Friday Five: A barometer for Notre Dame’s offensive line progress
In scouting Oklahoma State’s sturdy defense, Notre Dame offensive coordinator Tommy Rees’ primary takeaway is how it controls the line of scrimmage. The No. 9 Cowboys have three defensive ends with double-digit tackles for loss, with All-American linebacker Malcolm Rodriguez in back of them. To Rees, the production is a result of technical mastery.
“They’re fundamentally really good inside — hands, shedding blocks, they play really hard,” Rees said. “There’s no stopping for them. You can tell how well those guys are coached.
“They get off the ball, are violent at the point of attack, they have moves and then a counter, and they do enough with those backers to create some mismatches.”
All told, Rees said Oklahoma State presents the toughest defensive test for Notre Dame since Wisconsin — way back on Sept. 25. The Badgers are the No. 3 defense in the Fremeau Efficiency Index (FEI). Oklahoma State is No. 2.
Yes, Notre Dame blew out Wisconsin 41-13, but that score hides some of the Irish’s offensive troubles. They averaged 1.95 yards per running back carry. They allowed six sacks and 12 tackles for loss.
Oklahoma State has inflicted similar damage on opponents this year. It has held an offense to less than 2.5 yards per rush six times (including sacks). The Cowboys lead the country in sacks and tackles for loss per game. They’re not just a test for the Notre Dame offensive line, but also a barometer for its progress since the Oct. 2 loss to Cincinnati.
The Irish have allowed just 11 sacks since that game — half their total from the first five outings. Remove sacks, and they have averaged at least 5.6 yards per carry in each of the last five games. To deny there has been progress would be disingenuous. This same line allowed six sacks to Toledo, after all. It made personnel changes since then.
There is a footnote, though: The last six defenses Notre Dame has faced are 73rd or worse in the FEI and 64th or lower in yards per carry allowed. (Five of the six are 89th or worse in opponent yards per rush).
The Fiesta Bowl should illustrate how much of Notre Dame’s run-game production and improved pass protection is a function of its own improvement or opponent defenses. It’d be fair to grade slightly on a curve given the absence of running back Kyren Williams.
If it is the former, Notre Dame should be in business. If it is the latter, it might be in trouble.
The final score of that Wisconsin game suggests Notre Dame isn’t automatically doomed if it can’t run the ball and springs leaks in pass protection, but the absence of those leaves little to no room for error elsewhere.
Notre Dame came into the Wisconsin game having offered little evidence it could win up front against anyone. Rees’ early play calls expressed (wise) disinterest in running the ball. It enters the Jan. 1 Fiesta Bowl against the Cowboys (1 p.m. ET, ESPN) with seven straight games of sound offensive line play and some hope that it can become eight.
2. Short yardage
In its first five games, Notre Dame threw the ball on 11 of its 19 third- or fourth-and-short situations (three or fewer yards to gain). With the offensive line in disarray the first month, short-yardage runs weren’t a reliable way of picking up a first down. Sure enough, of those eight runs, only four led to conversions. That’s a 50 percent power success rate, down from last year’s 78 percent.
Since the loss to Cincinnati, those numbers have evened out. Notre Dame has called runs on 25 of its 32 third- or fourth-and-shorts. Of those 25 runs, 18 led to first downs. That’s a 72 percent power success rate, which would rank 56th nationally if extrapolated over 12 games. Not elite, but at least more reliable.
Will Notre Dame be successful on third-and-short runs against a stout front? Oklahoma State’s defense is tied for third in opponent power success rate, at 46.7 percent. Five of the last seven teams the Irish have faced are 80th or worse in power success rate. Again, that’s not to discredit the improvement at all, but it shows the step up in defensive competence.
3. Notre Dame transfers
Earlier this week, I dove into the stats for the 27 Notre Dame transfers on Division I teams this year. It elicited some impassioned responses, as I expected.
To many, the idea of transferring carries shame, and that’s not always warranted. All 85 players on a roster want to play, and eligibility is a declining asset. No team plays 85 guys, of course. Someone has to be the fifth-string defensive end. The great Lou Somogyi’s “one-third rule” is wise perspective to keep: About one-third of most signing classes will be deep reserves who transfer or don’t see the field.
