After watching the last two Notre Dame games, did we actually use the optimal defensive gameplan against them? Duke limited them to similar yardage and had 2 sacks, while blitzing heavily. Louisville also dared ND to make plays and forced 5 turnovers, 3 INTs, and multiple sacks. I believe the defensive gameplan actually played into ND's hands by allowing them to be methodical and limit our offensive possessions. Louisville had 13 offensive possessions, Duke had 12 possessions and we only had 8. This is in spite of the fact that the offense actually moved the ball well, with 5 of those possessions gaining 50+ yards (red zone being an entirely separate issue).

I feel like the decision to play more conservatively was two-fold. There was obviously PTSD from the consequences of an aggressive gameplan last season and I don't think Day wanted to put an inexperienced QB in a situation where he had to take on a multiple score come back. But is this the right gameplan against EVERY squad we play?

This makes me turn to the Penn st game and wonder whether an aggressive gameplan should be the call. Penn state has a good scoring offense this season, but they have been exceptionally poor at creating explosive plays (#132 I'm the nation of 20+ yard plays). This seems to stem from a lack of good run blocking inhibiting their quality RBs, a lack of exterior playmakers, and a generally inaccurate QB. However, their defense is elite, so wouldn't it be better to give our offense and its playmakers more chances with the ball, and bank on the improvements in the defensive backfield to be real? Alternatively you could make the case that the defense has done an amazing job at limiting big plays (#1 in the country) and just strap in for another meat grinder game with limited possessions? Just wondering what everyone else was thinking