2013 Fall Camp Thread

[Emcee77]

Yeah but in theory we wont be in nearly as many 'something out of nothing' plays this year because TR will check out of them pre-snap. apples and oranges really.

I'm sort of glad that this year we won't be seeing Golson scrambling around holding the ball like a baseball as 17 defenders come at him. Big play potential there too (for the opponent).

I'm not sure I follow that logic. If you mean that Tommy will run the offense more efficiently so we won't need to rely on creativity and big-play ability, I agree.

But the devil's advocate would say, look at the BYU game last year ... we struggled to beat an inferior team--you might say we would have been in danger of losing if it weren't for a great move by GAIII on his TD run--because our offense wasn't dynamic.

I don't think this argument can be won at this stage. If 2011 or 2012 Tommy is our QB in 2013, there's legitimate cause for concern. We believe that a different, more mature, smarter, even more athletic Tommy will take the field in 2013 ... but it remains to be seen whether we are right.

Just trying to say that I don't think anyone can be either right or wrong to worry about losing Golson at this stage, because we just don't know what we are going to get in 2013. There's room for argument on both sides.

 

[Kak7304]

Let's not blow things out of proportion. I think Reesus can and will have a good year. There is a reason Golson won the job last year over a former starter and would have had the job this year. Coaches were glowing about him and he was making a bunch of improvements this year. Also, he was supposedly becoming a leader and could have been named a captain. The offense is also more open with Golson in the offense. Golson also had less turnovers than Rees in the season that he started.

Though Reesus probably has improved, I would still prefer Golson.

Golson has the higher ceiling, no doubt about that, but when Tommy played in 2010 and 2011, he was asked to do way more than what Golson was asked to do last year. Golson pretty much had to not turn the ball over and let the D take care of the work. Tommy had to try and move the ball to win games so of course he was going to have more turnovers because he had to take more risks. That being said, Tommy definitely had some dumb turnovers that I hope he can reduce this year. I would have rather had an improved Golson this year, but I don't think Tommy this year will be a downgrade from Golson last year.

 

[ND NYC]

are you guys really saying we are better off with Tommy over Golson?

i love tommy, haver always supported him, but golson was about to break out big time this year....not having him is gonna hurt the capabilities of the offense.

 

[Kak7304]

I'm not sure I follow that logic. If you mean that Tommy will run the offense more efficiently so we won't need to rely on creativity and big-play ability, I agree.

But the devil's advocate would say, look at the BYU game last year ... we struggled to beat an inferior team--you might say we would have been in danger of losing if it weren't for a great move by GAIII on his TD run--because our offense wasn't dynamic.

I don't think this argument can be won at this stage. If 2011 or 2012 Tommy is our QB in 2013, there's legitimate cause for concern. We believe that a different, more mature, smarter, even more athletic Tommy will take the field in 2013 ... but it remains to be seen whether we are right.

Just trying to say that I don't think anyone can be either right or wrong to worry about losing Golson at this stage, because we just don't know what we are going to get in 2013. There's room for argument on both sides.

We all know BK tailors his offense to his players' abilities. Throughout the entire year, we built up our offense around Golson's skillset then had Rees come in for one game and as a result, it's hard to use that game as a gauge of what Tommy can do. We had one week to prepare rather than the entire season. This year, the offense will be built around Tommy's strengths including quick reads, timing with precision routes, etc.

 

[ryno 24]

are you guys really saying we are better off with Tommy over Golson?

i love tommy, haver always supported him, but golson was about to break out big time this year....not having him is gonna hurt the capabilities of the offense.

Thank you, I hope that Tommy does well, but lets not have a partial memory. When Golson was pulled against Pitt he threw an ugly interception and Golson was put back in with no looking back. Golson did not have near the interceptions. He also finally understood the offense. He would have been asked to win games this year.

 

[Kak7304]

are you guys really saying we are better off with Tommy over Golson?

i love tommy, haver always supported him, but golson was about to break out big time this year....not having him is gonna hurt the capabilities of the offense.

No, I just think Tommy running the offense will be more productive this year than the Golson run offense was last year. I think a Golson led O this year would have soared to great heights but I think Tommy will be more than adequate as a replacement.

 

[ryno 24]

Okay that makes sense. But comparing Golson last year to Tommy this year is not really fair. He was not ready for the offense and the offense was not ready for him.

 

[clashmore_jon]

are you guys really saying we are better off with Tommy over Golson?
.

I don't think anyone is saying that. I was just saying I just don't think there will be a drop off in offensive production this year, which people seemed to be saying.

