'13 FL RB Greg Bryant (R.I.P.)

[koonja]

I never read him say we were the better team

I'll let whiskey speak for himself, but I think it's implied when he directly quoted me saying "we weren't unlucky, we lost to a better team".

And whiskey's response was "I think you were watching a different game than I was".

 

[Whiskeyjack]

They moved the ball whenever they needed to. We were 3 and out far too often. They totaled 125 more offensive yards than us and doubled us in first downs. The ability/inability to move the ball is apparent in those numbers.

What about our defense stopping the Belldozer on all those 3rd and shorts? And the turn-over on downs late in the game? The defensive gameplan was the same as last year, and we defended well enough to win had our offensive gameplan not been to put the game on Rees' arm against the best secondary from the pass-happy Big-12.

Like I said, the better team won. Play calling is part of a team since their play calling is tailored to the player's abilities.

"The better team won" usually implies that Team A played their best game, but Team B was simply superior. We didn't play our best game in large part because our offensive game-plan was terrible.

Wiping the floor was too aggressive, but they controlled the game to start from finish. You're usually very objective, so I'm not sure how you are arguing the Irish were the better team.

I don't think we're better than Oklahoma, but I'm not comfortable saying "the better team won". That was a very winnable game for us.

 

[BeauBenken]

yet even last year we still were no where near the offensive juggernaut Urban has this year.

Guiton might be a top 10 QB nationally fwiw imo...hard to tell now

You want to compare 1st year Golson to 2nd year Miller when I already said Miller > Golson?

 

[Buster Bluth]

but they controlled the game to start from finish.

I didn't really see that.

so I'm not sure how you are arguing the Irish were the better team.

Nor have I seen anyone say that.

 

[koonja]

What about our defense stopping the Belldozer on all those 3rd and shorts? And the turn-over on downs late in the game? The defensive gameplan was the same as last year, and we defended well enough to win had our offensive gameplan not been to put the game on Rees' arm against the best secondary from the pass-happy Big-12.



"The better team won" usually implies that Team A played their best game, but Team B was simply superior. We didn't play our best game in large part because our offensive game-plan was terrible.



I don't think we're better than Oklahoma, but I'm not comfortable saying "the better team won". That was a very winnable game for us.

So you're point is you cannot determine who the better team actually is between Oklahoma and Notre Dame from that game?

I guess that's fair, but I disagree with you. They beat us in every aspect of the game. Turnovers, time of possession, offensive yardage, defense forcing 3 and outs, and offensive efficiency (see 25 1st downs to 12).

If roles were flipped, and ND just won 35-21 over Oklahoma, and a Sooner fan came on here and said 'the better team did not win', we'd tell him to get lost and point to every thing I mentioned and say he has no objective ground to back his claim.

I didn't really see that.

I disagree.

Nor have I seen anyone say that.

Above.

 

[NDdomer2]

man kuehnja must be coming around, off topic posts in a players thread.

WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO!!!

 

[koonja]

man kuehnja must be coming around, off topic posts in a players thread.

WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO!!!

I hate myself for it, lol. But this is why I'm a fan of leaving player threads for player news only. Because tangential discussions are always generated. But what do I know.

 

[NDdomer2]

I hate myself for it, lol. But this is why I'm a fan of leaving player threads for player news only. Because tangential discussions are always generated. But what do I know.

Well I know as well as your advertising them to not happen, they probably always will.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

So you're point is you cannot determine who the better team actually is between Oklahoma and Notre Dame from that game?

I guess that's fair, but I disagree with you. They beat us in every aspect of the game. Turnovers, time of possession, offensive yardage, defense forcing 3 and outs, and offensive efficiency (see 25 1st downs to 12).

All of those stats were directly impacted by the coaching staff's decision to put the game on Rees' arm. Had we instead focused on a power running game and play-action passes, I think we would have been equal to or better than OU in every one of those categories. Would shoulda...

If roles were flipped, and ND just won 35-21 over Oklahoma, and a Sooner fan came on here and said 'the better team did not win', we'd tell him to get lost and point to every thing I mentioned and say he has no objective ground to back his claim.

Had OU started the game with a couple head-scratching coaching decisions that we capitalized on for an early lead, but then settled in and played us close for the rest of the game, I wouldn't say "the better team won"; nor I would have an issue with an OU fan making this same argument.

Take last year's game; I think that was our most complete, mistake-free performance of 2012. But it was damned close for most of the game, and OU still ended up with a BCS bid (in which they also got blown out). I wouldn't say we were clearly the better team last year either.

The outcome of every individual game is a mix of luck, tactics, and talent. Games between two quality teams are usually decided by some mix of the first two factors. But that doesn't mean "the better team" won. We won't know who's better until the end of the season.

 

[koonja]

All of those stats were directly impacted by the coaching staff's decision to put the game on Rees' arm. Had we instead focused on a power running game and play-action passes, I think we would have been equal to or better than OU in every one of those categories. Would shoulda...



