Brian Kelly Revisited (RIP BOZO)

[kmoose]

You're going to be defending the 2pt conversion for the rest of your life.

Perhaps so, but people need to quit acting like Kelly started going for 2 in the first half.

The next thing you know, people will be complaining that he didn't go for 3?

 

[wizards8507]

Perhaps so, but people need to quit acting like Kelly started going for 2 in the first half.

The next thing you know, people will be complaining that he didn't go for 3?

You're 100% correct defending the call. Down by 12 in the fourth quarter, you go for 2. Period. Saban would go for 2. Urban would go for 2. Belichick would go for 2.

http://theredzone.org/Features/TwoPointConversionChart.aspx

 

[IrishLax]

You're 100% correct defending the call. Down by 12 in the fourth quarter, you go for 2. Period. Saban would go for 2. Urban would go for 2. Belichick would go for 2.

Two Point Conversion Chart

Rhode Irish made a post that everyone should read in the Clemson Postgame thread:

1. Even the chart says to wait until the fourth quarter, and while technically we were in the fourth quarter, it was only by a matter of seconds. There was still enough time that it was quite possible the score would change again, which is why the chart says to wait until the fourth.

2. The chart is not really perfect. Say you are down 12, as ND was. The chart says go for it, because in order to tie the game (assuming the other team doesn't score), you need a TD+1, TD+2 and a FG. Well, if you need the TD+2 regardless, how does it benefit you to do that first? Since the score could always change, it is better to take the TD+1 (the sure thing) first, then when you get to the second TD you can go for 2 if the situation is the same or, as happened tonight, take the PAT again if the other team scores in the interim. Tonight is the textbook example for why the chart is wrong in this situation. (tl;dr: if you need to two TDs and one 2 conversion, wait for the second touchdown to minimize the chance that you needlessly leave a point on the field that you might want later on.)

The chart says "go for 2 in the 4th" in that situation because:
A) It assumes very limited possessions in dire comeback mode.
B) It assumes you WANT to be in a situation where one o your two scores will be a FG attempt. I don't think that is the case given the weather conditions.
C) It assumes that you need quick stops no matter what and any drive for the opponent that nets a field goal is going to be a nail in the coffin as much because of time as anything else.

I don't think these assumptions hold true to what we had going on, especially B. I don't think you want to be playing for a field goal in those conditions, period. A is both partially correct and partially false... down 11 (or 12 or 10) with 15 minutes to play is not dire comeback mode. C is also debatable... obviously, giving up a FG drive didn't particularly drain the clock.

I don't think it was a horrible decision by Kelly. But I also think given awhile to think about it, there's no scenario where you don't save the timeout, take the 5 yard penalty, and kick the extra point. We ended up getting 4 more possessions in the game. It was reasonable to expect at least 3 needing two scores. Does it help if one of those scores potentially only needing to be a field goal? Does it hurt if we miss the 2 point conversion now? Those are the two important questions. The answer to the latter is obvious, the answer to the former isn't. Those conditions were absurd for kicking anything outside of 35ish yards.

 

[potownhero]

Actually, it looks to me like #94, DT Carlos Watkins, took both Nick Martin and Steve Elmer, and pushed them right down the line and into Kizer, blowing the play up.

I agree - Not sure who is to blame but by the way Elmer tried to get out to make a second level block, my guess is that he was supposed to help Martin get position/leverage and then release to the next level to block. Martin, never got that control. Sadly, Martin's been a real weak link.

 

[nsisk157]

Worth noting because it's relevant to the thread. Truly not intending it to be a jab or anything of the sort. But #1 Ohio State, #2 Michigan State, and #11 Florida State all struggled against teams with highly inferior talent.

as we did with UVa...

They won, they keep the hope of the CFB alive. We need to win out and hope for some breaks..

 

[dkuhn12]

Worth noting because it's relevant to the thread. Truly not intending it to be a jab or anything of the sort. But #1 Ohio State, #2 Michigan State, and #11 Florida State all struggled against teams with highly inferior talent.

