Notre Dame Sophomore Impact in 2011

[phgreek]

I love Collinsworth. Any chance of him playing on "D" or will he stay on offense?

...if you recall early, he was a little late to the dinner table on kickoffs, so to speak (which was the impetus for the "jump on the pile big boy" crack).

By the end of the year, he was a very solid special teams performer...and I was impressed with his kick return against Miami...yes he was a little animated in his protection of the football, and that probably cost him a couple yards...

so, whats all this tell me...he is VERY conscious of the fundamentals, even in game time situations. He will be a sure hand wherever you put him...I like him returning kicks, not sure where else...but I like him.

 

[phgreek]

... Andrew Hendrix had the fastest release that he has ever coached, and one of the strongest arms.

I hope this is true...that aspect makes up for so much else that might be lacking...route precision, receiver speed...even makes play fakes and delays/counters that much more devastating...I've yet to see this kid...but I have pictures of Dan Marino dancing in my head...could it be?

 

[NDFANnSouthWest]

A lot of people are saying Hendrix for a guy that hasn't even stepped on the field yet

Oh he's been on the field...against NDs #1 D.

 

[IrishLax]

Rees threw 3 INTs in his first start as a true freshman. That's not all that uncommon a result. But to say that he single handedly lost the game is just not true. He also threw 4 TDs in that game, and Brian Kelly lost that game for the team.

I'm not trying to build a case that Rees is a better QB than Crist, but I am saying that the team played better with Rees. Maybe that was just a byproduct of Kelly "dumbing down" the offense to accomodate a true Freshman QB. Or maybe it was because Rees is better suited for Kelly's offense, despite Crist's better "traditional QB" skills. Either way....... I'll take the wins.

There is just so much fundamentally wrong with the part I bolded. If Dayne Crist had thrown that absolutely awful pass would it have been BK's fault still? Yes, his play put us in a position to win, but when you make a bone head decision to throw that pass and then underthrow it so badly that your 5* WR doesn't have a chance.... well, that's called singlehandedly losing the game. It would be like a goalie in soccer make a bunch of good saves but letting in slow roller through his legs to lose 1-0. Yeah, the offense could have done more so that goal didn't matter or the defense could've maybe stopped the guy from getting a shot off, but at the end of the day it's one terrible individual play that loses your team the game.

And as someone pointed out... Tulane's frosh QB threw for 400+ against Tulsa. The team played well because the defense played lights out and the offense was able to run the ball well. Running + defense = wins? NO WAY!!!! Rees did a great job for someone thrust into that situation and I feel comfortable that he will improve all aspects of his game with time... but I think all rationale people agree that team results are not always a product of the QB's play and that Rees' overall performance fell well below Crist's when you compare them side by side.

 

[shortnd]

Kelly says (paraphrase) "Hendrix has shown he is a player with quickest release I have ever coached." "Hendrix has shown great upside". Are these all just to keep the kid interested and for him not to transfer? It showed this year that you need at least 2 if not 3 capable QB's. Not sure of others opinions. I see Luke Massa transferring, or move to TE? I want to see Louis Nix play and see how he does.

 

[kmoose]

There is just so much fundamentally wrong with the part I bolded. If Dayne Crist had thrown that absolutely awful pass would it have been BK's fault still? Yes, his play put us in a position to win, but when you make a bone head decision to throw that pass and then underthrow it so badly that your 5* WR doesn't have a chance.... well, that's called singlehandedly losing the game. It would be like a goalie in soccer make a bunch of good saves but letting in slow roller through his legs to lose 1-0. Yeah, the offense could have done more so that goal didn't matter or the defense could've maybe stopped the guy from getting a shot off, but at the end of the day it's one terrible individual play that loses your team the game.

And as someone pointed out... Tulane's frosh QB threw for 400+ against Tulsa. The team played well because the defense played lights out and the offense was able to run the ball well. Running + defense = wins? NO WAY!!!! Rees did a great job for someone thrust into that situation and I feel comfortable that he will improve all aspects of his game with time... but I think all rationale people agree that team results are not always a product of the QB's play and that Rees' overall performance fell well below Crist's when you compare them side by side.

Rees should never have had to throw that ball. BK's hubris kept him from picking up a couple of extra yards, centering the ball, kicking the FG, and winning the game. A FG just wasn't good enough. He had to show the world what a riverboat gambler he is, and he choked. I mentioned that it might have been Kelly's "dumbing down" of the offense.......... committing to the running game is one of the concepts that I had in mind, when I used the term. So thanks for validating that point for me.

I'm not sure where you are getting that "Rees' overall performance fell well below Crist's, when you compare them side by side."? When I compare them(overall) side by side, I see that Rees had a better QB rating than Crist.

