An embarrassingly close game with Ball State, a near mishap against Vanderbilt and all of a sudden, the Notre Dame Fighting Irish needed some changes.
Ushered in is quarterback Ian Book, who is supposed to release this offense in ways Brandon Wimbush simply could not. It appears he has done just that, totaling five touchdowns and guiding Notre Dame to 56 points over Wake Forest.
Should the Stanford Cardinal be shaking in their boots at the prospect of colliding with the new and improved Fighting Irish offense?
Game Plan
What Stanford did against USC and J.T Daniels should be the blueprint against the Fighting Irish. The Cardinal threw a glut of coverages at Daniels, forcing him to feel pressure throughout the game, leading to a pair of game-sealing interceptions in the fourth quarter. The defense worked for two reasons:
1) Stanford’s pressure came from everywhere. Everywhere. I illustrated after the game how important the pressure from the linebackers was after the thrashing of USC. Linebackers right on the line of scrimmage could mean a blitz from everyone or no one, with everything in between. But the Stanford can also bring pressure with their defensive backs.
The Cardinal sure-tackling secondary plays a significant role both attacking the run and the quarterback. Flipping coverage from the nickel back to the outside linebacker not only brings a pass rusher without telegraphing the blitz by having a safety join the box. It is also possible with athletes like Bobby Okereke at linebacker who can make up space in coverage.
The IQ of the secondary also helps neutralize window dressing in a play, like here:
Alijah Holder not only reads run but does not bite on the sweep action of the receiver trying to create space for the running back.
The combined effort of the entire defense through plenty of looks at Book is how Stanford keeps him off his spot, bogging down the Notre Dame offense.
2) The Cardinal played patience and did not panic against the Ducks, avoiding making a mistake that could have thwarted the comeback. They need that patience against Book.
Last season, Book threw four picks on 70 passing attempts. Three of those were against North Carolina and Miami. In 2017, Miami’s 44 sacks ranked fourth in the country, while North Carolina racked up 72 tackles for loss.
Both these teams pestered opponent backfields.
A cluttered pocket can shake up Book, helping produce turnovers. This also pairs well (for Stanford) with concerns about his deep ball.
The Rule Of Tree’s own Charlie Foy asked One Foot Down’s Pat Rick about Book, and he had this to say -
”He was always seen as a more accurate passer than Wimbush but with a weaker arm on deep balls, just as much of a propensity to turn it over, and, although good on the ground, he’s certainly not the running/scrambling talent that Wimbush is.”
A shakey deep ball is precisely what the Stanford secondary needs to wait on, pushing the Fighting Irish onto 3rd and longs early, waiting for the costly mistake when Book tries to stretch the field.
Why it works
The 56 points were impressive, and the best Notre Dame’s offense has looked since Michigan. But it was against a porous defense that did not have a chance of disrupting Book (one SK, two TFL, three QB HUR). Notre Dame allowed six sacks, 22 tackles for loss and 11 quarterback hurries in the first three weeks, failing to speak volumes about the offensive line play against even the mildest of pass rushing attacks.
Destabilize the offense, force them to play behind the sticks, make Book choose poor decisions downfield. That is the formula for the Cardinal.
Wait on the deep mistake, play the long game in every way, seize victory.
Comments
Heading to South Bend with my dad...
Always wanted to go see a game at ND and crossing my fingers that we get a good performance and a win for his 70th birthday!
By singlewall on 09.26.18 6:18pm
We'll see. <img src="//fonts.voxmedia.com/emoji/unicode/1f60a.png" alt=":blush:" class="emoji">
Book’s "weak arm" isn’t really all that weak. He can’t throw the ball 70 yards like Wimbush, but he can throw it 55 with a good deal more accuracy than Wimbush can. Maybe he still has a propensity to throw interceptions, too, but maybe he doesn’t. Throwing two in his first start last year kind of hung that perception on him. It will be interesting to see whether that game plan works well, if it’s adopted.
Good luck Saturday, and let’s hope nobody gets hurt.
By BobRodes on 09.27.18 12:51am
What is SC's offensive scheme this year?
I haven’t really paid a ton of attention to them because A) they stink and B) we are still two months away from playing them. Do they employ a lot of RPOs and ZR? That’s what you’re going to get a lot from ND and Book. Wimbush was terrible at making the reads and running both of those plays, but when it worked it usually worked for home runs. Book is a little less explosive but he runs both so well that they usually pick up 4 yards or so on the ZR and on RPOs when he ends up throwing, 7-10. Disguising coverages should work on definite passing plays, but will be neutralized on options.
By clearwall on 09.27.18 6:58am
Notre Dame's Punter Is Very Strong
Shaw is used to playing incremental field position gains by outpunting our opponent but we will not be able to follow this tactic against ND. We can’t be satisfied with anything but a score on each drive. On defense, it will be interesting if we stay in soft coverage (bend but don’t break). Book is very accurate with short passes and has a quick release. If we give up 6 – 8 yards on first down too often, ND’s running game (which is well above average if short of last year’s performance) could hurt us.
I expect a tightly fought contest, with the winner making the fewest mistakes.