The concern level with a transfer depends on the circumstances. A mass exodus of underclassmen on a middling team is discomforting. A bunch of backups taking a graduate transfer stings a bit less, but those can be disappointing if they were blue-chip recruits who didn’t pan out. Several transfers from the same position raises an eyebrow (think wide receiver at Notre Dame).
The transfer outflow from Notre Dame has contained underclassmen who left because it became clear they faced an uphill battle for playing time. There have been graduate transfers with a variety of career arcs, and many of those were at positions where Notre Dame had more capable players than snaps available or younger players who had leaped them.
There will be recruiting misses. No staff bats 1.000 on the trail. Just look up and down the top 250 of recruiting rankings from five years ago. There are highly ranked recruits who made no impact for their initial teams.
Trouble occurs when the poor evaluations pile up. I wouldn’t say Notre Dame is there. Yes, Jordan Johnson, Micah Jones and John Olmstead are examples of players who were missed evaluations, weren’t as good as their lofty ranking or good enough to work out at Notre Dame. To put 100 percent of the blame for those on a coaching staff would be misplaced, though.
Some are just unfortunate circumstances, like Jack Lamb. He was having a fine year in 2019 as a sub-package linebacker until a hip injury ended his season. He didn’t seem the same afterward and was passed by on the depth chart. It’s hard to find wrongdoing there.
Ovie Oghoufo’s transfer worked out best for both parties. He found a place where he could start. He Notre Dame left as a graduate transfer. His absence also had little to no impact on Notre Dame’s 2021 season. Jordan Genmark Heath is the 2020 version. Dillan Gibbons probably fits in this category as well.
Arguably the worst kind of transfer for a coaching staff is a player who was lower on the depth chart at a middling position, goes elsewhere and shines — all while his position at his original school remains unimpressive. That’s a sign of suspect developmental ability. None of the 27 on rosters this year appear to fit that mold.
Nor was there a can't-miss talent who left after a year or two because he was frustrated. Perhaps some folks viewed Phil Jurkovec in that way when he left, but his career at Boston College has not yet led to stardom. Quarterbacks leaving after two years of not starting isn’t too uncommon. Jurkovec was looking at a third, too, had he stayed at Notre Dame.
4. Cool factor
When we talk about the “cool factor” around Notre Dame since Marcus Freeman’s hiring, these are examples of it. The first nails the adorable factor, too.
5. The young guys are already playing
Hopefully the (ridiculous) cries urging Notre Dame to use the Fiesta Bowl as a 2022 jumping-off point have died down. Frankly, they never made any sense to begin with for many reasons, but I’ll highlight one. Playing young guys for 2022 benefit or trying to win the game is a false choice, because Notre Dame has leaned into its youth already this year more than usual.
The Irish chose not to redshirt 10 freshmen, including a quarterback. They have gone younger as the year has progressed out of necessity for 2021. That has created the situation where they played for this season while also helping next year as a byproduct.
The key word there is byproduct. Logan Diggs didn’t get 43 carries in seven games this fall because Notre Dame set aside those carries to help for next season. Tyler Buchner didn’t play 163 snaps to gain game experience before he potentially strolls into the ‘Shoe next Labor Day Weekend as the starting quarterback.
Diggs will be on the field Jan. 1 because Notre Dame needs him to help replace Williams. Lorenzo Styles is a starter at receiver because Notre Dame lost Avery Davis for the season. No, Buchner will not start over Jack Coan, but he will play because he adds a dimension to the offense. They’re just three examples.
“We’re going to Arizona to win the game,” Rees said. “Everything else, we’ll handle next year.”
----
• Learn more about our print and digital publication, Blue & Gold Illustrated.
• Watch our videos and subscribe to our YouTube channel.
• Sign up for Blue & Gold's news alerts and daily newsletter.
• Subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts.
• Follow us on Twitter: @BGINews, @MikeTSinger, @PatrickEngel_, @tbhorka and @ToddBurlage.
• Like us on Facebook.