2016 Fall Camp Thread

Irish Insanity · Aug 17, 2016

IrishLion said:
However, I personally am bummed that it's not Kizer and Kizer alone. If BK were to start Kizer, it would be the first time that he's had LEGITIMATE continuity at the QB position during his time at ND. Every year, for one reason or another, continuity at QB has been interrupted. By not going with Kizer, you are almost throwing an artificial wrench into an important part of developing the position.

Booslum31 said:
We can't have these two guys looking over their shoulder all season long...that will suck.

irishff1014 said:
Finally get an offense that is really effective and Kelly goes and does this. I personally think this will make our offense worse and is a very bad decision. JMO

I approve the above quoted posts

woolybug25 · Aug 17, 2016

My two concerns have been noted, but are;

A) Reps. If we play two QB's, there's not one QB getting all of the 1st team reps each week. Both these guys have limited game experience (Malik more so than Deshone) and need reps. That flows right through the rest of the offense as well, since they lose the continuity of a single leader.

B) Constant pressure: Are both guys supposed to go all year with the other breathing down their neck? With the press constantly talking about who should start? Will the team start to divide into #teamkizer and #blacktebow?

I suppose we'll see. The one thing that gives me solace is that I have been really impressed with how BK has managed QB's throughout his career. But I have to admit, I'm scratching my head.

mgriff · Aug 17, 2016

mgriff · Aug 17, 2016

mgriff · Aug 17, 2016

GreyWorm · Aug 17, 2016

Let's be honest...

DeShone Kizer had a great year considering the circumstances he was thrown into. However, he struggled the last 3 games of the season and I think that is in the back of the coaching staffs head.

Malik Zaire is a guy that brings a dimension to the offense that Kizer can't with his ability to make plays. Zaire isn't going to get things done pretty all the time, but neither did Johnny Football, Tim Tebow, Brett Favre, etc.

You can't go wrong and I don't think Kelly is doing anything wrong by playing both quarterbacks against Texas.

I think a lot of people are assuming the worst, but I would guarantee you Notre Dame has a plan in place for what they are going to do or else this decision wouldn't have been made this early.

Why did Malik sound like he had a bigger chip on his shoulder? Maybe he was told he has a specific package to compliment Kizer. That's not ideal for him, but it's helping the team because we all know how bad Kizer was in the red zone last year and he has WRs that define "lack of experience".

I know it's a message board and bitching/complaining/discussing is part of it, but give Kelly, Denbrock and Sanford a little credit here, as well as Zaire and Kizer.

Veritate Duce Progredi · Aug 17, 2016

GreyWorm said:
Let's be honest...

DeShone Kizer had a great year considering the circumstances he was thrown into. However, he struggled the last 3 games of the season and I think that is in the back of the coaching staffs head.

Malik Zaire is a guy that brings a dimension to the offense that Kizer can't with his ability to make plays. Zaire isn't going to get things done pretty all the time, but neither did Johnny Football, Tim Tebow, Brett Favre, etc.

You can't go wrong and I don't think Kelly is doing anything wrong by playing both quarterbacks against Texas.

I think a lot of people are assuming the worst, but I would guarantee you Notre Dame has a plan in place for what they are going to do or else this decision wouldn't have been made this early.

Why did Malik sound like he had a bigger chip on his shoulder? Maybe he was told he has a specific package to compliment Kizer. That's not ideal for him, but it's helping the team because we all know how bad Kizer was in the red zone last year and he has WRs that define "lack of experience".

I know it's a message board and bitching/complaining/discussing is part of it, but give Kelly, Denbrock and Sanford a little credit here, as well as Zaire and Kizer.

I agree with the sentiment at the end of your post but Kizer did not have trouble the last three games of the year. His completion percentage dipped and he looked poor against BC while looking ahead to Stanford. Against Stanford, he did everything asked of him and didn't commit a turnover, threw for over 200 yds and a TD. He also rushed for over 100 yds and a TD.

