Kelly's post-BYU Press Conference

[Irish Jacky]

Why the hell didn't any of those press stooges ask him why he refused to play Hendrix in the second half given his decision to run the ball at BYU? This is an obvious question that you would think these so-called "professional" media types would jump on him about. However, not a peep. This reinforces my suspicion that these people understand they have to be tame and non-challenging or they'll be shut out by the ND powers that be. It's probably that way at every school, but this question should have been asked an there's no excuse why it wasn't. Shame on the media!

 

[NDinFL]

Well this is something new to bitch about after a win.

 

[Rizzophil]

Everyone seems to be so pissy today. I'm logging off. Enjoy the rest of the weekend!

 

[NDinFL]

Everyone seems to be so pissy today. I'm logging off. Enjoy the rest of the weekend!

Thanks! You too!

 

[KPENN]

 

[Jason Pham]

Why the hell didn't any of those press stooges ask him why he refused to play Hendrix in the second half given his decision to run the ball at BYU? This is an obvious question that you would think these so-called "professional" media types would jump on him about. However, not a peep. This reinforces my suspicion that these people understand they have to be tame and non-challenging or they'll be shut out by the ND powers that be. It's probably that way at every school, but this question should have been asked an there's no excuse why it wasn't. Shame on the media!

This question was asked by, if I recall, Alex Flanagan on the sidelines after the game. Kelly said since the game plan was to hand off the ball all but three times in the entire half, they were going to keep Rees in to check in and out of certain runs. If the game had dictated a bit more throwing, Kelly said, Hendrix would have been kept in to provide a dual-threat.

 

[kmoose]

Why the hell didn't any of those press stooges ask him why he refused to play Hendrix in the second half given his decision to run the ball at BYU?

Because, unlike you, apparently, they knew it was a stupid question. You have two tailbacks that each rushed for over 100 yards. Why would you change your QB?

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

I thought this would have been a great game to take Gunner's redshirt off.

 

[Irish Jacky]

This question was asked by, if I recall, Alex Flanagan on the sidelines after the game. Kelly said since the game plan was to hand off the ball all but three times in the entire half, they were going to keep Rees in to check in and out of certain runs. If the game had dictated a bit more throwing, Kelly said, Hendrix would have been kept in to provide a dual-threat.

If that's what he said, the answer makes no sense: keep Hendrix in to throw, but keep Rees in for the running game? What kind of logic is that????

 

[Irish Jacky]

Because, unlike you, apparently, they knew it was a stupid question. You have two tailbacks that each rushed for over 100 yards. Why would you change your QB?

So keep legless Tommy in and not add a third running option to the backfield? So, two running threats at a time is better than three? Thanks for your input---NOT.

Hardly a stupid question.

 

[GoIrish41]

If that's what he said, the answer makes no sense: keep Hendrix in to throw, but keep Rees in for the running game? What kind of logic is that????

If you bring Hendrix in, it is almost always going to be a run, usually by Hendrix. Defenses know that, and would key in on the run because there is little threat of a pass.

If you keep Rees in, even if you are going to run every play, there is the threat that he is going to pass. Defenses have to respect the pass, which makes the run game a bit more effective.

I didn't hear the quote, but I think this is logical.

 

[kmoose]

So keep legless Tommy in and not add a third running option to the backfield? So, two running threats at a time is better than three? Thanks for your input---NOT.

Hardly a stupid question.

WTF do you need a third option for? Your first two options are kicking @ss. This is not Tecmo Bowl, or NCAA12 for Xbox; your goal is to win the game. If you have ONE tailback that is tearing it up, you ride them until the defense stops them. You don't start throwing the ball, to "give yourself another option". How long have you been watching football?

 

[Jason Pham]

If that's what he said, the answer makes no sense: keep Hendrix in to throw, but keep Rees in for the running game? What kind of logic is that????

I think the idea is that if they're going to pound the ball in between the tackles on every down, why not have the guy with more experience in there to settle the line and make the handoffs. I think that's more valuable than having a third-runner out there.

If the plan was to stretch things out a bit more, both horizontally and vertically, keeping Hendrix in would have made more sense.

You might not agree with the game plan (although it worked; see our second half performance), but the logic is there.

 

[kmoose]

I think the idea is that if they're going to pound the ball in between the tackles on every down, why not have the guy with more experience in there to settle the line and make the handoffs. I think that's more valuable than having a third-runner out there.

If the plan was to stretch things out a bit more, both horizontally and vertically, keeping Hendrix in would have made more sense.

You might not agree with the game plan (although it worked; see our second half performance), but the logic is there.

