Luck of the Irish? Nope, It's Just College Football

On the eve of what could be an historic Saturday, the skeptics remain.  The team and CBK must have zoned these guys out weeks ago.  Otherwise, they should have no fewer than 39 losses this season.  Given very little credit for their wins, a constant refrain from the “experts” has been about the luck of the Irish (cliché’ intended).  They got “lucky” when the officials decided that there wasn’t enough evidence to rule that Stepfan Taylor made it into the end zone in overtime versus Stanford.  They got “lucky” when Pitt’s kicker missed a 37-yard field.  They got “lucky” for a second time on that play when the refs failed to catch that the Irish had two players on the field wearing the same number.  If it wasn’t for “luck,” so the analysis goes, Notre Dame wouldn’t be relevant on the national stage right now. 

Regardless of luck, Notre Dame remains undefeated and in the driver’s seat headed into the final full slated Saturday of the college football season to reach the national championship.  Some are suggesting the Irish have already received another “lucky” break with Matt Barkley ruled out for USC.  What I find interesting is how the “luck” other teams still in the national title picture have received has apparently been ignored.  No team entirely controls its own destiny.  College football is an ever-changing and often fleeting landscape.  It’s what you do with the opportunities you’re given that define a season.  How have the other national title contenders “lucked” out?  Glad you asked….

#2 Alabama:  The darlings of the SEC have certainly had their share of lucky circumstances to be #2 right now.  This list includes, but is not limited to:

A.  September 15, 2012 - @ Arkansas:  Sure, the Crimson Tide rolled the Razorbacks beating them 52-0.  There was nothing lucky about the score.  However, how much did Alabama have to do with not one but two head coaches for Arkansas personally imploding.  Bobby Petrino had the Razorbacks in great shape by the end of the 2011 season, and with quarterback Tyler Wilson deciding to return, there was more than one pundit proclaiming that Arkansas might take the next step this year.  A motorcycle accident for Petrino unraveled into a scandal involving a young female that cost Petrino his job.  On short notice, Arkansas went with a nice guy who was available…John L. Smith.  That has not worked out very well.

As for Tyler Wilson, a trendy pre-season Heisman selection, well, he didn’t play at all having suffered a concussion the previous week.  Alabama did absolutely nothing to deserve any of these breaks.  How lucky….

B.  November 3, 2012 - @ LSU:  Another game the Tide could easily have been on the losing end of.  Inexplicable defensive play calling and clock management permitted Alabama to concot a go-ahead drive with under 2 minutes left in the game and then face 3 plays worthy of a high school football team to end the game.  Yes, A.J. McCarron deserves some credit, but how LSU let a the Tide complete 3 straight passes of 10+ yards to the same receiver and then let a screen play go for 28-yards and the game winning touchdown is more than just talent…..it was darn lucky.

C.  November 17, 2012:  While Alabama beat up on FCS foe (yes, FCS foe) Western Carolina, other things fell just how they needed to to get Alabama back into the discussion.  Having lost the week before, Alabama deserved to lose control of their destiny, and yet the decision to enjoy a cupcake on the week that several others had to battle and fight paid off in a substantial way. 

Alabama’s a very good team, and I have no issue with them enjoying a second shot at getting to the NTG, but you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t believe that a few “lucky” breaks fell the Crimson Tide’s way as well.

#3 Georgia:  Georgia has defeated exactly one ranked team this year.  That was the always chippy and very frequently poorly played Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party game versus Florida.  Georgia got blown out by South Carolina 35-7 in their only other game versus a ranked opponent.  Fortunately for the Bulldogs, that game happened early enough in the season to give the Dawgs time to recover. 

Just as fortunately for the Bulldogs, South Carolina would follow up that dominating performance with two straight losses giving UGA an opportunity to play in the SEC Championship game.  If Georgia didn’t have one more premiere game on their schedule, they wouldn’t be in a position to knock of Alabama and make it to Miami.  They had nothing to do with Carolina’s losses or their weak-ish schedule (Don’t the Irish get blamed for having a schedule that didn’t live up to hype??), but now they also control their own fate.