Against Wake Forest, our run game was so successful we went into a vanilla offense because we didn't need anything else.

His worst games were against BC and Temple.

Against tOSU, between the ground and air, he compiled over 300 yds, 3TD and 1 int.

I don't see how anyone says his production went down. He had a rather high variation in his numbers but that's about the only thing that can be said.

Irish Insanity · Aug 17, 2016

So now add JFF and Favre to the list of names used in the same breath as Zaire.

Zaire has played all of 2 games total and we're throwing around those names, and Tebow. While he may become a great QB, a lot of people need to pump the brakes. He's played all of 2 games, only looked great in 1, and had months to prepare for it.

ND Fan Vancouver · Aug 17, 2016

Veritate Duce Progredi said:
I agree with the sentiment at the end of your post but Kizer did not have trouble the last three games of the year. His completion percentage dipped and he looked poor against BC while looking ahead to Stanford. Against Stanford, he did everything asked of him and didn't commit a turnover, threw for over 200 yds and a TD. He also rushed for over 100 yds and a TD.

Against Wake Forest, our run game was so successful we went into a vanilla offense because we didn't need anything else.

His worst games were against BC and Temple.

Against tOSU, between the ground and air, he compiled over 300 yds, 3TD and 1 int.

I don't see how anyone says his production went down. He had a rather high variation in his numbers but that's about the only thing that can be said.

Yessir. You know your ND football. Great post!

connor_in · Aug 17, 2016

woolybug25 said:
My two concerns have been noted, but are;

A) Reps. If we play two QB's, there's not one QB getting all of the 1st team reps each week. Both these guys have limited game experience (Malik more so than Deshone) and need reps. That flows right through the rest of the offense as well, since they lose the continuity of a single leader.

B) Constant pressure: Are both guys supposed to go all year with the other breathing down their neck? With the press constantly talking about who should start? Will the team start to divide into #teamkizer and #blacktebow?

I suppose we'll see. The one thing that gives me solace is that I have been really impressed with how BK has managed QB's throughout his career. But I have to admit, I'm scratching my head.

I thought in the actual audio from Kelly that he said this was for at least the first game and see what happens from there. Can anyone confirm or deny?

Shamrock Theories · Aug 17, 2016

Let's review Kelly's QB decisions by year:

2010: Crist was it, no decision needed. When he went down Tommy was the only option, again no decision

2011: You can imagine Kelly just begging/waiting for Crist to live up to his talent. But he made the right call, and didn't hesitate. His decision was clearly correct-Crist couldn't even keep the starting job at Kansas.

2012: Handled the situation perfectly-let the young talent play while putting him at a low risk to make mistakes, and using the veteran in relief as needed.

2013: Got screwed by a total curveball. The USC game showed everyone how right he was in sticking through Rees, despite his limitations.

2014: Did what he could to keep Golson engaged-sure that was fun. Eventually forced to go with Zaire.

2015: Open competition weeded out the soft QB. Unfortunate injury didn't matter because the backup was ready to roll.

Seems to be a good record so far.

Crazy Balki · Aug 18, 2016

Shamrock Theories said:
Let's review Kelly's QB decisions by year:

2010: Crist was it, no decision needed. When he went down Tommy was the only option, again no decision

2011: You can imagine Kelly just begging/waiting for Crist to live up to his talent. But he made the right call, and didn't hesitate. His decision was clearly correct-Crist couldn't even keep the starting job at Kansas.

2012: Handled the situation perfectly-let the young talent play while putting him at a low risk to make mistakes, and using the veteran in relief as needed.

2013: Got screwed by a total curveball. The USC game showed everyone how right he was in sticking through Rees, despite his limitations.

2014: Did what he could to keep Golson engaged-sure that was fun. Eventually forced to go with Zaire.

2015: Open competition weeded out the soft QB. Unfortunate injury didn't matter because the backup was ready to roll.

Seems to be a good record so far.

