Brian Kelly Revisited (RIP BOZO)

[IrishLax]

He never said the people who dropped the balls were all 4th and 5th year players.

His point was that a team with that much experience and leadership should not have been fumbling and dropping passes like a Pop Warner team.

THEN WHAT RELEVANCE DO THE 26 4th/5th YEAR SENIORS HAVE WHATSOEVER TO DROPS AND FUMBLES?!? This just underscores how beyond idiotic that point is that Fortuna made, as if Joe Schmidt is going to catch a freaking pass or carry the ball.

4 of the 6 fumbles were from a true frosh and a RS frosh. Of the drops, almost none were from seniors. Having "experience" that isn't playing is completely irrelevant to the performance on the field.

 

[connor_in]

THIS THREAD:

 

[kmoose]

I think Cack's point is that it looks and feels like an option, and Kizer see's the DE crashing and that Prosise is going to get clobbered, but the play is called as "hand it off no matter what so you don't have to think about it," and that conflicts with his instincts / what he's seeing.

I doubt that the blocking is the same, for both plays. That's one of the benefits of the zone read is that you really can almost leave the end unblocked, but still take him out of the play by choosing to hand off inside, or keep and go around him. If the play is just a straight inside hand off, then I would imagine that someone is tasked with blocking the end.

 

[ThePiombino]

The 4 TO'S excuse is complete bullshit. Weren't they all in the second half. While we were trying to make a comback. Long after we were down 14. I mean 4 TOs will kill any team, but we were dead long before we turned it over.

Have you ever considered trying math out? It's pretty neat. Here's a word problem you might enjoy.

Johnny's team gave up four second-half turnovers and lost by two. If one of those four turnovers resulted in just a field goal, what would the end result have been?

HINT: Not complete bullshit.

 

[wizards8507]

I doubt that the blocking is the same, for both plays. That's one of the benefits of the zone read is that you really can almost leave the end unblocked, but still take him out of the play by choosing to hand off inside, or keep and go around him. If the play is just a straight inside hand off, then I would imagine that someone is tasked with blocking the end.

Know what else takes the end out of the play?

Fullbacks.

 

[gkIrish]

THEN WHAT RELEVANCE DO THE 26 4th/5th YEAR SENIORS HAVE WHATSOEVER TO DROPS AND FUMBLES?!? This just underscores how beyond idiotic that point is that Fortuna made, as if Joe Schmidt is going to catch a freaking pass or carry the ball.

4 of the 6 fumbles were from a true frosh and a RS frosh. Of the drops, almost none were from seniors. Having "experience" that isn't playing is completely irrelevant to the performance on the field.

You're taking every word he said literally to try and highlight that he is generally an idiot (which he is). I'll summarize his point differently....

This is the most experienced team BK has coached of his own players. If a team full of this much experience can't win games like this consistently, will we ever win games like this consistently? The fact that 4th-5th year players weren't the specific players fumbling (at least one did though) doesn't negate the overall point he is making.

 

[kmoose]

Know what else takes the end out of the play?

Fullbacks.

Fullbacks are designed and engineered to take on LBs in the hole. There are very few that are rated for the load required by a DE. And those are all "no longer supported" legacy equipment............ unfortunately.

 

[Luckylucci]

I really hated the 2pt. conversion play call to close out the game.

 

[gkIrish]

This is true. But some of the fumbles were good plays by the defense. Others, like the Sanders fumble........... at this level, can you really blame a coach, when a kid doesn't cover the ball with both hands as he is about to get hit on a kick return? That would be almost like blaming the coaches because your running back ran the wrong way. Some things should just be, well............... fundamental, at this level.

To me the only play by the defense that should have been fumbled was the Kizer fumble when the defensive player caught up to him. And that wasn't even recovered by Clemson. The rest seemed like careless fumbles due to lack of focus. I didn't watch on tv though so it was hard to tell.

As to the bolded, I think that's exactly who you blame. If a kick returner has not been taught/trained to protect the ball, that's a coaching failure. If the coaches try and teach/train the kid not to fumble and he refuses to listen, he shouldn't be on the field. So somewhere along the line there was a lack of good coaching.

Look, I'm not saying that every fumble is an indictment on coaching. But when you have a game like this where footballs are popping out from a Pez dispenser, something went wrong in the preparation.

Clemson put the ball on the ground once (muffed punt). It can't be pure luck that we were the only team to drop the ball.

 

[mick2]

the sanders and c brown fumbles seemed to be from them trying to do a little bit too much rather than getting down and taking the yardage they already got.

procise as well but, gotta do a better job holding on to the ball.

Like kelly said, Brown and procise are both vets and know how to handle a ball.

saturday can't come soon enough, back to the field back to an opportunity to make a statement.