But they won so this a mute point. Besides we always played down to purdues level for the past 10 years and we barely beat wake forest in 2011.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[IrishJayhawk]

But they won so this a mute point. Besides we always played down to purdues level for the past 10 years and we barely beat wake forest in 2011.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And we beat UVA. His point was that elite programs didn't play those types of games. Look at the comment that I quoted.

 

[Ndaccountant]

If Kelly would have said he went for two early since he wanted to know whether or not he needs to play for two td vs td and a fg I would buy it given the offensive progress up to that point in the game. The type of play calls would change. He just didn't say that.

 

[irishff1014]

As I said in another thread it just goes to show how the previous 4 games were as good as we thought. Our oline dominated the bad teams our first real good team we played and Nelson/McGlinchey were awful. We have a good online just not as good as we thought.

 

[kmoose]

But they won so this a mute point. Besides we always played down to purdues level for the past 10 years and we barely beat wake forest in 2011.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because Dshans is probably sleeping in this morning..............it's "moot', not "mute".

 

[wizards8507]

Rhode Irish made a post that everyone should read in the Clemson Postgame thread:


The chart says "go for 2 in the 4th" in that situation because:
A) It assumes very limited possessions in dire comeback mode.
B) It assumes you WANT to be in a situation where one o your two scores will be a FG attempt. I don't think that is the case given the weather conditions.
C) It assumes that you need quick stops no matter what and any drive for the opponent that nets a field goal is going to be a nail in the coffin as much because of time as anything else.

I don't think these assumptions hold true to what we had going on, especially B. I don't think you want to be playing for a field goal in those conditions, period. A is both partially correct and partially false... down 11 (or 12 or 10) with 15 minutes to play is not dire comeback mode. C is also debatable... obviously, giving up a FG drive didn't particularly drain the clock.

I don't think it was a horrible decision by Kelly. But I also think given awhile to think about it, there's no scenario where you don't save the timeout, take the 5 yard penalty, and kick the extra point. We ended up getting 4 more possessions in the game. It was reasonable to expect at least 3 needing two scores. Does it help if one of those scores potentially only needing to be a field goal? Does it hurt if we miss the 2 point conversion now? Those are the two important questions. The answer to the latter is obvious, the answer to the former isn't. Those conditions were absurd for kicking anything outside of 35ish yards.

As a counter-point to your objection to B, the only way a failed two point conversion bites you in the ass is if your opponent kicks failed field goal. So the benefit is that you can kick a field goal as part of your path to tie it, but the risk is that your opponent can kick a field goal to put you down 15. I take that trade unless my kicker is substantially worse than the other team's.

In other words, you don't like relying on a kick in the weather while I don't mind risking a Clemson kick in the weather.

 

[drayer54]

Coach Kelly made the call he felt was best at the time. I think it is supported enough that it shouldn't be the play of the game. in those conditions, it is no guarantee we nail the PAT anyways.

Second guessing this guy doesn't get us a W. I think this whole thread 'revisiting' Kelly is nonsense. This team is stronger than the 2012 team and that team was the best team in a decade. I hope Coach Kelly stays for a very long time.

 

[wizards8507]

Coach Kelly made the call he felt was best at the time. I think it is supported enough that it shouldn't be the play of the game. in those conditions, it is no guarantee we nail the PAT anyways.

Second guessing this guy doesn't get us a W. I think this whole thread 'revisiting' Kelly is nonsense. This team is stronger than the 2012 team and that team was the best team in a decade. I hope Coach Kelly stays for a very long time.

I'm 50/50 with you on this. I think there are a number of valid points of criticism of Kelly for last night, this season, and his entire career at Notre Dame. But I don't think choosing to go for two on that play (with a play that worked if not for a drop) is on that list.

 

[drayer54]

I'm 50/50 with you on this. I think there are a number of valid points of criticism of Kelly for last night, this season, and his entire career at Notre Dame. But I don't think choosing to go for two on that play (with a play that worked if not for a drop) is on that list.

The talent on this team is tremendous. They've ran the ball all year and I think they had some basis for continuing to push it on the running game. A few less drops, fumbles, and missed tackles, and this guy is amazing.