I'm definitely not questioning Kelly's ability to manage the QB situation, nor do I think most on here are. I think the general consensus among those disagreeing with the call is that Kelly has dealt with bad QB situations out of his control, as you stated, but now the 2-QB system is going to create a bad situation within his control. (Again, not saying the 2-QB is a bad idea or good idea, but that's what seems to be the general fear).

phgreek · Aug 18, 2016

Shamrock Theories said:
Let's review Kelly's QB decisions by year:

2010: Crist was it, no decision needed. When he went down Tommy was the only option, again no decision

2011: You can imagine Kelly just begging/waiting for Crist to live up to his talent. But he made the right call, and didn't hesitate. His decision was clearly correct-Crist couldn't even keep the starting job at Kansas.

2012: Handled the situation perfectly-let the young talent play while putting him at a low risk to make mistakes, and using the veteran in relief as needed.

2013: Got screwed by a total curveball. The USC game showed everyone how right he was in sticking through Rees, despite his limitations.

2014: Did what he could to keep Golson engaged-sure that was fun. Eventually forced to go with Zaire.

2015: Open competition weeded out the soft QB. Unfortunate injury didn't matter because the backup was ready to roll.

Seems to be a good record so far.

Yup...agree. I trust him, but I do have a preference...opinion I guess.

First...

I love the idea of a specialty series consisting of one or two packages where you make teams prepare for something totally different...where the non starter leads that.

I love the idea of a package for red zone and two point conversions where both QBs are on the field together...

Also...
I am totally ok with a QB duel that rolls into the season.

But...
My assumption is, both these guys are complete enough to do every job needing done from the QB spot, and you need to pick A starter....so I am hoping this is headed toward selecting a Starter.

ulukinatme · Aug 18, 2016

Irish Insanity said:
So now add JFF and Favre to the list of names used in the same breath as Zaire.

Zaire has played all of 2 games total and we're throwing around those names, and Tebow. While he may become a great QB, a lot of people need to pump the brakes. He's played all of 2 games, only looked great in 1, and had months to prepare for it.

He was MVP of the Music City Bowl and played excellent against Texas last year, so give him credit for at least two games. He struggled in the first half against Virginia, but so did the rest of the offense, can't put the blame completely on him. If anything I question why we didn't change our gameplan earlier as we struggled with Tenuta's blitzes and receivers couldn't get open quick enough. To be honest, Zaire didn't play poorly against USC in 2014 either. He only got 5 drives, and we were already down by 35 when he came in, but he walked away with 2 TDs and a missed FG opportunity which isn't bad considering how we were getting completely smoked and banged up as a team.

Shamrock Theories said:
Let's review Kelly's QB decisions by year:

2010: Crist was it, no decision needed. When he went down Tommy was the only option, again no decision

2011: You can imagine Kelly just begging/waiting for Crist to live up to his talent. But he made the right call, and didn't hesitate. His decision was clearly correct-Crist couldn't even keep the starting job at Kansas.

2012: Handled the situation perfectly-let the young talent play while putting him at a low risk to make mistakes, and using the veteran in relief as needed.

2013: Got screwed by a total curveball. The USC game showed everyone how right he was in sticking through Rees, despite his limitations.

2014: Did what he could to keep Golson engaged-sure that was fun. Eventually forced to go with Zaire.

2015: Open competition weeded out the soft QB. Unfortunate injury didn't matter because the backup was ready to roll.

Seems to be a good record so far.

This. For one reason or another Kelly has had a string of issues at QB here, but he's always made the best out of bad situations. I'm inclined to trust him here, as well as Sanford, over armchair QBs when it comes to our current situation. Ultimately, if he still plans on naming a starting QB, using game situations may be the best chance to make a definitive call. Some players step up more on Saturdays than they do in practice. Malik seems to shine most on Saturdays, at least based on his struggles in practice earlier in his career. What you do on Saturday is the most important.