By hoyaparanoia on 09.27.18 10:29am
All depends on Ian Book's downfield passing.
Philosophically, Shaw is a firm believer in not surrendering big plays on defense. This means you play soft on the corners and concede underneath routes. The theory is that it’s a lot harder to execute a 14 play drive than it is a 3 play drive. Once a team gets in the Red Zone, you can have the corners play much tighter because it’s harder to get burned deep. Against USC, this usually works well. USC coaches always think they have big play receives and QB’s, so they love to throw down field. Against Oregon, it doesn’t work as well. Oregon usually runs the ball a LOT more and then does a lot of quick hitters.
Against ND, I expect Shaw to follow his typical philosophy. Shaw will want to make Book prove he can execute the offense over a long series. Shut down the run and force Book to pass it on 3rd and long when you can blitz. Now, I haven’t paid a whole lot of attention to Brian Kelly’s offensive MO, but it seems ND is like most good programs and they will want to establish a ground game. So the key is shutting down the run and forcing Book to beat us underneath. If we can’t shut down the run, we’re screwed. My experience with Stanford is that they typically give up more running yards in the first half. So I expect we’ll be trailing at half-time.
The other side of the coin is our offense. Most fans don’t recognize that the success of one, begets the other. If we can score on every possession, this helps our defense. I don’t think we will. In fact, I will be surprised if Love breaks 100 yards. Our O-line hasn’t done well running against mediocre defensive teams and it sounds like ND has some run stuffers in the middle. If our defense holds, we’ll run more. If our defense gives up TDs early and often, Shaw will probably go pass pretty quickly. That means the fate of Stanford is going to depend on whether KJ is having an on or off day.
Personally, I will be amazed if Stanford can win this. With Wimbush, I thought we had a 50/50 shot as he makes ND pretty one-dimensional. If Book is accurate and scrappy, we maybe looking at getting boat-raced like we did against Oregon if we can’t keep up on the scoring. We can’t know until they play the game.
By Blackjoy on 09.27.18 2:27pm
Why would you think that?
The Stanford D is far faster and I think stouter, than it has been in a good while (and we won all – at least most – of the ND games in the framework I’m thinking about.) This Stanford O is the most explosive we may have ever seen (and my vision goes back 48 years). If Shaw can work out a quicker hitting run game (those guys pulling don’t seem to move like they used to do), work in some play-action so everything isn’t telegraphed, I don’t see any reason we can’t rack up 35-42 points against any ordinary Top 15 team. NDs work in 3 of 4 games this year suggests an ordinary or lesser team. But, we are on the road. (I guess I’m buying into the Alabama is the Greatest Team, Evah and is Extraordinary hype; even though I think they’ve only played one game worth considering. UW vs. Auburn was instructive; two pretty evenly matched teams).
By jafco99 on 09.27.18 9:50pm
A number of reasons...
While I agree that Holder and Adebo are as good at corner as we’ve had since I can remember, not every positions is as stout. I think our nickel defense has been average at best. Our safeties are average, at best, possibly below average. Our LB’s are good, but our defensive scheme results in them being completely out of position (easily blocked) a good number of running plays. Our D-line is not consistent.
Our O-line is slightly out of sink. Probably on account of injuries.
I have to laugh at how often this is repeated. You may not realize this, but play-action plays aren’t the end-all be-all benefit of running the ball that you and others seem to think they are. Let me let you in on a little fact, Stanford ran a bunch of play-action against UC-Davis and it didn’t work very well, if at all.
The point of play-action is to freeze the safeties and LB’s just enough so that the TE’s can get behind them. Play-action doesn’t give you anything if the LB’s and safeties are already committed to stopping the run. In fact, you do not wan to run play-action if the opposing team is loading the box, because the O-line is not fully committed to pass blocking, some might be run blocking to sell the play and that means defenders have an easier time moving straight on the QB. If you’re paying attention, you’ll notice a lot of play-action passes result in the QB having to stand there and throw the ball in the face of a rushing defender and take a hit.
The other problem with our play-action is that our TE’s are not particularly fast. So a half step may not be good enough to create separation. Stanford is far better served by using solid pass-blocking and throwing the ball to the TE’s who can’t be consistently defended by smaller safeties.
By Blackjoy on 09.27.18 11:40pm
You misunderstand
my comments. Make our offense less predictable (run 1st down, run 2nd down, throw 3d down; you could make a mantra out of that). As in, fake a run on first down, and throw the frigging thing. I think we did something like that in the Rose Bowl and scored a TD the first play. Until the O line can make it happen, run the ball straight ahead more than off-tackle with guards pulling – that hasn’t worked at all this year. Those plays are too slow developing, or so say my eyes and the voices of the commentators. The supposed play book is supposedly 300 plays long. Pull out the plays that fit this team’s capabilities, and run them. We have the same offensive concept every game we play. For a team that has been ranked TOP 15 for 8 of the last 9 years, we have far more games than any other Top 15 team where we have one last series, sometimes last play, to pull out a win. I see that as truly anomalous – and not in a good sense.