By the way, wasn’t Mark Richt supposed to be fired by now if the UGA fan base had their way?

#4 Florida: 

Before I even get into the nuances of what needs to happen tomorrow to get Florida to the game, didn’t I just say they lost a sloppy game to Georgia?  Why yes, yes I did.  Florida to their credit has faced a very difficult schedule this year, but it hasn’t been without it’s share of breaks.

I can’t help but go back to their September 8, 2012 game versus Texas A & M.  It was a game they won 20-17, but how fortunate was it that they faced Johnny Manziel, the now Heisman front-runner, in his very first collegiate start?  Florida had to go into a hostile environment in College Station, and the Aggies certainly had a lot to play for with College Gameday on campus and it being their first ever SEC game.  However, you get the sense based on the direction the Gators have gone (ummm…is stagnant a direction?), and the direction that Johnny Football has gone that the result in a rematch might have been markedly different.  Is that a guarantee?  Nope.  But, if we’re talking about “luck,” it was certainly more a scheduling quirk that Manziel had yet to hit his stride in first year coach Kevin Sumlin’s system.

Speaking of scheduling quirks, how about Florida’s win over South Carolina?  When I look at the box score, there is an important name missing from Carolina’s offense:  Marcus Lattimore.  A hip injury limited him to just 3 carries for the entire game.  Lattimore might mean more to the Gamecocks than Barkley means to USC, and yet, it seems almost forgotten that Florida’s win came on a day that South Carolina lacked their biggest difference-maker.

All of that leads into this Saturday.  Yes, the Gators to have any shot will have to beat a very good FSU team.  However, they also need to bank on Notre Dame losing.  Under those circumstances (Beat FSU, ND loss), Florida would almost be assured a spot in the title game regardless of the outcome of the SEC Championship.  And therein lies the problem.  Under those circumstances, Florida could become the second straight SEC team to make the NTG without even making its own conference championship.  They will, in effect, benefit from being idle.  I’m not here to rail on the SEC, but anytime a team making the NTG does not even play in their own conference title game (when one exists) a good deal of “luck” exists.

#5 Oregon:  Oregon has generally killed the opposition in its way.  In that respect, there’s no game to point to to call them “lucky.”  Their “luck” exists in that they are the team who lost most recently this season that still possesses a legitimate shot at reaching Miami.

It’s not often that you can lose as late as November 17 and still entertain any shot at reaching the ultimate game of the season.  Additionally, it’s not guaranteed that Oregon will reach its conference championship game either.  Stanford must lose this Saturday to UCLA.  Otherwise, Oregon will remain idle for the final regular season weekend, and Stanford and UCLA will play two consecutive weeks.

Oregon has 0 wins versus an opponent currently ranked in the top 20 in BCS standings (Notre Dame has 3:  Stanford, Oklahoma, Michigan), and their one chance to add to that total (this weekend versus Oregon State) could end up knocking the Beavers out of the top 20 as well.  More than any of the other competitors, the Ducks have beaten up on the weak while avoiding major encounters.  While it might be a formula for double-digit wins, a return to the BCS Championship game would be nothing short of “lucky.”

As I said at the outset, it’s a matter of taking advantage of the opportunities your team is given.  However, can we please stop with the Irish are lucky headline and realize that every team in the National Title hunt has had its share of luck this year.

One Moment: KLM Defines ND's Season

In a season that has exceeded all expectations trying to redact down the season to a defining moment seems like an exercise in futility.  Notre Dame came into the season facing what most “experts” (that’s now their official title:  “experts”  as I refuse to acknowledge them as anything further given their reluctance to accept ND’s actual on-field performance compared to perceived value) perceived as an impossible task.  Let’s be fair.  As this season got underway, I proclaimed that I would have no expectations for the season.  What body of evidence did I have to work with??  Ridiculous schedule, first year starter at quarterback, and far too many unknowns in the secondary to feel otherwise.  Plus, our beast on the d-line, Aaron Lynch, had waffled yet again and left us after just one year. 