 

[wizards8507]

The talent on this team is tremendous. They've ran the ball all year and I think they had some basis for continuing to push it on the running game. A few less drops, fumbles, and missed tackles, and this guy is amazing.

The talent level is kind of what bothers me the most. Clemson was up 14-0 by 9:00. For a team as talented as we are, there's some reason a thing like that happens and it boils down to mental preparation.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

I really don't know how anyone can blame the loss on Kelly.

The early two point conversion was questionable, but not a terrible call. It's not like he decided to go for it on 4th and 10 at midfield.

Besides, Robinson should have made that catch, then on the final TD, Yoon could have won it on an extra point.

Fumbles, drops, and penalties lost the game.

Those environmental conditions are hard to simulate, and the atmosphere is almost impossible to.

Clemson had two weeks to rest and game plan, kelly did not.

Please, let's quit acting like Kelly is not a really good coach.

In fact, I'd say last night I saw him coaching 1 on 1 more than I ever have. Everytime there was a big play or a busted play, kelly was in the face of the player teaching them.

Absolutely loved the effort last night. Of course we need to start quicker and of course we need to polish a million things up.

But Kelly is doing very well with a depleted roster.

 

[kmoose]

The talent level is kind of what bothers me the most. Clemson was up 14-0 by 9:00. For a team as talented as we are, there's some reason a thing like that happens and it boils down to mental preparation.

Kelly flat out said, in his post game presser, that the defense came out "tentatively" to open the game. But it's not like no one on the team knew that this was a big game. It goes back to the old saying, "If you need a coach to get you up to play this game..........."

<script height="381px" width="672px" src="http://player.ooyala.com/iframe.js#pbid=5e83fc845d86487e88b6953600eaff54&ec=RsNWx5dzrEgpNbKbGTMzlwMZh5gZ0YOF"></script>

 

[Grahambo]

I go back to what Eli Manning said years ago about the drive to win the Super Bowl against the Pats. He mentioned how he was happy they were down 4 and not 3 in that scenario because it 'forced' them to be aggressive and go for the TD instead of settling for a FG. It changed the play calling.

I don't like going for 2 in the first scenario because IMO there was too much time left in the game and either getting the two or kicking the PAT, you are still down two possessions. If getting the 2 put you down 1 possession, I can understand.

Its just an opinion and what my 2-pt chart says.

Either way, the fumbles certainly didn't help nor did the INT Kizer threw with about 6 minutes left. Lots of football left in the season and plenty of opportunities to make a statement (thanks GA Tech for sucking).

 

[Grahambo]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">“You should be unhappy you let this slip through your hands. Just how badly do you want to be great?” - Brian Kelly postgame, per <a href="https://twitter.com/NDHeisler">@NDHeisler</a></p>— Keith Arnold (@KeithArnold) <a href="https://twitter.com/KeithArnold/status/650715200685903874">October 4, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">"...I’m disappointed for you that you couldn’t seize this opportunity. You can’t win games if you don’t start fast.” -BK, to his team.</p>— Keith Arnold (@KeithArnold) <a href="https://twitter.com/KeithArnold/status/650715367094882305">October 4, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[irishfan]

Once again, everyone on Heistand's balls and his OL doesn't deliver in a big game...

 

[GoldenDome]

How many possessions do you think you are going to get in the 4thQ? At the time of the decision, the coaches had to be thinking that they were going to get two, MAYBE three more possessions. Would it be better to wait until the clock is at 00:00, to go for 2?

You go for 2 only when necessary. It wasnt neccessary right there cinsidering the team needed another touchdown. Clemson was going to play the percentages and run the ball and kill the clock. Down 11 ensures that Clemson sits on the ball and kicks a fg. Again, there is not much difference from 10 to 11 but there is a huge difference from 11 to 12. Most in the NFL wait til the very last option is to go for two.

The math was simple.

Now I am not saying it was a huge deal, but it was a bad decision. Kizer, Sanders, Procise, and Brown should be running laps til they throw up for not protecting the ball. That right there killed momentum, and put the team at such a deficit that it was nearly impossible to overcome. Defense played well considering they only gave up one score of the two catastrophic fumbles to start the second half.

