How good are the DBs going to be this year?

[alohagoirish]

Yes we have had good excuses , but every team that underperforms has excuses. Ohio State was set up for some great excuses last season yet they did rather well.

I simply cannot give Kelly credit for both his actual results and his fantasy results factoring in excuses for poor play. Losing to Northwestern is not mitigated by excuses any more then Charlie loosing to Syracuse. Yes we played well to open 2014 and yes we got screwed at FSU and had a bad run of injuries, but then the teams we played early in 2015 all ended up as bottom dwellars between 80 and 105 offensively so even strong defensive play early last season is a bit of a mirage.

Every season we have lost to teams we clearly have had more talent then ,except 2012 of course. That is not just bad luck !

I give Kelly credit for a great season in 2012 but I will not simply give him a pass for the underperforming seasons because there are excuses.

The team on paper has plenty of talent I absolutely agree --but will that talent translate into an 11 -2 strong season or another 9-4 struggle that's the big question. Past seasons tell me to be skeptical talent will translate to double digit wins.

I just don't understand why being skeptical is not the more legitimate stance given Kelly's record here instead of booking us into the title game based on potential.

 

[Irish#1]

Yes we have had good excuses , but every team that underperforms has excuses. Ohio State was set up for some great excuses last season yet they did rather well.

I simply cannot give Kelly credit for both his actual results and his fantasy results factoring in excuses for poor play. Losing to Northwestern is not mitigated by excuses any more then Charlie loosing to Syracuse. Yes we played well to open 2014 and yes we got screwed at FSU and had a bad run of injuries, but then the teams we played early in 2015 all ended up as bottom dwellars between 80 and 105 offensively so even strong defensive play early last season is a bit of a mirage.

Every season we have lost to teams we clearly have had more talent then ,except 2012 of course. That is not just bad luck !

I give Kelly credit for a great season in 2012 but I will not simply give him a pass for the underperforming seasons because there are excuses.

The team on paper has plenty of talent I absolutely agree --but will that talent translate into an 11 -2 strong season or another 9-4 struggle that's the big question. Past seasons tell me to be skeptical talent will translate to double digit wins.

I just don't understand why being skeptical is not the more legitimate stance given Kelly's record here instead of booking us into the title game based on potential.

Try being pragmatic instead of skeptical.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Won't know if Luke will be better than Russell, but as it stands Russell is head and shoulders above anyone we've had in awhile. By that statement alone it may be unlikely that Luke could surpass him. Russell got to a point in 2013 where QBs quit even throwing against him as he went full lock down.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I could've sworn I just read some stats recently that Luke actually had a better season last year than Russell did his first year. Russell wasn't great early on as he was adjusting to his new position. He had some really bad games. It wasn't until towards the end of that season where he showed glimpses of being a great lock-down corner. I'm pretty sure Luke's first season was extremely comparable. Again, IIRC (which I may not be), there are people that say Russell has the higher ceiling, but Luke may actually be the better corner "at the moment."

Edit: I can't find the article. Perhaps they were referring to pass break-ups and INTs (which isn't apples to apples as Russell wasn't being thrown at as much). Anyways, I think Luke is going to be really good. I think the duo is going to be fantastic. I think the DBs as an entire unit can be legendary at ND.

 

[ulukinatme]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I could've sworn I just read some stats recently that Luke actually had a better season last year than Russell did his first year. Russell wasn't great early on as he was adjusting to his new position. He had some really bad games. It wasn't until towards the end of that season where he showed glimpses of being a great lock-down corner. I'm pretty sure Luke's first season was extremely comparable. Again, IIRC (which I may not be), there are people that say Russell has the higher ceiling, but Luke may actually be the better corner "at the moment."