Ok. I just watched Kelly's postgame presser:

NBC Sports Video Player

From about the 10:25 mark, to the 11:05 mark, Kelly addresses this exact line of thinking. In response to a question about why Hendrix didn't get more action after picking up a key first down(I'm looking at you, OP... if you are going to call the media out, then at least have your facts straight), Kelly said that leaving Hendrix in would not have added any value to the offense because they were just lining up and running the ball. Kelly added that, if they were spreading the field and throwing the ball more, then having a QB that can run in there would have added value. But that wasn't the way the game played out.

 

[Irish Jacky]

WTF do you need a third option for? Your first two options are kicking @ss. This is not Tecmo Bowl, or NCAA12 for Xbox; your goal is to win the game. If you have ONE tailback that is tearing it up, you ride them until the defense stops them. You don't start throwing the ball, to "give yourself another option". How long have you been watching football?

No matter how well the RB's are running----and it was not known at the beginning of the second half that Riddick would have the fantastic half that he had----it still makes sense to have Hendrix in. He can run the option and gives us a lot more flexibility. Because their D would be expecting him to run, he also might have better passing situations to throw into.

I guess I can see some logic---some but not much---in going with Tommy exclusively in the second half, but I will continue to believe that Hendrix should have played a lot more. The fact that we eventually pulled the game out does not retroactively undo this bad (IMO) decision by BK.

 

[Irish Jacky]

Ok. I just watched Kelly's postgame presser:

NBC Sports Video Player

From about the 10:25 mark, to the 11:05 mark, Kelly addresses this exact line of thinking. In response to a question about why Hendrix didn't get more action after picking up a key first down(I'm looking at you, OP... if you are going to call the media out, then at least have your facts straight), Kelly said that leaving Hendrix in would not have added any value to the offense because they were just lining up and running the ball. Kelly added that, if they were spreading the field and throwing the ball more, then having a QB that can run in there would have added value. But that wasn't the way the game played out.

My bad. Sorry.

Still, I don't agree that Hendrix didn't add value over Rees given the way the game played out. Just my 2c. BK's not omniscient. Just because we won doesn't justify every tactical decision made during the game.

 

[kmoose]

My bad. Sorry.

Still, I don't agree that Hendrix didn't add value over Rees given the way the game played out. Just my 2c. BK's not omniscient. Just because we won doesn't justify every tactical decision made during the game.

No, it doesn't. But look at this way...... Brian Kelly has won an awful lot of college football games, as a coach, at many different levels. How many college football wins have you coached?

You can see where I might give Kelly the benefit of the doubt?

 

[Jason Pham]

No matter how well the RB's are running----and it was not known at the beginning of the second half that Riddick would have the fantastic half that he had----it still makes sense to have Hendrix in. He can run the option and gives us a lot more flexibility. Because their D would be expecting him to run, he also might have better passing situations to throw into.

I guess I can see some logic---some but not much---in going with Tommy exclusively in the second half, but I will continue to believe that Hendrix should have played a lot more. The fact that we eventually pulled the game out does not retroactively undo this bad (IMO) decision by BK.

There isn't a retroactive aspect to this, though. The decision wasn't one made at the beginning of the half and never again revisited. The decision was made to come out of the half pounding the ball with Rees under center for the above reasons. At that point, either we would run and control the ball effectively and our defense would stand tall or we would fail to execute the ground game and byu could score again. Since we were able to grind it out and since our defense was performing at the level we expect, there wasn't a need to stretch the field. Had our ground game been stuffed and/or had the defense let BYU in on another score, we might have seen the game plan change to one that would have seen Hendrix on the field a bit more. Did you expect Kelly to stick with Rees and the ground game if it weren't working? Is that what you mean by the retroactive comment? Maybe I'm giving our coaching staff too much credit but I think the adjustments would have been made. But that's not how the game developed and the decision making did not have to adjust.

 

[West Coast Domer]

The real question for coach is what The hell is wrong with our special teams...no lanes for GA III and Our punt return nothing!

 

[Jimmy3Putt]

The punt return is completely broken.
The d-line is rushing upfield into the second wave of blockers leaving the o-line to run unimpeded to the returner.
It's like they're stuck between trying to block and return making both impossible.

The d-line must block, not rush, the o-line... hold them up for a few seconds giving Neal some breathing room.
It's wasting a year of Neal if they're not going to block for him!

 

[ulukinatme]

 

[Dizzyphil]

The punt return is completely broken.
The d-line is rushing upfield into the second wave of blockers leaving the o-line to run unimpeded to the returner.
It's like they're stuck between trying to block and return making both impossible.

The d-line must block, not rush, the o-line... hold them up for a few seconds giving Neal some breathing room.
It's wasting a year of Neal if they're not going to block for him!

to be fair, I have seen this happening with multiple teams outside the Irish. the only thing I am really worried about is a muffed punt putting the opposition in good to great field position. I would like to see it fixed as well with ND.

