoes of thoughts). the kool aid, it’s so REFRESHING!!!!!!!!!!!
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By MarkG October 11, 2011 - 1:35 pm
Good post.
The D did a good (albeit not great) job against the option by, first, almost eliminating the dive, and second, getting the ball out of the QB’s hands. We did what you are supposed to do against the option (and what we failed to do last year versus Navy) – shutting down 2 of the 3 options. If the safeties had played a little more under control coming up against the pitch man in the first half, like they did in the third quarter, we would have limited their rushing yards. Over all, against a multi-facted offense, a very good job.
Thumbs Up/Down:
1 
0
By trey October 11, 2011 - 1:38 pm
I disagree with only one part and that is that FGs dont seem to matter in your methodology. Ask the Wash Redskins what can happen if you continually allow a team to kick FGs all game and you dont reapond with TD. Stopping the 6 should be weighted higher, but FGs can kill you too
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
1
By Erik '04 October 11, 2011 - 2:16 pm
If you don’t win a few times on offense, it really doesn’t matter what your defense does. In that regard, I think counting field goals as a win for your D is fine, the same way counting them as a loss for your O is fine. I’ll trade 7 for 3 all day long. Also, I took the FG win contextually in terms of this game, where we were moving the ball at will all day long. When your offense is doing that, your D needs to keep the other team out of the endzone.
I thought the defense did a good job adjusting to the outside pitch man even in the 2nd quarter (before halftime). I remember thinking that it was refreshing to see some adjustments made without waiting until the half. In particular, Robert Blanton made some outstanding plays on his own in the 2nd quarter, coming off the block to tackle the pitch man, and/or turning him back inside.
Thumbs Up/Down:
1 
0
By trey October 11, 2011 - 2:54 pm
Naturally you take that trade, and I said as much. I just dont think you can overlook the value of the 3 points(remember how irate we’ve been over the last few years before Ruffer because we COULDNT get those points?).
Absolutely you trade 7 for 3, but Id trade 3 for 0 any day too. That was my point about weighting them.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Erik '04 October 12, 2011 - 12:41 pm
Good point Trey about trading 3 for 0.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By NDtex October 11, 2011 - 4:31 pm
It isn’t so much not valuing the FG, but more of a philosophy that if the defense gives one up, they still did their job. I’m perfectly fine with a “bend, don’t break” defense as that will keep you in the game.
Sure, I’d love the defense to pitch total shutouts, but that isn’t always going to happen.
As Erik mentioned, and you did as well, there is another side of the coin: offense. If the offense completely fails to score, the blame falls on them.
How many times as a football have you said “wow, our offense completely lost that for us, the defense kept us in it”. That is the thinking behind this philosophy.
Thumbs Up/Down:
1 
0
By trey October 11, 2011 - 8:14 pm
You’re a Cowboys fan too, right? Remember the Skins game this year? There’s the most recent occurrence of that statement for me
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Nate October 12, 2011 - 4:26 am
Great analysis NDtex. I told my wife after the fake punt, that Air Force was desperate and the game was won. There was no way they were going to stop our offense, and they knew they had to get drastic to get any points.
One other thing to note is the # of 4th downs they converted (5 for 5? Something ridiculous). Coaches are inherently conservative and going for it that often is a sign of desperation, of knowing your D can’t stop the other guys O so you have to keep your O out there despite the risks. Granted, the Air Force offense is hard to stop for less than 3 yards so it makes short yardage 4th downs an easy call for Calhoun, but even with that it’s pretty unusual for a team to go for it that many times. Against any other offense save Navy, they don’t get 5 for 5 on 4th downs. Navy might be more likely to get it because they run a similar offense that is hard to stop for a loss.
Point being, sure, the final stats look bad in terms of yards given up and final points, but subtracting out the garbage time 2 TD’s, Air Force had to get REALLY lucky and REALLY aggressive to even come up with the 19 points they did. Meanwhile, we put up 59 and could have had more, had we wanted. I’ll take that any day of the week.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By GB October 12, 2011 - 4:52 am
I agree philosophically. A lot depends on the Cincy philosophy of just outscoring the opposition. I was not really worried about losing the game at any point but good teams just play better D and that includes holding down the yards. I would feel better about keeping the margin and having a score of 26-0. Right now both Oklahoma and UM have 6-0 records but UO is a much better team in my book, mainly because of the D and low yardage.In the end, a win is a win but some wins look much better. If the O would not have been “on”, then it could have been a different story.If ND had the same number of turnovers and much less yardage against USF, I think I might have been asking to have Charlie back.:O))
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By SDI October 12, 2011 - 4:42 pm
Interesting you should mention Oklahoma.
I didn’t remember this, but apparently AF went into Norman last year and moved the ball up and down the field on Oklahoma similar to the ND game. The game was really close because the Sooners didn’t score on offense like ND did.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Jeremy October 12, 2011 - 3:49 pm
Great article. I had forgotten that our first string defense really did stop them in the 2nd half when the game was at least potentially close. Thinking back, Smith seems to over pursue or take bad angles in the first half on the end, and he tackled much better in the second half. Hopefully, this game was a good warm up for Navy.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By southbendblarney.com » Blog Archive » ND Football: Is The Defense Cause For Concern? October 12, 2011 - 8:19 pm
[...] Irish defense, and those that defend what happened. Her Loyal Sons, in particular, wrote up a very convincing piece concluding that the yardage given up wasn’t the cause for concern that some [...]
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Air Force & Navy – A Defensive Comparison « Her Loyal Sons October 31, 2011 - 12:30 am
[...] I mentioned in my breakdown of Air Force, there is much more to beating an option team than the yards you allow. So let’s take a look at the winning [...]
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0