As the season revealed itself, there are many, many moments that could be pointed to as the defining moment of a special season.  Was it the Tommy Rees drive in the Purdue game?  The four down, goal-to-go stand versus Stanford?  The 50-yard bomb to Chris Brown at Oklahoma?  What about the magic of a frantic comeback versus Pitt that included their kicker missing a 37-yard field goal?  I’d entertain any of these on field moments as being the most important, and that’s just what I’m remembering off the top of my head.  However, for me, there was one moment that occurred on the sidelines that told me something new was happening in South Bend.

The phrase “trap game” gets thrown around liberally in college football.  In the one sport where the regular season is of paramount importance, every game is potentially a trap game.  Every team is always looking to make a statement on any given week, and when it comes to teams coming to Notre Dame Stadium, it’s even more magnified.  For visiting teams, a chance to beat Notre Dame in South Bend is always a circled game on the calendar.  Sadly, in recent years, ND’s been far to accommodating a host for these desires. 

Welcome to the BYU game, and my choice for defining moment of the season.  What I’m about to describe is not related to an on-field moment but rather what happened following a mistake by Notre Dame.  While I’m sure there’ll be criticism of my choice, what transpired is what let me know that the culture of Notre Dame football had changed, and for once, it was in a positive way.

Setting the Stage:

The Irish came into the October 20, 2012 contest against BYU having just survived a brutal, memorable encounter with Stanford.  The Stanford game was defined by its physicality.  An unfortunate (and really, the only unfortunate) side note to come out of the Stanford game was Everett Golson’s concussion sustained late in the fourth quarter.  In a contest won in overtime after an epic goal line stand, it’s understandable why ND might not have been completely ready for another physical opponent like BYU.  The team, despite CBK’s desire to focus on the current game, could not have possibly been completely forgetting that a win this week would set up a chance to go in undefeated to Norman, OK. 

The result was a flat performance from the outset.  In fairness, Rees at his essence is a game manager.  BYU was ready to play, and their style was surely going to be a hurdle for a team that had just come off of facing one of the most physical teams in the nation.  While Notre Dame managed to score a TD in the first quarter, the offense was more or less stuck in neutral.  Poor execution and lacking the creativity that Golson brings all were keeping the game closer than need be.

As the game entered the second quarter, Notre Dame possessed a 7-0 lead, though it didn’t feel like a lead at all.  On ND’s first possession of the second quarter, the team had a chance to perhaps extend the lead when they started a possession on their 19-yard line.  Just after Theo Riddick converted a 3^rd and 1 to extend the drive, the team had a first down on their own 29 when the following occurred…..

The Moment:

As the Riddick run ended, sophomore tight end Troy Niklas inexplicably slapped a BYU defender in the helmet prompting a personal foul penalty for a late hit.  The team was now backed up to its own 15, and dumb penalties appeared to continue to be the ND calling card.  Was this somehow a flashback to the 2011 season?  What in the World was Niklas thinking?? 

Understandably, CBK removed Niklas from the game for the time being.  As he ran off to the sideline, there was no blow up by Kelly, a sight which most of us had become accustomed to.  No purple face.  No loss of composure.  Kelly seemed more in control than he had in season’s past and just wanted to remove a player from the game who’d lost grasp on what was going on.

Then, NBC (to their credit) panned to the sidelines to find the offender Niklas.  Generally, this is a shot of the player sitting on a bench somewhere by himself as the team continues on, but something very different was displayed.  Instead of sulking, NBC caught Niklas being talked to by Kapron Lewis-Moore (KLM or “Kappy”).  KLM was not berating Niklas. Instead, you could see him talking to Niklas.  This was a learning moment for the very talented sophomore.  His senior captain teammate was not looking to embarrass him.  As all of this was unfolding, the following text exchange happened between BH and I:

BH:  Jesus f--- how many dumb f---ing penalties can we have this year?

