I know this has probably been discussed countless times. I love the fact that Coach Weis can recruit the way he does, but our teams DO NOT KNOW how to finish games and that comes from coaching. As a head coach how can you let a wide receiver screen pass called on 4th and 8 in the third quarter. We have pissed away two games this season in the second half because our players are not coached on how to finish games. I have always supported Weis and will continue to support him. I am by no means calling for him to be canned but he needs to figure out how to coach these players to close out games that we should win.

well said, although i think the play calling was part of the problem(also coaching).

hawaii hit it on the head in the other thread when he said Charlie is not a good gameday coach. We really have trouble closing games and we nearly always seemed to be out coached in the 2nd half.

 

We are up 17-3 at half time at home, finish the game with no turnovers to their 3 and we lose. We missed another excellent opportunity to earn respect.

 

Chalk the following comment up to being delivered with bitter taste still in the mouth, but I just don't EVER see us becoming an elite team under Weis. He sure can recruit but when is the last time we beat a good team? More importantly, how many times have we beaten a good team under Weis? I mean, even a blind squirrel finds its nut sometimes but we apparently aren't even that lucky.

Edited November 2, 200816 yr by crouchingjedi

I agree with you both...but, remember that we missed a wide open Floyd in the in zone for a td..S**t happens..We had our chance to win but, didn't win...so is life until the next game..We are playing better but, we do play big time flat in the 2nd half..I think we need to coach our guys how to play the 2nd half of the game this week....

I felt the same way Gwood when Clausen missed that pass. I thought "that was our shot" and it was. I was disapointed with the play-calling in the 4th quarter and overtime as well. I'm pissed, but I can't say after a win..."and we did it with all these youg guys too". Then after a loss "it's all Weis's falt". The door swings both ways... I knew our youth would bite us and it has, not much more to it.

Predicted at the beginning of the season. After a 3-9 season and the make up of the team, they were bound to lose a game or two they should have won. Its all part of the growing process. I know people are going to say look at this team and look at that team...etc. But young teams are sometimes up and down...even from half to half.

 

Please don't jump off a bridge or pull your car into a bridge enbankment....

I missed most of the entire second half, but I did see the first and the overtimes. My biggest nit is like everyone keeps mentioning is that we don't finish out games convincingly. We keep dragging teams along letting them stay in the game when it should''ve been put away and the second teamers get some action. We keep coming out dead in the third quarter and let the other team set the pace it seems.

 

We had some very good moments in the game and also very disappointing ones as well. There is really no reason we should have lost IMO, especially with a +3 TO margin!

What bothers me most was the play calling. The short screen on 3 and long. How in the third quarter and in the 4th OT we stopped throwing. I'm tired of watching us try and line up in a traditional set and power the ball. We can't do it. Sure it works on the occasional third and short, but as a football philosophy we can't. Meanwhile we seem to be able to move the ball rather effectively with 3 wide a TE and a running back. I don't understand why we feel the need to change from this formula if it is working. I think Weis needs to have a serious talk with haywood about play calling. Also they need to work on defending the screen. This is another game where the screen pass killed us.

this is all very frustrating--this team should be 7 and 1-- we dominated the north carolina game and let the lead get away and then the game--we were a more talented team today ( give Mccoy his due he was terrific) but this game was ours when the second half started--- i think we didnt get a first down until almost midway through the 4th quarter-- that is pathetic against a team you have reeling after the end of the first half-- perhaps the worst 3rd quarter performance ive ever seen from an ND team-- and when that 4th overtime started and they line up james and assaph in that two deep-- i started throwing tums at the screen before the snap-- when they lined them up the same on second down i threw the whole role at the tv--it was IDIOTIC__ this is a young team but youth wasnt the excuse-- rutgers passed all over them-- they coulndt contain floyd at all-- and yet we cant find a playcalling rythm to capitalize on our strength--haywood is goat no 1-- charlie goat no 2 and at least a few goat droppings for the hayseed for lack of IQ points--you could feel in the overtime what was going to happen-- the overtime was a case of fear-- yes we got some good rushes from armando in the first series but when our best running didnt get in the end zone why oh why would that be the 4th overtime strategy--fear of loosing-- playing cautious-- just terrible game day strategy!!!

I agree with Hawaii and Steel. I think this not really Weis fault. I mean with the UNC game, if we could have hit a field goal that game would have been ours. I mean we had it and lost it, but you guys need to remember that we were 3-9 and these young guys need to learn how to close out a game when it matters. As for today, I agree that we had our chances, with Floyd being overthrown in the endzone, but also Harrison's penalty that kept the drive alive earlier in the game. It is young kids trying to find their way. However, I agree that Haywood deserves more blame than Weis. We got way too cautious. I mean we couldn't run it all game, but in the OT's we wasted 2 plays each set of downs on the run. At first it worked, but then they stuffed it. Plus why did we forget about Rudolph in the middle? I still think we should be happy that we are competitive in these games, b/c I think these close games will help us be better next year.

Youth is not an excuse anymore. Kids are going to miss plays and not execute from time to time. A good coach will put their players in a position to win. We got away from our bread and butter and what has become our identity. Does haywood get some blame? Sure. But who is in charge of gameday coaching? I am very disappointed.

 

Anyone watching Texas Tech? They don't have a complicated playbook--they just say here we are, this is what we're doing now come stop us.

ND should be passing 75-80% of the time because that's their strenght. Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Misouri, they all come out guns blazing. And when they get 21 points on the board, they DON'T stop. With the firepower ND has, they should be averaging much more than the 26.38 ppg.

I want to know who ND changes uniforms with at halftime. The first half team in both the UNC and Pitt games were not the ones who played the second half!

