Brian Kelly Revisited (RIP BOZO)

[kmoose]

Wow, you genuinely like arguing more than having productive conversations. You've now wasted more time than the "3 minutes" it took you to look it up.

Look, pal. I'M the one who is providing data to back up his opinions. That doesn't mean those opinions are right, but at least they are based on something quantifiable. YOU are the one who came in and made a claim, and then as much as admitted that you didn't have a clue wtf you were talking about, by acknowledging that you didn't research the claim before you made it. Then you got called out on it, and now you are attacking me in some kind of ad hominem. Not my problem............

 

[Luckylucci]

Look, pal. I'M the one who is providing data to back up his opinions. That doesn't mean those opinions are right, but at least they are based on something quantifiable. YOU are the one who came in and made a claim, and then as much as admitted that you didn't have a clue wtf you were talking about, by acknowledging that you didn't research the claim before you made it. Then you got called out on it, and now you are attacking me in some kind of ad hominem. Not my problem............

You really are an arrogant person aren't you. No need for Pal or any name calling. Nobody said that towards you. You just love puffing your chest out on a message board. I'm glad that helps you feel better about yourself.

Then what is the number that took you 3 minutes to look up?

 

[Irish Insanity]

A few other things. Why does anyone have to name a better coach, or better replacement for Kelly, just to criticize him. That's ridiculous.
Someone suffering thru the Davie, Wittingham, and Weis years has nothing to do with it. Just because you were drug thru the mud doesn't mean you have to accept 8.5 wins a year.

 

[yankeeND]

A few other things. Why does anyone have to name a better coach, or better replacement for Kelly, just to criticize him. That's ridiculous.
Someone suffering thru the Davie, Wittingham, and Weis years has nothing to do with it. Just because you were drug thru the mud doesn't mean you have to accept 8.5 wins a year.

That's fair, and I don't accept 8.5 wins a year as successful. I do accept it as improvement and I believed the rebuild was going to take longer than others did, so I am happy with the present state of things. I just feel like Kelly is on the verge of popping off multiple double digit win seasons with a shot or two at a title. Another 8 win season this year will drastically change my mind, but I will also consider the circumstance that would lead to it.

 

[koonja]

Just testing the waters... Is it too soon for a Lamar Odom joke?

 

[Irish Insanity]

Just testing the waters... Is it too soon for a Lamar Odom joke?

Yes
And aren't you a Lakers fan #KobeSucks

 

[GowerND11]

Fast forward to 21:40 and that is exactly what I feel this has become.... A pissing contest.

 

[woolybug25]

Bro---Baylor literally averages 30 points more per game than we do. And you argue that because they happen to face worse defenses than us that somehow makes our opponents look like the 85 Bears...

No one is saying that. We are simply saying that the best offenses in the league aren't playing better defenses than us. You made the claim that we played against bad defenses, not us. So it is completely relevant to look at the offenses better than us and compare the defenses they have played. Which on average, are similar or worse then our opponents.

If we go through every single team on the list we will end up in the exact same place. The point is really simple. On average, we play the 68th ranked team in scoring defense. So on average, we played a below average opponent defensively. You would expect the Notre Dame football team to be a top 20 offense in the country if they play the 68th team, on average.

Then what are we arguing about? If the offense is what we expect, then what's the issue here?

Again... you said they weren't meeting expectations. But now you are saying it's not good enough because they are meeting expectations. It's this same revolving argument that isn't based in comparable facts.

 

[kmoose]

You really are an arrogant person aren't you. No need for Pal or any name calling. Nobody said that towards you. You just love puffing your chest out on a message board. I'm glad that helps you feel better about yourself.
Then what is the number that took you 3 minutes to look up?

Yeah, maybe........... but at least I'm not unoriginal.

15 teams have won 60 games or more in the last 6 seasons:

1. Alabama
2. Boise State
3. Ohio State
4. Oregon
5. Florida State
6. LSU
7. TCU
8. Stanford
9. Michigan State
10. Northern Illinois
11. Oklahoma
12. Oklahoma State
13. Clemson
14. Wisconsin
15. Nebraska

As a bonus: Brian Kelly is 5-9 against those teams in his tenure at ND. Not great, but not terrible either, especially considering that record comes during a rebuilding phase.