Moons:  I really like though that Kelly went and pulled him, and then you see KLM over there getting him straight.  There’s an actual hierarchy and respect going on with these guys.

BH:  Yes there really is

It’s understated.  It’s subtle.  Heck, less than ten plays later Mathias Farley would get pegged for a late hit out of bounds, but the import cannot be understated.  Leadership was present on the sidelines.  Just the previous season, one riddled with inexcusable mistakes and more than one Kelly blow up, the team had rotated captains all too frequently.  This season, Kelly named four to represent his team and assume a leadership role.

The second-quarter didn’t get better, and in fact, BYU would lead 14-7 at half over the Irish.  However, that single interaction between Kappy and Niklas underlined an important dynamic shift in this team.  Everyone was buying in.  Everyone understood their role on the team.  It was a moment of leadership that transcended position (TE) and squad (Offense vs. Defense) affiliations.  This was a team united to win and had the leadership in place to overcome fallacies.  I don’t know what KLM said to Niklas on the sidelines, but what I do know was I didn’t see a team struggling with inner-turmoil.  No, they were going to take this opportunity to learn and improve and do it without a sense of impending doom.

The Impact:

Understandably, Manti Te’o has garnered much of the praise for the increased leadership this year.  Te’o is a unique individual whose maturity and passion surpasses his age by an exponential margin.  The problem (being liberal with the use of the word problem) is that not many people have the ability to operate at that level.  Te’o’s a guy who wears his emotion and passion openly.  I’m nearly a decade his senior and don’t possess that type of commitment.  While I’m sure he inspires, I somehow doubt he’s relatable on a day-to-day basis.  His qualities are innate, unique, and, for lack of a better term, “special.”  I’m sure he will succeed at whatever he decides to do.

Watching the NBC special on a Week in the Life of the ND Program, what I was most struck by was KLM’s leadership.  He’s a beacon of positivity and is clearly someone that the entire team likes and respects.  While others will pile on the praise of Te’o for good reason, it’s a guy like Kappy that more closely personifies the culture shift at Notre Dame.  This group of seniors has implemented a serious culture shift.  The seniors were not recruited by Kelly and his staff but instead by Weis.  They dealt with Kelly’s ill-stated remarks about “his guys” versus the others, and yet somewhere along the way this team gelled into a cohesive unit.

It’s a tribute to the senior leadership for making that occur.  For everything that might be said about the Charlie Weis tenure,  we should give him credit for recruiting such high quality individuals.  In many senses, it’s what Notre Dame is all about.  Players who come to Notre Dame do so because of the entirety of the experience they can realize in South Bend.  It’s not all about football.  It’s about becoming a better person.  It’s about achieving something collectively that cannot be accomplished on an individual basis.  Selfish players will not thrive in the Notre Dame system, and the ND community wouldn’t have it any other way.  The seniors on the team could have easily justified being somewhat apathetic to the overall team goals.  After all, this wasn’t supposed to be a great year.  They could have justified it because they weren’t Kelly’s guys.  Instead, they embraced the role of team leaders, and the impact has been felt throughout the program. 

If we look back two to three years from now and the Notre Dame program is thriving again, I hope we as a fan base are smart enough to appreciate what occurred this year.  Yes, the ultimate goal is in sight, but it’s not determinative.  Regardless of the outcome of the USC and BCS game (no matter which it is), this year has been a success.  It’s a success because the culture has shifted at ND.  No longer is the program about whom to blame.  Instead, the program is about progressing.  The seniors on this team have made that happen.  Kappy in particular in my eyes is so important to this progression.  The quality and style of team leadership displayed by KLM lets me know that the example has been set.  Having individuals of his quality…and Te’o’s quality…and Zach Martin’s quality…and Tyler Eifert’s quality is part of the reason I am proud to call myself an Irish alumni. 