 

[shortnd]

In hindsite, I love Kelly making that call to have Rees throw that pass against Tulsa. Here is why. If we won that game, what bowl would we have gone to, most likely the sun bowl still. In the future, hopefully when it counts for something big, Rees will understand where and how that ball needs to be thrown. Not only Rees but every QB on the roster!

 

[irish1958]

In hindsite, I love Kelly making that call to have Rees throw that pass against Tulsa. Here is why. If we won that game, what bowl would we have gone to, most likely the sun bowl still. In the future, hopefully when it counts for something big, Rees will understand where and how that ball needs to be thrown. Not only Rees but every QB on the roster!

I thought it was right at the time: Ruffer had missed a PAT in that game (as a result we were one point behind); our long snapper was injured in the game and could not return so an experienced center was snapping; he was kicking into a stiff wind; out 5 star receiver was nine inches taller that the covering CB who was in man-to-man coverage and the safety was up to stop the obvious run; the play called was a fade which should have been thrown high or away if not there; out QB had thrown four TDs in the game; it was third down not fourth down.
If Kelly had called for a FG and it was missed he would have been the dumbest coach on two feet.
The call was correct.

 

[IrishLax]

I thought it was right at the time: Ruffer had missed a PAT in that game (as a result we were one point behind); our long snapper was injured in the game and could not return so an experienced center was snapping; he was kicking into a stiff wind; out 5 star receiver was nine inches taller that the covering CB who was in man-to-man coverage and the safety was up to stop the obvious run; the play called was a fade which should have been thrown high or away if not there; out QB had thrown four TDs in the game; it was third down not fourth down.
If Kelly had called for a FG and it was missed he would have been the dumbest coach on two feet.
The call was correct.

Exactly. Coaches coach, players play. The player did not execute. How this is hard to grasp I do not know.

 

[kmoose]

I thought it was right at the time: Ruffer had missed a PAT in that game (as a result we were one point behind); our long snapper was injured in the game and could not return so an experienced center was snapping; he was kicking into a stiff wind; out 5 star receiver was nine inches taller that the covering CB who was in man-to-man coverage and the safety was up to stop the obvious run; the play called was a fade which should have been thrown high or away if not there; out QB had thrown four TDs in the game; it was third down not fourth down.
If Kelly had called for a FG and it was missed he would have been the dumbest coach on two feet.
The call was correct.

It was one of the dumbest calls I have seen in my 30+ years of watching football. Even if the pass were completed, it would still have been one the dumbest calls. You are playing a true freshman QB, in his first start. You just got your asses handed to you, by Navy, the week before. Your one and only objective, in that situation, is to win the game. No matter how mundane, ugly, or just downright lucky..........you play the odds. The odds favor Ruffer making what amounts to a chip shot FG, over a freshman QB in his first start making a good throw for a 25 yard-ish TD. Especially when you consider that BK said, in his post game presser, that the play was designed to get Floyd one on one, and just throw it up and let him make a play. That's an ok call, when you are leading and taking one last shot, or when you are down by 5 or 6. It's a stupid call, when you are already well within your FG kicker's range, and you only need a 3. Ruffer didn't "miss" an extra point in that game....it was blocked. And the other 3 XPs were all good. That's 75% for, 25% against. I like those odds.

 

[Rocket89]

First of all, it was SECOND down.

Throwing a fade to Floyd should be a high percentage play. High percentage in the sense that it's either a TD or it is batted down.

Those odds are much better than Ruffer hitting what was most certainly not a chip shot field goal.

Again, it was second down. Had Rees put the ball in a better spot, it's no big deal. The Irish either score or try to pick up a few extra yards on the ground and then kick the field goal after taking a shot in the end zone.

I was surprised at the time that they threw it at that point, but looking back, it's not that crazy of a call. If it was third down, yeah maybe, and a lot of people are acting like it was fourth down. But it was second down.

Or we could have thrown for 574 yards and 8 touchdowns against Tulsa like Okie State did.

 

[IrishLax]

First of all, it was SECOND down.

Throwing a fade to Floyd should be a high percentage play. High percentage in the sense that it's either a TD or it is batted down.

Those odds are much better than Ruffer hitting what was most certainly not a chip shot field goal.

Again, it was second down. Had Rees put the ball in a better spot, it's no big deal. The Irish either score or try to pick up a few extra yards on the ground and then kick the field goal after taking a shot in the end zone.

I was surprised at the time that they threw it at that point, but looking back, it's not that crazy of a call. If it was third down, yeah maybe, and a lot of people are acting like it was fourth down. But it was second down.

Or we could have thrown for 574 yards and 8 touchdowns against Tulsa like Okie State did.

This.