Had OU started the game with a couple head-scratching coaching decisions that we capitalized on for an early lead, but then settled in and played us close for the rest of the game, I wouldn't say "the better team won"; nor I would have an issue with an OU fan making this same argument. The outcome of every individual game is a mix of luck, tactics, and talent. Games between two quality teams are usually decided by some mix of the first two factors. But that doesn't mean "the better team" won. We won't know who's better until the end of the season.

This I agree with. It's the same case for the Michigan game. There's really no explanation.

That's true, and if I understand you correctly, you're saying play calling was the major issue. I agree with that.

But I don't agree with those who say it was bad luck or Rees that allowed them 3 turnovers. Yes, Rees throws some bad balls, but being in a position to make the plays when the opportunity presents itself is part of great execution, which they deserve credit for. They deserve just as much credit for forcing and capitalizing on those turnovers as Rees does blame.

Oklahoma knew they were too small up front to stop us from running, but with the exception of the Niklas TD, their defensive execution was perfect IMO, whereas ours was not.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Above.

But that's not what Whiskey said...

I personally am in the group of people who think that a game doesn't prove **** outside of the winner of the game--and it only does that 99.99% of the time.

College football has this weird aspect in its DNA where if Team A beats Team B then other team is decidedly "better" for the rest of the year. It's malarkey.

What happens in MLB when a team wins a game? Nothing more than a W. In the NBA? Very little. NFL? More confidence that a team is better, but really not even then.

Only in college football is it a one-time deal to show who's "better," and it simply doesn't make sense. Go tell the Spurs they were light-years better than the Heat when after they blew them out by like forty in game two. They would have laughed at you. In college football you have one shot for your gameplan to work, but gameplans change in multiple appearances, and the results often do too (Wisconsin vs Nebraska is a solid example). Then when you add in how inconsistent players and teams are....it's just total malarkey in my opinion.

I think Oklahoma wins that game 60% of the time. I don't think they totally owned Notre Dame.

 

[NDdomer2]

But that's not what Whiskey said...

I personally am in the group of people who think that a game doesn't prove **** outside of the winner of the game--and it only does that 99.99% of the time.

College football has this weird aspect in its DNA where is team A beats team B the other team is decidedly "better" for the rest of the year. It's malarkey. What happens in MLB when a team wins a game? Nothing more than a W. In the NBA? Very little. NFL? More confidence, but not even then. Only in college football is it a one-time deal to show who's "better," and it simply doesn't make sense.

I think Oklahoma wins that game 60% of the time. I don't think they totally owned Notre Dame.

This. Does anyone think the Browns are better than the Bengals?

 

[wizards8507]

All of those stats were directly impacted by the coaching staff's decision to put the game on Rees' arm. Had we instead focused on a power running game and play-action passes, I think we would have been equal to or better than OU in every one of those categories. Would shoulda...

People always like to strip out the "with the exception of..." items to support their arguments. "We would have beaten Oklahoma if not for the coaching and turnovers" seems to imply that coaching and turnovers are somehow not components of how good we are. It's like saying "that girl is super hot except her face is kind of busted and her body reminds me of guacamole." If we simply sucked less, we totally wouldn't suck.

It's like the Brian Kelly argument. "BK is a great coach except he doesn't have a good OC and his old quarterback got suspended and his new quarterback sucks and seniors graduated and recruits transferred and we didn't have the depth to step up behind them." Well people should consider that hiring staff, instilling discipline, developing talent, developing leadership, and retaining players are COMPONENTS of what it means to be a "great coach." You can't say "he's great except for XYZ" if XYZ are in fact necessary components of greatness.

 

[ACamp1900]

This. Does anyone think the Browns are better than the Bengals?

Who doesn't???

 

[Whiskeyjack]

People always like to strip out the "with the exception of..." items to support their arguments. "We would have beaten Oklahoma if not for the coaching and turnovers" seems to imply that coaching and turnovers are somehow not components of how good we are. It's like saying "that girl is super hot except her face is kind of busted and her body reminds me of guacamole." If we simply sucked less, we totally wouldn't suck.

I didn't say we would have beaten Oklahoma but for the TOs. I argued that it's not accurate to say OU is a better team simply because they won. It would haven't been accurate to say the same thing about us after last year's game either.

It's like the Brian Kelly argument. "BK is a great coach except he doesn't have a good OC and his old quarterback got suspended and his new quarterback sucks and seniors graduated and recruits transferred and we didn't have the depth to step up behind them." Well people should consider that hiring staff, instilling discipline, developing talent, developing leadership, and retaining players are COMPONENTS of what it means to be a "great coach." You can't say "he's great except for XYZ" if XYZ are in fact necessary components of greatness.