I couldn’t be prouder of this group of men, and I recognize that they’re already better individuals than myself.  For me, nothing demonstrated the culture shift in Notre Dame football better than this singular moment, and with that I leave you with one final thought……Beat USC!  No group of men deserves it more than these guys.

Golson's Progress: Part 3

Part 3 of this installment series takes a look at the three most recent games:  BYU, Oklahoma, and Pitt.  Sadly for the comparison (thankfully for the amount of plays I had to review), a concussion kept Golson from playing at all in the BYU game.  The following 2 games were truly something to remember.  First, an epic showdown in Norman, OK in a game that every pundit in the nation had pre-determined the Irish would lose.  Then, a non-intentionally epic game versus Pitt that caused all of us watching to lose a few years of our lives.  Before I get to the numbers, one thing, while my readership is quite minimal, if any of you who read this are the incredibly kind and dedicated people who post condensed games onto Youtube, please get back at it.  Since no condensed video was available, I had to scroll back-and-forth through online full games which just sucks.  Now that my complaining is out of the way, let’s add on Segment 3’s games to the normal statistical breakdown I’ve used to start the last couple of pieces:

Category:	Games 1-3:	Games 4-6:	Games 7-9:
Attempts:	81	54	67
Completions:	47	32	36
Completion %:	58%	59%	54%
Yards:	611	357	404
TD’s:	3	1	2
INTS’s:	1	2	1
Yards per completion:	13	11.16	11.22
Yards per attempt:	7.54	6.61	6.03

For the most part, everything stayed more or less in line with Segment 2, and slightly down from Segment 1.  On yesterday’s post, commenter “Dan” suggested that the increased difficulty of the defenses played on a game-to-game basis might explain this.  My gut tells me he’s correct.   I think that I may do one “wrap up” piece either Thursday or Friday to explore that more thoroughly by considering Golson’s game-to-game numbers in view of the relative strength of the defense he was up against.

On the surface, one aspect that sticks out to me about the numbers above is the slight drop off in completion percentage.  In theory, a quarterback progressing will get better in this regard as he sees more live action.  Most Notre Dame fans would consider Oklahoma to be Golson’s best all-around game to this point in the season.  Versus a very good secondary, Golson avoided any major mistakes even if he didn’t record a touchdown through the air. He was also 13/25 in that game.  (aside:  I will address his improvements running later.)

In part one of this series, I was critical of Golson’s reluctance to throw the ball away.  His tendency to rely upon his scrambling ability and to attempt to make something out of nothing bothered me.  The area he progressed in the most in games 7-9 was doing just that….throwing the ball away.   I wanted to at least  consider what happens when we take out the throwaways from attempts with respect to completion percentage.  It’s not a good thing that he’s having to throw the ball away, and Golson’s reluctance to make quick decisions certainly plays into the number of times he has to decide between forcing a pass and conceding the play, but for a young quarterback, learning that it’s okay to throw it away is definitely a skill to appreciate:

Category:	Games 1-3:	Games 4-6:	Games 7-9:
Attempts:	81	54	67
Throwaways:	4	3	6
Effective Attempts:	77	51	61
Completions:	47	32	36
Completion %:	61%	63%	59%

Does Golson make up all of the ground on completion percentage once we take out the throwaways?  No.  However, he does make up a little ground, and should give us some (moderate) hope of improvement in decision-making going forward.  I was happy to see that the number of forced throws was in fact decreasing over time.

Okay, let’s get to the throwing by down breakdown:

Down:	Attempts:	Completions:	Comp. %:	TD’s:	INTs:
1	30	15	50%	2	0
2	18	14	78%	0	1
3	19	7	37%	0	0
4	0**	0	---	0	0

·         ** Golson did attempt a throw on 4^th down:  The now infamous pass interference against Eifert during the Pitt game.  Of course, it was a P.I., and so no official attempt is recorded.

