Genius versus Idiot and the Oil Tanker

[WaveDomer]

I'm reading a lot of comments about bad coaching decisions etc. Coaches make hundreds of decisions a game. You want to make the decision that will get you the most value over the long run. Such as going for the TD at the end of the half versus Michigan. If Crist is out for the game, that is a good decision. And it's a fine line between a "genius" and an "idiot" in the fan's eyes. Chris Petersen fakes a punt and wins the Fiesta Bowl = genius. Sean Payton kicks onsides in the Super Bowl and the Saints recover = genius. BK goes for the TD against Michigan = idiot. Don't recover the onsides kick? Payton = idiot. At the time you have to look at the expected value of the play. Weigh all the factors: momentum, game time, score, opponent, etc.

One other point. ND was so-so last year. Why do we think a coach will come in and turn us into a top 5 team off the bat? The personnel is pretty much the same, oh, except for losing your starting QB and star WR. This is like turning an oil tanker around. Everything in the program has to change. It is changing. BK is a good coach. I don't want to hear anything about small time college programs etc. He took Cincy from nothing to a play away from the NC game. That includes the entire culture of the school and fanbase. That is impressive as hell. If ND bails on him early, it is a gigantic mistake. Although, I don't think they will. They get what he is doing. He is changing the entire culture, including what these guys eat on a daily basis.

 

[Dizzyphil]

I'm reading a lot of comments about bad coaching decisions etc. Coaches make hundreds of decisions a game. You want to make the decision that will get you the most value over the long run. Such as going for the TD at the end of the half versus Michigan. If Crist is out for the game, that is a good decision. And it's a fine line between a "genius" and an "idiot" in the fan's eyes. Chris Petersen fakes a punt and wins the Fiesta Bowl = genius. Sean Payton kicks onsides in the Super Bowl and the Saints recover = genius. BK goes for the TD against Michigan = idiot. Don't recover the onsides kick? Payton = idiot. At the time you have to look at the expected value of the play. Weigh all the factors: momentum, game time, score, opponent, etc.

One other point. ND was so-so last year. Why do we think a coach will come in and turn us into a top 5 team off the bat? The personnel is pretty much the same, oh, except for losing your starting QB and star WR. This is like turning an oil tanker around. Everything in the program has to change. It is changing. BK is a good coach. I don't want to hear anything about small time college programs etc. He took Cincy from nothing to a play away from the NC game. That includes the entire culture of the school and fanbase. That is impressive as hell. If ND bails on him early, it is a gigantic mistake. Although, I don't think they will. They get what he is doing. He is changing the entire culture, including what these guys eat on a daily basis.

+1

Very well said my friend. What's even more hilarious about some of the 'fans' of this site are all those that said, " we are a 6-6, maybe 7-5 team". We win versus Purdue and those same ones think we are going to go 11-1, maybe 12-0, vie for a BCS bowl game and then go ballistic when we lose and reality sets in. I bet visitors to the site are wondering if anyone here has a clue.

Diz

 

[dsotm]

How is it a good call? If Crist doesn't come back then presumably you need as many points as you can. You don't give up easy one's for a prayer with your 3rd string QB. I think the fact he threw it 20 rows into the stands shows you how good the call was.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

How is it a good call? If Crist doesn't come back then presumably you need as many points as you can. You don't give up easy one's for a prayer with your 3rd string QB. I think the fact he threw it 20 rows into the stands shows you how good the call was.

Because without Crist, you need to take some chances, and you need a bit of luck.

Totally agree with the initial post.

 

[IrishBlood81]

I'm reading a lot of comments about bad coaching decisions etc. Coaches make hundreds of decisions a game. You want to make the decision that will get you the most value over the long run. Such as going for the TD at the end of the half versus Michigan. If Crist is out for the game, that is a good decision. And it's a fine line between a "genius" and an "idiot" in the fan's eyes. Chris Petersen fakes a punt and wins the Fiesta Bowl = genius. Sean Payton kicks onsides in the Super Bowl and the Saints recover = genius. BK goes for the TD against Michigan = idiot. Don't recover the onsides kick? Payton = idiot. At the time you have to look at the expected value of the play. Weigh all the factors: momentum, game time, score, opponent, etc.

One other point. ND was so-so last year. Why do we think a coach will come in and turn us into a top 5 team off the bat? The personnel is pretty much the same, oh, except for losing your starting QB and star WR. This is like turning an oil tanker around. Everything in the program has to change. It is changing. BK is a good coach. I don't want to hear anything about small time college programs etc. He took Cincy from nothing to a play away from the NC game. That includes the entire culture of the school and fanbase. That is impressive as hell. If ND bails on him early, it is a gigantic mistake. Although, I don't think they will. They get what he is doing. He is changing the entire culture, including what these guys eat on a daily basis.