Luke very well could have had a better year than Russell did in 2012, but you'd be hard pressed to find a better corner on ND's roster in over a decade than Russell near the end of 2013. By that reasoning alone is it likely that Luke will be better because he had a good first year? Maybe he just developed quicker or maybe it's due to the fact Russell was changing positions in 2012. I'd be ecstatic if Luke turned out to be better, but I get the feeling he just picked things up quickly.

[EDIT]
Yeah, it's a happy problem to have when you can't decide who is really better between two excellent corners. If QBs don't throw Russell's way this year I don't see Luke getting picked on much especially if he's covering the #2 receiver. Hopefully both stay healthy and out of trouble this season.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Luke very well could have had a better year than Russell did in 2012, but you'd be hard pressed to find a better corner on ND's roster in over a decade than Russell near the end of 2013. By that reasoning alone is it likely that Luke will be better because he had a good first year? Maybe he just developed quicker or maybe it's due to the fact Russell was changing positions in 2012. I'd be ecstatic if Luke turned out to be better, but I get the feeling he just picked things up quickly.

I edited my post.

 

[IrishLax]

Yes we have had good excuses , but every team that underperforms has excuses. Ohio State was set up for some great excuses last season yet they did rather well.

I simply cannot give Kelly credit for both his actual results and his fantasy results factoring in excuses for poor play. Losing to Northwestern is not mitigated by excuses any more then Charlie loosing to Syracuse. Yes we played well to open 2014 and yes we got screwed at FSU and had a bad run of injuries, but then the teams we played early in 2015 all ended up as bottom dwellars between 80 and 105 offensively so even strong defensive play early last season is a bit of a mirage.

Every season we have lost to teams we clearly have had more talent then ,except 2012 of course. That is not just bad luck !

I give Kelly credit for a great season in 2012 but I will not simply give him a pass for the underperforming seasons because there are excuses.

The team on paper has plenty of talent I absolutely agree --but will that talent translate into an 11 -2 strong season or another 9-4 struggle that's the big question. Past seasons tell me to be skeptical talent will translate to double digit wins.

I just don't understand why being skeptical is not the more legitimate stance given Kelly's record here instead of booking us into the title game based on potential.

For the record, I think people are being overly critical of your posts. I get where you are coming from, and I think a lot of what you're saying is correct.

To the "losing against inferior opponents" thing... no, it isn't bad luck. It's probability. Even if Notre Dame was a multiple TD favorite over every team on its schedule the odds would be in favor of ND losing a game somewhere in that stretch.

Last year's champion Ohio State lost to a Virginia Tech team that had 6 losses and was really no better Northwestern. 11-win Baylor lost to a 6 loss WVU team. Literally every year as far back as you want to look there are elite 11 or 12 win teams that get beat by unranked, bad opponents. It's unavoidable probability.

Being skeptical is fine. What people don't like is inaccurate skepticism. I'm going to grab three statements you made here as examples of what some people are taking issue with:

The offensive line only returns two starters and may only have one great player in Stanley. Yes on paper the guys we put in can be very good , that's in theory, and our schedule does not allow a long period to gel.

This is inaccurate, the offensive line returns 3 full-time starters from 2014 (Martin, Elmer, and Stanley). The 4th was basically told he was being passed up by superior, younger players. The 5th is Mike McGlinchey who played in every game last year and started the bowl game with good results.

Russell will have to work through the rust--he's a talent no doubt but no 2014, no spring, expect him to take a few games and unfortunately our schedule is frontloaded so that doesn't help much.

In the first month of the season Notre Dame plays 4 teams that are all bad-to-terrible at throwing the football.

We have had the talent on paper to win 10 games every season Kelly has been here yet we only accomplished that once.

Not once in Kelly's tenure has Notre Dame been projected to win 10 games. Last year we were picked to win 7.5, the year before that after Golson was dismissed we were picked to win 8, and on and on. This year? Vegas has set the line for Notre Dame at 9 wins... the best they've ever been projected to do pre-season. Florida State, Alabama, Oregon are all at 9.5 wins. Only Ohio State, Baylor, TCU, and Wisconsin (mainly on account of laughably easy schedules) are projected at 10+ wins.