It was like a 35-40 yard field goal, with the snapper out, an extra point blocked in the game, wind and second down. At that point the last thing you want to do is throw anything intermediate or over the middle because those are dangerous passes. A 1v1 fade to a 5* WR with a 9 inch height advantage should NEVER get picked unless you totally and utterly screw the throw. Rees screwed the pooch. It is that simple. Pinning that loss on Kelly is ignorant of the percentages. At the distance Ruffer was out, NFL kickers make roughly 80-85% of the time... throw in the conditions mentioned above (wind, snapper out, DL getting penetration as noted by the block, etc.) and you're probably looking at about a 70-75% chance of conversion assuming Ruffer is NFL caliber which, although he was great on field goals, judging by his 3 XPs missed during the season I would say he is just a notch below.

The bottom line is you either run twice to pick up more yards and then play those odds or you try to take a shot or two to get in the end zone or considerably closer. Considering the average interception percentage is 3% there was a 97% chance on any pass play of no turnover. Considering he was throwing a fade to a taller receiver it should have been less than 1%... but Rees screwed up. It happens. Even to the best. So you tell me, are the odds of kicking a field goal (~70% from that spot) better than the odds of taking a shot (or two) through the air to score/move closer and then kicking the field goal? You'd be hard pressed to say Kelly made a bad play call by "odds" or "percentages" alone.

 

[kmoose]

This.

It was like a 35-40 yard field goal, with the snapper out, an extra point blocked in the game, wind and second down. At that point the last thing you want to do is throw anything intermediate or over the middle because those are dangerous passes. A 1v1 fade to a 5* WR with a 9 inch height advantage should NEVER get picked unless you totally and utterly screw the throw. Rees screwed the pooch. It is that simple. Pinning that loss on Kelly is ignorant of the percentages. At the distance Ruffer was out, NFL kickers make roughly 80-85% of the time... throw in the conditions mentioned above (wind, snapper out, DL getting penetration as noted by the block, etc.) and you're probably looking at about a 70-75% chance of conversion assuming Ruffer is NFL caliber which, although he was great on field goals, judging by his 3 XPs missed during the season I would say he is just a notch below.

The bottom line is you either run twice to pick up more yards and then play those odds or you try to take a shot or two to get in the end zone or considerably closer. Considering the average interception percentage is 3% there was a 97% chance on any pass play of no turnover. Considering he was throwing a fade to a taller receiver it should have been less than 1%... but Rees screwed up. It happens. Even to the best. So you tell me, are the odds of kicking a field goal (~70% from that spot) better than the odds of taking a shot (or two) through the air to score/move closer and then kicking the field goal? You'd be hard pressed to say Kelly made a bad play call by "odds" or "percentages" alone.

Ruffer was 7/8 from 30-40 yards this season. That's about an 88% success rate. I'll bet that the inteception percentage that you speak of is CONSIDERABLY higher, if you only look at true freshmen starting their first game. I never said that he should have kicked the FG on THAT down. In fact, I specifically said that he should have tried to pick up a few more yards, centered the ball, and then kicked the FG. If you're going to throw the ball, (again with a true freshman starting his first game, not an experienced QB) throw high percentage throws. I don't care what the route was....... Kelly admitted that he told Rees to throw it up and let Floyd try to make a play on it, if he was single covered. "Throw it up and let him make a play on it" is NOT a high percentage pass play. I don't care if Larry Fitzgerald(in his prime) is the receiver. It's a low percentage pass play.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Whether people like conclusions like LAX's or not, I really love the approach. His analysis brings something to the table. Thank you.
P.S. while watching I too thought it was the wrong call, as I thought we'd bring in Hughes and ram it at them at least once. But all the [substantive] posts that people have made, have convinced me that the argument is between two legitimate views.

 

[kmoose]

Whether people like conclusions like LAX's or not, I really love the approach. His analysis brings something to the table. Thank you.
P.S. while watching I too thought it was the wrong call, as I thought we'd bring in Hughes and ram it at them at least once. But all the [substantive] posts that people have made, have convinced me that the argument is between two legitimate views.

I agree, Mike. I think it was one of the dumbest calls I have ever seen, but I can understand why some people liked it. I think that they are wrong, but I can see their logic in being ok with it. And IrishLAX makes a compelling argument, even if I don't really buy into it.

 

[Rizzophil]

I'm going with Lo Wood. He really needs to step up as a nickel back next year. He better be up to it right away because the freshman db's will only have 15practices in the spring

 

[IrishLax]

I agree, Mike. I think it was one of the dumbest calls I have ever seen, but I can understand why some people liked it. I think that they are wrong, but I can see their logic in being ok with it. And IrishLAX makes a compelling argument, even if I don't really buy into it.

