Stanford time clock analysis

[NicePost 0]

I heard an interesting analysis on Sirius XM College Sports. The hosts were very complementary of how Kelly managed the clock on that last drive, and then ripped him for the second time out taken when ND had just drove to the 2 and a first down. One of the hosts said, "Why the hell do you call a time out with 35 seconds left, two timeouts, after having just made a first down at the 2?

 

He went on to say that Kelly should have bled the clock more. The two time outs guaranteed that ND still would have gotten at least three downs to get it in had he bled another 10 to 15 seconds off the clock. Stanford did have their time outs, but this would have forced Shaw's hand and he would need to use one of their time outs instead of having all three available on that last drive. It was an interesting analysis. I don't have an opinion either way, but thought it reasonable.

[hawaiiirish 62]

It was MASTERFUL strategy by Kelly to move to the run game mostly-- make our drive the last drive--hope to score with no time left---

 

Nobody has been more critical of Kelly's game day management & tactics then I have been....but this time his strategy was terrific and perfectly played....

 

We needed to protect a sieve of a defense and Kelly clearly KNEW THAT and DID IT....

 

We scored with literally no time left---30 freakin seconds--come on--it was perfectly executed tactics...

 

The fact that BVGs mess of a scheme and approach would not hold up for 25 LOUSY SECONDS DEFIES LOGIC AND HISTORY....

 

IMHO our DC forfeited his hold on the DC JOB with that performance----It was an EPIC FAIL that ruined what was a brilliant GAME WINNING drive by Kelly, Kizer, Cory and the offensive line

 

I have lost any RESIDUE of confidence in our DC after that mess.

 

aloha's

[Franco 0]

It was MASTERFUL strategy by Kelly to move to the run game mostly-- make our drive the last drive--hope to score with no time left---

 

Nobody has been more critical of Kelly's game day management & tactics then I have been....but this time his strategy was terrific and perfectly played....

 

We needed to protect a sieve of a defense and Kelly clearly KNEW THAT and DID IT....

 

We scored with literally no time left---30 freakin seconds--come on--it was perfectly executed tactics...

 

The fact that BVGs mess of a scheme and approach would not hold up for 25 LOUSY SECONDS DEFIES LOGIC AND HISTORY....

 

IMHO our DC forfeited his hold on the DC JOB with that performance----It was an EPIC FAIL that ruined what was a brilliant GAME WINNING drive by Kelly, Kizer, Cory and the offensive line

 

I have lost any RESIDUE of confidence in our DC after that mess.

 

aloha's

 

I'll say this again...not sure why BVG decided to play prevent defense against Stanford this year. Last year, he brought the house on Stanford's final drive (they had significantly more time last year) and it paid dividends

[EddieAngel 508]

I'll say this again...not sure why BVG decided to play prevent defense against Stanford this year. Last year, he brought the house on Stanford's final drive (they had significantly more time last year) and it paid dividends

 

It was head scratching in a way that reminded me of a receiver running an eight yard out route on a 3rd and 10. I know that old bit about not giving up the big plays, not letting the guy get behind you, etc... this looked to me more like someone was not confident letting the D play a tighter man coverage.

[AtLeastMySisWasIrish 0]

Whoa...the show was Zarzur and Neuheisel and it was Zarzur, an unabashed ND fan who was lamenting the loss. Neuheisel thought it a mistake for Kelly to call a timeout at that point but we don't know the back story...the TO in question was immediately following Adam's 4th down conversion so a bit chaotic and don't think it was quite the "ripping" you described, ( I get it, subjective). Neuheisel referred to it as a gaffe so think of it how you will. We had a great last drive and the onus was on the D and we know how that worked out... GO IRISH!

[irishrb 0]

I was complaining at the time when he called a time out. As stated, they had 2 timeouts. They could still basically do whatever plays they wanted and run the clock even further. There are TONS of things you could look at in hindsight with just about every game though.

[irishrush 60]

Maybe he was thinking that we had been so inept in the redzone he might need all the time to have 4 chances to score...just speculating:razz:

[dangeruss 6]

Maybe he was thinking that we had been so inept in the redzone he might need all the time to have 4 chances to score...just speculating:razz:

needing a TD to win the game you want to make sure everyone is on the same page and not feeling rushed with a running clock.

