How Good Are the Irish? A Year-End Offensive Statistical Review
Notre Dame has concluded their regular season, and a reflection on the Irish offense’s progress (or lack thereof) is warranted. The mid-year numbers are here, and this analysis was performed in similar fashion by benchmarking against the competition.
Facing the 73rd toughest AV Ranking strength of schedule, the Irish only managed to go 6-6. But more troubling than winning only half their games against a pedestrian schedule is a 1-4 away record, with the lone road win coming against a winless Washington team.
A seemingly strong start to the 2008 campaign marked by improved protection of quarterback Jimmy Clausen, a dynamic vertical passing game, and several wins, faded with underwhelming performances against North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Boston College, Syracuse, and USC.
In reality, the first half of the 2008 season was only a mirage. The Irish managed wins against subpar competition using their only weapon, throwing the ball down the field against one-on-one coverage. It wasn’t clever or well-crafted, but it was often effective as the Irish had a clear talent advantage against nearly every team they faced.
Defenses adjusted as the recipe for stopping the Irish offense was revealed: get pressure on Clausen with three or four, drop seven or eight, and force the Irish to move the ball on the ground or with consistent execution in the short and intermediate passing game. Notre Dame lacks the ability to do the former and the patience to accomplish the latter.
The result was a reduction in third down conversion rate and red zone efficiency (if that was even possible) coupled with an increase in turnover margin. The preferred and most successful weapon in the first six games was no longer an option. The degree to which opposing defenses took away the big play is painfully obvious when comparing the Irish offense to others around the country (see below).
Thus follows a statistical review of Notre Dame’s offense for the 2008 season. All statistics have been taken from the official Notre Dame football website and/or the official NCAA statistics website . All numbers are current as of 12-9-2008.
There is a litany of statistics that could be analyzed and compared. In the interest of brevity I have parsed the data into a manageable amount, presented in tabular form.
The Opponent Average and Opponent Average Rank columns below refer to the average defensive values for Notre Dame’s opponents. The Notre Dame and Notre Dame Rank columns refer to the Irish offense. Comparing the numbers in this manner benchmarks Notre Dame’s offensive performance to their defensive competition.
Let’s Look At Things From 50,000 Feet
Miscellaneous
| Statistic | Notre Dame | Notre Dame Rank | Opponent Average | Opponent Average Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time of Possession | 31:09 | 28 | 29:28 | 68 |
| Penalty Yards/Game | 49.1 | 56 | 44.6 | 37 |
| Turnover margin | -5 | 85 | -1 | 65 |
Despite a lackluster running game the Irish managed to control the clock more than their opponents. On the season Notre Dame averaged just over two minutes of possession more than the teams they face. In reality, this is about par as their opponents averaged about two minutes less than the Irish.
Notre Dame also managed to keep penalties fairly minimal. The 56th place ranking is a little misleading, as the spread on penalties is fairly minimal. Accounting for fewer than 50 yards in penalties per game is respectable.
The turnover margin, however, is where the problems begin. Frustrated with the inability to move the ball in large chunks during the second part of the season, Clausen forced far too many throws. The result was a –5 turnover margin for the last six games after being dead even through the first six.
Who Said You Needed To Be Efficient?
Offensive Efficiency
| Statistic | Notre Dame | Notre Dame Rank | Opponent Average | Opponent Average Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3rd Down Efficiency | 34.9 | 97 | 41 | 71 |
| Red Zone Efficiency | 68 | 116 | 81 | 55 |
| Red Zone Offense Touchdown Efficiency | 47.5 | 108 | 59.4 | 62 |
With the exception of turnover margin, third down and red zone efficiency are the two strongest statistical corollaries to winning football games.
The Irish are nearly last in the country in both.
For the season Notre Dame converted under 35 percent of third downs. It isn’t surprising, however. The Irish faced third and more than five yards on better than 78 percent of their third downs and third and long on more than 69 percent. Very few teams are able to convert long third down distances with any consistency.
But even more alarming than the 97th ranked third down efficiency is the 116th ranked red zone efficiency. The Irish only managed to convert 68 percent of their tries against teams that routinely allow over 81 percent of opponents’ trips inside the 20 to result in points.
Remarkably, over the second half of the season this was an improvement. Through the first six games Notre Dame ranked dead last, converting only 55 percent of red zone opportunities into points. The second-half season increase was largely due to an improved kicking game as the Irish actually regressed scoring touchdowns.