 

[Sherm Sticky]

At least we are not Georgia.


Sent via tapatalk

 

[Grahambo]

At least we are not Georgia.


Sent via tapatalk

Or UCLA

 

[Cackalacky]

Well.... I had a great time all day yesterday. Fantastic tailgate, met and hung out with IrishYJ. Excellent.

These slow starts are sad. I mean, how does it take three quarters to figure out what is going on?

Why did it take 3 quarters to figure out how to expose their LBs?

Chris Brown.... awesome game. Game ball to him IMO. Dat fumble though. Heartbreaking.

OL looked massively pedestrian against their DL. I thought for sure that would be a matchup we win 7/10 games.

Kizer was sailing balls all game. Many of his throws would have been catchable if they weren't overthrown.

Defense did as well as could be expected considering some of the positions they were put in. All but four possessions...they were dominant.

I give the offensive coaching staff a "D" through three qrts. BVG gets "B-" over all.

I love this team. They never quit but the slow starts really hurt. Good teams will take advantage of it. You have to get up emotionally sometimes.

That is all I got. I am stil wet from last night and now I got to find a way home to a house in Charleston that may not be there. This state is a freaking disaster right now.

 

[Grahambo]

Well.... I had a great time all day yesterday. Fantastic tailgate, met and hung out with IrishYJ. Excellent.

These slow starts are sad. I mean, how does it take three quarters to figure out what is going on?

Why did it take 3 quarters to figure out how to expose their LBs?

Chris Brown.... awesome game. Game ball to him IMO. Dat fumble though. Heartbreaking.

OL looked massively pedestrian against their DL. I thought for sure that would be a matchup we win 7/10 games.

Kizer was sailing balls all game. Many of his throws would have been catchable if they weren't overthrown.

Defense did as well as could be expected considering some of the positions they were put in. All but four possessions...they were dominant.

I give the offensive coaching staff a "D" through three qrts. BVG gets "B-" over all.

I love this team. They never quit but the slow starts really hurt. Good teams will take advantage of it. You have to get up emotionally sometimes.

That is all I got. I am stil wet from last night and now I got to find a way home to a house in Charleston that may not be there. This state is a freaking disaster right now.

I could be wrong but looked to me that he was throwing off his back foot too much.

 

[kmoose]

Down 11 ensures that Clemson sits on the ball and kicks a fg.

I can't think of a single coach that I would imagine would be worried about what kind of scores his opponent is going to get. The idea is to shut the opponent out the rest of the way.

 

[Cackalacky]

I could be wrong but looked to me that he was throwing off his back foot too much.

You are right. He definitely was. I was surrounded by Clemson fans talking about how bad he sucked but what can you say?

 

[IrishinSyria]

Once again, everyone on Heistand's balls and his OL doesn't deliver in a big game...

I thought the pass protection was phenomenal last night---Kizer had a ton of time to work in the pocket. The run blocking left a lot to be desired.

 

[gkIrish]

I'm not particularly upset about this loss even though we were definitely the more talented team but you guys are talking about fumbles as if they are purely luck.

There's no way Clemson's ball security was purely luck. They were coached up to handle the weather better than we were. Granted, they had a lot more time to do so with their bye...

The one play that really ticked me off that I haven't seen mentioned is the timeout we took before the actual two point conversion try. We took the timeout with 7 seconds left on the play clock so it was clearly not a time thing. I'm pretty sure BK told Kizer to go out there and see what defense they were going to play, and call a timeout so they could discuss what to do. You can't just waste a timeout in the 4th quarter when you are down 2 scores. It didn't actually end up impacting the game but it really ticked me off.

And I think there were 2 different times where we had to burn a timeout or took a delay of game AFTER A STOPPAGE OF PLAY. It's absolutely mind-boggling.

 

[koonja]

IFF we're going to run it (I think FSU pick play should have been the play call), why not run it behind Stanley/Nelson? Or was Nelson still out at that point?