Your opinion is fine, and I think it's good to have people that disagree. Echo chambers are bad. I think the reason people are giving you such a hard time is because of how you support some of your argument... 90% of it seems fine but there's about 10% that people are going to look at and think "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about!"

Anyways, hope that makes sense and that you keep posting.

 

[Old Man Mike]

On our DBs: I thought that Cole Luke had as good a season as anyone on the football team last year and stood tall right alongside Jaylon, even being more consistent. I thought that Riggs was very good until he got dinged, then he began to get beat a little but was still solid [i.e. I'll take him on my team if he was still eligible.] The point of bringing him up is that I felt that we were noticeably weaker when we didn't have him at all and had to do with subs. That is why I want very badly to have Cole and KeiVaree all season.

I also thought that Matthias was as good last season as anyone on the defense other than Cole and Jaylon [and Sheldon when healthy], and wished that we'd have had more opportunity to use him.

Contrary to most of IE [and Phil Steele, who ranks people too heavily as to his initial star grades for them out of high school], I too thought that Redfield was clearly a work-in-progress who however made serious strides forward during the season, and was lauded by the staff for it. I still don't see Shumate as a dependable safety on anything but delivering wood. That is why I'm high on Sebastian.

My not-utterly-dataless hopes for our DBs are: a). we have two shutdown corners as good as anybody's; b). we have a nickel back as good as anybody's; c). we have a highly talented safety who the staff say has had the light turn on, and a veteran transfer safety who should being stabilizing "salt" among all the "pepper".




Out of topic: our team last year lost either pre-season or during season SIX defensive tackles for either the entire season or significant parts of it. We also lost THREE middle linebackers. BVG said that he'd never been associated with a carnage such as that. We were playing DEs and taking redshirts off freshmen just to get four DTs ready to play. No defense can sustain against that.

btw: apologies for the error above: we had five DTs significantly out not six --- Trumbetti's injury was cluttering up my head as to the count. Still, when you're down to Matuska, Hayes, Utupo, shifting Rochell, etc etc etc things aren't going to plan.

 

[ulukinatme]

I just realized aloha is the same guy that wanted to name Golson the starter out of Spring just to keep him on campus...regardless whether he was the better QB or not, or whether he gave us the best chance to win.

 

[alohagoirish]

No worries Lax , I accept the criticism and would have joined in it a few years ago. My confidence in Kelly's ability to deliver simply is not what it once was.

Our recruiting over the last six years has been 14/21/9/9/4/11---yet we have only one top ten finish and a second # 20 finish. There is a reason Vegas has us at 9 win projections , the same projection I offered, its skepticism about NDs ability to deliver strong seasons year in and year out. Its not inaccurate skepticism simply because it comes from me and informed opinion when it comes from Vegas especially when its the same bottom line--I submit the Vegas analysis is closer to mine then many of those so upset that I worry about another shortfall in expectations for 2015.

We have had the talent to win 10 games every season since Kelly arrived , one look at the recruiting charts and the NFL draft proves that. Always some events or some scapegoats seems to insulate Kelly from responsibility for what IMO has been underachievement at ND over his first 5 years sans one single awesome season.

My expectations are 10 wins a year, Clemson under Sweeny hit it six years in row for example , you can't consider yourself elite as a team or a coach , if you can't muster 10 wins more then once every five years. Hopefully 2015 will prove 2012 was not an anomaly but if we go down the 9 win road again I think that proves a different point given the talent we have, and a very manageable schedule in 2015.

And yes I do think it was a mistake to let Golson get away , he had the resume ,seniority and spring to be named starter and then relieved by Malik if he didn't hold up , instead he was nudged out, coaches prerogative,I can't help but feel letting a QB like that get away is a decision we likely will regret sometime in 2015 .