Rather than explaining this in paragraphs, let’s do the side-by-side comparison in a couple of different ways.  First, by completion percentage by down for each of the 3 segments:

Down:	Games 1-3	Games 4-6	Games 7-9
1	51%	64%	50%
2	68%	62%	78%
3	56%	50%	37%

I’ve highlighted the top performer for each of the 3-downs (excluding 4^th down given that no official attempts have been registered).  I don’t think there’s too much of a takeaway.  Random fluctuation probably matters just as much as anything else.  The only unsettling aspect is Golson’s 20 point drop in completion percentage on third-downs from Segment 1 to Segment 3.  It’s also unnerving that that’s the only category where a downward pattern developed.  More on that shortly.  I also wanted to consider the percentage of attempts that came on each down for each segment:

Down:	Games 1-3**	Games 4-6	Games 7-9
1	46%	46%	45%
2	35%	24%	27%
3	20%	30%	28%

·        ** Rounding errors apply.

One observation about first downs, and then I'm moving to the more important second and third down situations:  It’s interesting how consistent the percentage of Golson’s attempts have occurred on first down across the different game periods.  That said, I think this is just a matter of coincidence.  Even from a schematic standpoint, comparing Segment One and Two’s games which both involved blow outs where Notre Dame’s offense shifted strongly towards the run in the second half to Segment Three where the Oklahoma game was in doubt until the fourth quarter and the Pitt game required a near miraculous come from behind victory is difficult to say the least, and more importantly, somewhat meaningless.

Golson was not asked to pass as much in third down situations in Segment One which makes sense for a young starter.  The standout game was the Dublin opener versus Navy in which Golson had only one throwing attempt on third down (The team only had 10 third downs the entire game).  Though, even in the Purdue game (26%) and Michigan State game (21%) the team did not ask him to make a lot of third down throws compared to what we'd see going forward.

Perhaps if we go to the “money down” down and distance chart for Segment Three we’ll get something better:

Down:	Attempts:	Completions:	Comp. Percent.	TD’s:	INT:
2nd 5+	11	8	73%	0	1
2nd <5	7	6	86%	0	0
3rd 5+	12	5	42%	0	0
3rd <5	7	2	29%	0	0

I’ve highlighted second and short for a very particular reason:  In Part 2 of this series, I said it was absolutely imperative that Golson get more opportunities to pass in that situation.  He finally did.  In case you’re wondering, yes, the incredibly important play action 50 yard strike to Chris Brown in the Oklahoma game occurred on 2^nd and short.  The regret?  Golson’s other 5 completions on second and short amassed 27 yards combined.  Sadly, his increased opportunities were generally used for short completions to move the chains, which he mostly did well.  Given his third down numbers in these games, maybe Kelly was on to something, but I’d still like to see 2^nd and short be used more aggressively going forward.

I also wanted to touch on Golson's drop off in third down success rate.  I'd thought that perhaps he just didn't do as well on third and long plays, but that wasn't true.  His completion numbers on third and long remained fairly similar, but his decline in performance on third and short was awful. Through the first 6 games of the season Golson was a combined 5/8 on third and less than 5 which comes out to a 63% completion rate.  In the last two games, he's been in third and short situations more frequently, and has not faired as well.