As an added bonus, Brian Kelly's record has outperformed the following random sample of teams, since he has been at ND:

Georgia
Auburn
USC
Florida
Mississippi State
Old Dominion
Wyoming
and
Georgia State

http://www.irishenvy.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1619878

This one is free, but if you want me to do any more of your research for you, I am going to need a Purchase Order.

 

[gkIrish]

No one is saying that. We are simply saying that the best offenses in the league aren't playing better defenses than us. You made the claim that we played against bad defenses, not us. So it is completely relevant to look at the offenses better than us and compare the defenses they have played. Which on average, are similar or worse then our opponents.



Then what are we arguing about? If the offense is what we expect, then what's the issue here?

Again... you said they weren't meeting expectations. But now you are saying it's not good enough because they are meeting expectations. It's this same revolving argument that isn't based in comparable facts.

There is no damn issue with the offense. I never said there was. I said we were doing what we were supposed to do. Then people come in here saying "GK is an idiot because we have the best offense evaaaaaaa."

I blame Charlie Weis.

 

[woolybug25]

A few other things. Why does anyone have to name a better coach, or better replacement for Kelly, just to criticize him. That's ridiculous.
Someone suffering thru the Davie, Wittingham, and Weis years has nothing to do with it. Just because you were drug thru the mud doesn't mean you have to accept 8.5 wins a year.

That's fair, and I don't accept 8.5 wins a year as successful. I do accept it as improvement and I believed the rebuild was going to take longer than others did, so I am happy with the present state of things. I just feel like Kelly is on the verge of popping off multiple double digit win seasons with a shot or two at a title. Another 8 win season this year will drastically change my mind, but I will also consider the circumstance that would lead to it.

This exchange is pretty much where i'm at... I think looking at a period of time and claiming failure because we don't average X amount of wins is an entirely myopic way of evaluating our team. I think a better way to look at it is to subjectively look at where our program is to date. Only a handful of teams could possibly lose their starting QB and top two RB's and still be in the playoff chase at the halfway marker of the season. Is that not improvement? Is that not acceptable?



and to the rest of y'all....

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Is that not improvement? Is that not acceptable?

 

[kmoose]

Then people come in here saying "GK is an idiot because we have the best offense evaaaaaaa."

Who said that? Because I think I was the one who brought the offensive success into the conversation, but it wasn't to paint you as stupid. It was to refute the assertion that our play calling has been "terrible". Not "lacking", not 'not good enough"; but "terrible".

 

[Rocket89]

This post is laughable considering if you actually read the thread thru, everyone else is 'moving the goal posts' on GK or anyone who shares his opinion. Not the other way around.

Oh, no doubt. That's probably why every other page in this thread you and gk are falling back on "I'm allowed to criticize Kelly!"

The dart board criticisms just aren't convincing many people and you two want a nice pat on the head for throwing ANY criticism out there, no matter how unfounded or well developed. It's a fully developed martyrdom now isn't it?

But you're not saying you want Kelly fired! Why won't everyone get on board with all these other criticisms!!?!?

Come on, this is exactly the way you want things. You guys are more interested in playing roles than real engaging criticism with honest back and forth.

 

[Irish Insanity]

That's just it, we (it's more than just GK and I if you read the thread) aren't trying to convince anyone. The thread was started to discuss opinions on it. Not every conversation has to end in both parties agreeing or one party joining the other side. That would make for an awfully bored world. Well unless you're a control freak and closed minded.
Honest back and forth? You must've not read the thread.......

 

[IrishLion]

There is no damn issue with the offense. I never said there was. I said we were doing what we were supposed to do. Then people come in here saying "GK is an idiot because we have the best offense evaaaaaaa."

I blame Charlie Weis.

HOLD IT. You said the offense before 2015 was terrible, and I argued against that.

I hope I'm not lumped into that quote at the end about having the best offense evaaaaa lol.

 

[gkIrish]

HOLD IT. You said the offense before 2015 was terrible, and I argued against that.

I hope I'm not lumped into that quote at the end about having the best offense evaaaaa lol.

