[GoodGrief]

Thanks for playing along, Good Grief.  Fun game, eh?

HOLY COW. I AM SO PSYCHED. AND SO VERY VERY SLEEP-DEPRIVED.

on the plus side, the Baby GoodGrief did not have a poosplosion on the plane this time, so big ups on that.

[GoodGrief]

Thanks for playing along, Good Grief.  Fun game, eh?

HOLY COW. I AM SO PSYCHED. AND SO VERY VERY SLEEP-DEPRIVED.

on the plus side, the Baby GoodGrief did not have a poosplosion on the plane this time, so big ups on that.

[winflop]

Just woke up and the adrenaline is still pumping and the buzz in my head hasn't stopped.  I think the only reason I slept last night was because I was THAT exhausted.

Unbelievable game.  Hard to objectively say which victory was more exciting - last night or 2011 @ U$C.  Maybe I just shouldn't decide and say both were truly amazing.

BRING ON THE TOEJAMS!

[winflop]

Just woke up and the adrenaline is still pumping and the buzz in my head hasn't stopped.  I think the only reason I slept last night was because I was THAT exhausted.

Unbelievable game.  Hard to objectively say which victory was more exciting - last night or 2011 @ U$C.  Maybe I just shouldn't decide and say both were truly amazing.

BRING ON THE TOEJAMS!

[BostonCard]

On the DBs: the safeties...are interesting. With the Holder/Harris-less bunch we've been trotting out, Murphy looks passable...but Alexander has looked dire the past two weeks, and it seems like opponents make a special effort to pick on him. (Then again, given the general averageness-at-best of the defense, it seems like opponents can do whatever they'd like and succeed.)

Meeks looks solid.

So while I'd be happier with both Harris and Holder coming back, even getting one healthy corner installed would be a nice boost.

Projecting forward, it'll hurt to lose Harris but I'm confident in the corners and nickel. At safety, the question to me is how fast Reid improves -- I think he'll be excellent eventually, but the question is on what timetable.

The pass defense was not great, but we did hold Kizer to 13/25, and compared to the "defense" Nitre Dame played against our passing game, our db's were absolutely brilliant.  We did get burned a couple times, but Notre Dame looked awful, getting burned three times over the top, failing to bring Rector down one-on-one on his touchdown catch and run, and, of course, letting Cajuste beat them on the seam route when they were basically playing to stop the pass.  As you pointed out elsewhere, only our reluctance to deviate from the game plan really held us back from a 400-plus yard day passing and a multi-score win.

What really concerned me was not passing defense, which did alright given that we were out our two starting cb's and going up against a very good wr in Fuller.  Our run defense was repeatedly shredded by Notre Dame's running game, which is remarkable given that Prosise was out (and remember, Prosise came in when they lost their starter).  In other words. Adams, their third stringer beat us for 168 yards on only 18 carries, and Kizer got 128 on 16.  Overall we gave up 299 yards on the ground, and time and again they ripped off big yards.

BC

[BostonCard]

On the DBs: the safeties...are interesting. With the Holder/Harris-less bunch we've been trotting out, Murphy looks passable...but Alexander has looked dire the past two weeks, and it seems like opponents make a special effort to pick on him. (Then again, given the general averageness-at-best of the defense, it seems like opponents can do whatever they'd like and succeed.)

Meeks looks solid.

So while I'd be happier with both Harris and Holder coming back, even getting one healthy corner installed would be a nice boost.

Projecting forward, it'll hurt to lose Harris but I'm confident in the corners and nickel. At safety, the question to me is how fast Reid improves -- I think he'll be excellent eventually, but the question is on what timetable.

The pass defense was not great, but we did hold Kizer to 13/25, and compared to the "defense" Nitre Dame played against our passing game, our db's were absolutely brilliant.  We did get burned a couple times, but Notre Dame looked awful, getting burned three times over the top, failing to bring Rector down one-on-one on his touchdown catch and run, and, of course, letting Cajuste beat them on the seam route when they were basically playing to stop the pass.  As you pointed out elsewhere, only our reluctance to deviate from the game plan really held us back from a 400-plus yard day passing and a multi-score win.