 

also in the 3rd quarter I wouldn't have gone for 2 pts., to early to be chasing points and it wasn't like ND wasn't going to score again.

[edcubby 2]

That's the way I looked at it...he didn't know Kizer would score on the next play.

 

With the way the season played out in the Red Zone we might of needed 3 plays to get in.

 

Anyway you score with 30 seconds left to take the lead and you loose when a team used only 25 seconds up?!?! Shouldn't happen.

[dangeruss 6]

Anyway you score with 30 seconds left to take the lead and you loose when a team used only 25 seconds up?!?! Shouldn't happen.

im sure BVG is regretting not blitzing on that drive.

[blueandgold4423 0]

30 seconds and three timeouts is an eternity in college football, especially when you only need a field goal. The timeout was stupid, but we were also shafted by the replay officials. Kizer was CLEARLY down. Had this been overturned, we would have had time to run a few more plays from the inch line and waste some time to score. My dad called it with 4 minutes left, said we would score with 30 seconds and stanford would have three timeouts and it would be too much time left on the clock for them. And that's exactly what happened

[aj7822 0]

I'll say this again...not sure why BVG decided to play prevent defense against Stanford this year. Last year, he brought the house on Stanford's final drive (they had significantly more time last year) and it paid dividends

 

It's the all too common playing not to lose, instead of playing to win...he wasn't going to let his overtly aggressive play calling be the reason they beat ND, even though Hogan carved the secondary up all game when given time.

[Soko 128]

If Kizer does not get in and then we don't score on the next play what happens?

 

 

The defense had 25 seconds to hold and they couldn't. Now they most likely would have if not for the penalty but still.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Soko

[NDhoosier 1,233]

I do kind of agree with the fact that he should not have taken a timeout so quickly down near the end zone, but the biggest thing is still:

 

[Jim2Dokes 3]

I am tired of these people micro analyzing things. If you asked any coach during a game situation if you need a TD to win would you rather have it with 30 seconds on the clock or would you rather be in a 4th down situation with 3 seconds. Fact is, we have seen this team struggle so much in the red zone, I think it was smart to set up a play and then execute it. 30 seconds on the clock? Coaches dream of that.

[BluecollarIrish1983 0]

Everyone complains we can't score in the red zone when we score you can't take points off the board with no guarantee of scoring on any of the next three plays the game fell on shoulders of the Defense and they laid an egg that Stanford drive reminded me of Bc in 93 when I was ten one and only time I cried over a sporting event

 

Btw there was two seconds left on the clock when the Stanford field goal went in why didn't Notre dame get a chance at a kickoff return was that ever explained when the game ended

Edited December 1, 2015 by BluecollarIrish1983

[CanadianIrish 0]

Everyone complains we can't score in the red zone when we score you can't take points off the board with no guarantee of scoring on any of the next three plays the game fell on shoulders of the Defense and they laid an egg that Stanford drive reminded me of Bc in 93 when I was ten one and only time I cried over a sporting event

 

Btw there was two seconds left on the clock when the Stanford field goal went in why didn't Notre dame get a chance at a kickoff return was that ever explained when the game ended

 

Finally! I thought I was taking crazy pills - how does it take 6 seconds to kick a FG???? I never saw the clock when it went through, but I'm almost certain they snapped the ball at 6 seconds

[Rocketsan 773]

I am tired of these people micro analyzing things. If you asked any coach during a game situation if you need a TD to win would you rather have it with 30 seconds on the clock or would you rather be in a 4th down situation with 3 seconds. Fact is, we have seen this team struggle so much in the red zone, I think it was smart to set up a play and then execute it. 30 seconds on the clock? Coaches dream of that.

 

4th down on the less than half yard line? I'll take that EVERY TIME.

 

If you can't will your way in from the half yard line, you have no business being on the field...

[Green Goblin 114]

Come on, even with all 3 timeouts, a defense needs to be able to hang on for 30 seconds.

 

If not for the facemask penalty, I'm convinced we would have won that game.

 

So it goes.

[Rocketsan 773]

If not for the facemask penalty, I'm convinced we would have won that game.

 

 

I'm not...I had absolutely no faith we were going to be able to hold...I hung my hat on praying the kicker would push it wide...