I didn't say our offense was terrible, I said the playcalling was terrible. Let me revive this thought...

A) When bad things happen because of bad decisions by the head coach, it's on the head coach. You make an atrocious play call, player fumbles, it's your fault.

B) When good things happen because of good decisions by the head coach, it's a credit to the head coach. When you move a player into a new position and that player becomes a Heisman candidate, it's a credit to you.

C) When you make a good decision and bad things happen, it's not your fault. Running the ball on 1st and 10 from your own 20 at the beginning of the game is a good decision. All-American Linebacker strips the ball for 6. Not your fault.

D) When you make a bad decision and good things happen, you don't get credit. You throw a fade to your slot receiver on the goal line. Ball goes off defender's hands and is caught by another player on your team for a TD. You don't get credit.

You can score a ton of points because your athletes are a lot faster than the opponent. You can score a whole lot of points because of D. Scoring a lot of points doesn't mean you are making good play calls.

This season has been pretty good. But prior to this season, there was a whole lot of A and D going on.

 

[IrishLion]

This season has been pretty good. But prior to this season, there was a whole lot of A and D going on.

I disagree. BK makes questionable play calls, but again, so does every single coach in the country.

I also have no idea where you're getting the idea that ND benefits from lucky bounces (your "D" scenario).

My contention is that Tommy Rees being a successful QB for 2.5 years is enough evidence that playcalling hasn't been horrible.

Also, in 2012, a great defense helped... but the offense has to be called in such a way to capitalize off of that, and that's exactly what BK did all year. So again, I don't know how you can say playcalling has been horrible prior to 2015.

Chris Brown jet sweep? That's a questionable play call, but that one call doesn't mean the entire past 5 years were horrible.

 

[woolybug25]

There is no damn issue with the offense. I never said there was. I said we were doing what we were supposed to do. Then people come in here saying "GK is an idiot because we have the best offense evaaaaaaa."

I blame Charlie Weis.

ahem...

Play calling is still utterly horrible. There was a 20 minute stretch during the game where I didn't understand why we ran every play when we did. The 2nd and 10 runs, the 4th and short dive plays. The lack of screens. etc. etc. I don't even know who calls plays anymore it changes so often but it's ultimately on the head coach.

My position is that the playcalling prior to this season had been horrible.

I just provided a very valid reason why our offense is statistically so good. Because we play dog**** defenses

Dude, if you take out the UMass game from our offensive ranks, we wouldn't look nearly as good.

Using my eyes, I know that the playcalling was generally bad for 5 years. The excuses for why the playcalling was bad are ultimately BK's fault.

Playcalling is often bad but we never lack talent on offense.

#82 in Red Zone offense. That's a big complaint I've always had (and I'm not the only one). Need to improve on that.

See... this is my issue. The cherry picking of facts and saying that 1) Playcalling 2) Subjectivity of Offensive Rankings and 3) Specific Rankings (ie red zone vs overall, etc) are mutually exclusive from "not having any issues with the offense". You clearly have issues with the offense, I just quoted a bunch of them. It's this double-speak that is troublesome.

 

[gkIrish]

I disagree. BK makes questionable play calls, but again, so does every single coach in the country.

I also have no idea where you're getting the idea that ND benefits from lucky bounces (your "D" scenario).

My contention is that Tommy Rees being a successful QB for 2.5 years is enough evidence that playcalling hasn't been horrible.

Also, in 2012, a great defense helped... but the offense has to be called in such a way to capitalize off of that, and that's exactly what BK did all year. So again, I don't know how you can say playcalling has been horrible prior to 2015.

Chris Brown jet sweep? That's a questionable play call, but that one call doesn't mean the entire past 5 years were horrible.

How many times did BK roll Tommy out with zero success whatsoever? That's what I mean by bad playcalling. Being a bad playcaller doesn't mean you call bad plays more often than not. It means you call bad plays at the worst possible times (i.e. the redzone) OR you stubbornly refuse to stop trying plays that don't work. That's why BK was a bad playcaller prior to this season. And since he apparently isn't calling the plays now I can see why we are doing better (but credit him for not overturning the calls)

 

[gkIrish]

ahem...