I'm just glad we can all have a rational discussion about without anyone getting their feelings hurt or having a case of internet rage. Usually internet back and forth turns into dribble within a reply or two haha

If there was a right or wrong way to view this people would all agree and we wouldn't even be talking. On one hand there is the conservative approach that puts the most consistent player on the team in a position to win the game, and in the other you put the game on the shoulders of a rather untested player. I totally understand the logic and merit other perspective even if I don't necessarily feel the same way.

 

[Rocket89]

I'm just glad we can all have a rational discussion about without anyone getting their feelings hurt or having a case of internet rage. Usually internet back and forth turns into dribble within a reply or two haha

If there was a right or wrong way to view this people would all agree and we wouldn't even be talking. On one hand there is the conservative approach that puts the most consistent player on the team in a position to win the game, and in the other you put the game on the shoulders of a rather untested player. I totally understand the logic and merit other perspective even if I don't necessarily feel the same way.

It's a good discussion. We could look at it this way: Notre Dame and Kelly are undefeated since the "call."

Also, to the above poster, I don't think Lo Wood will play nickel. There's a possibility but I think they'll put one of the non-starting safeties up there (Motta, Slaughter, etc.) because of their size.

 

[NDFANnSouthWest]

Usally in nickle situations the put an extra Corner out there...hence why they always put Blanton. I think Wood will be the extra DB in Nickle...

 

[Riddickulous]

Rees/Hendrix - IMO, one of these two will be the starter heading into fall camp.
Roberson - Will be fighting with Jonas for the power back spot.
Kona - Will find a lot of playing time in the rotation as a DE.
Moore - Provides good backup production when in for Calabrese, if he doesn't beat him out for the starting spot altogether.
Lo Lo Lo Lo Lo Lo - He'll be the starter at CB in 2012 and badly needs the experience.

 

[NewEnglandGuy]

Basically all Sophs with Stockton and Fox. Good read.

Notre Dame's 15 Young Impact Players for 2011 | One Foot Down

A little 5th year tidbit:

It is looking less and less likely that Ragone will return, which means Welch could be the second-string tight end and play quite a lot in 2011.

I am kind of hoping we keep Ragone to preserve Koyacks RS.

 

[irish1958]

With the jumping to the NFL when successful as a junior being somewhat prevalent, keeping a player's eligibility intact so he can have a fifth year is becoming less and less important.
I think the coaches should play the best and forget about preserving the fifth year. Perhaps for the offensive line one might make a case for it, however.

 

[rtrn2glory]

Basically all Sophs with Stockton and Fox. Good read.

Notre Dame's 15 Young Impact Players for 2011 | One Foot Down

A little 5th year tidbit:



I am kind of hoping we keep Ragone to preserve Koyacks RS.

Saw this yesterday too!! Thanks for posting it. i was a little surprised there was no mention of any O linemen...can't overlook the huge impact these young guys are going to have (Watt, Lombard, Nichols) depth is needed year after year up front as we found out this year with Dever going down and Robinson being banged up at times. I hope these guys are developing as fast as the rest!!

 

[PLACforever]

Shembo is Beast - I do love pictures of opposing QBs in the fetal position.

 

[jason_h537]

People keep talking aboy Shembo but all he can do right now is come in on 3rd and passing downs to rush the passer. Sampson is pretty sure that next year it will be Lynch who takes that job because he is flat out better at it. The question will be can Shembo learn to play linebacker now, otherwise he will quickly become another guy people on the message boards will want to cut.

 

[rtrn2glory]

Don't eliminate the possibility of Shembo learning the ropes with Te'o and being that sideline to sideline guy in the middle (He was a middle backer in high school) I wouldn't bank on it, but it's a possibility. We got our pluggers in Carlo, McDonald, and Moore. Outside of Manti, and Grace coming in idk who else is capable of playing there.

 

[jason_h537]

Don't eliminate the possibility of Shembo learning the ropes with Te'o and being that sideline to sideline guy in the middle (He was a middle backer in high school) I wouldn't bank on it, but it's a possibility. We got our pluggers in Carlo, McDonald, and Moore. Outside of Manti, and Grace coming in idk who else is capable of playing there.

Actually Shembo played DT in High School (i know thats crazy). He projected as an MLB at the next level. i am not saying Shembo sucks, i just think that people are putting unfair expectations on a kid that really needs a lot of work still.

 

[NDinFL]

Love that picture, I'm still stickin to my guns on this. I think Andrew Hendrix will be the starter by the coming season....can we think up a nickname for him?

 

[rtrn2glory]

Gotta give a kid that made it on the field as a true freshman at ND the benefit of the doubt he can get better.

 

[irish1958]

Freeney and Mathis install fear in the mind of quarterbacks, but they can't stop the run.
Didn't Shembo have five sacks, playing a fraction of the downs? That is incredible. How can you keep him off the field? Forget about technique; just tell him to cream the QB on every play.