Through the first six games of the year Notre Dame scored touchdowns 54.5 percent of the time they crossed their opponents’ 20-yard line. This was good for a pedestrian 83rd ranking, but the second half of the season was atrocious.
On the year the Irish offense scored touchdowns less than 50 percent of the time in the red zone, hardly indicative of competent offensive football. Going down-field isn’t a viable option on a short field.
Was There Really That Much Improvement?
Total Offense
| Statistic | Notre Dame | Notre Dame Rank | Opponent Average | Opponent Average Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Points/Game | 22.7 | 86 | 25.2 | 60 |
| Yards | 4138 | 77 | 4312 | 61 |
| Yards/Play | 5 | 85 | 5.3 | 61 |
| TDs | 33 | 85 | 38 | 60 |
| Yards/Game | 344.8 | 74 | 357.5 | 62 |
After the first few games of the season it looked like the offense had turned the corner. The second half or the year saw significant regression. The Irish offense failed to average points, yards per play, and yards per game at the rates their opponents allow.
In other words, the Notre Dame offense wasn’t even able to produce at an average rate.
Against teams that surrender more than 25 points per game Notre Dame averaged 22.7. Scoring a single touchdown against Michigan State, a shutout at the hands of Boston College, and posting only a field goal against the stingy Trojan defense was mostly to blame.
Against teams that allowed 5.3 yards per play the Irish gained five. After a four-game stretch against Purdue, Stanford, North Carolina, and Washington where Notre Dame averaged better than six yards per play, the offense was relegated to fewer than five yards per snap. The low point came in the form of a resounding 1.9-yard per play effort against USC.
And against defenses that gave up over 357 yards per game, the Irish managed fewer than 345. Similar to the per play output, the Irish eclipsed the 430 yard mark of total offense for four straight games before being held to 292 yards against Boston College and a pathetic 91 against USC.
Surely We’re Going To Pound It
Rushing Offense
| Statistic | Notre Dame | Notre Dame Rank | Opponent Average | Opponent Average Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yards | 1361 | 98 | 1868 | 63 |
| Yards/Carry | 3.4 | 100 | 4.1 | 62 |
| TDs | 10 | 108 | 19 | 61 |
| Yards/Game | 113.4 | 98 | 155 | 64 |
After the second consecutive off-season of proclamations about the running game from head coach Charlie Weis Irish fans envisioned the days of Jerome Bettis, Randy Kinder, and Tony Brooks.
The results of the 2008 season were hardly comparable.
Notre Dame ranks no better than 98th in yards per carry, rushing touchdowns, and running yards per game. Even more disappointing is the fact that this has come against teams that aren’t particularly stout against the run.
The Irish were able to manage only 3.4 yards per rush against defenses that gave up 4.1 yards per carry. If sacks are removed the rushing average increases to four, but falls sharply to 3.1 when the 22 big runs are removed. Equally troubling is the fact that the longest run by an Irish running back this season was 21 yards.
Additionally, Notre Dame managed to score only 10 times on the ground, approximately half as much as their opponents allowed. Whether this poor ground scoring production is a result of play calling or ineptitude is irrelevant, the Irish need more points from the running game.
Perhaps the largest contrast lies in the yards per game output. Notre Dame’s opponents allowed 155 yards per contest but the Irish were only able to manage about 113 per outing.
The best rushing performances were against Purdue, Washington, and Navy. Against these three teams the Irish averaged 226.7 yards per game on the ground. But the results aren’t as promising considering these teams allow better than 180 rushing yards per game. Moreover, against San Diego State and Purdue (218 rushing yards allowed per game), the Irish managed only 146 yards per game on the ground.
Perhaps They’ll Get A Passing Grade?
Passing Offense
| Statistic | Notre Dame | Notre Dame Rank | Opponent Average | Opponent Average Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yards/ Attempt | 6.6 | 74 | 6.7 | 59 |
| Yards/ Completion | 11.2 | 83 | 11.3 | 52 |
| Completion % | 58.9 | 49 | 59.4 | 68 |
| Interceptions | 17 | 104 | 13 | 60 |
| TDs | 20 | 43 | 17 | 57 |
| Sacks | 20 | 47 | 23 | 61 |
| Yards/Game | 231.4 | 46 | 202.5 | 59 |
Thought to be an early strength, the Irish passing game regressed over the last six games of the season. At the mid-year point the Irish averaged better than their opponents surrendered in yards per attempt and completion, completion percentage, passing touchdowns, sacks, and yards per game.
That is hardly the case now.