I'm holding out hope we see a statement thrashing of Navy.

 

[ACamp1900]

I have three fullbacks on scholly currently in NCAA 14 Dynasty mode... Power I formation just gets savage on opponents... BK clearly can't coach according to this data set.

 

[gkIrish]

Just so you guys can't say I'm not objective....


College football doesn't have a true No. 1, but Clemson's close enough right now - SBNation.com

 

[gkIrish]

We have an incredible staff. We have a young core of players. I think we win out this year.

I think we get to the Natty next year. How anyone doesn't see this is a mystery.

We're fucking stacked for a smart guy school.

Current odds would say that's unlikely....8 projected wins

2015 Notre Dame advanced statistical profile - Football Study Hall

Navy 65%
USC 42%
Temple 57%
Pitt 63%
BC 55%
Stanford 31%

 

[ACamp1900]

I fully expect Clemson to fall flat on their face against GT... transitive property in cfb rules.

 

[ThePiombino]

Current odds would say that's unlikely....8 projected wins

2015 Notre Dame advanced statistical profile - Football Study Hall

Navy 65%
USC 42%
Temple 57%
Pitt 63%
BC 55%
Stanford 31%

They have us more likely to bear SC than Stanford? Um, OK...

 

[gkIrish]

They have us more likely to bear SC than Stanford? Um, OK...

Stanford's offense seems to have fallen into place and of course their defense is better than USC's. They also beat USC head to head and that Northwestern loss is starting to look like a very acceptable loss. And it's @ Stanford as opposed to home against USC.

Not really that odd to see IMO.

 

[IrishLax]

Current odds would say that's unlikely....8 projected wins

2015 Notre Dame advanced statistical profile - Football Study Hall

Navy 65%
USC 42%
Temple 57%
Pitt 63%
BC 55%
Stanford 31%

If anyone believes that Navy... a team that is a 14 point under dog right now... has a 35% chance of beating Notre Dame then they have a moral obligation to their families to liquidate all of their assets, drive to Vegas, and bet it all on that moneyline. Because Navy is getting WAY worse than 35% odds right now.

Bottom line is that S&P/FEI basically don't work this early in the season, and there is a reason that "real" FEI ratings aren't released after week 7. The whole thing takes awhile to normalize.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

If anyone believes that Navy... a team that is a 14 point under dog right now... has a 35% chance of beating Notre Dame then they have a moral obligation to their families to liquidate all of their assets, drive to Vegas, and bet it all on that moneyline. Because Navy is getting WAY worse than 35% odds right now.

Bottom line is that S&P/FEI basically don't work this early in the season, and there is a reason that "real" FEI ratings aren't released after week 7. The whole thing takes awhile to normalize.

Yup. This early on, all the advanced statistical models are still overwhelmingly reliant on pre-season projections; which, as we all know, are just educated guesses.

 

[gkIrish]

If anyone believes that Navy... a team that is a 14 point under dog right now... has a 35% chance of beating Notre Dame then they have a moral obligation to their families to liquidate all of their assets, drive to Vegas, and bet it all on that moneyline. Because Navy is getting WAY worse than 35% odds right now.

Bottom line is that S&P/FEI basically don't work this early in the season, and there is a reason that "real" FEI ratings aren't released after week 7. The whole thing takes awhile to normalize.

Yup. This early on, all the advanced statistical models are still overwhelmingly reliant on pre-season projections; which, as we all know, are just educated guesses.

Even if you add 20% points to each projection it's still highly unlikely we go undefeated the rest of the way.

 

[wizards8507]

I have three fullbacks on scholly currently in NCAA 14 Dynasty mode... Power I formation just gets #savage on opponents... BK clearly can't coach according to this data set.

FIFY

 

[RDU Irish]

Even if you add 20% points to each projection it's still highly unlikely we go undefeated the rest of the way.

It is highly unlikely that any team goes undefeated the rest of the way, that is why it is such a big deal when you do.

 

[IrishLax]

I think our most probable outcome is 9-3. I always thought that if we could get through the first 7 unscathed, it'd be very possible to circle the wagons post bye week and finish off the season undefeated... but obviously, that's not going to happen now. Stanford has looked really strong, as has USC. And then you have a lot of "decent" opponents.

I chalk up Temple/Navy/Wake as wins, which might be aggressive because two of them are decent teams. But I also think they're teams that we'll be able to run on AND Kizer should continue to get significantly better with each passing week. That leaves you with needing to go 2-2 against USC, BC, Pitt, and Stanford... which is doable.

 

[Irish Insanity]

Have you ever considered trying math out? It's pretty neat. Here's a word problem you might enjoy.

Johnny's team gave up four second-half turnovers and lost by two. If one of those four turnovers resulted in just a field goal, what would the end result have been?