NDdomer2 · Aug 18, 2016

So all Kelly says is both qbs will play and discussions of two qb systems and season long split reps.

I'd like to know if there was one person who thought only 1 qb would play vs Texas?

He told us nothing that shouldn't have already been assumed.

The offense is never going to fork into two separate things. THAT is when u create the inefficiencies and discontinuity of practicing with two qbs with split reps.

Both qbs have to run the offense.

One qb is going to thrive within that offense differently than the other dependant on variables. Personnel, play type, situation/circumstance.

I think you go in with the "starter" being the one who gives you the most options within said offense in ALL variables.

Then dependent on situation/circumstance, you can play the proper QB throughout the game/season.

Fbolt · Aug 18, 2016

Van Gorder did not inspire confidence with his interview.

Rocket89 · Aug 18, 2016

GreyWorm said:
Let's be honest.

You can't go wrong and I don't think Kelly is doing anything wrong by playing both quarterbacks against Texas.

Can't go wrong? This is Notre Dame football!

Irish#1 · Aug 18, 2016

ulukinatme said:
So much hand wringing here over the possibility of a 2 QB system. I trust Sanford to make the right decision here, and he's already said 2 QBs are a non-issue. It's not going to spell doom if both guys are used. People always associate 2 QB issues as a negative because it means "You don't have a capable QB." We've got two very good guys, each with strong skills. This doesn't occur often because most teams don't find themselves in a position with a wealth of talent and experience (upperclassmen familiar with the system) at the position. If Kelly says both will play, I say reserve the judgements till we see the game.

I think that may be the thought for some, but to me it's always meant neither QB separated themselves from the others. IIRC Tom Landry had the same predicament with Meredith and Reeves when he coached the Cowboys. Both were pretty good. And, IIRC the Cowboys struggled that year.

Irish#1 · Aug 18, 2016

ulukinatme said:
He was MVP of the Music City Bowl and played excellent against Texas last year, so give him credit for at least two games.

This. For one reason or another Kelly has had a string of issues at QB here, but he's always made the best out of bad situations. I'm inclined to trust him here, as well as Sanford, over armchair QBs when it comes to our current situation. Ultimately, if he still plans on naming a starting QB, using game situations may be the best chance to make a definitive call. Some players step up more on Saturdays than they do in practice. Malik seems to shine most on Saturdays, at least based on his struggles in practice earlier in his career. What you do on Saturday is the most important.

While he was MVP, IIRC LSU had started to figure out he wasn't much of a passing threat and started slowing down our run game at that point. He needs his passing game to make his run game effective.

His string of QB's have typically been due to the lack of a solid QB. Now he's done a great job in recruiting and he has this problem. It's a nice problem to have. I have no doubt what so ever that BK and staff have a handle on this. I base my one QB preference and opinion on past history. You don't read much over the last 70 years of all of the great teams (college or pro) who played two QB's regularly.

gkIrish · Aug 18, 2016

ulukinatme said:
So much hand wringing here over the possibility of a 2 QB system. I trust Sanford to make the right decision here, and he's already said 2 QBs are a non-issue. It's not going to spell doom if both guys are used. People always associate 2 QB issues as a negative because it means "You don't have a capable QB." We've got two very good guys, each with strong skills. This doesn't occur often because most teams don't find themselves in a position with a wealth of talent and experience (upperclassmen familiar with the system) at the position. If Kelly says both will play, I say reserve the judgements till we see the game.

This wasn't Sanford's decision and the non-issue thing is coachspeak.

CIrishWin · Aug 18, 2016

I trust BK maybe neither QB has just moved ahead of the other. Both are good neither is great at this point but both were first time starters. Maybe it plays out by week 3 and one just takes over and proves he should be the starter.

Domina Nostra · Aug 18, 2016

My take: The coaches showed a little weakness last year with Joe Schmidt. They loved him and ignored some glaring deficiencies. They are, in the end of the day, human.