With the benefit of a nights sleep before adding to this post, I am as disappointed as all of you that we lost another game we should have won.

 

I try to remind myself, however, that I actually expected this team to losesome that we should win as they go thru the process of becoming a good team. They have improved alot from last year, and when you go from 3-9 to 5-3, that is still alot of improvement. This is a bridge to the future. Don't jump now.

We seemed to do ok with 2nd half adjustments in the Purdue game.

 

I think we need to also give some credit to the Pitt D, who played very well in the 2nd half and OT. We had our chances and didn't execute. We also had stupid mistakes...Harrison Smith's late hit on the drive that made it 17-10.

 

It happens sometimes unfortunately. Just come back and beat BC next week. Most of us predicted somewhere between 7-9 wins this year and we are probably going to see either 7-8 so we are where we expected to be.

 

On the bright side, its nice to be complaining about losing in 4 OT's instead of getting gangbanged every week like last year.

Bet most people won't look at it that way- but I do.

 

This year vs last year = much better.

 

Next year vs this year = much better.

I agree with Hawaii and Steel. I think this not really Weis fault. I mean with the UNC game, if we could have hit a field goal that game would have been ours. I mean we had it and lost it, but you guys need to remember that we were 3-9 and these young guys need to learn how to close out a game when it matters. As for today, I agree that we had our chances, with Floyd being overthrown in the endzone, but also Harrison's penalty that kept the drive alive earlier in the game. It is young kids trying to find their way. However, I agree that Haywood deserves more blame than Weis. We got way too cautious. I mean we couldn't run it all game, but in the OT's we wasted 2 plays each set of downs on the run. At first it worked, but then they stuffed it. Plus why did we forget about Rudolph in the middle? I still think we should be happy that we are competitive in these games, b/c I think these close games will help us be better next year.

 

I think that everybody was alright with the coaching last year because we all knew how terribly young we were.

This year though, we all know the talent we have, but the staff seems to still have a pretty short leash on the squad.

 

It's time to let the dogs out of the yard guys.

 

Haywood seems to want to make this team something it isn't.

I know Charlie paved the way before the season began by trying to establish the idea that we would be a run-first team.

Haywood seems to have taken this idea too far, much to the detriment of a young and potentially explosive offense.

He absolutely deserves more blame than Charlie. He hasn't coached horribly, but his playcalling allowed Stanford to stick around, and played a part in yesterday's loss.

 

I don't mind Aldridge running behind Schwapp on first down in OT, but to line up on 2nd and run the same play was borderline arrogant.

 

Like steel said, I want to see more 3 wide, Rudolf at TE or in the slot, and Armando in the backfield.

Of course none of this will work when a team can drop 8 and only rush 3 at the end of a close game.

But when they drop 8 and rush three it would be the perfect situation to throw in a draw or a quick hand off to Allen. Maybe even a direct snap (not wildcat). I think that is the type of strategy we used for much of the game. It is those series where haywood says we are going to run the ball and end up with 0 first downs that i don't get. Why do we do this for at least 3 or 4 series a game. I can understand once if it works it works and do it more. But in the third quarter when it failed why come out and do it again on the next possession. We can use it to change pace, but with the recievers we have and how clausen has been playing, lets let them make plays. The line isn't great so why put all the pressure on them.

 

My philosophy is if something is working why stop using it. Make them stop you before you change. Especially in the pitt game where they're corners could not stop an out route to save their lives. People hate playing NCAA against me because I might run the same play 5 or 6 times in a row if it works. I know real football is more complicated, but it is not hard to see i something is working or not.

I think that everybody was alright with the coaching last year because we all knew how terribly young we were.

This year though, we all know the talent we have, but the staff seems to still have a pretty short leash on the squad.

 

It's time to let the dogs out of the yard guys.

 

Haywood seems to want to make this team something it isn't.

I know Charlie paved the way before the season began by trying to establish the idea that we would be a run-first team.

Haywood seems to have taken this idea too far, much to the detriment of a young and potentially explosive offense.

He absolutely deserves more blame than Charlie. He hasn't coached horribly, but his playcalling allowed Stanford to stick around, and played a part in yesterday's loss.

 

I don't mind Aldridge running behind Schwapp on first down in OT, but to line up on 2nd and run the same play was borderline arrogant.

 

Like steel said, I want to see more 3 wide, Rudolf at TE or in the slot, and Armando in the backfield.

Of course none of this will work when a team can drop 8 and only rush 3 at the end of a close game.

 

Great points and this is what I don't get. During the UNC game we established that when we use a spread formation and pass to set up the run we are so deadly on offense (maybe without the turnovers). Clearly Jimmy is most comfortable in this offense. Why on earth did we move away from this?????

the reason we strayed from what we should obviously be jedi is a wierd potion of --25% stubborness-- 25% psychological discomfort accepting a pass heavy -- spread heavy offense-- as the bulk of the offense after all the ND cant run criticism--25 % failure to fully appreciate how good a passing team we can be-- and 25 % fear of giving opposition too clear a picture of what we will do--it all adds up to 100% of not maximizing this teams potential--- the irony is we run so much better not only after passing to set up the run but actually out of passing formations-- its a wierd potion that is all i can come up with to explain the inexplicable!!-- i FULLY EXPECT that the coaches will digest this completely by next week--some posters expect more of the same and a probable loss albeit in the usually close fashion-- i FULLY EXPECT a game plan that will not only beat BC but will settle this question of what kind of team we will be this year and next ONCE AND FOR ALL! -- jimmy and the offense will let it rip all over the place next week win loose or draw

at this point, i will say that charlie couldn't hold lou's jock................