GO IRISH!!!!!!!!!

Diz

 

[ALLGATOR]

Some peoples lack of football knowledge is showing. Like others have said in this thread if you are going to hand the football off Tommy is the guy you want in the game. You want a quarterback to get you out of bad runs and into good plays. Rees is the guy Kelly believes understand the offense the best and read the defense the best.

 

[sportallyr]

The punt return is completely broken.
The d-line is rushing upfield into the second wave of blockers leaving the o-line to run unimpeded to the returner.
It's like they're stuck between trying to block and return making both impossible.

The d-line must block, not rush, the o-line... hold them up for a few seconds giving Neal some breathing room.
It's wasting a year of Neal if they're not going to block for him!

I don't agree with this. You have to learn to walk before you run. Neal is getting valuable time to learn a very difficult aspect of the game. We've all seen how devastating a turnover on a punt return can affect the outcome of a game. Since most of our games this year have been close, with the exception of Navy (Neal's first game) and Miami (a big game in a big environment), Kelly has been very careful with punt return. With each successful catch, I believe Kelly is slowly gaining confidence and we will start to see more returns in the second half of the season. Even if he doesn't take the training wheels off this year, it's not a wasted year because Neal has gained valuable experience just being out there and catching the ball...which is the single most important responsibility of a punt returner! I expect this experience to pay off in a big way next year.

With that said, I do wish they used Neal on offense a little more (like on an end around or screen pass).

 

[micks60]

Some peoples lack of football knowledge is showing. Like others have said in this thread if you are going to hand the football off Tommy is the guy you want in the game. You want a quarterback to get you out of bad runs and into good plays. Rees is the guy Kelly believes understand the offense the best and read the defense the best.

I think you are showing a lack of knowledge by thinking that Rees changing tye play is tye only thing that affects the play. What about the threat to pass? What about the threat of the qb to run? So many other things that go into than just the play call, You are correct that Rees is better than at changing plays but that is not all the poeces to the puzzle.

 

[Bluto]

Some peoples lack of football knowledge is showing. Like others have said in this thread if you are going to hand the football off Tommy is the guy you want in the game. You want a quarterback to get you out of bad runs and into good plays. Rees is the guy Kelly believes understand the offense the best and read the defense the best.

Pretty spot on. The Gators looked really impressive against South Carolina by the way.

 

[IrishLax]

Some peoples lack of football knowledge is showing. Like others have said in this thread if you are going to hand the football off Tommy is the guy you want in the game. You want a quarterback to get you out of bad runs and into good plays. Rees is the guy Kelly believes understand the offense the best and read the defense the best.

How you know this and others can't grasp it is beyond me. Kelly has said many, many times that Tommy's pre-snap reads and grasp of the game are way ahead of anyone else on the roster. If you're just going to hand it off and not try any zone-read or designed QB runs... Tommy is 100% the guy you need in the game to make checks.

 

[woolybug25]

I think you are showing a lack of knowledge by thinking that Rees changing tye play is tye only thing that affects the play. What about the threat to pass? What about the threat of the qb to run? So many other things that go into than just the play call, You are correct that Rees is better than at changing plays but that is not all the poeces to the puzzle.

I'm with ALLGATOR on this one.

 

[Ndaccountant]

How you know this and others can't grasp it is beyond me. Kelly has said many, many times that Tommy's pre-snap reads and grasp of the game are way ahead of anyone else on the roster. If you're just going to hand it off and not try any zone-read or designed QB runs... Tommy is 100% the guy you need in the game to make checks.

Here is the thing that I continue to struggle to comprehend, and it showed its head again yesterday. Tommy can do all the things before the snap, but why does he not always read the right hot route? Case in point, he missed wide open reads to Tyler and Robby all game yesterday. For being able to understand what play to get in to, I still can't believe he can't ID the hot receiver.

 

[Dizzyphil]

Here is the thing that I continue to struggle to comprehend, and it showed its head again yesterday. Tommy can do all the things before the snap, but why does he not always read the right hot route? Case in point, he missed wide open reads to Tyler and Robby all game yesterday. For being able to understand what play to get in to, I still can't believe he can't ID the hot receiver.

Easy to say brother watching from TV or the Stands. We get to evaluate from a view where we can see 80 - 90% of the field of play from above, as most do in the stands. We also have the luxury of instant replay to see the open men, just as the announcers. The QB? Reads what they can at the line, behind 6'6"+ linemen (usually around 7 - 9 depending how many the defense is sending), eluding a rush, and at ground level - game speed. He will study film and adjust.

GO IRISH!!!!!!!!!

Diz