By jafco99 on 09.28.18 4:02pm
here's a fun bet
what’s the over/under on how many spots stanford drops in the ranking if they lose, vs how many nd would drop?
By hutre67 on 09.27.18 11:50am
Stanford drops 4 spots with a loss, Notre Dame drops 0 spots with a loss
If Stanford loses, it will fall behind the Notre Dame team that just beat them as well as Washington, Auburn, and Penn State. If Notre Dame loses, it stays exactly where it is (becoming the top one-loss team).
ASSUMPTIONS:
1. The loser of Stanford-Notre Dame plays a good game. If either team routs the other, then everything I just said goes out the window and either team is subject to fall further if they suffer a bad loss.
2. Ohio State is going to beat Penn State this week (even playing on the road).
3. All other teams of consequence will win this week (most/all of them are playing cupcakes).
By Matt Vassar on 09.27.18 4:11pm
Now this is interesting:
SIMPLE RESUME RANKINGS – WEEK 4
TEAM RANK RECORD RESUME POINTS
(Rank is the number in the ordinate; Record and RP are on the abscissa).
1. LSU 4-0 15.7
2. Kentucky 4-0 13.2
3. Stanford 4-0 12.1
4. Ohio State 4-0 9.2
5. Texas 3-1 8.8
6. Notre Dame 4-0 8.7
7. Georgia 4-0 8.4
8. Alabama 4-0 8.2
9. Auburn 3-1 6.4
10. Oklahoma State 3-1 5.3
This is Fornelli’s ranking, over on CBS_Sports. A sensible approach in methodology, I think. Given our miracle at Oregon, we sit at #3. For all intents and purposes, we lost that game and should be lower. He gives ND a 6th place ranking. So the prospects of 31-28, 17-14, whatever, seem good. I’m going to say we blow them out: 42-24.
By jafco99 on 09.27.18 10:19pm
The Stanford Offense, Statistically, Is Not That Good. Neither Is The Defense - Except At Points Allowed
The Cardinal are ranked 119th in the country in rushing yards per game, and 46th in passing offense.
The Cardinal is ranked 100th in total offense, at 368 yards per game. Our defense comes in 56th allowing 357 yards per game. Pretty much a wash in terms of yards gained and given up.
The Cardinal scoring offense is ranked 75th in the nation, averaging 29 points per game. HOWEVER, our scoring defense is 12th in the nation at 13.5 points per game. Big plays on offense (Oregon) and defense (multiple games) have driven the Cardinal to a 4 – 0 start.
We have flat out not been able to run the ball with any sustained effectiveness. But I guess we will keep trying (for all of the good reasons that BlackJoy consistently enumerates and David Shaw’s approach to the game of football). But the passing game has stepped up big time.
Where I am going with this is that Stanford is not dominating anyone on either side of the ball, but has been making big plays (long passes, getting turnovers, key pass break-ups in the red zone) to get their wins. I am just not sure that we can expect "big plays" on both sides of the ball every week. I suspect we will get called for a lot of pass interference in ND Stadium – some deserved, some just plain old home cooking, containing our big play defense. I think the run gets shutdown yet again. Costello will need to play his best game of the season for Stanford to win at ND.
By hoyaparanoia on 09.28.18 9:16am
Think you're probably right.
Yup. Alternatively, ND has a bad game.
I feel like the statistical truth is going to catch up to us a couple of times this year. If the O-line doesn’t figure things out by tomorrow, it might be a rough, rough game for Stanford.
On the positive side, it’s good to see Shaw is able to find a way to win. That suggests there is an aspect of football that statistics can’t account for beyond score. I’m hoping the intangibles are real and not an optical illusions resulting from pure luck.
By Blackjoy on 09.28.18 10:14am
There Are Two Additional Factors I Would Cite
1. Field Position
Stanford typically starts its offensive drive facing a shorter field than its opponents. In a large part, this has been a function of a great punter. This allows Stanford to get into the red zone more than its opponents – even if both teams are generating the same yardage. This will be harder to do at Notre Dame as their punter is every bit as good as ours.
2. Second Half Adjustments
Our defensive adjustments have been legendary under Lance Anderson but David Shaw has shown the willingness to move away from what is not working (THE RUN) earlier than in previous seasons. We still run the ball, but Costello seems to have more flexibility to throw on earlier downs and to go downfield. I have not looked at the numbers but I would guess that both our offense and defense have performed better in the second haves of games (adjusted for garbage time or TOP strategies when we were up).
For the grammar hounds out there, I need to own up to the fact that I referred to the Cardinal in both the singular and plural in my comment – which is worse than being consistent one way or the other! Should always be singular.
Go Cardinal!
By hoyaparanoia on 09.28.18 10:57am
Fear the Tree.
Costello is doing fine. Love is simply Love. The receivers are outstanding. The O and D lines are coming together. Their play for 60 minutes could very well determine the outcome. I remember going to Utah last year to play an undefeated (4/0) Ute team. The environment was very hostile (understatement) to say the least. The play in the trenches was like WW2. It was brutal. The game Saturday will be no different. Keep the game close into the 4th quarter and anything could happen.
By bodumb on 09.28.18 10:44am