So why  has Golson been in more second and short and third and short situations?  The first chart above demonstrates that Golson continued to see a decline in yards per completion and yards per attempt, and I think when we consider the travel distance of passes through the air, the reason reveals itself:

Length:	Attempts:	Completions:	Comp. Percent.	TD’s	INT:
< 10	39	27	69%	2	1
10+	22	9	41%	0	0

Let’s review the comparisons by Segment.  First, completion percentage for each:

Length:	Games 1-3:	Games 4-6:	Games 7-9:
< 10	68%	73%	69%
10+	46%	52%	41%

And then, percentage of pass attempts travelling each distance:

Length:	Games 1-3:	Games 4-6:	Games 7-9:
< 10	66%	51%	64%
10+	34%	49%	36%

Golson’s pattern reverted (not necessarily regressed) to Segment 1 in terms of breakdown between passes travelling less or more than 10 yards through the air.  However, he was worse in terms of completing plays down the field than at any other time.  Part of this is explained by the Pitt game where in the scramble to come back, the team took more shots for the big play (very rarely successfully).  I liked to see, particularly in the Pitt game, that the use of the bubble screen and slip screen to wide receivers came back into use more prevalently, but the team was not very effective at breaking away (aside:  with the exception of the great slip screen to T.J. Jones in the Pitt game that went for an 11 yard touchdown at as pivotal a moment as can be imagined).  Golson’s longest completion on a pass travelling less than 10 yards through the air was just 14 yards.  17 of Golson's 39 attempts of short passess occurred on first down, and only 4 gained 10 or more yards.  While he wasn’t much better in the previous periods, the lack of short-pass, big-play yardage bothers me.  It’d be nice to see our passing game execute on a short pass and make a much larger play to take some pressure off of EG. 

Additionally, the passing game continued to be generally ineffective even when Golson completed the ball deeper.  Yes, he converted on two remarkably important plays:  The 50 yard strike to Brown previously mentioned, and the 45 yard jump ball to Daniels in the Pitt game, but Golson had only one other play on passes of ten yards or greater through the air that netted 20 yards.  Amassing just 3 plays of 20+ yards in the passing game was his fewest for any of the three Segments.

Finally, before I get to the general observations section, I want to make sure I cover targets by position:

Target:	Attempts:	Completions:	Comp. Percent.	TD’s:	INT:
WR:	37	24	65%	1	0
RB:	7	4	57%	1	0
TE:	17	8	47%	0	1

Not much changed on this front.  Receivers still led the way in targets, and all three categories remained fairly static.  Running backs were targeted slightly less, but not in any meaningful manner.  We’re basically talking about a target or two between all of the subsets to put the numbers directly in line with previous Segments. 

Like I said, I’m going to do a wrap-up where I’ll take some additional space to think things over and provide a few more incites into what I’ve watched.  The tight end completion percentage number continued to fluctuate.  The team’s goal of getting Eifet touches sometimes plagues their decision-making.  Golson’s one interception from this Segment came on a pass to a tight end…only it wasn’t Eifert.  On the fateful play that most of us thought would derail Notre Dame’s season, Golson overlooked an open Eifert over the middle and instead released a horribly underthrown ball to Troy Niklas in the corner of the end zone which was picked. 

I’ll do a larger general breakdown on Golson for Friday, so I’ll keep my general observations very short:

1.  Golson appears much more comfortable in the empty backfield set when he sets up to pass.  He scrambles less and seems less anxious.  My general impression in this respect is that he is very uncomfortable either dropping back or having to do play action fakes.  In general, his drop back footwork is lazy.  The empty backfield, shotgun formation alleviates all of these issues.  He doesn’t have to drop back and simultaneously get himself into a good throwing position, and he doesn’t have to worry about the play fake.

2.  Golson can throw the left side of the field.  His biggest issue in this respect is that unless the play is a quick strike designed to go to the left side, he just generally ignores what’s going on over there.

3.  I’ll have more to say about this in the wrap-up, but I fully appreciate that I’ve ignored Golson’s running ability to this point in my analysis.  Partly, this is intentional.  I wanted to focus on his passing.  Many of Golson’s runs through the first set of games were the result of scrambles on broken plays.  In both the OU and Pitt games, the number of designed QB runs increased, and it played to perhaps Golson’s greatest strength.

Can’t wait to do the wrap-up as that’s what all of this research was intended to generate anyways.  If there’s anything specific you’d like to see covered, hit me up at JLDthoughts@gmail.com.