I think Coach Kelly doesn't have the heart to pick a QB until one of them does something to objectively separate himself, for better or worse, so he can say, "it wasn't me, its the stats, fair is fair."

If Coach told Zaire that he went with Kizer and didn't have a 100% solid reason, Zaire would definitely flip out, IMO. No doubt. And this is one of those rare cases where you've got a kid that is a workable blend of ultra-competitive, and ultra-likable. You don't want to do that to Zaire unless you have to. (Not saying he hasn't played well, all accounts are that he has). He will flip out unless you can put a stake in the ground and say, for example, "you throw a pick twice as often as he does" or "you throw 25% more incompletions with the first team." Hasn't happened yet.

I think Kizer would handle it a little better maybe, but my guess is they'd rather have the better thrower so that isn't really the issue.

Irish#1 · Aug 18, 2016

Now that we know both will play, the $64,000 question, is who will start? The next question is, "How will the playing time be split?"

NDdomer2 · Aug 18, 2016

Irish#1 said:
Now that we know both will play, the $64,000 question, is who will start? The next question is, "How will the playing time be split?"

you honestly didnt think both would play against texas? I mean even if he came out and named on the starter yesterday the other one would play eventually in that game.

IrishFanJMercy · Aug 18, 2016

I don't mind the decision at all. Play both QB's the same number of snaps in both the first two games. Regardless of who the started is both QB's were gonna play in the first two weeks. Take their game action and then decide who the starter is going to be. I think We can win with both guys plays. Kizer is great at moving the ball down field fast with not much time left, Zaire is better in the red zone.

GreyWorm · Aug 18, 2016

Irish Insanity said:
So now add JFF and Favre to the list of names used in the same breath as Zaire.

Zaire has played all of 2 games total and we're throwing around those names, and Tebow. While he may become a great QB, a lot of people need to pump the brakes. He's played all of 2 games, only looked great in 1, and had months to prepare for it.

Take off your blinders and read the context.

"Zaire isn't going to get things done pretty all the time, but neither did Johnny Football, Tim Tebow, Brett Favre, etc."

That's word for word what was posted. You can read back through to the original post and see it hasn't been edited.

I never stated Zaire is Tim Tebow, Johnny Football or Brett Favre.

What does Malik Zaire have in common with Tim Tebow, Johnny Football and Brett Favre? They play ugly football at times, but somehow get the job done.

You think Urban Meyer would have loved to see Tebow throw the ball better? You think Kevin Sumlin would have liked to see Johnny actually run the offense and not run around like a chicken with his head cut off? I think most head coaches would love for Favre to not play with his ugly style of football backyard football.

People have said things about Malik being too small, not accurate, no arm, can't run the offense ,etc. Yet in high school and in the game reps we have seen from him, he has always produced.

If I had to pick a QB on the roster to start, I'd pick Kizer, but if you don't think Zaire plays ugly football at times, but wins games, I am not sure you have even watched him play.

Wingman Ray · Aug 18, 2016

Fbolt said:
Van Gorder did not inspire confidence with his interview.

I really fear the defense will let ND down again often this year. I hope not but I just dont think BVG is a college DC.

Hopefully if that happens, BK will finally wake up and get a clue.

You can say what you want about injuries but NDs backups are better than a lot of teams starters (recruit rating wise) and those teams had a lot better defenses than ND did last year.

GreyWorm · Aug 18, 2016

Veritate Duce Progredi said:
I agree with the sentiment at the end of your post but Kizer did not have trouble the last three games of the year. His completion percentage dipped and he looked poor against BC while looking ahead to Stanford. Against Stanford, he did everything asked of him and didn't commit a turnover, threw for over 200 yds and a TD. He also rushed for over 100 yds and a TD.

Against Wake Forest, our run game was so successful we went into a vanilla offense because we didn't need anything else.

His worst games were against BC and Temple.

Against tOSU, between the ground and air, he compiled over 300 yds, 3TD and 1 int.