What really concerned me was not passing defense, which did alright given that we were out our two starting cb's and going up against a very good wr in Fuller.  Our run defense was repeatedly shredded by Notre Dame's running game, which is remarkable given that Prosise was out (and remember, Prosise came in when they lost their starter).  In other words. Adams, their third stringer beat us for 168 yards on only 18 carries, and Kizer got 128 on 16.  Overall we gave up 299 yards on the ground, and time and again they ripped off big yards.

BC

[winflop]

I agree BC.  Martinez is still a beast in the middle but sometimes it seems like he's all alone in the middle of the field.  Palma is a good run stopper between the tackles and seems to do well in pass coverage but he lacks the speed to beat RBs to the sidelines.  Perez has the speed but seems to be out of position quite a bit and is not a good tackler.  And Kalambayi seems to have really dropped off compared to last year.  LB was the group I thought would be the bedrock of the defense this year, and it could be argued that it's the weakest of the three.

[winflop]

I agree BC.  Martinez is still a beast in the middle but sometimes it seems like he's all alone in the middle of the field.  Palma is a good run stopper between the tackles and seems to do well in pass coverage but he lacks the speed to beat RBs to the sidelines.  Perez has the speed but seems to be out of position quite a bit and is not a good tackler.  And Kalambayi seems to have really dropped off compared to last year.  LB was the group I thought would be the bedrock of the defense this year, and it could be argued that it's the weakest of the three.

[Hey]

Something I noticed is that it seemed like there was a lot of sportsmanship on both sides. Nothing happening after the whistle and people helping opposing players up.

[Hey]

Something I noticed is that it seemed like there was a lot of sportsmanship on both sides. Nothing happening after the whistle and people helping opposing players up.

[stupac2]

I agree BC.  Martinez is still a beast in the middle but sometimes it seems like he's all alone in the middle of the field.  Palma is a good run stopper between the tackles and seems to do well in pass coverage but he lacks the speed to beat RBs to the sidelines.  Perez has the speed but seems to be out of position quite a bit and is not a good tackler.  And Kalambayi seems to have really dropped off compared to last year.  LB was the group I thought would be the bedrock of the defense this year, and it could be argued that it's the weakest of the three.

Is it that the LBs are weak, or that the DL is getting so little done that the LBs are forced to do more than they had to last year and thus aren't creating as much havoc? I tend to think that, given the fact that our DL is thin and undersized (even Shaw used that word to describe them), the rest of our defensive problems can trace back there. Maybe that's wrong, I dunno, but it seems right to me.

[stupac2]

I agree BC.  Martinez is still a beast in the middle but sometimes it seems like he's all alone in the middle of the field.  Palma is a good run stopper between the tackles and seems to do well in pass coverage but he lacks the speed to beat RBs to the sidelines.  Perez has the speed but seems to be out of position quite a bit and is not a good tackler.  And Kalambayi seems to have really dropped off compared to last year.  LB was the group I thought would be the bedrock of the defense this year, and it could be argued that it's the weakest of the three.

Is it that the LBs are weak, or that the DL is getting so little done that the LBs are forced to do more than they had to last year and thus aren't creating as much havoc? I tend to think that, given the fact that our DL is thin and undersized (even Shaw used that word to describe them), the rest of our defensive problems can trace back there. Maybe that's wrong, I dunno, but it seems right to me.

[fullmetal]

I just read the entire thread.  I see observant posters here saw the same things I saw and had the same reactions I had...yup.  Running the ball on 2nd and 17?  Three-and-outs in the second half...also, lining up deep to prevent the big play...only to give up the big play.

Wow.

We won.

WE WON!!!

[fullmetal]

I just read the entire thread.  I see observant posters here saw the same things I saw and had the same reactions I had...yup.  Running the ball on 2nd and 17?  Three-and-outs in the second half...also, lining up deep to prevent the big play...only to give up the big play.

Wow.

We won.

WE WON!!!