100% agree...I'm sick of people being so fair weather. "Kelly is da bomb! we luvs Kelly" a few calls that didn't go our way later "Kelly should b a fired, horrible coach".
Its just pathetic. It shames all ND fans and gives all of us a bad name. So please quit it.

If MSU had screwed up the Fake field goal...the coach would've looked like an idiot but instead hes a genius...sometimes its the right call but doesn't always have the right outcome.



81

 

[GreatGolson]

well i think as far as the "eternal optimists" theory and the doomsaysers theories go, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, this season should be more compared to how 2007 went, new QB new defensive scheme, so i would say we are improving each week, say right now were at a 3 out of 10, and we improve by .5 every week, by the end the season were a 7/10 team. Bottom line, Kelly is the right coach, his first season at UC wasnt amazing either, (7-6 i think) but then he started winning the Big East, hes building for the future of this program, and i think we should be confident going forward.

 

[NDfanSteve]

absolutely

absolutely

You know Wave, I posted a thread without reading yours. Mine hasA similar toNe. I agree with you. Things will be great again, long before we are bad again.

 

[Kak7304]

In order for a coach to come in and take a 6-6 team and turn it around to be a BCS team immediately, the problems need to be purely schematic. In our case, the major issues are with basic fundamentals. Weis understood and excelled in the schematic part of football but never instilled the basic skills needed for proper execution of his schemes. Kelly has only had a limited amount of practice time with these players to teach them proper techniques. A month of spring ball and a month or so of practice in the Fall is not enough to erase years and years of doing things incorrectly. Since the players have had such a limited time with new techniques, they most likely revert to old habits when reacting in a game situation. As time goes on and with much practice, the new techniques will become more natural to the players.

You wouldn't build a new house on an old, shaky foundation. The past two regimes took this approach which produced nice results quickly before crumbling before our eyes. Kelly is laying down a new foundation before building something more permanent. We will be there, it is just going to take a bit more time.

 

[kmoose]

Because without Crist, you need to take some chances, and you need a bit of luck.

Totally agree with the initial post.

Without Crist, you need to take the points. You have no idea, without Crist, how many chances you will have to get points. You simply have to take the points when you can. You can take chances, but not with a 3rd team QB who looks like he has no clue what he is doing.

 

[dsotm]

Without Crist, you need to take the points. You have no idea, without Crist, how many chances you will have to get points. You simply have to take the points when you can. You can take chances, but not with a 3rd team QB who looks like he has no clue what he is doing.

Thank you. Some sense. That's not even accounting for the reality that that play is successful, which was close to zero.

 

[Jerry]

I didn't have any problems with Kelly's calls yesterday. But I still take the 3 points in the Michigan game before the half. I totally understand why Kelly went for it. But I just didn't think Michigan was that good and I would have taken the points.

 

[WaveDomer]

Without Crist, you need to take the points. You have no idea, without Crist, how many chances you will have to get points. You simply have to take the points when you can. You can take chances, but not with a 3rd team QB who looks like he has no clue what he is doing.

Yes, you have no idea how many chances you will get to get points. That's why you go for 7 rather than 3. This makes no sense to me. If you have a "3rd team QB who looks like he has no clue..." what good is a field goal going to do for you? Are you expecting that QB to all of the sudden get it going in the 2nd half? With a TD at the end of the half, you have momentum and a score close enough for something on special teams or defense to change the game. I just don't understand the "take the points with a bad QB" theory. Okay, that leaves you down more points with said "bad QB." If he can't convert a TD from 3 yards out, how do you think he's going to score mulitiple times to get us back in the game?

But that call can be debated all day. All opinions are valid on whether to take the points or not. My main point is that I don't think it's valid to say it was a horrible coaching decision based on what was happening at the time. Plus, if we score the TD, Kelly is a "genius."

 

[kmoose]

Yes, you have no idea how many chances you will get to get points. That's why you go for 7 rather than 3. This makes no sense to me. If you have a "3rd team QB who looks like he has no clue..." what good is a field goal going to do for you? Are you expecting that QB to all of the sudden get it going in the 2nd half? With a TD at the end of the half, you have momentum and a score close enough for something on special teams or defense to change the game. I just don't understand the "take the points with a bad QB" theory. Okay, that leaves you down more points with said "bad QB." If he can't convert a TD from 3 yards out, how do you think he's going to score mulitiple times to get us back in the game?

But that call can be debated all day. All opinions are valid on whether to take the points or not. My main point is that I don't think it's valid to say it was a horrible coaching decision based on what was happening at the time. Plus, if we score the TD, Kelly is a "genius."