Also wrt tommy turnover vs. golson last year, pretty sure TR was as true freshman vs golson a true soph. not to mention, as previously pointed out, we asked very little of golson last year.

 

[Kak7304]

Okay that makes sense. But comparing Golson last year to Tommy this year is not really fair. He was not ready for the offense and the offense was not ready for him.

This is very true and we still made it to the NCG, which is why I think the offense will be better than last year. If our D remains in the same ballpark as it was last year, that can mean big things again.

 

[wizards8507]

I'm not sure I follow that logic. If you mean that Tommy will run the offense more efficiently so we won't need to rely on creativity and big-play ability, I agree.

But the devil's advocate would say, look at the BYU game last year ... we struggled to beat an inferior team--you might say we would have been in danger of losing if it weren't for a great move by GAIII on his TD run--because our offense wasn't dynamic.

I don't think this argument can be won at this stage. If 2011 or 2012 Tommy is our QB in 2013, there's legitimate cause for concern. We believe that a different, more mature, smarter, even more athletic Tommy will take the field in 2013 ... but it remains to be seen whether we are right.

Just trying to say that I don't think anyone can be either right or wrong to worry about losing Golson at this stage, because we just don't know what we are going to get in 2013. There's room for argument on both sides.

We wouldn't have been in the NCG if not for "2012 Tommy." If Everett had played every minute last year, we would have lost at least three games.

are you guys really saying we are better off with Tommy over Golson?

i love tommy, haver always supported him, but golson was about to break out big time this year....not having him is gonna hurt the capabilities of the offense.

Everyone keeps saying that but based on what? I just don't see it. I understand that you WISH to believe EG was primed for a breakout year, but you wishing it doesn't make it true.

 

[koonja]

2 Days! (Paging BobD)

 

[NDWorld247]

Everyone keeps saying that but based on what? I just don't see it. I understand that you WISH to believe EG was primed for a breakout year, but you wishing it doesn't make it true.

Based on the NCG and another year in BK's offense. We'll just have to wait for 2014 Golson to see how much he's grown from 2012.

 

[Kak7304]

Based on the NCG and another year in BK's offense. We'll just have to wait for 2014 Golson to see how much he's grown from 2012.

Assuming he's able to return. Hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

 

[woolybug25]

2 Days! (Paging BobD)

 

[NDWorld247]

Assuming he's able to return. Hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

I'm just focused on Temple.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

But the devil's advocate would say, look at the BYU game last year ... we struggled to beat an inferior team--you might say we would have been in danger of losing if it weren't for a great move by GAIII on his TD run--because our offense wasn't dynamic.

BYU struggled offensively last year (as did we), but their defense was elite (top 10) and likely will be again this year. So don't sell us short; that was a hard-fought victory.

Our 2012 OL was the best we've had in years, but that's not saying much. So when we came up against an elite front-seven, we couldn't run the ball well enough to give Tommy some breathing room. Golson probably would have performed better against BYU, but when our ground game is functional, Rees likely gives us a better chance to win. And I expect our rushing attack to be much more consistent this year due to OL improvement.

 

[IrishLax]

BYU struggled offensively last year (as did we), but their defense was elite (top 10) and likely will be again this year. So don't sell us short; that was a hard-fought victory.

Our 2012 OL was the best we've had in years, but that's not saying much. So when we came up against an elite front-seven, we couldn't run the ball well enough to give Tommy some breathing room. Golson probably would have performed better against BYU, but when our ground game is functional, Rees likely gives us a better chance to win. And I expect our rushing attack to be much more consistent this year due to OL improvement.

OL staying healthy is probably the single most important thing this year. You could make a case for DL, but OL and our running game is going to be vital to playing winning football. Need Martin/Watt to stay healthy all year and we can't afford more than one injury on the right side. No idea what to think of the center position... but I'm optimistic that Nick Martin is as good as advertised.

 

[peoriairish]

.....But the devil's advocate would say, look at the BYU game last year ... we struggled to beat an inferior team--you might say we would have been in danger of losing if it weren't for a great move by GAIII on his TD run--because our offense wasn't dynamic......

This is a point that I have never understood. We won because of GAIII's great move, yes. But, it's not like that was on accident. The coaches recruit these players because they can do special things like that. That's what separates us from the Purdues of the world. Had the coaches not recruited GAIII to come to ND, and instead had a player a tier lower in skill set, that juke would not have been made and we may have lost the game. That's just how I see plays like that.

 

[Emcee77]

This is a point that I have never understood. We won because of GAIII's great move, yes. But, it's not like that was on accident. The coaches recruit these players because they can do special things like that. That's what separates us from the Purdues of the world. Had the coaches not recruited GAIII to come to ND, and instead had a player a tier lower in skill set, that juke would not have been made and we may have lost the game. That's just how I see plays like that.