See... this is my issue. The cherry picking of facts and saying that 1) Playcalling 2) Subjectivity of Offensive Rankings and 3) Specific Rankings (ie red zone vs overall, etc) are mutually exclusive from "not having any issues with the offense". You clearly have issues with the offense, I just quoted a bunch of them. It's this double-speak that is troublesome.

The posts you quoted were all from right around the Virginia game, specifically reference the seasons prior to this one, or attempt to dispel the notion that we have an offensive juggernaut performing at historic levels. None of them say I think the 2015 Notre Dame offense is bad or performing at an unacceptable level. I shouldn't even have to explain this.

 

[IrishLion]

How many times did BK roll Tommy out with zero success whatsoever? That's what I mean by bad playcalling. Being a bad playcaller doesn't mean you call bad plays more often than not. It means you call bad plays at the worst possible times (i.e. the redzone) OR you stubbornly refuse to stop trying plays that don't work. That's why BK was a bad playcaller prior to this season. And since he apparently isn't calling the plays now I can see why we are doing better (but credit him for not overturning the calls)

C'mon man. You act like BK ruins every game with bad play calls at bad times. That's simply not true, except for two games I can think of.

Otherwise, your premise seems to be an extreme.

That means Urban Meyer is a bad play caller.

That means Nick Saban is terrible at using veto power.

That means Les Miles should get "revisited" and questioned after every LSU game (well, this one actually happens).

That means there are ZERO good playcallers in the country. If bad playcalls from time to time make a coach a bad playcaller (rather than the pattern of over-achieving, which you are ignoring), then no one is a good playcaller.

BK gets too smart for his own good sometimes... but there is a far greater pattern of success than failure. So I don't know how you take the incidents that are fewer and further between, and use those to say BK is bad playcaller, when reality points to the opposite.

Finally, a bad playcaller doesn't get this type of production from Tommy Rees:

PASSING STATISTICS
NAME CMP ATT YDS CMP% YDS/A TD INT RAT
Thomas Rees 224 414 3257 54.1 7.87 27 13 135.4

 

[woolybug25]

The posts you quoted were all from right around the Virginia game, specifically reference the seasons prior to this one, or attempt to dispel the notion that we have an offensive juggernaut performing at historic levels. None of them say I think the 2015 Notre Dame offense is bad or performing at an unacceptable level. I shouldn't even have to explain this.

They are not just from the Virginia game, some are from earlier in the thread and some are as recent as today. Again, i'm not going to go through 40+ pages to get every single quote, so I pulled some from earlier in the thread and then the most recent. But I digress.

I guess I do not see a material difference between not being satisfied with the offense and being unsatisfied with playcalling/specific parts of the offense/playing bad defenses. They are two sides of the same coin. If all you were trying to say is that you find the offense acceptable, then it certainly wouldn't need two months of posts to reiterate it. Nor would it be a negative talking point ever in this discussion. But it clearly has.

 

[BillyIrish]

Up until this season, my only gripe with Kelly was red zone play calling. Especially with Rees, I felt they needed to run the ball more and throw less on first downs in the red zone. Too many times disaster happened. However, this year I have loved the play calling sans 2 pt try at Clemson. It does help to have a mobile QB and a variety of options, but there haven't been too many moments that require a quick walk away from the TV.

I don't post often and enjoy reading the site. But to suggest this football program isn't better than it has been in the last 25 years or isn't on a trajectory to take it to the next level is almost lunacy.

 

[gkIrish]

Up until this season, my only gripe with Kelly was red zone play calling. Especially with Rees, I felt they needed to run the ball more and throw less on first downs in the red zone. Too many times disaster happened. However, this year I have loved the play calling sans 2 pt try at Clemson. It does help to have a mobile QB and a variety of options, but there haven't been too many moments that require a quick walk away from the TV.

I don't post often and enjoy reading the site. But to suggest this football program isn't better than it has been in the last 25 years or isn't on a trajectory to take it to the next level is almost lunacy.

No one has ever said that the program isn't better off than it was in the last 25 years. Ever. That's a complete mischaracterization of anything anyone has said. Not one person has made that argument.