Notre Dame’s vaunted passing attack dropped almost two yards per attempt and completion over the second half of the season, averaging just what their opponents allow for the year. Despite averaging better than seven yards per attempt and 13 per completion against Washington and Syracuse, the Irish failed to shine in the remaining four contests, ending the year with 1.9 yards per pass attempt and 3.7 per completion against USC.
After the 14 passing touchdowns and 8 interceptions in the first six games, the Irish accounted for only six and nine, respectively, in their last six contests. Additionally, after posting better than 270 yards passing per outing in the first half of the season Notre Dame regressed to 191 in the second half.
The brightest spot for the Irish passing game this year was the improvement protecting the quarterback. The Irish surrendered 38 sacks fewer in 2008 than they did in 2007, finishing the season with only one sack per 21 pass attempts. This is somewhat overstated, however, since Clausen was still pressured by poor pass rushing teams using only three and four defenders for much of the season.
Relying On The Big One
As mentioned above the Irish thrived on the big play early in the year. At the mid-year point Notre Dame’s offense was compared to Missourri, Oregon, and Penn State (chosen for specific reasons), in an attempt to benchmark it.
The goal of this exercise was three-fold. First, comparing the number and per play averages of the big plays outlines the explosiveness of the Irish offense. Second, examining the percent of the offense that comes from the big play determines whether or not the Irish rely too much on it. Finally, comparing the average yards per play without big plays speaks to the degree of offensive efficiency.
Disclaimer: data from the Missouri vs. Nebraska game is not included in this analysis. It is not expected that this significantly changes the trends.
Definition: a big play is a run of more than 15 yards and a pass of over 20. This is a rather arbitrary set of criteria but it isn’t expected that choosing slightly higher or lower values would significantly alter the conclusions of the analysis.
Big Play Offense
| RUSHING | PASSING | TOTAL | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TEAM | Number | Yards | Avg. | Number | Yards | Avg. | Number | Yards | Avg. |
| Missouri | 27 | 749 | 27.7 | 46 | 1446 | 31.4 | 73 | 2195 | 30.1 |
| Oregon | 58 | 1757 | 30.3 | 34 | 1146 | 33.7 | 92 | 2903 | 31.6 |
| Penn State | 36 | 914 | 25.4 | 41 | 1304 | 31.8 | 77 | 2218 | 28.8 |
| Notre Dame | 22 | 411 | 18.7 | 36 | 1172 | 32.6 | 58 | 1583 | 27.3 |
Comparing the big plays of the Irish offense to that of the Tigers, Ducks, and Nittany Lions leads to some interesting conclusions.
First, the Irish have fewer runs over 15 yards than any of the other offenses. This isn’t necessarily unexpected as the Irish are a pass-first team. What is startling, however, is the per run average for the Irish. Notre Dame only averages 18.7 yards per big run compared to the next lowest value of 25.4 for Penn State.
But the passing numbers aren’t much different. While the Irish average about what the other teams do, they have hit on only 36 big pass plays. Only Oregon, a run-heavy team, trails them.
Overall this leads to a lower total number of plays and average. The Irish average 4.8 big plays per game at a rate of 27.3-yards per play. Both values are the lowest of all four teams, an indictment of the relatively benign Notre Dame offense.
Total Offense – Big Plays
| RUSHING | PASSING | TOTAL | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TEAM | Number | Yards | Avg. | Number | Yards | Avg. | Number | Yards | Avg. | % Offense From Big Plays |
| Missouri | 326 | 1092 | 3.3 | 451 | 2718 | 6 | 777 | 3810 | 4.9 | 36.6 |
| Oregon | 487 | 1577 | 3.2 | 307 | 1258 | 4.1 | 794 | 2835 | 3.6 | 50.6 |
| Penn State | 446 | 1625 | 3.6 | 305 | 1583 | 5.2 | 751 | 3208 | 4.3 | 40.9 |
| Notre Dame | 381 | 947 | 2.5 | 383 | 1605 | 4.2 | 764 | 2552 | 3.3 | 38.3 |
With only 38.3 percent of the total offense coming from big plays, the Irish rely on it less than nearly all three of the other offenses. This, however, seems to largely be a function of the low per play average for the Irish detailed above.
The Irish average the fewest yards per carry and nearly tie the Ducks for fewest yards per pass when big plays are not counted. For a pass-first team this does not bode well.