 

[ulukinatme]

It's easy to get 10 wins a season at Clemson when you're regularly scheduling 2 FCS teams and your conference lineup looks like BC, UVA, Maryland (until recently), Syracuse, Wake Forest, and to a lesser degree lately Duke/UNC.

Clemson literally has to get up for only 2 games during the regular season the last few years: FSU (Whom they typically lose to), and South Carolina (Also usually a loss). They did have a series with Georgia that they split and they beat Auburn in back to back years a little while back, but outside of that their schedule is a joke. If we had Clemson's schedule I'm fairly certain we could churn out 10 win seasons too.

 

[kmoose]

Vegas has us at 9 win projections , the same projection I offered... I worry about another shortfall in expectations for 2015.

If Vegas has us at 9 wins, and we go 9-4, how do you figure that is "another shortfall in expectations"?

 

[ulukinatme]

If Vegas has us at 9 wins, and we go 9-4, how do you figure that is "another shortfall in expectations"?

We're supposed to win the championship every year, duh.

 

[MNIrishman]

Yes we have had good excuses , but every team that underperforms has excuses. Ohio State was set up for some great excuses last season yet they did rather well.

I simply cannot give Kelly credit for both his actual results and his fantasy results factoring in excuses for poor play. Losing to Northwestern is not mitigated by excuses any more then Charlie loosing to Syracuse. Yes we played well to open 2014 and yes we got screwed at FSU and had a bad run of injuries, but then the teams we played early in 2015 all ended up as bottom dwellars between 80 and 105 offensively so even strong defensive play early last season is a bit of a mirage.

Every season we have lost to teams we clearly have had more talent then ,except 2012 of course. That is not just bad luck !

I give Kelly credit for a great season in 2012 but I will not simply give him a pass for the underperforming seasons because there are excuses.

The team on paper has plenty of talent I absolutely agree --but will that talent translate into an 11 -2 strong season or another 9-4 struggle that's the big question. Past seasons tell me to be skeptical talent will translate to double digit wins.

I just don't understand why being skeptical is not the more legitimate stance given Kelly's record here instead of booking us into the title game based on potential.

Are you talking about the same Ohio State that scored 6 points in the first half against the Navy team we dropped 49 on? The same Ohio State which struggled against the Michigan team we blew out 37-0? The Ohio State that lost only about a third as many guys to injury? The same Ohio State that only beat freaking Minnesota by a score? The Ohio State that got beaten at home by 7-6 Virginia Tech? The same Ohio State that needed two overtimes to beat 7-6 Penn State? Is that the Ohio State you're talking about? Because luck has a lot to do with winning an NC----and Ohio State was dripping with it last year while we weren't.

 

[alohagoirish]

It was only a short time ago that BK got castigated in Chicago for a confusing statement about winning 8 games regularly as some kind of accomplishment. He was forced to clarify that. & backtrack. " I wasn't hired to win 8 games"!! Now it seems 9 and 4 makes everyone happy. Vegas pegs us at 9 wins because that seems to be the team we have become. 9/4 -8/5. Those expectations do not gel with the recruiting talent and the NFL talent we have, and have had in this program, not by a long shot! I do not see 9/4 as a success and see the Vegas prediction as extrapolation from past seasons and not encouraging but I admit its a likely outcome

The attitude in general appears to be a great season is coming , we have a great QB , lots of returning starters, some preseason polls in the top 12ish, a great OLINE, a great offense, great corners , deep , talented & speedy up and down the roster.

I caution that 9 wins seems to have become the norm under BK----35/18 sans 2012---and it seems some odds makers see it similarly. I hope Kelly proves 2012 was not a fluke and we can compete at an elite level consistently. We are though a long way from that kind of consistency.

As far as OSU winning the title because of "luck-"--I think that assessment speaks for itself.

You guys need to relax , we have questions as we have every year , and most years we have underachieved with only 2012 an overachieving season. I have only been pointing out the several pitfalls we face.

