[msqueri]

Thank you for that analysis, which I generally agree with.

I agree with you that the final punt was the right call given that inept play calling had left us at extreme field goal range.

And the three runs in a row for 0 yards does strike me as inept, given the situation.  Shaw went conservative just a little too early.  Those plays are what he should have called after we had one more first down, were in field goal range, and had killed a little extra clock.  Wiping out Notre Dame's time outs was not helpful given the amount of clock we left for them, and the lack of time outs did not seem to play any role at all in our defense's ability to stop them.  It did, however, means that once we got the stop we could do the victory formation rather than having to make a first down, so there is that.

On the luck factor:  yes, we got lucky on a couple of calls, but we got unlucky on one massive non-call.  The fourth down short yardage pass in which the Notre Dame defender grabbed our receiver's jersey and dragged him to the ground cost us a possession and the refs missed it completely.  Was that Yurosek?

Karty is tremendous.

How many injuries, in addition to Wilson, did we suffer?

Here is what I want to know: why was the defense so much better?  We can't just say "execution."  What specifically were we doing that worked so much better than in prior games?

Yes, that 4th down non-call to turn the ball over on downs was a bad call. But in the counterfactual I think it is reasonable for a Notre Dame fan to think that cost us less than the McKee fumble call cost them. As it happened, we forced a fumble on Notre Dame's next possession and then were able to get a field goal before half. At most, the non-call cost us four points, but more likely it didn't cost us any insofar as I'd wager that if we got that interference/holding call the odds were probably less than 50 percent we would have had a 4+ point swing on Notre Dame the remainder of that half. Given the way the offense matched up with Notre Dame all night, my guess is we would have had a 3+ point swing if that call had been made correctly, which is exactly what we ended up getting. The football gods provided the right result there, thanks to the fumble. Conversely, the  weird overturning of McKee's fumble kept alive a scoring drive. At the very least a 3 point swing but potentially more. On balance, I think you'd rather have our end of the officiating. In any case, you'd definitely rather have our end of the luck due to the extremely serendipitous fumble/punt block luck.

The big injuries I'm tracking are Wilson, Bailey, and Leyrer. Leyrer's is much more than erased by the supposed imminent return of Rouse, but Wilson and Bailey are two of the better players on the team and their injuries looked similar and potentially as long as season-ending. I really hope not.

Interested in others' thoughts on the defense but my hypothesis is energy. Sinclair gave an interview during the week that was kind of tellingly backhanded compliment-esque when it came to his own role on the team and the team's better performance against Oregon State, and in that interview he suggested that the defense played for the first time with the kind of energy it's been waiting for. In a more polished way, Shaw talked about the Oregon State game being more of a team defense effort than we've seen. My hypothesis is that players are having it click/playing faster/having more energy and that's making a big difference. If I had to be specific, I think the edge rushers are getting better pass rush and that's helping everybody else look better (plus, if you think about it, Herron's two sacks alone yesterday were really big plays in the game that may have significantly changed the scoreboard).

[msqueri]

Thank you for that analysis, which I generally agree with.

I agree with you that the final punt was the right call given that inept play calling had left us at extreme field goal range.

And the three runs in a row for 0 yards does strike me as inept, given the situation.  Shaw went conservative just a little too early.  Those plays are what he should have called after we had one more first down, were in field goal range, and had killed a little extra clock.  Wiping out Notre Dame's time outs was not helpful given the amount of clock we left for them, and the lack of time outs did not seem to play any role at all in our defense's ability to stop them.  It did, however, means that once we got the stop we could do the victory formation rather than having to make a first down, so there is that.

On the luck factor:  yes, we got lucky on a couple of calls, but we got unlucky on one massive non-call.  The fourth down short yardage pass in which the Notre Dame defender grabbed our receiver's jersey and dragged him to the ground cost us a possession and the refs missed it completely.  Was that Yurosek?

Karty is tremendous.

How many injuries, in addition to Wilson, did we suffer?

Here is what I want to know: why was the defense so much better?  We can't just say "execution."  What specifically were we doing that worked so much better than in prior games?

Yes, that 4th down non-call to turn the ball over on downs was a bad call. But in the counterfactual I think it is reasonable for a Notre Dame fan to think that cost us less than the McKee fumble call cost them. As it happened, we forced a fumble on Notre Dame's next possession and then were able to get a field goal before half. At most, the non-call cost us four points, but more likely it didn't cost us any insofar as I'd wager that if we got that interference/holding call the odds were probably less than 50 percent we would have had a 4+ point swing on Notre Dame the remainder of that half. Given the way the offense matched up with Notre Dame all night, my guess is we would have had a 3+ point swing if that call had been made correctly, which is exactly what we ended up getting. The football gods provided the right result there, thanks to the fumble. Conversely, the  weird overturning of McKee's fumble kept alive a scoring drive. At the very least a 3 point swing but potentially more. On balance, I think you'd rather have our end of the officiating. In any case, you'd definitely rather have our end of the luck due to the extremely serendipitous fumble/punt block luck.

The big injuries I'm tracking are Wilson, Bailey, and Leyrer. Leyrer's is much more than erased by the supposed imminent return of Rouse, but Wilson and Bailey are two of the better players on the team and their injuries looked similar and potentially as long as season-ending. I really hope not.

Interested in others' thoughts on the defense but my hypothesis is energy. Sinclair gave an interview during the week that was kind of tellingly backhanded compliment-esque when it came to his own role on the team and the team's better performance against Oregon State, and in that interview he suggested that the defense played for the first time with the kind of energy it's been waiting for. In a more polished way, Shaw talked about the Oregon State game being more of a team defense effort than we've seen. My hypothesis is that players are having it click/playing faster/having more energy and that's making a big difference. If I had to be specific, I think the edge rushers are getting better pass rush and that's helping everybody else look better (plus, if you think about it, Herron's two sacks alone yesterday were really big plays in the game that may have significantly changed the scoreboard).