This is a really good point. Kelly's offensive philosophy is give playmakers a chance to make plays -- get them out in space and let them win one-on-one matchups.

But I'll be honest, that move surprised me. That dude had GAIII lined up, and GAIII juked him out of his shorts. I never thought of GAIII as a juker. I thought of him as a guy who beats tacklers with hot, nasty, badass speed. I mean, if Theo Riddick makes that move, I'm not surprised. But to that point I hadn't seen that kind of thing from GAIII. Hopefully this year we will see more of it.

Good points by Kak and Whiskey re: the BYU game ... the devil's advocate has nothing on you guys.

 

[NDWorld247]

BYU struggled offensively last year (as did we), but their defense was elite (top 10) and likely will be again this year. So don't sell us short; that was a hard-fought victory.

Our 2012 OL was the best we've had in years, but that's not saying much. So when we came up against an elite front-seven, we couldn't run the ball well enough to give Tommy some breathing room. Golson probably would have performed better against BYU, but when our ground game is functional, Rees likely gives us a better chance to win. And I expect our rushing attack to be much more consistent this year due to OL improvement.

We ran the ball for 270 yards at 6.3 yds/rush (7.2yds/rush if you don't count Rees' rushing stats and the kneel downs) vs. BYU's elite front seven last year, which was our 3rd best rushing production (Miami was #1 and Navy #2). The reasons it was a close game is (a) our kicker missed two FGs (b) we gave BYU a short field after an INT that our WR should have caught (it hit him right in the hands!) and (c) our defense actually struggled to get off the field at times.

I think the only front sevens that will give us trouble this year are ASU and Stanford, which, not coincidentally, are the two games I have the least confidence in us winning.

 

[ND NYC]

i was worried abut this years offense even with golson coming back....much less with tommy at the helm.
for lots of reasons.

uncertainty at rb
losing eifert
not sold on our stable of te's just yet

i just have this fear of a sort of plodding offense, with no rhythm, and spending a season watching tommy looking over to the sidelines at the LOS for the play all year

go irish!

 

[dublinirish]

i was worried abut this years offense even with golson coming back....much less with tommy at the helm.
for lots of reasons.

uncertainty at rb
losing eifert
not sold on our stable of te's just yet

i just have this fear of a sort of plodding offense, with no rhythm, and spending a season watching tommy looking over to the sidelines at the LOS for the play all year

go irish!

Jeez dude! Way to go Debbie Downer on us.

 

[Irishman77]

i was worried abut this years offense even with golson coming back....much less with tommy at the helm.
for lots of reasons.

uncertainty at rb
losing eifert
not sold on our stable of te's just yet

i just have this fear of a sort of plodding offense, with no rhythm, and spending a season watching tommy looking over to the sidelines at the LOS for the play all year

go irish!

Be happy you are a fan(I think) of a team that went 12-0 last year. You wouldn't be able to get out of bed if you were a Michigan or USC fan

 

[ND NYC]

Jeez dude! Way to go Debbie Downer on us.

has to be my subconscious keeping expectations low so as to be pleasantly surprised later.

couple decades in the college football prurgatory can do that to you

 

[dublinirish]

has to be my subconscious keeping expectations low so as to be pleasantly surprised later.

couple decades in the college football prurgatory can do that to you

Dont worry man we will be fine unless Reesus sh1ts the bed

 

[Irish Insanity]

Dont worry man we will be fine unless Reesus sh1ts the bed

Hopefully when Reesus rises it won't be as cute little 8 pound 6 ounce baby Reesus.

 

[ACamp1900]

has to be my subconscious keeping expectations low so as to be pleasantly surprised later.

couple decades in the college football prurgatory can do that to you

yeaup

 

[wizards8507]

Hopefully when Reesus rises it won't be as cute little 8 pound 6 ounce baby Reesus.

Cal Naughton, Jr.: I had a dream where Reesus was a dirty old bum, and I was about to sock him in the face because, well he's a dirty old bum, but then I thought, there's something special about him...

Ricky Bobby: Because it was Reesus, right...

Cal Naughton, Jr.: Yeah...

 

[NDWorld247]

I like to picture Reesus in a tuxedo T-Shirt because it says I want to be formal, but I'm here to party.

 

[ulukinatme]

I like to picture Reesus in a tuxedo T-Shirt because it says I want to be formal, but I'm here to party.

Shake and Bake, Reesus

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/5A0-u85aAYg?hl=en_US&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/5A0-u85aAYg?hl=en_US&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>