HINT: Not complete bullshit.

So the 4 TOs are the only reason we lost? I guess we were watching a different game because of we didn't spot them 14 points and continue with the obvious, shity, offense in the first half we could've dealt woth the TOs.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

I think our most probable outcome is 9-3. I always thought that if we could get through the first 7 unscathed, it'd be very possible to circle the wagons post bye week and finish off the season undefeated... but obviously, that's not going to happen now. Stanford has looked really strong, as has USC. And then you have a lot of "decent" opponents.

I chalk up Temple/Navy/Wake as wins, which might be aggressive because two of them are decent teams. But I also think they're teams that we'll be able to run on AND Kizer should continue to get significantly better with each passing week. That leaves you with needing to go 2-2 against USC, BC, Pitt, and Stanford... which is doable.

Kizer has to serve up a poo poo platter at least one week. It's a right of passage for any QB. My guess is Pitt.

 

[IrishLion]

Kizer has to serve up a poo poo platter at least one week. It's a right of passage for any QB. My guess is Pitt.

I don't think it will be Pitt. If BK could beat Narduzzi's MSU defense with Rees in the pocket, I feel confident he'll have Narduzzi's Pitt defense on the ropes with Kizer back there.

 

[irishfan]

Current odds would say that's unlikely....8 projected wins

2015 Notre Dame advanced statistical profile - Football Study Hall

Navy 65%
USC 42%
Temple 57%
Pitt 63%
BC 55%
Stanford 31%

Not the biggest fan of ESPN, but their FPI projections are always solid. They have our games:

Navy 92.2%
USC 46.8%
Temple 80.5%
Pitt 75.5%
Wake Forest 96%
BC 87.8%
Stanford 38.6%

They're also projecting 9.2 wins and 9.2% of winning out.

Notre Dame 2015 FPI - Fighting Irish - ESPN

 

[NDohio]

Originally Posted by gkIrish View Post
And if we didn't have a title shot this year, that's the ENTIRE POINT OF THIS THREAD. YOU SHOULD BE IN THE TITLE CONVERSATION ALMOST EVERY YEAR AFTER YEAR 5

FIFY

My opinion isn't popular here, but I think this is part of the problem. Every year many of our fans are in the playoffs or bust mindset. That is just too high of a standard for any school to maintain(yeah, but we are ND!).

Just join the ACC - make it a priority to win the conference - the playoffs will take care of themselves...

 

[ulukinatme]

My opinion isn't popular here, but I think this is part of the problem. Every year many of our fans are in the playoffs or bust mindset. That is just too high of a standard for any school to maintain(yeah, but we are ND!).

Just join the ACC - make it a priority to win the conference - the playoffs will take care of themselves...

I kind of fell into that boat this weekend. Looking at our opening ACC schedule we really didn't get any favors from the conference in regards to scheduling. FSU on the road in year 1? Clemson on the road in year 2? Next year is more favorable with Miami and VT at home, and the only possibly tough matchup is NC away in 2017, but damn...rough way to start with probably the two best ACC teams (Depending on GT in a given year) on the road in back to back years. On top of that I haven't been entirely happy with the officiating in ACC games, feels like the zebras prefer true ACC teams over us (Fortunately replay has saved us a few times like that bogus catch that was overturned Saturday).

That said, if we joined the ACC there would be little chance any other conferences would be able to lure an ACC team away at that point. The ACC could enter a more favorable position for TV deals which would be better for everyone. We get a clearer path to the playoffs if we navigate our way to the ACC championship. Downside? Less flexibility with the scheduling and we may or may not have to drop the USC/Stanford series although it's not impossible. It would be nice to keep a series with Texas or TA&M fairly regularly for recruiting purposes, but that would also be more difficult. The ACC membership would allow us to keep a stronger foothold in the south though.

 

[phork]

Sorry I don't believe in NorthWestern and most Pac12 teams. Just win and everything will take care of itself.

 

[gkIrish]

The objective is to enjoy the team. You shitting on it doesn't promote that objective. And in politics, your vote matters at least a little bit. Here it matters zero. So let's sit here and talk about how BK will never get the job done. He'll never win more than 8 games again. He will be retained by the delusional until we are utterly irrelevant, only seeing the polls as often as our past and faded glory permits. This dramatically improves our Notre Dame experience because we know to expect never to beat USC again until Kelly retires, but by then there will be no hope anyway.

I enjoy the team just fine. I enjoy analyzing everything about the team, good and bad. Lots of people like to do that. If you can't listen to "negative" things that's a problem with you, not with me.

And actually my opinion matters at least as much as my vote matters. I pay a decent amount of money every year to buy tickets to games. I buy lots of merchandise and watch a lot of ND on television. If I decide not to do that anymore that's at least as influential as my vote for President.