On the plus side, the 2015 schedule is set up for success. Texas is weak despite a big name, Strong is at least a year or two away plus we play lots of ACC bottom dwellars that may not even be capable of an upset. We absolutely should do better then 9 wins . The pitfalls I have referenced should be overcome easily. If we do however remain stuck at 9 wins. I hope the excuses will be shelved.

 

[MNIrishman]

It was only a short time ago that BK got castigated in Chicago for a confusing statement about winning 8 games regularly as some kind of accomplishment. He was forced to clarify that. & backtrack. " I wasn't hired to win 8 games"!! Now it seems 9 and 4 makes everyone happy. Vegas pegs us at 9 wins because that seems to be the team we have become. 9/4 -8/5. Those expectations do not gel with the recruiting talent and the NFL talent we have, and have had in this program, not by a long shot! I do not see 9/4 as a success and see the Vegas prediction as extrapolation from past seasons and not encouraging but I admit its a likely outcome

The attitude in general appears to be a great season is coming , we have a great QB , lots of returning starters, some preseason polls in the top 12ish, a great OLINE, a great offense, great corners , deep , talented & speedy up and down the roster.

I caution that 9 wins seems to have become the norm under BK----35/18 sans 2012---and it seems some odds makers see it similarly. I hope Kelly proves 2012 was not a fluke and we can compete at an elite level consistently. We are though a long way from that kind of consistency.

As far as OSU winning the title because of "luck-"--I think that assessment speaks for itself.

You guys need to relax , we have questions as we have every year , and most years we have underachieved with only 2012 an overachieving season. I have only been pointing out the several pitfalls we face.

On the plus side, the 2015 schedule is set up for success. Texas is weak despite a big name, Strong is at least a year or two away plus we play lots of ACC bottom dwellars that may not even be capable of an upset. We absolutely should do better then 9 wins . The pitfalls I have referenced should be overcome easily. If we do however remain stuck at 9 wins. I hope the excuses will be shelved.

Do you hear yourself when you talk or is it just a Charlie Brown-style trombone sound?

 

[kmoose]

If we do however remain stuck at 9 wins. I hope the excuses will be shelved.

And I hope that the pitchforks and torches will stay in the barn where they belong. You mentioned, earlier in this thread:

We all know Kelly would prefer to pass and score then any other method , he used "some " restraint in 2012 with Golson a newbie ,but he had had the security blanket of a TOP 10 defense, no such luxury in 2015.

This is a complete misconception, that Kelly has been pass happy at ND.

In 2014, ND ran the ball 484 times, and threw it 463 times. They ran for 24 touchdowns and threw for 30.

In 2013, ND ran the ball 440 times, and threw it 429 times. They ran for 12 touchdowns and threw for 27.

In 2012, ND ran the ball 506 times, and threw it 388 times. They ran for 23 touchdowns and threw for 14 touchdowns.

In 2011, ND ran the ball 433 times, and threw it 473 times. They ran for 25 touchdowns and threw for 21.

In 2010, ND ran the ball 414 times, and threw it 481 times. They ran for 11 touchdowns and threw for 28.

So Kelly has actually called a pretty balanced game plan, year to year, at ND. Criticism and realism are fine. But they both should be based on actual facts, not false perceptions.

 

[Circa]

Are you talking about the same Ohio State that scored 6 points in the first half against the Navy team we dropped 49 on? The same Ohio State which struggled against the Michigan team we blew out 37-0? The Ohio State that lost only about a third as many guys to injury? The same Ohio State that only beat freaking Minnesota by a score? The Ohio State that got beaten at home by 7-6 Virginia Tech? The same Ohio State that needed two overtimes to beat 7-6 Penn State? Is that the Ohio State you're talking about? Because luck has a lot to do with winning an NC----and Ohio State was dripping with it last year while we weren't.

Nail, on, Head. Hurtz