Since when is 3 less than 0? Converting a chip shot FG is a much higher percentage play than trying to punch one in with a backup QB. If you have your starting QB in, then I can better support gambling in that situation.

I never said it was "a horrible coaching decision". I just said it was a bad decision. Based on the percentages, your chances of converting a chip shot FG (and getting SOME points) are better than punching in a TD (thus leaving you with NO points).

 

[dsotm]

Exactly, my comment that it is a horrible play call is because of who was QB'ing at what they did in the whole 2nd half. It's just simple low percentage. I don't even understand why this is debateable. It's great if they got 7, but the chances were so low, there's just no sense. If Crist is not injured and he's in the game, my stance wouldn't be the same.

 

[WaveDomer]

My point may be getting lost. If you don't have Crist for the game, you are playing with a QB, Montana or Rees, who hasn't moved the ball for a half, besides one throw. Thus, you are probably not looking at putting up points on the board in the second half, unless those QBs come in and turn it around for some reason. (There is no reason to think they would based on their play in the first half.) So, you are really behind the 8 ball. A field goal still leaves you 2 scores behind. So you have to count on those QBs moving the ball and scoring 2 times, or special teams doing it, or the defense doing it on a turnover. If you score the TD, you are 1 score behind. Without the TD and without the FG you are still 2 scores behind. It is just more feasible to have to score once with bad offensive production than twice. A field goal does nothing if Crist doesn't come back into the game. Do you really think, with the way Montana was playing, that he would have moved the offense into the endzone twice in the second half? Or that he would have been able to keep the D off the field to get a breather so Robinson didn't run crazy?

Calling it a bad play is all based on hindsight and the fact that Crist came back in and lit it up.

 

[WaveDomer]

Exactly, my comment that it is a horrible play call is because of who was QB'ing at what they did in the whole 2nd half. It's just simple low percentage. I don't even understand why this is debateable. It's great if they got 7, but the chances were so low, there's just no sense. If Crist is not injured and he's in the game, my stance wouldn't be the same.

Actually, if Crist is in the game, you take the 3 easy.

 

[Jerry]

If you're down by 21 points to Alabama go for it. But it was ****ing Michigan. Go into half down by 11 points and hope that you get the ground game going. Hope that you can sustain some drives like you did to end the first half. Or hope that Dayne comes back. I take the points. I always understood Charlie making calls to go for it on 4th down in those BCS games because the Irish were over matched and they had to take chances for points. But we were playing Michigan a week ago.

 

[mgriff]

Guys, there is a whole new week's **** to argue about. Argue about BK going for it on fourth down and not converting.

 

[mrmiller8]

Is this any different than seeing weis go for three times a week and not getting it. I like an aggresive coach and I think that BK needs to realize that the confidence isn't quite there yet with the guys and he needs to take the points, or punt the football. Nothing BK could do would be worse than what we saw weis do for four years.....just saying...

 

[dsotm]

Do you really think, with the way Montana was playing, that he would have moved the offense into the endzone twice in the second half? Or that he would have been able to keep the D off the field to get a breather so Robinson didn't run crazy?

So if you have no faith in him getting to the redzone, how exactly do you think they would score? If you can't get into the redzone, why would you think going for it on 4th down would be successful? That's why you take the points.

 

[WaveDomer]

Do you really think, with the way Montana was playing, that he would have moved the offense into the endzone twice in the second half? Or that he would have been able to keep the D off the field to get a breather so Robinson didn't run crazy?

So if you have no faith in him getting to the redzone, how exactly do you think they would score? If you can't get into the redzone, why would you think going for it on 4th down would be successful? That's why you take the points.

With a good play call, I like our ability to get 3 yards, yes. I don't think having to drive it twice down the field to score at least 2 TDs was happening after watching that offense muster pretty much zero in the first half without Crist. Michigan or no Michigan, I don't think ND is scoring 2 TDs in the second half without Crist. But everyone is free to disagree.

 

[dsotm]

With a good play call, I like our ability to get 3 yards, yes. I don't think having to drive it twice down the field to score at least 2 TDs was happening after watching that offense muster pretty much zero in the first half without Crist. Michigan or no Michigan, I don't think ND is scoring 2 TDs in the second half without Crist. But everyone is free to disagree.

I give up. To begin with, if you think that was a high percentage play, there is no reasonable reason to continue discussing this. Also, if you think they can't get into the red zone the rest of the day and you want them to throw away easy points- I guess you were planning on TD Jesus stepping onto the field and giving us magic points. I don't get it. I mean, if they can't score TD's, the only way left to score are defensively, and by your kicker. So, then you don't let your kicker kick points you will need to build on- instead you let a wobbly 3rd stringer throw a pass into the refreshment stand. Ok.