The overall result is a 3.3-yard per play average when big plays are subtracted. This is lower than Missouri, Oregon, and Penn State. The Irish are a more pass-heavy team, so they should more closely mimic the Tigers, but average over 1.5 yards less per play.
What Does It All Mean?
In nearly every meaningful statistical category the Irish offense performed at-or below-the rate opposing defenses allowed. What is more disconcerting is the quality of the opposing defenses. The average ranking for Notre Dame’s opponents is, well, average.
But it doesn’t take a better than average defense to be effective against a predictable and one-dimensional offense, i.e. the modus operandi for the Irish is well established.
The inept rushing attack forces the passing game to carry the load. Teams are allowed to drop seven and eight defenders, keeping everything in front of them. The lack of consistent execution in the short and intermediate passing game forces Clausen to take ill-advised shots down field, frequently resulting in turnovers.
For the Irish to significantly improve a running game must surface. One-dimensional offenses are a liability and an effective running game not only minimizes the potential for turnovers, it also achieves manageable down and distances and is an asset on a short field.
In other words, a running game would directly correlate to improvement on third down, in the red zone, and in turnover margin, three areas the Irish struggle.
Nice recap of the 2nd half of the season. I, like most fans I suspect, am very troubled by the regression of the offense. When I hear the AD tell the fan base that the administration still thinks Weis is the man that can turn this program around I wonder if any of them look at detailed analysis such as this?
It is unforgivable in my opinion that in 4 years Weis cannot come up with an offensive system that can run the ball even though he claims he has wanted to “pound it” since he got to ND. This statement alone makes me believe 1 of 2 things to be true. 1) Weis is a snake oil salesman who is just feeding the fan base what he thinks they want to hear, or 2) That even though he truly wants to pound the ball, he does not have the ability to correctly implement it. This was pointed out well I thought in your article previous to this one. He must realize that this lack of fundamental running game is responsible for a number of these offensive deficiencies doesn’t he? I don’t believe it to be possible that simple fans like myself are able to realize that and not the $20M man Chuck.
There is much too high of a reliance on the big play as you have pointed out and the reason I believe for the regression in the 2nd half of the year is due to the fact that opponents began to realize that this is the only true weapon ND has. Once that was taken away there was little difference in my mind between this year and the ’07 squad which is quite troubling.
The only place I will have to disagree with you is where you say that the lack of a running game and intermediate passing game “forces” Claussen to make poor decisions. I think those decisions are still on Jimmy as he doesn’t have to make a throw. I know that it is hard for players who are used to delivering to accept failure but it is something that must be learned to prevent the types of turnover filled games we saw toward the end of the season.
IrishFan,
The onus for the interceptions is still on Clausen.
What I was trying to articulate, but perhaps failed to, is that he wants to make something happen. He is competative, he wants to win, and when the offense isn’t moving the ball he tries to put everything on his right arm.
Since the game plan focuses on him nearly every week, this isn’t entirely unexpected. Since the majority of multiple-route passing plays involve everyone going long, the mistakes usually look worse than they are.
Obviously he is still responsible, but he isn’t being put in a position to succeed.
The lack of a running game truly baffles me, as I’m sure it does many other Irish fans. The poor production on 3rd down, in the red zone, and late in ball games all tie back to the inability to run the ball.
Does anyone have a clear explanation for the lack of a running game? According to your statistics, we rank 98th in rushing yards, 100th in yards/carry, 108th in rushing TDs and 98th in rushing yards per game. Our opponents allowed rushing statistics ranked in the low 60′s.
You do a great job in this and all of your articles explaining the importance of the running game and the fact that not having a running game is a tremendous hindrance on the ND offense, but I need to understand why we don’t run the ball well.
Obviously, we all felt like the personnel would be there in all of our preseason discussion. We have starting offensive linemen who were recruited by all of the other big programs and they have experience under their collective belt from last year. The linemen gained weight to the point that they should physically dominate every defensive line on our schedule save perhaps USC. We have three running backs who were also recruited by the other big programs and also have no less than a full season of experience. We even have an experienced fullback who likes to destroy people rather than get touches of the ball. So the personnel should have been in place.
I am a firm believer that all of the teams in major college football have capable running backs. You could insert any running back in the country behind the Oklahoma OL and you’re going to have a productive running game. Running backs always get too much credit for productive running games in the national media.
This leads me to believe that our running game must struggle because of something fundamentally wrong with our offensive line. I say “fundamentally” because Weis has never had 2000 yards rushing in a season under his watch.