As for the trajectory, before this season, we were on a downward trajectory. 12 wins, then 8, then 7. So all the hatred about starting this thread was kind of baloney prior to us starting off on the right foot this year.

 

[Irish Insanity]

Go to the USC game day thread. You'll find a couple hundred of those posts.

 

[Irish#1]

Okay, 10 minute break while we stretch our legs.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Averages since 2010 (includes current '15 squad):

Scoring D: #34
Scoring O: #55
Yds/Gm: #45
RedZone Scoring: #76
Redzone TD%: #74

When I look at these, I see a Top 50 offense. Good between the 20s, good at scoring in general, but bad in the Red Zone. Even a few more conversions per season drives the total offense up enough to warrant a few more wins. I say that because...

The defense under BK has been, on avg, #34. He's had three seasons in the 20s, one season ranked #2, last season ranked #84 (injuries), current season is #41. Basically his defenses have done a "good enough" job to warrant wins, but the inefficiencies in the Red Zone result in mediocre results in the W/L column.

It's not the only reason for the losses. I get that. But it's a big problem and a valid reason why his teams don't get to the 10-win threshold. You can't consistently be below average in scoring% and sometimes way below average in TD% in the Red Zone and expect to be an elite team. A lot of this is the reason for 1) Closer margins of victory that should have been blow outs. 2) Closer margins of defeat that should've been a win. Two things that I gripe about constantly (because curing the Red Zone woes will practically eliminate both of these).

As a whole, BK's teams produce essentially average results on the field which is why he's had pretty average results in the W/L column. Imo, fix the Red Zone deficiencies and the W/L record will work itself out.

With all that said, BK and Sanford have found a great recipe for success on offense this year and even though the Red Zone problems are still there, the big play threats in Fuller and Prosise have kept them in the Top 20 both in yards/game and scoring.

Edit: The guy also needs to catch a few breaks in regards to injuries and suspensions, etc. The one year he did, ND played for a championship. I don't think that's a coincidence. I think he's a really good coach. Good enough to keep ND in the discussion each year.

 

[gkIrish]

Averages since 2010 (includes current '15 squad):

Scoring D: #34
Scoring O: #55
Yds/Gm: #45
RedZone Scoring: #76
Redzone TD%: #74

When I look at these, I see a Top 50 offense. Good between the 20s, good at scoring in general, but bad in the Red Zone. Even a few more conversions per season drives the total offense up enough to warrant a few more wins. I say that because...

The defense under BK has been, on avg, #34. He's had three seasons in the 20s, one season ranked #2, last season ranked #84 (injuries), current season is #41. Basically his defenses have done a "good enough" job to warrant wins, but the inefficiencies in the Red Zone result in mediocre results in the W/L column.

It's not the only reason for the losses. I get that. But it's a big problem and a valid reason why his teams don't get to the 10-win threshold. You can't consistently be below average in scoring% and sometimes way below average in TD% in the Red Zone and expect to be an elite team. A lot of this is the reason for 1) Closer margins of victory that should have been blow outs. 2) Closer margins of defeat that should've been a win. Two things that I gripe about constantly (because curing the Red Zone woes will practically eliminate both of these).

As a whole, BK's teams produce essentially average results on the field which is why he's had pretty average results in the W/L column. Imo, fix the Red Zone deficiencies and the W/L record will work itself out.

With all that said, BK and Sanford have found a great recipe for success on offense this year and even though the Red Zone problems are still there, the big play threats in Fuller and Prosise have kept them in the Top 20 both in yards/game and scoring.

Edit: The guy also needs to catch a few breaks in regards to injuries and suspensions, etc. The one year he did, ND played for a championship. I don't think that's a coincidence. I think he's a really good coach. Good enough to keep ND in the discussion each year.

Great, objective post. Reps.

My interpretation is that Notre Dame should be closer to a top 30 offense and defense, on average over the course of 5 years to get to where we need to be as a program.

 

[wizards8507]

My interpretation is that Notre Dame should be closer to a top 30 offense and defense, on average over the course of 5 years to get to where we need to be as a program.

We've had recruiting classes averaging around #10 since 2011, meaning anything worse than top 10 is underperforming.