I don't see how anyone says his production went down. He had a rather high variation in his numbers but that's about the only thing that can be said.

Touche, I should have said 3 of the last 4 games.

Boston College was just horrific. I don't think I need to explain why he was bad that game.

Stanford: He played well enough for Notre Dame to win, yes, but he also left so much on the field.

10 play-70-yard drive – FG
11 play-84-yard drive – FG
4 play-53-yard drive – Fumble
11 play-73-yard drive – FG

He was 13-25 for 234 and 1 TD on the game, which in my opinion is a good game, but in a game for the playoffs, you need more efficient play from the QB. The TD was the 73-yard bomb to Fuller. If you take that out and Kizer is 12-24 for 161 yards, which isn’t very productive. I know he had a great game on the ground, but when you combine his decision making in the red zone, the red zone turnover and then settling for FGs on three drives over 10+ plays and over 70 yards, then that’s not finishing. Notre Dame needs a QB to finish.

OSU: If you want production instead of wins, then I guess you can win this argument, but Kizer consistently made wrong decisions and missed open guys against Ohio State. I won't put the blame totally on him, as his offensive line was getting manhandled for most of the day.

However, those stats are very similar to Stanford, but when you break it down, it's worse than Stanford.

Kizer ran 15 times for a net 21 yards, which is a 1.4 yard average per carry. Yes, he was sacked 4 times. You have to get rid of the football in games like that.

Passing Kizer was 22-37-284-2TDs and 1 pick. He could have easily had Chris Brown for a 60-yard TD on a go route, but checked down. He could have easily had 4-5 throws that game where he tucked it, threw it away and or checked down, as he was flustered. Yes, again, part of that wasn’t his fault, but in those games, the QB has to be better.

The interception he threw right to the safety off the hash. The funny thing is if you remember…On Bosa’s targeting shot, Kizer threw another interception to the safety on the same route concept in the exact same place on the field off the hash to the same safety. That’s not learning from your mistake. That’s where you get into Tommy Rees stubbornness of throwing balls that aren’t going to be completed and have a high risk of taking the offense off the field entirely.

If you take out the Fuller TD, as Fuller did all the work, Kizer was a modest 21-36-203. Trust me, I am not trying to make Kizer look bad when I say take out the big TDs against Stanford and OSU, but as a whole for those two games, he struggled.

Don’t get me wrong. Kizer did do things well against Stanford and Ohio State, but when you’re making a decision on who to start, that big picture comes into play and he didn’t have a good ending to the year in terms of making the plays to win games.

Malik didn’t have a good first half against UVA and that should come into play, as Fuller bailed him out with the long TD as well. That’s why the decision is so tough is because you have a QB that’s had success in a small body of work and then you have QB that stepped up and played well, but didn’t finish the season as you would have hoped after a big-time start.

ScooterIrish · Aug 18, 2016

At some point, the inability to score TDs in the redzone has to be shifted to Kelly and not the QB. Kizer was fantastic in the Stanford game. Your assessment of the Stanford game is so bad. Take away his pass to Fuller and not give credit for his rushing?

ND NYC · Aug 18, 2016

im more concerned with who our QB will be throwing to this year.
no fuller
no c brown
no robinson
no proven TE

almost think zaire might/could do better with a hodgepodge of umprovens, and that kizer benefitted from having very good wr crew to throw to last year.
this year wr are a different and unproven group.

2016 Fall Camp Thread

Well-known member

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan

Useful idiot

Useful idiot

Useful idiot

Unsullied

A man gotta have a code

Well-known member

ND Fan Vancouver

Guest

Oh Yeeaah!!!

New member

Site Assigned Optimist

New member

Carr for QB 2025!

Local Sports vBookie

I've been around

Uniform Connoisseur

Livin' Your Dream!

Livin' Your Dream!

Greek God

Member

Well-known member

Livin' Your Dream!

Local Sports vBookie

New member

Unsullied

Banned

Unsullied

New member

New member