Is it because the offensive line doesn’t play inspired aggressive football? It’s hard for me to believe that a majority of the 20-odd linemen to pass through Notre Dame stadium under Weis lack the intensity to be successful on the OL. You could possibly conceive of a couple of those 20 just not being aggressive enough to get it done.
Is it because the linemen aren’t physically gifted or strong enough? That’s hard for me to believe too because it’s not like these guys got their recruiting stars just because they were recruited by ND. These guys were recruited by the Oklahoma’s and the Florida’s and the Texas’s of the world too. This year, in particular, Coach Mendoza did what was asked of him and got all of the starting linemen over 300-pounds by hitting the weights in the last off-season. These guys have got to be physically stronger than the Boston College defensive linemen and linebackers.
You can’t help but wonder whether the teachings of John Latina do not fundamentally match with what Charlie Weis wants to do offensively. This comment should not be construed as a criticism of Latina, who is of noble breeding among OL coaches. In 2005 this was viewed as a killer hire, lest we forget. The comment is more about two excellent football minds, Latina and Weis, who must not agree on how the offensive line should compliment the offense. Maybe we need a new offensive line coach who teaches an OL philosophy that compliments what Weis wants to do offensively. I might be wrong, and maybe Latina teaches exactly what is needed to success in Weis’s offense, but what else could the problem really be? How can linemen of this pedigree not be able to generate a running game, especially when defenses are dropping so many defenders into coverage against us? Maybe what Weis wants to do on offense requires a more cerebral lineman and Latina is teaching instinctive line play? When we witness a failed running play, what exactly is the most common cause for the failure? Can that common cause be tracked back to something we can fix by teaching the offensive line? Does the answer lie in examining the times when we have been successful running the ball this year? Maybe there is something revealed by contrasting those successes against our failures?
In the end, I just have a bunch of questions because it is simply baffling. If we could have put together a running game that simply plays equal to it’s potential when you look at the talent we have, we would have been an offensive force to be reckoned with.
ndscoggins,
It sounds like you’ve broken the running game woes into two categories:
1) Talent on the offensive line
2) Coaching and player development
I’ll try and tackle each independently. But before I do that, I’d like to posit the following theory:
If we had a running game ranked in the top 50 of the country, we would have only lost one game this year. Moreover, if the team can accomplish this next year, the Irish are looking 11-1 squarely in the face.
Make no mistake, this does not mean Notre Dame will field a great football team, they may not even be very good. But they will play exactly one good team next year (USC) that has lost a ton of talent on defense.
Talent on the offensive line
I agree with you regarding many points but I think there is one piece of the puzzle that may be missing.
Yes, the offensive line has talent. Yes, there may be a few that lack the aggressiveness and killer instinct we would love for them to have. Yes they had a good off-season meeting the charge(s) placed on them by Weis.
But this group is still relatively young by offensive line standards.
Do not confuse this with a get-out-of-jail-free card for the performance of the offensive line. My reasoning only supports inconsistent play, not consistently poor play like we have seen.
But I think it’s important to realize two things regarding the Irish offensive line. One, they are young, only two offensive linemen occupy the senior and fifth year classes. For an offensive line this isn’t optimal. Second, the backups/reserves are chockfull of freshmen and sophomores. Offensive line is arguably the most difficult position to play and contribute early in a college career.
This by no means exonerates the players and coaches from the on-field product. But I think it is a plausible explanation for the struggles.
Coaching and player development
Here is where I believe the crux of the problem lies. And I believe the issue is three-fold.
One, I think that Latina isn’t given enough time to practice fundamentals. Coupled with a young offensive line this is disastrous and delays their development even more. I have no first-hand evidence of this. It just appears this way.
Two, I think Latina and Weis disagree on what type of running game should be implemented. Weis is in love with the zone-stretch, he comes from an NFL background. Latina is a Cutcliffe disciple, rooted in inside zone, wham, counter, and isolation plays. The Irish offense has both in its arsenal, but the principals of offensive line play needed to succeed in these various run blocking styles are somewhat opposite each other.
Finally, I think Weis’ approach to offense, the cerebral, business-like demeanor, is counter to aggressive play.
Case and point, the pass blocking improved tremendously from last year to this year. I realize some of the 38 fewer sacks is because of Clausen, but overall the linemen were in better position and won far more one-on-one battles than they lost. However, pass blocking is much more of a passive exercise.
Run blocking, trying to pave it out, drive block, etc. is a physical endeavor where physicality and aggressiveness are great assets. It’s tough to switch mentalities between the two.