At the end of the day, coaches are defined by their records; which is precisely why BK deserves the benefit of the doubt. His record is amazing. You're correct insofar as a coach has to lose that benefit of the doubt sometime, but we're not even close to that point with BK yet.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p>Brian Kelly says Greg Bryant "doesn't look like somebody we're going to play this year." Out for four weeks.</p>— Irish Illustrated (@NDatRivals) <a href="https://twitter.com/NDatRivals/statuses/385886426811740160">October 3, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[wizards8507]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p>Brian Kelly says Greg Bryant "doesn't look like somebody we're going to play this year." Out for four weeks.</p>— Irish Illustrated (@NDatRivals) <a href="https://twitter.com/NDatRivals/statuses/385886426811740160">October 3, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

This REEKS like a bogus medical redshirt. We should NOT be playing games like that.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

This REEKS like a bogus medical redshirt. We should NOT be playing games like that.

Why not? Particularly if he's looking to transfer, we have plenty of reasons to preserve his eligibility (thereby ensuring he leaves ND on good terms), and few for throwing him under the bus, besides "Doing Things the ND Way™"*.

*This trademark is probably owned by NDNation.

 

[koonja]

Why not? Particularly if he's looking to transfer, we have plenty of reasons to preserve his eligibility (thereby ensuring he leaves ND on good terms), and few for throwing him under the bus, besides "Doing Things the ND Way™"*.

*This trademark is probably owned by NDNation.

Wait, if he's looking to transfer, why would we care either way? I'd argue we wouldn't want him to get a medical in this scenario, because him burning this year would lessen the chance we ever have to face him in the future.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Wait, if he's looking to transfer, why would we care either way? I'd argue we wouldn't want him to get a medical in this scenario, because him burning this year would lessen the chance we ever have to face him in the future.

(1) BK normally doesn't let our players transfer to opponents on current or future schedules, so that's probably not a major concern here; and (2) there's lots of (rumored) precedent for this staff "covering" for outgoing players in order to help such players save face. I presume they do so because doing otherwise would hurt our recruiting efforts. We have enough unique hurdles to clear in recruiting already.

 

[Irish Insanity]

I think we would have... we should have beaten OU for crying out loud...

On the flip I really doubt tOSU's record is any different from ours if they had faced our schedule... I really do,...

and yeah, you guys are f'n depressing.

Really? There is no way I see them losing to OU, and Michigan has shown it's not a good team and I could see OSU beating them by 10+. Nobody on our schedule yet has the D to even contain the OSU offense, nevermind actually stopping it.

 

[IrishLion]

Another reason to believe he's on his way out the door then?

 

[Domina Nostra]

This REEKS like a bogus medical redshirt. We should NOT be playing games like that.

If we are talking about good behavior, you probably shouldn't be accusing people (including doctors) of cheating without proof!

IMO, you really have to know how these things are handled by the NCAA before you judge. What if the NCAA has a policy of going very, very easy on freshman medial redshirts because it wants to protect younger athletes whose bodies are adjusting to the much more rigorous physical demands of DI sports? If a kid gets dinged-up early on, maybe everyone agrees that the kid should just call it a year rather than risking a prolonged injury? If they make freshman medical redshirts hard to get, kids will push through. If they make them easy to get, coaches are more likley to tell the kid to rehab.

 

[Buster Bluth]

(1) BK normally doesn't let our players transfer to opponents on current or future schedules, so that's probably not a major concern here; and (2) there's lots of (rumored) precedent for this staff "covering" for outgoing players in order to help such players save face. I presume they do so because doing otherwise would hurt our recruiting efforts. We have enough unique hurdles to clear in recruiting already.

You monster. You've just convinced people he's out the door.

We should probably lock the thread haha

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Another reason to believe he's on his way out the door then?

Seems likely at this point. 5 WR and RB recruits don't frequently stick around after mysteriously sitting out year. And then there's also our uniquely poor track record with such recruits transferring recently.

You monster. You've just convinced people he's out the door.

We should probably lock the thread haha

The sooner it's accepted, the sooner we can get back to rational discourse around here.

And then if I'm wrong, everyone will be happy instead. The power of lowered expectations!

 

[enrico514]

Another reason to believe he's on his way out the door then?

Or maybe he will actually be out for the next four weeks for medical reasons!

 

[koonja]

Seems likely at this point. 5 WR and RB recruits don't frequently stick around after mysteriously sitting out year. And then there's also our uniquely poor track record with such recruits transferring recently.



The sooner it's accepted, the sooner we can get back to rational discourse around here.

And then if I'm wrong, everyone will be happy instead. The power of lowered expectations!

Too soon.

 

[IrishLion]

Seems likely at this point. 5 WR and RB recruits don't frequently stick around after mysteriously sitting out year. And then there's also our uniquely poor track record with such recruits transferring recently.



The sooner it's accepted, the sooner we can get back to rational discourse around here.

And then if I'm wrong, everyone will be happy instead. The power of lowered expectations!

Cierre Wood was a borderline 5-star RB, and he sat out a year!!!!!

I can hope...

 

[enrico514]

Kid may transfer but it seems to me like you guys are reading way too much into this. We've lost way too many 5* kids over the last couple of years but that doesn't mean we will loose every 5* kid that doesn't see the field right away.

 

[Buster Bluth]

The sooner it's accepted, the sooner we can get back to rational discourse around here.

Boy that Folston really runs like a stud. He's a real winner that one.

....